Land Use Hearing Officer - 08.10.26

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 August 10, 2026 Land Use Hearing Officer hearing. My name is Susan Finch, and I will be presiding as the hearing officer over today's agenda. Let me start by introducing Ms. Colleen Marshall. She is with the Development Services Department. And she will 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 Jared Delfina, the Hillsborough County County Attorney's Office. Carmen Mason, Development Services staff, is joining us virtually. Alexis Myers of Planning Commission staff will be presenting virtually. During the course of the hearing, a number of other planners will be presenting their findings for various cases will be introduced for each item. We have no changes to the published agenda. Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. I'll start this morning 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 alone to support a finding by me unless it would be admissible over objections in a civil action. Our order of presentation for today's cases is as follows. For variances, the Development Services Department goes first. They have five minutes to present their staff findings. Then next, we will go to the applicant. The applicant has 15 minutes to make their presentation. We'll then turn to proponents, anyone who would like to speak in favor of an application. Everyone combined, 15 minutes. The same is true next one when we go to opponents, anyone who would like to speak against an application. Everyone together, 15 minutes. We'll then go back to the Development Services Department to see if they have any comments or changes based on today's testimony. And then finally, we go to the applicant. The applicant has the last word with five minutes for rebuttal. You'll notice on our agenda that we start the majority of the cases are variances, and that is the order. The staff goes first. At the end of the agenda, there are a few special use applications, and the only difference in that is the applicant goes first. So staff goes first on the variances, and the applicant goes first on special uses. I don't know if we'll have this issue, but I'll put it out there anyway. Just for that time allotted, that 15 minutes for both proponents and opponents when we get to that section of the hearing. I will call for that, either those who want to speak in favor or against, and I will ask for those who want to speak to raise your hand. We have people in the room that are participating, and I believe we also have someone online virtually. So we will get a total count, both in favor or against, and we will divide that 15 minutes as equally as we can as possible. So when you come up to speak, whether you're in the room or online, if you could give us your name and address for the record before you begin. We are recording this hearing, and we want to make sure that we have your information correct. All right, and if you are in the room and you're done at the podium with your comments, if you could see Jennifer. Jennifer, raise your hand. There she is. She's with the clerk's office. She is keeping a written log on top of the dais. So when you're done, if you could just stop by and sign in with your name, address, and the case number to which you spoke. Make sure we have all that correct. All right, now let me turn to Mr. Delfino. He's 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 only 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 interveners, each of whom may be represented by 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 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 assure 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 is outside the record made 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. Then with that, Ms. Marshall, we are ready to call the first case. Today's agenda, we have no vested rights, fee waivers, remands, reconsideration requests, which brings us to Section F, Site Development Variance Request. Item F1, Variance 260-967, the applicant is Sean Jones. The request is a variance to encroach into the wetland setback. Staff findings will be presented by Wayne Doyne. Good morning. Good morning, ma'am. Wayne Doyne, Hasbro County Development Services. This is Variance Application 26-0967. Request summary. The applicant is requesting a variance from the 30-foot wetland conservation area setback requirement, Section 4.0107.B.4 of the Land Development Code. The applicant's specific request that I've shown on the site and submitted on 5-14-2026 is to allow for max encroachment of 24 feet for a pool, concrete pavers, green enclosure, pool equipment, and after-the-fact existing concrete boat ramp, existing carport, existing gazebo, and a concrete bad to be within the 30-foot wetland conservation area setback. These after-the-fact items have been there since early 90s. LDC section, Section 4.0107.B.4, LDC requirement, no filling, excavating, or placement of permanent structures or other impervious surfaces should be allowed within a required 30-foot wetland conservation area setback. Variance, 24 feet. Result, 6-foot remaining setback. Findings, EPC approval of variance petitioned by Hillsborough County does not constitute a guarantee that the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County approvals permits necessary for the development as proposed will be issued, does not itself serve to justify any impacts to wetlands, and does not grant any implied or vested right to environmental approvals. 2. A wetland setback compensation plan has been provided on the site plan dated 5-14-2026, which provides compensation plannings for the encroachment into the wetland conservation area setback. Thank you. You hit on my one question, which was when... Yes, ma'am. So the pool, the concrete pavers, the screen, those are all proposed, and then the after-the-fact, the boat ramp, the carport, those have been all there since the 90s. Yes, ma'am. That was my own question. Thank you so much. Is the applicant here? Good morning. Good morning. I am not Sean Jones. That is my contractor. My name is Lori Summers. I live at 601 Chastain Road in Scepter, Florida. So I am the property owner. Okay. Is that okay? Yeah, absolutely. Okay. So I just, everything Wayne said is correct, and I feel like we've taken all the steps that the county's asked us to take. We did all new surveys, the EPC, and all of the reviews that were necessary by the county. What we are asking for is just to put a pool in our backyard, a normal-sized pool in the backyard. It does go into the wetlands, so we are just requesting the encroachment on the setbacks, and we will take all the necessary steps. No environmental impacts, no impacts to the neighbors, nothing like that. Okay. And I just looked at your deed. It looks like you bought the property in 2021, so those improvements that he referenced were all there when you bought it. Yes, ma'am. Perfect. That was my only question. Okay. Thank you so much. Don't forget to sign in. All right. Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support? Anyone in favor? Seeing no one, any, oh, yes, ma'am. Please come forward. While she's coming forward, is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor? Okay. Give us your name and address, please. Lori Hodges, 509 Chastain Road, Scepter, Florida, 33584. I'm a direct neighbor. I have no opposition. Okay. Perfect. Well, thank you for coming down. I appreciate it. All right. Seeing no one else in support, we'll call for anyone who would like to speak in opposition, anyone against this application. Seeing no one. Ms. Marshall, anything else? Nothing further. Ma'am, you have the last word if you'd like it, but you don't have to take it. Okay. Perfect. Well, thank you. I appreciate it. Then with that, we'll close variance 26-0967 and go to the next case. Next item is item F2, variance 26-1057. The applicant is Daryl Kurtz. The request is a variance to encroach into the wetland setback. Staff findings will be presented by Wayne Doyne. Good morning. Good morning. Wayne Doyne, Hasbrook County Development Services. This is variance application 26-1057. Request summary. The applicant is requesting a variance from the 30-foot wetland conservation area setback requirement, section 4.0107.B.4 of the Land Development Code. The applicant's specific request, as shown in the site, been submitted on 6-1-2026, is to allow max encroachment of 20 feet for a pool, marble decking, pool equipment, and artificial turf to be within the 30-foot wetland conservation area setback. LDC section, section 4.0107.B.4, LDC requirement, no filling, excavation, or replacement of permanent structures or other impervious surfaces shall be allowed within the required 30-foot wetland conservation area setback. Variance 20 feet, result 10-foot remaining setback. Findings for EPC. Approval of the variance petition by Hillsborough County does not constitute a guarantee that the environmental protection of Hillsborough County approval's permits necessary for this development, as proposed, will be issued, does not itself serve to justify any impact to wetlands, and does not grant any implied or vested right to environmental approvals. Findings number two, a wetland setback compensation plan has been provided on the site plan dated 6-1-2026, which provides compensation plannings for the encroachment into the wetland conservation area setback. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Is the applicant here? Good morning. Daryl Kurtz with Cody Pools, applicant. Yes, we're asking for a reduction from 30 feet to a 10-foot wetland setback. You have all the surveys. I do, but you're welcome to put that up. It's a face-up on the overhead there, yes. And, sir, could you give us your address while you're setting that up? 6846 North Delmabry Avenue. Perfect. Tampa, Florida, 33614. Thank you. And that microphone will move with you, so we can just pull it over. Very good. Perfect. You can kind of see in the orange outline where the pool is going to go with the 10-foot proposed. The red line kind of goes, you can see it right going down to the 30-foot wetland setback. The house itself is already in the 30-foot wetland setback. It did get a variance when the builder started building it. He believed that it included the pool, and that variance that they got many years before did not include the pool. So there was an allowance for the house for that 10-foot setback. So we're just asking for kind of the same thing that the house was allowed. This is it without the pool and the house on it. You can kind of see how the property is laid out there, and it was very difficult to even get a house on that lot. It has actually two wetlands on there. And then kind of our proposal for the pool, you can see, again, that red line is where the 30-foot wetland setback is currently, and it kind of defeats putting a pool anywhere else on that property. It's kind of got to go there. And then just the last remaining one is a picture of the current conditions out there of what it looks like. So that's the area where the pool is going, a lot of weeds and brush and that kind of stuff as of right now. And, of course, we're replanting. We'll be putting necessary landscaping in there with the also watering sprinkler system so that it will mitigate what we're taking out. Okay. Just one question. Sure. If you could put that very first graphic back up. Yes. I just, in my reading of the backup, maybe it's the scale of it versus the 11 by 17 you have. Maybe. It should be. Maybe. I just want to clarify the wetland setback line. So above where it says 10 foot per post, that's the wetland line? Is that right? Yeah. Yes. And then the line towards the house, that's the 30-foot setback? Yes. Okay. That's just what I pointed out. Okay. That was my only question. Okay. Thank you so much. You're willing to, you're welcome to submit whatever documents you'd like into the record and sign in with Jennifer. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Is there anyone in the room or online 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 further. Sir, you have the last word, but you don't have to take it. All right. Thank you. Then we'll close with that. We'll close variance 26-1057. Go to the next case. Next item is item F3, variance 26-1102. The applicant is Shane Garvey. The request is a variance to encourage into the wetland setback. Staff findings will be presented by Wayne Doyen. Good morning. Wayne Doyen, Hillsborough County Development Services. This is variance application 26-1102. Request summary. The applicant is requesting a variance from the 30-foot wetland conservation area setback requirement, section 4.0107.B.4 of the Land Development Code. The applicant-specific request, as shown on the site plan submitted 6-11-2026, is to allow for max encroachment of 15 feet for the accessory structure with concrete pad to be within the 30-foot wetland conservation area setback. LDC section, section 4.0107.B.4, LDC requirement, no filling, excavating, or placement of permanent structures or other impervious surfaces should be allowed within the required 30-foot wetland conservation area setback. 15 variance, 15 feet, result 15-foot remaining setback. Findings. EPC approval of the variance petitioned by Hillsborough County does not constitute a guarantee of the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County approvals. Permits necessary for the development as proposed will be issued does not self-serve to justify any impact of wetlands and does not grant any implied or vested right to the environmental approvals. Just one quick question. The prior applications for the encroachment and the setback both included compensation plannings. Yes, ma'am. And this one does not, and I just wondered why. Because of the history of the property, what's there now, and the amount of encroachment doesn't really, we don't, not requiring it for this one. Just, it was nothing there before. So, we're, there's plenty of room before the wetland. There's still grass. It's all that. So, it's not going to really be necessary for this case. All right. Thank you. That was my only question. Appreciate it. Is the applicant here? Good morning. Good morning, ma'am. How are you? Good, thank you. My name's Shane Garvey. Address is 1005 Willis Road. Like Wayne said, we're requesting a 15-foot setback, trying to put an accessory structure for storage on our property. The subject property is uniquely constrained by its existing residential configuration and elevation. Obviously, our house is on stilts. We're in a velocity flood zone. The principal residence is elevated on stilts due to the property's flood-related conditions, which limits our availability of conventional enclosure storage and garage space. As a result, our family does not have the same practical ability to provide accessory storage that is commonly available to similar situated residential properties. The proposed accessory structure is intended solely to provide necessary storage for our growing family and household needs. The proposed location represents a practical use of an otherwise limited portion of the property while minimizing impacts on the existing residents and not impacting any wetlands. We, I'm sure you're familiar with the limb wall line that's on our property, if you've seen the variance application package, but a good portion of our property is in this limb wall line, which kind of restricts, we'd have to build a shed on stilts, and that's just not practical for what we're trying to do for our family. I'm just going to go through the questions for you, if that's okay. Absolutely. Properties within this rural residential area commonly utilize accessory structure for storage and other customary residential purposes. Due location of a portion of our property within the limb wall area and the property's existing physical constraints, constructing a conventional accessory structure on stilts or pilings, it's just going to be unpractical. Requiring the accessory structure to be constructed in a manner that accommodates limb wall restrictions would create significant and additional construction requirements and expenses and would substantially reduce practical usefulness of the structure. The requested variance will allow us to reasonably use a piece of our property that would otherwise not be useful at this time. As far as impacts on neighboring properties, the proposed variance and accessory structures will not substantially interfere with or injure the rights of neighboring property owners. The structure will be located on our property in a manner that minimizes impacts to adjacent properties and will be used strictly for storage purposes. The proposed improvement is consistent with the character of the surrounding residential area, where accessory structures are commonly present. The proposed development will not create an unreasonable impact from noise, traffic, or use and will not adversely affect neighboring properties, and it will bring curb appeal to the neighborhood. As far as harmony with the LDC and comprehensive plan, the requested variance is consistent with the general intent and purpose of the land development code and comprehensive plan because it allows reasonable residential use of the subject property while maintaining the intent and applicable development regulations. The proposed accessory structure will provide customary residential storage, improve the functionality of the property, and be designed and located to standards of velocity flood zones with flood vents equal to 600 square foot is what we're proposing with footers and four-inch concrete. It's located to minimize impacts to surrounding properties and natural resources. The variance is limited to the minimum relief necessary to allow reasonable use of the property while preserving the character of the surrounding neighborhood. As far as hardships, I know a seawall would negate this, but I don't have $100,000 laying around for a seawall, so a couple of promotions. Hopefully, I can get that seawall going. But the hardship is not the result of an illegal action or act by the applicant. Limitations affecting the property are existing physical and regulatory conditions associated with the property's elevation, flood-related requirements, the limb wall designation, and a wetland setback. These conditions exist independently of our request for a variance to substantially limit the area of property where a practical accessory structure can be located. We are seeking approval of the variance prior to construction and are not attempting to legitimize an existing violation. The request of wetland setback variance is limited to a max of 15-foot encroachment and is being requested only to provide a reasonable location for the proposed accessory structure while minimizing impacts to the property and the environment. Granting the variance would provide substantial justice by a line reasonable and customary residential use of the subject property while addressing the unique physical constraints of the site. The proposed accessory structure would provide our family with needed storage, which I'm sure you're aware two years ago, a lot of Hillsborough County was underwater from Helene. Enclosing the bottom of my house is just not practical for my family. It's not a smart move for me. If I can get this proposed metal building shed put up, I can go in there and spray it out. So the proposed accessory structure would provide our family with needed storage space that is otherwise difficult to accommodate because of the property's existing elevation and development constraints. The request of relief is limited and will allow the property to be utilized in a practical manner without creating substantial detriment to the surrounding properties or the public. Thank you for your time. Thank you. I appreciate it. Don't forget to sign in. Yes, ma'am. All right. 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, Ms. Marshall? Nothing further. Thank you. Okay. And sir, you have the last word if you'd like it. No, ma'am. Just want to thank you for your time. Thank you. I appreciate it. Then with that, we'll close variance 26-1102 and go to the next case. There are no signed variance requests, which brings us to section H variance requests. Item H1, variance 26-1069. The applicant is Todd Pressman, with Pressman Associates, Incorporated. The request is a variance to the distance separation requirements for a drive-through order box. Staff findings will be provided by Chris Grandlenard. Good morning. Good morning. Chris Grandlenard, Development Services. We're going to present variance application 26-1069 for a property zones commercial neighborhood association. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a proposed coffee shop order box at a reduced separation distance from the residentially zoned property. The land development code requires 200 feet of separation between a drive-through order box and a residential zoning. The applicant is requesting 139-foot variance, resulting in a 61-foot setback from residential. The surrounding area includes single-family residential to the north, a mango elementary school to the east, a car wash to the west, and commercial uses to the south along Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. That concludes my staff report. I'll be glad to answer any questions you might have. None at this time. Thank you so much. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Good morning. Good morning, hearing officer. Todd Pressman, 200, 2nd Avenue South, No. 451 in St. Petersburg. This is variance 26-1069. We're located in the Mango area. Is that up for you? Yes, I see it now. Located in the Mango area, located in MLK Jr. Boulevard East. As Chris indicated, the request seeks an order box at 61 feet, MOL, from residential zone property. So this is a variance of 139 feet to allow an order box at 61 feet from residentially zoned property. This is, as the property appraiser has it, an MLK between Peak and Laura. One side is Mango Elementary School, other side is a car wash. Site plan shows the plan as it spans both Peck and Laura Street, a little more detailed. So this is showing the 61-foot separation from the order box to the residential to the rear. There is a natural buffer that exceeds code to the rear. This is a photo of that rear area. So we've provided a number of mitigations to address the variance. The first is the proposed menu board order box will be faced towards the south. So projection is to MLK. Also installing 48-foot tall Potagarpus planting behind the order box. And then additionally, along the rear is a 20-foot type B, which will be a vinyl fence finished out, row of evergain shade trees, 20 foot on center, 36-foot tall Potagarpus along the fence line. But as is the policy of the county now, if the buffer exceeds the standards of what's required in the buffer area for screening, then the natural vegetation will remain. So what I've shown you is that what's proposed will be provided or it will be much higher or it will be much dense or it will be both. Look at zoning, which reflects the uses on both sides. Along MLK is obviously an intensive corridor of CN and CGs. And on the future landings, categories R9, which includes neighborhood commercial uses. On MLK, it's a very busy roadway, of course. I have it at 44,000 average vehicle daily trips. Also just checked online. We've done, of course, the required mailing and the large yellow signs. We sent out 19 notices. There are no letters or emails that are on file as of this morning. So that we request your attention, review, and consideration. Thank you. All right. Two quick questions. One was, I just couldn't tell the dimensions of this property. It looks like it perhaps is not even 200 feet deep, perhaps. I don't see that on your plan. I mean, I can put the math together based on the setbacks you've shown, but I just wondered if you knew that. I don't have that immediately available. Okay. And then the second is, it looks like you were cited, the property was cited by code enforcement. That box is checked on the information sheet, and I just wondered what that was for. I should be aware of that, but I'm not. I can look it up and report that to you in a few minutes. Okay. We'll come back around at rebuttal and see if you can find it. Perfect. Thank you so much. All right. Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support? Anyone in favor? Seeing no one, anyone in opposition? All right. Ms. Marshall, don't go far, Mr. Pressman. Nothing further. Okay. And then we're back to your time for rebuttal, if you can find that. Ms. Marshall, do you have access to that as well, the code enforcement? I mean, perhaps, I was just wondering if it's an error in the application. I'm in the process of pulling up on optics. I'm looking at optics, and there's two entries for zoning hearing process. I don't see code enforcement listed, but I have to say that I've seen some issues in terms of it coming up on optics, but that is the official place to look it up. But per the folio, I don't see a code enforcement listed. Oh, thank you. Did you have any other comments before I close the hearing? No, but thank you. All right. Thank you. Then with that, we'll close variance 26-1069. Go to the next case. Next item is item H2, variance 26-1090. The applicants are Jay and Angela Lloyd. The request is a variance success restructure requirements. Staff findings will be provided by Jared Fallon. Good morning. Good morning. I'm Jared Fallon with Development Services. So this is a request for a variance to accessory structure requirements for an existing accessory structure on a property zoned AS1. Specifically, this variance is for height requirements. Section 611.4.B, it states accessory structures should not exceed 15 feet in height except where the accessory structure meets the primary structure setback. The subject accessory structure is located in a front yard that is acting as a rear yard, and so with the height they have built the structure at, they would have to be set back at least 50 feet. In that, they are asking for a variance of 6.8 feet, which is resulting in a 21.8 foot tall accessory structure. On January 27, 2026, Hillsborough County Building Construction Services issued a citation to the accessory structure to fail it for failure to obtain a permit for construction of a large metal accessory building. And that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions. Just a quick one. Just walk me through. So in the staff report, it says if you have an accessory structure that exceeds 15 feet, then that meets primary structure setbacks, which would be 50 feet, correct? Correct. And so the existing accessory structure is 21.8 feet tall. Is that correct? Yes. Then would they not need a setback variance? So we've handled it both ways in the past, so it could be either or. So if we went with that way, they would have to be set back 36 feet. Right. That would be the variance for that, but we've handled it both ways, and it's just... So it's a staff interpretation that you either permit the height that is in excess or the setback. Correct. But I guess, okay, so this is kind of all-encompassing to say it's 21.8 feet. Yeah, because if they get the height variance, then there's no issue with the setback and, you know, vice versa. That was my only question for staff. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Is the applicant here? Good morning. Good. Thank you. So as he stated, we're just here to request that 6'8 setback to allow the height. Could you give us your name and address before we start? Oh, yes. It's Jay and Angela Lloyd, 3822 Ralston Road, Plant City, Florida, 33566. Okay, thank you. Did you have more you wanted to say, or I have some questions, but however you want to handle it. Yeah, so we do understand that there are rules and regulations in place for a reason, and we respect the importance in following those regulations. We're just asking the board to consider the specific circumstances of this property and existing structure. However, the building is already in place, and our intention is to not create a nuisance or negatively impact our neighbors. You know, the building is not used for anything that would impact our neighbors. Removing the structure would create a significant hardship for us, while allowing it to remain would have little to no impact at all. The structure is consistent with the existing use of the property, and we are willing to comply with any conditions. We just respectfully ask that you consider the practical circumstances, the hardship that removal would create, and the lack of substantial harm to the surrounding community. Okay. Sergeant, do you want to add anything before I ask my questions? She's got a smart man. All right. Yes, ma'am. All right. One, it's a large structure. It is. It's 2,400 square feet. Yes, ma'am. All right. And it says in your application, it says it was placed on the property, placed to accommodate the functional use of the property while working within site constraints. What's the functional use of the property? What does that mean? I'm not sure what he put in all that stuff. I don't know. I didn't have anything to do with the building itself. We've got a ton of, we've got boats, jet skis. But we have, you know, just boats, jet skis, side-by-sides, a car, you know. And we don't want it to be an eyesore. We don't want it in the weather either, but we don't want it to be an eyesore to the neighbors. Okay. We don't want a bunch of stuff, you know. Yeah, we would just rather have it. In the shop. Put in the shop. It matches the home. It's not. Yeah, it's perfect. It's color match. You know, when you pull down our driveway, you can't even see the structure. The structure. The structure. Okay. But I guess the word shop that you've used in the application just now leads me to believe there's something of a business nature going on. Oh, no, no, no. So you're storing your personal recreational vehicles or whatever. Yes, absolutely. Or whatever. Okay. Yeah, there's a boat. There's two jet skis, two side-by-sides, three side-by-sides. Three side-by-sides. Our son's side-by-sides in there, too. Okay. Dirt bikes. All right. And then somewhere I read there's a well and septic, there's a drain field on the property that that was one of your reasons for putting it in this location. Yes. But I don't see it where that drain, where that well and septic are on your site plan. Yes. So it doesn't show on, it doesn't show on mine either. But if you're looking at the sketch. If you want to put that on the overhead and then bring that microphone over to you and you can point to it and show me. Okay, so if you see where it says rear of the home, that is actually the front of our home when you come down the driveway. So our field and septic is right here in this area. All right. I don't think I have any other questions unless you had anything else you wanted to add. We just had some letters from neighbors that were in support of our request. Okay. So I do have those. You can submit those into the record when you sign in. Okay. And they'll be a part of it. Perfect. So you just need to put your name on the record. Okay. Yeah. I'm Jay Lloyd, 3822 Ralston Road, Plant City, Florida, 33566. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Then with that, we'll call for anyone who would like to speak in support. Anyone in favor? Seeing no one. Anyone in opposition to this request? No one. All right. Ms. Marshall, anything further? Nothing further. Okay. Then, Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd, do you have anything else you'd like to add before I close? Okay. Thank you. Then with that, we'll close variance 26-1090 and go to the next case. Next item is item H3, variance 26-1096. The applicant is Joshua Trent Bush. The request is a variance to fence requirements. Staff findings will be presented by Tanya Ciapello. Good morning. This is variance 26-1096. The applicant is requesting two variances to allow an eight-foot-height privacy fence in place of the existing six-foot fence. The first variance would allow the eight-foot fence within the required front yard, where fences over four feet in height are generally prohibited. And the second variance is to increase the maximum permitted fence height from six feet to eight feet. And staff identified no additional findings for this request. This concludes my presentation. All right. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Is the applicant here? Good morning. Good morning. Allison Skull, 2804. Can you give us your name one more time? I'm sorry. Sorry, Allison Skull, 2804, Kimmy Tree Lane, Valrico, Florida, 33594. Thank you so much. Joshua Trent Bush, 2804, Kimmy Tree Lane, Valrico, Florida, 33594. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Allison Skull, and this is my husband, Joshua Bush. We are requesting a variance to allow an eight-foot privacy fence rather than the normally permitted six-foot fence around our property. We're not asking for an eight-foot fence because we simply prefer a taller fence. We're asking because of a combination of circumstances that are very specific to this property involving privacy, security, repeated trespassing, ongoing boundary issues. We believe the additional two feet is a reasonable and relatively minor accommodation that would make a substantial difference in our ability to safely and peacefully enjoy our home. I want to explain those circumstances in three parts. The loss of privacy surrounding our property, our documented security concerns involving neighbor number two, and the continuing boundary and privacy issues involving neighbor number one. First is the privacy. When we purchased a property, I was still serving on active duty station in Maryland. We were unable to physically tour the property before going under contract and relied on a video walkthrough provided by our realtor. Although the two-story homes across the street had already been developed in 2021, we were under contract in 2022 and purchased the home sight unseen. As a result, we did not fully understand the extent of which the second-story homes had direct line of sight into our backyard, pool, and outdoor living areas until we actually occupied and began using the property. The realtor's video also showed the easement adjoining the property, ordered by a heavily overgrown tree line of vegetation, which provided substantial natural screening and separation from the neighboring properties. After moving in, we learned that the vegetation had become so overgrown that the delivery vehicles were unable to properly travel down the easement. We reasonably trimmed and landscaped the easement to make it safely accessible for delivery and service vehicles. In doing so, the extent to which that overgrowth had also functioned as a privacy barrier became apparent. We are not seeking to recreate an unsafe or inaccessible condition by allowing the vegetation to become overgrown again. Instead, an eight-foot privacy fence would provide a permanent, orderly, and appropriately maintained means of restoring some of the separation, which keeping the easement accessible for an intended use. The second issue involves neighbor two behind us, whom I will refer to as neighbor two. Our concerns involving neighbor two actually began the very first night I arrived at the property after closing. At that time, I was still on active duty, stationed in Maryland. I flew to Florida, arrived at the house at approximately 2 a.m. after a long day of work and then travel. The house was completely empty. I was in the back bedroom when I suddenly heard someone yelling, hello, hello. I had no idea who was in the house and why they were there. I came out and encountered a man I had never met before. He explained that he lived nearby and that this house had previously belonged to his grandmother. That was my introduction to neighbor number two. During that conversation, he began telling me remarkably detailed information about people living in that area, who lived in particular houses, whether they had children, and even things they watched on television. I found that level of knowledge concerning, people he had indicated he had not personally known, and extremely unsettling. At that point, however, I treated it as an uncomfortable first encounter and hoped it would be an isolated incident. Unfortunately, it was not. Our security cameras began documenting neighbor number two, repeatedly entering our property without our permission. We have video of him walking around our home, approaching our windows, our doors, and looking inside, sometimes without clothes from the waist down. This eventually became serious enough that we had to contact Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. And this is important because we're not asking the hearing officer simply to accept our characterization of these events. The Sheriff's Office report documents our complaint and continuous trespassing, including particular inappropriate incidences. And Hillsborough County formally issued the neighbor with a trespass warning. And we have the report for your, to document. Then I would transition to overnight easement activity. Although we understand that lawful use of the easement is not trespassing, our cameras continue to record neighbor number two, immediately adjacent to our property, a concerning hour, sometimes between 1 and 4 a.m. in the morning, including occasions when he is carrying a five-gallon bucket. Our camera recordings are available for review if you wish. Given the documented history of entering our property and looking into our windows, that activity understandably contributes to our desire for greater visual and physical separation from the easement. There are also documented incidences of violence occurring immediately nearby involving neighbor number two. The second Sheriff's Office police report, which we have with us today, is an incident classified by Hillsborough County as an aggravated battery. According to the deputy's report, neighbor number two and his brother-in-law became involved in an argument that became physical, and neighbor number two suffered a fractured humerus. We have this report as well for your filing. We are not asking the board to resolve our disputes or make judgment about our neighbors. I'm explaining why, given what has occurred immediately around our home, we have legitimate concerns about security and why greater physical separation from our surrounding properties is important to us. The third issue involves neighbor number one, who lives on the opposite side of us and is neighbor number two's uncle. Our home was formerly his mother's home. Since we purchased it, we have repeatedly experienced behavior that has made us feel as though our property is still viewed as part of the family's property. One of the most significant examples involves the property boundary. A prior survey had identified an encroachment involving neighbor number one's fence. After we purchased the property, resolving that issue became our responsibility. The encroachment was substantial. Apparently, three, sorry, approximately 300 feet and extending as much as 15 feet onto our property. After months of trying to resolve it, we have now spent over $3,000 of our own money to reestablish and recover the use of our property. Even after this, portions of neighbor number one's fence and sprinkler system still remain on our property. We have also experienced continued involvement in matters concerning our property and easement. Neighbor number one has contacted us in regarding the speed to vehicles using the easement, even though his resident has a residence has a separate driveway and he does not rely upon or easement or easement for access. More recently, after we had a concrete truck performing work at our home, our cameras recorded him driving down the easement, stopping in front of our home and looking in our yard to see what work we were having done and turning around and leaving. Another particularly troubling incident involving our streetlights. Approximately a year after we purchased the home, neighbor number one contacted Tico, placed our streetlights accounts associated with our address in his name, and had the lights turned off because he did not want them illuminated. We have documentation from Tico regarding that incident. Again, we're not asking the board to adjudicate quarrels between neighbors. These examples explain why ordinary assumptions about the privacy and separation provided by a six foot residential fence simply don't apply to our property. We have attempted to deal with these circumstances recently. We've installed security cameras. We've had the property surveyed. We've spent thousands of dollars resolving encroachment. We've involved law enforcement when necessarily. And now we're asking the county for permission to create a clear physical and visual boundary around our property. We're asking for two additional feet. At its core, this request is about our ability to, as private homeowners, to peacefully and reasonably enjoy our home. We aren't asking to control what our neighbors do on their property, restrict anyone's lawful easement rights, or change the residential character of the neighborhood. We're asking for permission to add two feet to our privacy fence on our property so that we can create greater privacy, security, and separation within our boundaries. Given the elevated sight lines directly into our backyard and pull, the adjoining easement, on the documented history of trespassing, privacy intrusion, and boundary issues, we believe a standard six-foot fence does not provide the same reasonable level of privacy and peaceful enjoyment that other homeowners are ordinarily able to enjoy. The eight-foot fence is a modest and proportionate solution. It allows us to address these circumstances on our own property without taking anything away from anyone else. It does not, it is not going to cause traffic, visibility, drainage, or easement issues. For those reasons, we respectfully ask that the variance be proved. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you for that very thorough explanation of the request. If you could, when you go to sign in with Jennifer, if you could submit all of those police reports and documentation you have into the record, that would be very helpful. Yes. Thank you for your time. I appreciate you coming down. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. All right. 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. Ms. Marshall? Nothing further. You all have the last word if you'd like it. I'll go back to the applicant, but you don't have to take it. All right. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Then with that, we'll close variance two, six dash one, zero nine, six and go to the next case. Next item is item H four variance, 26, 11, zero three. The applicant is Louisa. I Alonso. The request is a variance to lock development standards. Staff findings will be presented by Tanya Ciappella. Good morning. Tanya Ciappella, development services. The applicant is requesting two setback variances associated with renovations in addition to an existing single family home within PD 780236C. The first request is to reduce the required 10 foot rear setback by 4 feet 8 inches, resulting in a 5 foot 4 inch rear setback. The second is to reduce the required 5 foot side setback by 1 foot 8 inches, resulting in a 3 foot 4 inch side setback. Staff also notes that a code enforcement notice of violation was issued for renovation completed without the required residential building alteration permit. And this concludes my presentation. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Is the applicant here? Good morning. Good morning. My name is Jorge Camerota, address 1103 Terramar Drive, San Francisco, Florida 33613. I'm here representing Luis Alonso and the owners of the property. We submitted the application for the variance request. Staff previously mentioned we are looking for a variance of this property's own PD. So, it requires different setbacks on regular properties. We are requesting a setback of 4 feet 8 inches, resulting in a 5 feet 4 inches from the rear. And 1 feet 8 inches, resulting in a 3 feet 4 inches from the side here, right now, so for easy reference. The owners bought the property as is. This, they began doing modifications in the residence without permits. We are intending to apply for those permits after the fact. But the first issue that arises was the property. There was an addition on it, which looking at aerial pictures from Hillsborough County and Google Earth. This one, the first one is from the Google Earth from 2002. This is the property right here, and this is the portion that was added to the residence. I couldn't find any more pictures prior to 2002, but since 2002, the addition was existing. Maybe the previous owners did it without permits as well, but this means that the hardship wasn't self-imposed. They bought the property as is, I believe it was last year, and they didn't know that that wasn't permitted. So, when they began the remodeling efforts, they found out when they got cited by code enforcement, and they reached out to our office that, in fact, the property was encroaching into the rear setback and a portion of it to the side setback. There is here another picture from 2006. This one is clear. This is from the aerial images services that the Hillsborough County property operation uses from the Eagle View. Sorry. So, this is the property right here, and you can still see the addition is still there. So, we are kindly requesting these bearings setbacks approved because, like I said before, it's not a self-imposed hardship. They didn't know. They bought the property as is. The owner is an elderly woman. She, with the help of her daughter and sons, they gather some money, and they bought the property, and this is going to be probably his home until she passes. But, yes, so, this being, like this, it creates, like, a huge issue for them because they bought the property assuming that everything was permitted and legal. So, even if they encourage evaluation trying to remodel it, we tend to solve it as well via the proper permitting process. But this is the first step in that process to get the variance approved, so that way they don't have to tear down that addition. Okay. Just two things. One is, excuse me, you said a portion of the building is in the easement, and I read that she's committing to remove that. It's a portion. The portion is, if you see this little black square, that is a portion. It's in the easement. And that will be removed? Yeah, that's all the removed. Okay. That was one. Yes. And then I had a question about, was that structure, the encroachment already there, but you've answered that before they brought the property. Yes. So, the property, the property, the, their views show that that was there. 2002 was the oldest picture that could found, but it'd probably be there before that. Google, Googleers have some images, but they are too black to, to notice, so. All right. That was my only question. So, thank you so much. If you could sign in. Thank you for your time. 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? Yes, ma'am. Oh, two people? While you're, both, both of you can come up. Anybody else to speak in opposition? All right. So, Jennifer, there are, oh, three? Okay. So, we'll do five minutes apiece, but you can apportion it however you want. Good morning. It might be a little shorter. Okay. Good morning. Thank you. My name is Maria Chacho. My address is 17308 Preakness Place, Odessa, Florida, 33556. I own the property adjacent to 8403 Seven Coast Court, which is 8401. I've owned the home for 47 years. That home has been a single-family home located in the Deerfield Subdivision, which is a very tiny community of single-family homes. My house sits in a small cul-de-sac. The owners of 8403 Seven Coast Court, when they purchased the home, were doing remodeling, which is very nice that they remodeled their home to make the neighborhood better. But when I made conversation with the new owners, I was informed that they're going to be adding an apartment in the back of the house. My house, 8401 Seven Coast Court, is now a rental for me. And my tenants are having an extremely hard time with all the people that are living in the house at 8403. There is now a new, an additional AC unit added to the house. There is an added side entrance door as well, making that another unit to be lived in. They've transformed the home into a multifamily residence. My tenants, as I have mentioned before, have encountered traffic and parking issues due to the additional people living at 8403. Cars are parked on the easement and grass, which affects my tenants from comfortably pulling in and out of the driveway. I took some pictures. This is the picture from my house, and that is the car where you see the black car. This is how they park their car. That tenant informed my tenant that the owners do not want them to park on the grass. So getting in and out is a little bit uncomfortable for these people and could cause a little minor fender bender if you're not careful. Currently, at 8403, there are four cars. I'm sorry. Okay. As you can see, those three cars across the house, that is 8403. The driveway is empty because the additional car, I believe, is getting fixed, so it's not there. Again, single-family home neighborhood, a cul-de-sac. I'm in the middle of the cul-de-sac. Everyone there in that cul-de-sac, with the exception of 8403, has two cars. In addition, now that the sign for the meeting for the board has been put up on the property, they moved the car, but as you can see, the grass has been growing tremendously. But on my side of the grass, we've been cutting it. There's no excuse for that. And I know that's not part of what this hearing is about, but like I said, I've owned the home 47 years, never had an issue with anyone there. We knew the previous owners had lived there over 30 years, Barry and Barbara Miller. And I just also want to show you a picture of the side of the house that was taken. You'll see an AC unit there and the additional one up here. That's the additional unit added, plus the side door, which has created that additional living area. More people in a very small and tight area. Um, I just would like to, to say to everyone that, you know, um, I want my house to remain as a single family home. I rented out to a couple with their little daughter, no additional cars, but again, people that are coming in and coming in and out, they can't even have visitors at their house. This is a picture of us pulling in just to show you how visiting 8401 or my house, it's impossible because that person has to move the car so the 8403 can pull out. This shouldn't be like this. And I would appreciate that the board reconsider approving the request. Not approving. I'm sorry. It's a little, I'm a little nervous because I never had to do something like that to protect my property. No one's watching. It's okay. Okay. So again, I really appreciate your time and I really would like some major consideration in it to this matter. Thank you so much for coming down. If you could submit your pictures, if you're comfortable into the record. Perfect. Thank you. Yes, sir. Good morning. My wife said everything just perfectly. Oh, you're a smart man. All right. Good. All right. Does anyone else want to speak in opposition? I thought there was one more. Yes, ma'am. If you could come forward. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Lourdes Ortega and I live, I'm the tenant of Miss Maria. I live in 8401 7 Cubs Corp. 336 34. My putting here is I live there and I have some concerns not only with the tenants and the cars pulling in and out, the grass, also one of the things that I have noticed or I have issues with, the tenant on the side of the house, which she put a picture on it, has a dog on it and usually come out with a leech. Three weeks ago, I step out with my daughter, she's six years old, an adopted daughter, and the dog came up to us and even to my daughter, as soon as I step out of the door, the dog came up to us. Not only parking issues, you know, the environment is not acceptable for the area. All right. That's my input. Thank you for coming down in your comments. I'll make sure you all sign in and submit whatever you'd like. All right. Seeing no one else that wants to speak in opposition, correct? Right. Okay. We will go back to Miss Marshall. Miss Marshall, if you could, from a zoning perspective, talk to me about multiple tenants and renting out of a single family home, that issue, please. So as a single family home, you can have, if you're unrelated, you can have five unrelated persons living together and it's still a single family home. Relatives, there's not like a specific number. As far as rentals in a single family home, you can rent a single family home. The way the definition is structured, you're required, if you're renting, for it to be at least for a week or longer period of time. So is there anything in the neighbor's testimony that triggers noncompliance of that rental situation from a zoning standpoint? There certainly could be code enforcement nuisance and noise problems and things like that. No. Okay. All right. So it is a, we can't go back and revisit, but just for your information, it sounds like a code enforcement issue perhaps, but there's no opportunity to re-comment. We've closed that part of the hearing. So with that then, Ms. Marshall, did you have anything else you wanted to add? All right. No. Then we'll go back to the applicant who has five minutes for rebuttal. Sir, if you could address these comments. Yes. So basically we're just here looking for the remediation of the setback issue. Everything else could be dealt with code enforcement and through the permitting process. So that's all I have to say for now. All right. And that's the end of your comments? Yes. All right. I would strongly encourage you to talk to these folks after the hearing and try to see if you can resolve this. All right. Thank you. Thank you. And with that, we'll close variance 2-6-1103 and go to the next case. Next item is item H5, variance 26-1125. The applicant is Jeffrey Zock. The request is a variance defense and wall requirements. Staff findings will be presented by Chris Grandlard. Good morning. Good morning again. Chris Grandlard, planner with development services. I'm here to present variance application VAR 26-1125 for the property at 4907 Troydale Road. The applicant is requesting two fence height variances on a resident zoned RSC4, residential single family conventional. The first request is to allow a 6-foot, 10-inch fence in the front yard where fences over four feet are not permitted, which would be a variance of two feet, 10 inches. The second request is to allow an 8-foot high fence, which would exceed the 6-foot maximum, which would be a variance of two feet. The code-related code enforcement case is in the record for review. That concludes my staff report. I'm glad to answer any questions. Just two quick questions regarding the maximum height. It looks like from the graphic that the applicant submitted that the actual fence itself in the front yard is 6 feet, 10 inches, which is what you've indicated. But with the cap on top, it goes up to 7 feet 4. Does the cap not count? Is that Colleen could? Colleen could. For the caps in the columns, they can go up to one foot above the maximum fence height. So if they're asking in the front, they're asking for 6 feet, 10 inches, then it would be 7 feet, 10 inches. Correct. Would be the maximum. And I had the same question for the side, so that's within the one foot. All right. That answers my question. Thank you so much. Sure. Is the applicant here? Good morning. Good morning. My name is Jeff Zock. I am located at 19342 Otterswick Way, Land Lakes, Florida, 34638. And good morning. My name is Tori Taylor. I'm the attorney for the property owner. My address is, oh, I'm with Phillips, Hayden, and Labby. Our address is 1502nd Avenue North Suite 1200 in St. Petersburg, Florida, 33701. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. As stated, we are looking to get approval on a setback or a height requirement for the front yard fence to 6 feet, 10 inches and the side yard of 8 foot. So two feet for the side, two feet, 10 for the front. To your question you just asked a moment ago, you know, our fence height is the 610 and then the columns will be the, they probably won't go a full 710, but they will be a little bit higher than the main fence on both sides. The main reason for this variance request is the owner is looking for a more secure buffer between the front and side properties. The main reason being the close proximity to the adjacent homes and the elevation of the home is considerably higher than the road. So a four foot fence in the front yard just would not be an applicable height because you'll still be able to get in and they've had issues with people trespassing onto the property. And so that's why they are requesting the height request in the front. Additionally, it, the fence will be set back far enough from the road so that it's not going to impede any site visibility triangles. It will not impede any sight lines from the homes, as I think was mentioned before. And same thing with the side yard being at an eight foot height, but the height difference between, like I said, the elevation of the house to the side yard, it will not have the impact that people might think with a eight foot high fence on a side yard. Just because, like I said, the height or the elevation of the home is a lot higher than the road elevation. Additionally, I believe the property at 4909 had received approval on a variance for similar request to the height of the walls on those properties. And if you drive around that neighborhood, there are several, I think in the information I had submitted, there are several properties where front yard fences are higher than six or higher than four feet. Some is, there's even one at seven and there are additional properties that side yard walls or fences are higher than the six feet as well. So it's not, we're not setting a precedence here in this neighborhood. It's just the owner is looking to better secure their property for their family and animals. And at the same time, doing it in a way to where it's not going to be a hindrance or eyesore to the community. So they want to just keep everything in harmony with what's out there existing. Okay. I am, I do recall other variances for fence heights on this street. And one thing you mentioned, I didn't, I don't recall reading in your backup, which is the elevation of the road. You said it was an increase in height, the elevation itself. Correct. So the elevation of the road to the base elevation, finished floor elevation of the home is approximately four feet in elevation difference. So if you had a four foot fence along the front property line, it's basically just in line with the finished floor elevation of the home. So even raising it up, you're still going to have a clear line of sight to the home and it will not impede any type of visibility from neighboring properties or anything like that. All right. I don't think I have any other questions. I appreciate your time. If you could both sign in with the clerk's office. All right. Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support? Anyone in favor? Seeing no one, anyone in opposition. All right. How many people want to speak? How many, how many total want to speak? So don't be shy. Raise your hand so I can count. Okay. So we have three, four. Sir, are you going to speak as well? Yes. So that's five. All right. So we, we can do three minutes a piece or do you have an organized presentation? How do you want to handle it? I'm just going to do a brief introduction. Okay. So let's just go with 15 and I'll give you two or three minutes notice went before the end. So you can make sure we get everybody a chance. Give us your name and address, please. Perfect. Good morning, officers. I appreciate your time here today. My name is Matthew Tenuzzi. I'm an attorney with Rogers Towers, 1301 River Place Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. I want to thank you for giving us this opportunity to speak here today. I currently represent 4905 Troydale Road. It's the abutting property south of 4907, the variant seeker. To my right is Ms. D'Alessandro. She has been residing at that property for 34 years. She is 74 years old tomorrow. So she has a wealth of knowledge as it relates to exactly what's transpired here that I would like to relay to this board. The variant seeker here, which I'd like to be clear, is 4907 Troydale Road, Land Trust Agreement, UTD, January 8th, 2021. I'm the attorney that currently represents 4905, Ms. D'Alessandro, in a pending boundary dispute action. That case is 25-CA-008291. And that's in litigation, just to provide a brief background. There was an abuse of process claim made by the variant seeker here today based on the fact that my client had informed the code enforcement that an offense was being hurriedly built here. The variant seekers have kind of used what I like to call the ask for forgiveness better than the ask for permission. They've created a self-imposed hardship here today. What do I mean by that? So ultimately, there's no proof of licensed contracting. So they had unlicensed contractors without a permit hurriedly build this, will remove a footer and hurriedly build a fence. If you can see here the photos I'm pointing to, there was an actual, this wall was removed. There's a conduit here for water to be removed and go to the street. That was hurriedly on June 27th removed. And if you look here, we're not talking about an actual wall here. This is the Great Wall of China. I mean, if you look at it, there are certain areas where this wall exceeds 10 feet. And I'd just like to point out, this individual here is actually six feet in height. And if he puts his hand up, I mean, it is exceedingly large. What ends up happening here is you've got June 27th, they start. By June 29th, this wall is done. No permitting, no proof of contracting. And then you have an imbalance of soil that was added to their property to make it seem as though it's less imposing. But if you look at our client side, it is substantially unbalanced. What you have now is this individual who's resided at this property for 34 years, and now we're having substantial flooding based upon this concrete wall. Interestingly enough, the variance that they're seeking here today provides a survey. That survey shows a seven-inch to one-foot encroachment out of my client's property line. So in and of itself, by that, we believe that that shouldn't be granted here today, the actual survey that they provided. Let me stop you just, and Jennifer, if you could stop the time real quick. Let me ask you this question. You said there's pending litigation. Is that encroachment, that boundary dispute, where this fence is? That is one of the issues in the underlying lawsuit. All right. Let me, Mr. Delfino, is that problematic to hearing this case while there's pending boundary dispute? I would suggest that you take a look at the record as submitted, the documents in the record, and then whatever they decide to submit on this matter, you can take that under advisement. Yes, that would be... So there's no reason to not proceed? Correct. You have an application in front of you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Jennifer, if you could start it. Sorry. Thank you for that. And just as an aside here, we've, we've a petition here with the court, with the, excuse me, with this board here. Let me just show it up. We have 21 individuals who have signed an opposition here, and they're all willing to hear testify today. Three notable individuals. I have Andres Lintag to my right. He's a professional engineer in the state of Florida. He is our expert in the underlying matter. He has over 20 years of experience. He's been designated as a expert. We also have Jan Miller of Miller Construction. He's a 40-year class general contractor who lives next door. He's actually watched this wall come up in real time. And he has a substantial amount of knowledge as it relates to he's a contractor. And he's come here today to actually speak to everyone. We also have Timothy Trace Travel, Traver, excuse me. He is a 31-year professional engineer. He's also going to opine as to instability of that wall. If you look at that picture, and we'll provide this to everyone here, the wall is completely unstable. It's not built according to the plans. The permit application does not match the drawings. And there are substantial issues with the actual construction. So with all of that being said, I'm going to yield my time to Mr. Slintag, the professional engineer. All right. You've got about 10 and a half minutes left. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. My name is Andres Slintag. My place of business is 7100 West Camino Real, Boca Raton, Florida. I've been licensed as a professional engineer in the state of Florida for more than 20 years. And I've been recognized by the Florida Board as a designated structural engineer. Mrs. D'Alessandro has retained me to consult. And prior to that, I've consulted on hundreds of manners with landowners, contractors, municipalities, in federal circuit, county small claims, and in front of local magistrates. The applicant's request creates a civil trespass onto Ms. D'Alessandro's private property. Their proposal and their design is structurally unstable. There's also, it's a malicious placement of an accessory structure. There's been unpermitted topographical alterations as a result of what the applicant is seeking to do. And all of this creates self-implosed hardships. The applicant is asking for retroactive relief to legitimize illegal and trespassing construction, however, the application's in direct violation of the county's own land development code. Section 11.0402B states that the situation sought to be relieved by the variance does not result from, does not result from an illegal act or result from the actions of the applicant creating a self-imposed hardship. This is exactly what's happening here, violation of law and self-imposed actions. Hillsborough Municipal Code 8-1, which refers to the Florida Building Code there in Section 105, the applicant has built an unpermitted structure and has illegally altered and adversely impacted the private property of Ms. D'Alessandro. Any hardship that the applicant now faces regarding moving this violation is entirely self-composed and is the result of a legal act. The applicant desires to construct a wall for which the proposed wall is shown in the applicant's plans does not match what was submitted for the building permit. The building permit application indicates that they are requesting a 30-inch high CMU wall with a 42-inch ornamental railing on top of that, which equates into a 6-foot-8-inch wall. On the side wall, their permit application for the building department indicates that they are requesting to build a 6-foot-high privacy grade with step-downs. As we've seen in the previous photos, the wall is substantially more than 6 feet, and in fact, their CMU blocks are 8 inches high. There's at least 13 courses of blocks, which puts the top of the flat portion of the wall at 8 foot 8 inches. Plus, then, above that, you have the cap of these columns, which brings it approximately up to 10 feet. The survey attached in the variance application specifically indicates that CMU walls proposed to be constructed on Ms. D'Alessandro's private property. This is not a piece of artwork. This is an excerpt from the survey. This line here indicates the property boundary of the applicant facing Troydale Road. This circle here indicates the corner of the property, and then this black line here indicates the south property boundary of the applicant. The plans that they submitted for the building permit indicate that the corner column of the wall is encroaching onto Ms. D'Alessandro's property. In addition to that, the CMU wall portion is wholly shown to be fully onto Ms. D'Alessandro's property without easement, permission, or any other legal instrument. The walls, having already been partially and illegally constructed, are substantially more than the six feet high required by the code. And you can see here, this picture here is right at the corner. Where my finger is pointing is where the corner of the property is. This is a portion of the wall that was already partially constructed. I don't know how that gets on to the screen. We need to see your graphic. How do I? You don't. HTV is going to do that. Hang on one second. Can we stop the time? Yes. Thanks. Oh, I'm sorry. I was blocking the camera. Oh, there we go. So this is the end of the wall shown partially constructed. There are 11 blocks high, which puts it at 7 foot 4. And then as you go further down the wall, the wall steps up and gets higher. And there are portions of the wall that once the capstones are created, you'll see that at the steps, the top of the wall will substantially be well above 6 feet and in fact approximately 10 feet. The applicant may claim that there are some pre-existing walls that were present. Circa 1985, Hillsborough Land Development Code declares any fencing erected prior to April 15, 1987 is nonconforming. An attempted reconstruction on top of such a wall, therefore, is nonconforming and in violation. The hardships claimed are security and privacy, there's limited frontage width, crime deterrence, and Ms. D'Alessandro's private property rights cannot be encroached in order to satisfy the applicant's request for crime prevention. Hillsborough Sheriff's Office indicates since 2020 only one burglary, which was at the applicant's property as a result of there being a vacant home. A physical barrier, the land development code is intended to create equitable in terms of consistently established regulations, procedures, respect for private property rights, private property owner's rights, and consideration of the interests of Hillsborough County. The land development code is not intended to be a security enforcement code. Security concerns of one property owner do not trump the private property rights of another owner in terms of civil trespass of creating a structure outside of their property. Approval of this variance would explicitly injure the rights of Ms. D'Alessandro by civil trespass in an illegal series of structures, stormwater trespass onto her property, altering the topography of Hillsborough County by the importing of unpermitted fill into the front of the property. The applicant indicates that the variance is in harmony with the intent of the land development code and that that is not correct because the walls are above what is maximally allowed by the land development code. Narrow width of the lot is something that was open and obvious and knowingly the applicant purchased a property and presumably without duress. There's no basis for hardship and with direct knowledge of there being a narrow lot prior to purchase. The applicant indicates that justice will be served. However, their version of justice is that justice will be served at the expense of Ms. D'Alessandro's private property ownership rights. A little less than four minutes left. Yes, thank you. The Florida building code, any authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, or alter, repair, demolish, or change the occupancy of the building shall first make application to the building official. That was not done. It's in legal construction and in trespass of what the property boundaries would show and we're going to offer. At the front of the wall is in the front of the property. The applicant claims that it creates a privacy issue for the neighboring property. Ms. D'Alessandro is immediately to the south. Her house is constructed east of where the terminus of this wall is. Therefore, there's no direct visual line of sight from her domicile into or onto the applicant's property. So, the construction of this wall doesn't create any sense of privacy to prevent Ms. D'Alessandro from having any kind of view onto that property. Therefore, the height of the wall is irrelevant in terms of the request for there to be privacy established in the front. Ms. D'Alessandro has also indicated that there is a danger in terms of line of sight, even though the applicant indicates that it does not affect the sight triangle. The wall was constructed structurally compromised. The calculations show that the engineer submitted calculations for a seven-foot high wall. The wall is substantially higher than that in violation of the Florida Building Code. In addition to that, with the increased fill behind the wall, the wall was not designed as a retaining wall. The calculations submitted did not account for the retention of earth, of which there has been a substantial amount of fill placed against the back of the wall on the applicant's side, therefore making a structurally compromised structure. All right. There's two minutes left. And how many people want to speak? All right. Sir, are you the last speaker? That's it? No. We have at least one. Okay. Timothy Trace Travers, 4903 Troydale Road. I'm two lots away from this. I stand in opposition to the fence. It's a very large, imposing, prison-esque-looking fence. I am also an engineer, professionally licensed in the state of Florida. And I've witnessed, because my house is on stilts, so I can see down considerably onto the top of the fence. And know that the fence is not constructed well, and it's not one with good structural integrity. There has been no cells filled on the wall. There are no clean-outs, indicating where the steel, vertical steel, has been tied into any kind of foundation footing onto the wall. And there is no tie beam currently poured in the wall itself. The as-built or after-the-fact design does not match what is at the wall. As has been mentioned, there is a short wall with a picket. That is not the case in the area of the main part of the fence. It is CMU block construction all the way to the ceiling. There is nothing in the plans that indicate that or that it was acceptable to put it on an existing foundation of unknown configuration. So with those, I believe that the permit application is incomplete and does not provide a structurally sound wall nor an aesthetically pleasing wall. All right. Thank you so much. Don't forget to sign in. Yes, sir. There's about 30 seconds left. Jan Miller. I live 4857 Troydale Road. I'm a retired Class A general contractor, and I'm interested in construction. So I saw them building this project and went out and talked to the foreman, who said he had permits, which that bothers me when people say that, and they didn't. I watched what he did. It didn't match anything that I'd ever built. But I said, if you've got permits in doing it, that's fine. What I'm afraid of with the wall is when I pull out of my driveway or when I pull into the driveway there, being the height of this wall, it blocks your line of sight going down the street. So anyway, thank you. Thank you for coming down. I appreciate it. Sir, I'll let you wrap up. If you have anything else to add just quickly. Yes. And like I said, we do have other people here that we're here to testify. But obviously, the time constraints, we have 21 people in opposition. We're going to file that petition, provide that as evidence. For all those reasons, we believe that the variance should be denied. We appreciate your time. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. All right. Then with that, we'll go close opposition testimony. We'll go back to development services. Ms. Marshall, do you have anything you'd like to add? Nothing for that. All right. Then talk to me about the allegations that the site data, the drawings for the fence don't match what's actually going out. I assume this is after the fact. There's a code enforcement citation that they will be required to obtain a building permit for this. Yes. As a wall, they will need a building permit. Okay. So if they are, and I do believe, right, there is a code enforcement violation for this, that they will be required to have it fully inspected and so forth before they could proceed. Correct. Okay. Thank you so much. All right. We'll go back to the applicant who has five minutes for rebuttal. Yes. Hi. Thank you. I guess the first issue I'll address is that there is a permit. It has been reviewed, it has been approved, but the code in violation was the height, I guess, as to the violation to this permit. But it had been reviewed, but it had been reviewed, engineered drawings had been submitted with a site plan. So there is a permit in effect. Let me ask you about that. Did the construction of the fence precede the application for the building permit? That I don't know. I was not a part of that. I was brought in after all this had come up. I know from what I've seen, part of the wall is up, but I agree with the structural integrity of it. But we cannot get a hold of the contractor at this time. So we are looking for the variance of the height at this time so that we can move forward and erect this wall correctly per the plans. So a new contractor would be sought to come in and finish the job that the person that started it is no longer part of this? That is correct. I see. Okay. That is correct. All right. And then as far as the other issues, again, those are things that are not related to the height of the wall. So that's why we are here seeking the variance for the height of the wall. The location of the wall, again, that was a site development thing that should have been addressed during the approval of the permit. But I'm sure that is something that if it affects the neighbor, then we would be willing to work with them to address that. But for now, like I said, the variance was to discuss the height of the wall. And that's what we're here for. All right. Does that conclude your comments? Anything else? Yes. And Tori Taylor, once again, just to add a little bit of brief more context and clarification. The code enforcement regarding the walls, regarding the sidewall, and part of that is that it was unpermitted. So I've been working with the owner to obtain the permitting on that. The permit has been applied for. It's passed through a couple of the stages. However, because of the height of the wall, we can't get to that final stage because we need the variance. So regardless of whatever testimony in opposition has occurred here today, that sounds more like it should be addressed to the building department as far as the permitting issue or elsewhere. It's not regarding the height of the walls, as obviously you're aware of as well. And whether it's this wall or another wall, I mean, regardless, my client's asking for the variance as to the height. And I just want to, before we close, I just want to say on the record that your request is for a variance that results in a height of 6 feet, 10 inches in the front and 8 feet on the side. And then you heard Ms. Marshall say that that cap of the wall can be up to 1 foot above that. So there are assertions from the opposition that this wall could be higher than that. And so the variance, if it's granted, would only be under that because that's what you've applied for. That is correct. All right. That was it. Thank you so much. I appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Then with that, we'll close variance 2-6-1125 and go to the next case. Next item is item H-6, variance 26-1133. The applicants are Casey Shea and Abigail M. Kochman. The request is a variance defense and wall requirements and staff findings will be presented by Logan McKay. Good morning. Good morning. Logan McKay, Development Services, variance 26-1133. Applicants requesting a variance to accommodate a 6-foot high fence within the front yard of the property. For Section 60702 of the Land Development Code, fences over 4 feet high shall not be located within the required front yards, except under certain circumstances which do not apply to this case. The applicant is requesting a 2-foot variance to this requirement, resulting in a 6-foot fence in the front yard. We have no additional findings available for any questions. No questions at this time. Thank you so much. Is the applicant here? Is the applicant here for agenda item H-6, variance 26? Yes, yeah. Oh, are you online? Okay. Good morning. Good morning. Give us your name and address, please, before you start. My name is Abigail Kochman. I live at 1801 Paso Girl Way in St. Pete Beach, Florida, 33706. Okay. If you could tell us a little bit about your request for the increase in fence height. We live on, well, we're going to live on Dorman Road. We have 10 acres, and so that's about 400 plus feet on Dorman Road, which is known to be very busy, and people go very fast on that road. We have small children that we would like to protect, and we would like the privacy of the six feet, just so we can enjoy our property. Okay. Okay. Just a couple of questions. You said that the property is 10 acres in size, and you have yet to build the house. You understand that the six-foot fence would be allowed at the front yard setback, which I believe in this case would be 50 feet. Is there a reason that you can't place it there in accordance with the setback requirement? Sure. We have to maintain all of that property anyways, and so if we can do that within a six-foot fence where it's more private and we can maintain it and use it, we would really appreciate that. We've had neighbors come onto our property. That's where we just kind of prefer to not be seen. So if we can put it at the, I believe we're asking for a 40-foot variance, that would be 10 feet in from the property line. We just prefer the privacy. Okay. And do you have any documentation as to security issues or anything like that that would justify the increase in height? Yes. I can submit that. I believe I submitted it in my application, but I can submit it again. And we've had a neighbor come onto our property and harass workers that were not in any kind of violation, and so we prefer that they can't be seen. Okay. And that, those incidents or incident, you described them, but you don't have, for instance, like a police report or anything like that. Is that correct? I believe it was just with the county. They called environmental services, and so there is a case, but the case was dropped because our arborist was not in any violation. Okay. Oh, the neighbor reported your arborist or the person? Okay. All right. Those are my only questions. Does that complete your presentation? Yes. All right. Thank you so much. We'll go to anyone who would like to speak and support. Anyone in favor of this application? Seeing no one, anyone in opposition. All right. How many people want to speak? Three? All right. If you could all please come forward. Jennifer, we'll do five minutes apiece. Good morning. If you could give us your name and address before you start. My name is Leslie Martin. You can move that towards you if you want. Okay. There you go. Leslie Martin, and I live at 18622 Dorman Road. So our property is right across the road from the applicant's property. And I am here today in opposition of the requested variance. And the primary issue that I have is that the requirement of 6.0702 Part C, Item D, which establishes that the design of the fence shall be in keeping with neighborhood appearance. On Dorman Road, all of the fences on Dorman Road are of a variety that you can actually see through the fence. So my husband and I are new residents. We purchased our property only like six weeks ago and moved in. And as you go down Dorman Road, I just want to provide some examples of the character of the neighborhood that we purchased in. Yeah, that's right. The variety of fencing ranges from no fencing to wood fencing, more types of wood fencing, also PVC fencing. There is at the top barbed wire fencing, at the bottom hog wire fencing. There's also a combination of hog wire, henwood fencing, chain link fencing, as well as minimum type iron fencing. And in all of these instances of fencing, you're able to actually see through the fence. And what has already been constructed along the sides of the applicant's property is a wood, and there's a photo of it in their application. There's a wood on both sides, and it's slightly out of alignment. It's not even with each other, so that you can actually, you know, it turns it into a solid fence structure. And I have had family members, friends come over to our brand new property on Dorman Road and ask, what's up with the wall that's under construction? And I just feel like that solid wood is not something that's consistent with the neighborhood appearance, and I feel like it violates that particular part of the section that they are required to comply with, and that it really affects the character. It's something that I have to see. It also, I feel, approving of this variance really opens the door for even more variance requests to come into this neighborhood that has a very clearly established style. And for that reason, I object. I would also like to say that myself and my husband also appreciate privacy. We appreciate security, and we feel like that can be accomplished with other varieties of fences and fence heights, for that matter, than are being requested by the applicant. So for that reason, we're requesting it be denied. All right. Thank you so much for your testimony. If you want, you could submit your photos when you sign in into the record. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Who's next? Good morning. Good morning. A little bit shorter. I'm Michelle Baraner. I live at 18539 Dorman Road. I'm just a couple of doors down from the applicant. Here you go. So I want to explain some of the background because I'm the one they're accusing of trespassing and harassing them. We're not here to just oppose a two-foot fence variance. There's more to the issue at hand. When they first bought the property, myself and my daughter went over and we introduced ourselves. That was our first meeting of them. Had a really nice conversation with them. My daughter and his wife exchanged phone numbers. So all that went well. But after they bought this property within a two-mile radius, we have had four properties sold all within the fourth quarter of 2024 to sports-related people. The first parcel one is the yard located at 18834 Boyette Road purchased by Almost a Farm Athletics. It was a 10-acre parcel, a single-family home on it, a converted barn with no permits, and a 20,000-square-foot building with no permits, live oaks removed with no permits, and grade rates for outdoor soccer fields. This started operating mid-2025. It came before the ZHM meeting was 3-23. It was recommended for denial on April the 10th. It went before the county commissioners and was denied May of 2026. We have already had to go back to code enforcement because they continue to operate. We went back on July 27th. We're going back again on August 27th. So we're still fighting this sports complex that was built. And that's a mile down the street from the applicant. Gracie Fishhawk, 10139 Bryant Road, another 10-foot-square-foot building with no permits, operated 425 Brazilian jiu-jitsu training, summer camp, Friday night drop-offs on AR's own property, again, without rezoning or permits. The owner actually came to speak in support of the yard at the ZHM meeting. He has since moved his operations to a commercial location and hasn't asked to rezone the property as of yet, but he has said that our zoning laws are not within this error. My next encounter with Mr. Kochman was after we figured out what was going on around us. He was walking on the property with two other men. I walked over. I said hello to him. And I said, when are you building? He said, what? I said, well, that too. But when are you building? He goes, in a couple of months. I said, OK, what are you building? He proceeded to give me a cold stare and was told a single-family residence. Now, we've heard him say he's building a second home. We've heard him say it's going to be his primary home. Now, I just got a single-family residence. I asked, what else? He said, that's my prerogative. I told him, well, if you're planning on building another sports training facility, the neighbors now know what's going on, and we will fight you. He proceeded to tell me to do what you have to do, OK? So that's where there's a little bit more to the story than just someone wanting to, you know, build a fence. His sister is also married to a local sports training person. His brother-in-law also submitted a letter in support of the yard for the first training facility. If I'm overreacting, he didn't calm my fears by saying, do what you have to do. The other property is another 10-acre parcel across the street, four doors down on the west side. This was purchased by Schrader's, the owner of Schrader Athletics. OK. So they also built a barn, 10,000 square foot. They're going to operate a sports training facility. We provided the documentation to code enforcement with them advertising. They were told they can't do what they are saying they're going to do. But you see the concern with someone coming in and buying all these 10-acre pieces of property, and they're trying to build sports training facilities. These people have no house on the property. It's 10 acres, a solid wood fence now around it. And what that happens is it puts more of a burden on the community trying to find out what they're doing. It also puts a burden on the county with code enforcement trying to figure out what's going on. And that's why we're asking for the denial. OK. OK. If I have a few more minutes or a minute. So this is... About 40 seconds. OK. So this was when they were in the conservation area. You could see illegally with a grappler. OK. They were pulling out all the stuff in the conservation area. So I did call. And they were told they could not have the grappler inside the conservation area. They could... Anything they needed to remove, they had to remove, you know, with a chain. And then he also had people camping out, which is literally 200 feet from my property. And that was... That morning it was about 29 degrees. And these men were camping out back there. And there's no bathroom. So where do you think they were using the bathroom at? Right behind my property. That was my view. And now that's my view. A solid wood fence. So leave that up just my own interest. If you can go back to that picture, HTV. Which one? The one that you have there. So is it... It's not open? Are there slats in between? Is that... So there's a couple of fences. So this first... This black fence right here is my property. Right. And then my neighbor right next door to him had a barbed wire fence. They put up a solid wood fence along that barbed wire. It looks like you can see through. But you can. It's completely see-through. All right. Thank you. So, I mean, I've been there 25 years. No one's ever built solid fencing. We all have kids. We all have grandkids we've raised. There's not been any accidents on Dorman Road. No kids have been ran over. So trying to keep the kids safe, to me, is a little bit... That's not a hardship. All right. Let me just make sure we're on time here. Jennifer, there's one more speaker, but however you want to allocate it, there's another five minutes, right? If you want to. I'm just representing. But I need your name and address for the record. Go ahead. Leah Hire, 10-811 Dorman Meadow Lane. My road is across from this fencing and this home and this variance request. And in essence, it's just not a couple of us. A lot of people couldn't make it down, and others wanted to speak or want us to speak on their behalf of our rural character. That's all we're trying to maintain. Nothing personal. But we do have a precedent that we're trying not to start because of other issues in the area. And we feel like the agriculture, rural integrity can be maintained in a lot of other ways. You know, our other neighbor showed you some other ways that's keeping in character. And we can see and know. And unfortunately, we're afraid of what might, could happen. So that's all we're here representing the community. Awesome. Thank you for your time. Thank you for coming down. I appreciate it. Make sure you sign in. We have a lot of documentation to send. Yeah, you're welcome to submit whatever you'd like. You can submit all of them. Absolutely. All right. So with that, we'll close the opposition section. Ms. Marshall, let me talk to you, not about the height, because that's the reason for the variance, but the material of the fence. Is there a prohibition in the agricultural rural zoning districts of solid fences? No. No. So they are able to put up a solid fence in accordance with the zoning rules? Yes. Yes. Okay. And if they wanted to, they could put the six-foot solid fence 50 feet back into the front, at the front yard setback. Is that correct? Correct. All right. Thank you. Did you have anything else before I move on? Nothing. All right. Then we will go back to the applicant, Ms. Kochman. You have five minutes for rebuttal. I would just say that we did look up the code before we were going to put up a fence. We saw that we could put up a privacy fence. We prefer the privacy fence because, like Michelle's pictures, you can see she took pictures of our property from her property. That's where she was inclined to trespass onto our property and approach our arborist. It's not a good feeling when someone can see you from their house, however many feet away, and feel so inclined to come over and make themselves known. We prefer the variance to be the 40-foot variance just because we don't want people to come. We could put the six-foot feet up at the 50-feet setback, but then they're 50 feet more onto our property, stopped by the fence 50 feet in, if I'm saying that correctly. I understand. I'm sure that makes sense, but it's just, it's with all of the commotion about these commercial buildings, how she portrayed the conversation with my husband, it did not go that way. She was much more aggressive, and we have small kids. They're four and two years old. I understand no one's been hit by a car, but I would hate to be the first, and I don't want people to see my kids. I don't want people to see us enjoying our property. We prefer to be left alone, and for all of the commotion with the commercial buildings, we are going to be building a single-family home that we do not want the neighbors to see because they will feel that it's another boyette situation. This is not that situation. We're building a single-family home. We prefer the privacy. We prefer the privacy closer to the street so that we can maintain our privacy on our 10 acres. It's just we've had good interactions with neighbors. Our neighbors directly on either side of us have both voiced that they are fine with the fence. The six-foot fence that is already there is within the setback that we don't need a variance. So it is kind of interesting that they're afraid of us doing something that we're not doing that my husband said we're not doing to her, and I'll say it here now. We are not building a commercial facility. We do not plan on opening our private 10 acres to the public, and that is why we feel we need the privacy fence because whether he said it to her face that day or me saying it here, they're not going to believe us. That's where we want to just be left alone in a sense. We want to peacefully coexist with our neighbors. We have good relationships with our neighbors on either side of us. To say it doesn't go with the aesthetic, I would argue that it does. It's a wood fence with slats that look farm-ish to me, so I would say it does go with the aesthetic. It's not a block wall. That's interesting. So my only thing is, is we want safety. We've had, yeah, enough interaction. We've done this before with our property in St. Pete Beach. We've had opposition from neighbors for different issues over here that I would say we're not interested in starting any kind of arguments or fights, but we know that we don't, we need to take the precautions now with a six-foot fence to help prevent anything from happening in the future. We've had, yeah, enough instances where we're trying to avoid any kind of situation in the future. Okay. Thank you for your testimony. And then with that, we'll close variance two six dash one one three three, and we'll go to the special use section. This brings us to section I, special uses. Item I-1, special use 260795. The applicant is Todd Pressman. The request is a special use for school and variance to lot development standards. Staff findings will be presented by Tim Lampkin after presentation by the applicant. Okay. As I mentioned, the special use section, the applicant goes first, so we'll call on the applicant. Good morning again. Good morning. Hearing officer Todd Pressman, 200 2nd Avenue South, number 451 in St. Petersburg, Florida. I have a number of folks here, officers and staff members and the principal of the school. So if anyone misbehaves, we're going to send you to the principal's office. She's here today as well. Iman Ekole, if I pronounce that correctly. Okay. And Daywood is here, one of the board members, and there's other folks here. We'll speak for a few minutes or very quickly if we may. Located in the East Lake-Orient Park area on East Sly and Orient Road, 10.67 acres more or less. These are some areals of the existing school campus. And this is as the property appraiser has it, Tampa Bay Vocational Technical School is across the street of Orient. Islamic Society is located, kitty corner to the site. History, which the staff report goes into detail, existing operating under a special use for 400 students. Most recently was 150768, which was expansion for an 18,000 square foot gym and added a new folio. So the issue today is a special use to increase student population from 400 students to 950. No added square footage. This will cover grades K through 12 and a small child care. Development services does support the request. So I'm very proud today to be representing and working with the Universal Academy of Florida. They were founded in 1992 to provide exceptional education in line with Islamic values. Their mission is to teach students the principles, practices of Islam, but prepare them for good academic success. These are some photos just to make you a little familiar with the facility and their work over the many years. So the site is on ASC1, ASC1 next door. Under the future landings category, we're CMU-12. Next door to PQP, which again is the school. This is the circulation plan. Our transportation experts here and our engineers here as well. This has been accepted by the county. There's no objections from the transportation department. Provides a really good circulation access. I am noting here in the soccer field, there's no illumination prior zoning approval. And highlighting on the east buffer is a 70 feet more or less buffer, which staff indicates exceeds codes, evergreen trees 50 feet on center, existing wood, opeg fence, evergreen shrubs 50 feet on center, and tight foot type A required. Now the Planning Commission has a lot of really good supportive comments. They note the eastern portion occupied by the soccer field and parking, which will further reduce the intensity on the adjacent residential. The site design, building orientation, setbacks, buffering techniques provide appropriate transition and supports compatibility. Planning Commission notes they don't anticipate any adverse impacts and is within the East Lake Orient Park Community Plan and consistent with the plan's goals and objectives. Not speaking for the Planning Commission, of course, they had concern about one specific policy, of which under the CMU, mixed-use, federal land-use category requires two uses. And we are providing a child care use on top of the school, let alone the school maintains many diverse uses, cafeteria offices, classrooms, schools, athletics. So we feel that we meet that. But I think more importantly, when you look at the zoning staff report, and as well the Planning Commission report refers to it, that the daycare use was there prior, and that policy under the Planning Commission occurred after. So I won't use the word grandfathered, although I just did, but that is in a sense the situation that I personally see that policy. On the south buffer, which we have noted here for you, we have a 20-foot B, 10-foot B, but that's due to the stairs, and a 20-foot B, and there's a couple nominal variances for the concrete steps and mechanical, which has indicated in the record, and here's the area of view of the south buffer. There's two special use performance standards. One is that there's location along a roadway identified on the MBO plan, and the school must properly located its athletic fields. Amir is here. He does indicate that we meet the transportation requirement, and as the Planning Commission has said, the location of the soccer field should be compatible as well, no illumination. Development Services notes they find the proposed special use compatible with the existing development pattern, consistent with the intent of the previously approved development, as request is limited to increasing student enrollment. I will indicate to you that we did notice 53 persons and two HOAs two times, plus the big yellow signs, and as of this morning, there's no record of emails or letters that are in the file. Okay. So with that, it's up to you. Hang on, so if you'd like to hear from a couple of folks now or at the proponent time. Up to you, however you want to lay that out. I just had a quick question. Sure. The variance for the stairs and the mechanical equipment, I assume the stairs are to access the mechanical equipment on that building G? Yeah, I believe it's access to the building. Is that what you're asking? Oh, to the building itself. Okay. That would be my understanding, yes. Okay. And my question was, was that variance granted as a part of the original special use approval? My understanding is not. It was picked up through this application. But it is existing? Correct. Ah, okay. All right. I think that was my only question. Okay. If you guys would like to have a quick comment. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Adil Kareem. I reside at 32631 Tree of Life Avenue in Wesley Chapel, Florida. I want to thank you for your time and service to our community. I serve as a board member of the Universal Academy of Florida. I am also a proud parent of both a current sophomore at the school and a recent graduate who is now a freshman at Georgia Tech. Universal Academy of Florida has a proven track record of success, including 100% of our high school graduates going to college, of which approximately 70% of our graduates continue on to USF and University of Florida. Beyond academics, our high school students contributed more than 5,000 hours of community service this past year, demonstrating the values of leadership the school instills. Niche recently ranked the academy as the fifth best private K-12 school in Tampa, in the Tampa area, reflecting the quality of education opportunities provided. I have seen firsthand the positive impacts this school has on students and families. I respectfully ask for your support of this special land use request so that our school can continue providing exceptional educational opportunities for future generations. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your time. Anyone else that wants to speak? Good morning. Good morning. My name is Iman Al-Khali. Do you want my home address or school address? Whatever address you'd like to give us. 6801 Orient Road, the school address. Thank you. As indicated earlier, my name is Iman Al-Khali, principal of the Universal Academy of Florida, and I am truly grateful for the opportunity to speak before you today. I have been in education for 20 years, and this is my eighth year at Universal Academy of Florida. I watched UAF grow tremendously, not only in enrollment, but in our impact on families and Tampa Bay community at large. We have consistently operated at capacity, but after COVID, the demand skyrocketed, and the reality is simple. Our school is growing faster than we can catch up, and we are working hard to meet that need responsibly. Families are moving from across the country to Tampa Bay to attend our school, while others drive significant distances every day to bring their children here. And perhaps one of the greatest testaments to our impact is our alumni. Some of the very physicians and surgeons, lawyers, educators, business owners, and other accomplished professionals service this community today were once students in the classrooms. Many of them have now returned to entrust us with their own children. That speaks volumes about what this school means to our families. We are not asking to grow for the sake of growing. The need is already here. We are constantly addressing space, staffing, traffic, student distribution, and operations, so we can accommodate that growth responsibly. Most importantly, we are committed to doing things the right way. We have not cut corners, and we do not intend to do so ever in the future. Even when the process has been difficult or slowed down, we have worked with the county, followed the requirements, and made the adjustments asked of us. We want to continue being good neighbors and responsible members of this community. We are simply asking for an opportunity to continue serving the families who are already asking us to serve them. Our school is worth investing in. Our families are worth serving, and we hope you will give us the opportunity to continue to do both. And I also have some things to share with you in regards to the highlights to 2026 alone. If I did in history of UAF, this binder would have been a lot bigger. And so as you can see here, oh, sorry, there we go. Our niche rankings. I have an executive summary that you guys can review later. We have some quick facts of our schools, our mission, our accomplishments just last year academically. We were named the top 12 VPK provider in the district. This is the highest number of recognitions for the students who were commended for their PSAT scores. This student was recognized for his excellence at Tampa Bay. We were named an honor roll for our AP program, Advanced Placement Courses. We have competed in STEM, and we won a lot. And our students, even with their STEM projects, they did so well, they had a meeting with the mayor herself because of how well she did. We went to the not only regional championships, but the national championships for, international actually, championships for robotics. Here's our robotics team. The coach was actually named number one coach in the robotics team, in all of robotics, actually. Here's some picture of them. We were also named champions of the district for basketball, varsity. We scored at a very high rate in our MAP scores. Our students scored over the national norms, each and every single grade level. Our students are part of the Model UN, and they also came home with some prizes. This is some of our community service work. I have Dr. Amina here with me today, and she has been a tremendous asset to not our school only, but to the community. And she has been hired by many organizations to beautify the community, Tampa Bay in general. And she has done amazing murals around, especially Temple Terrace, and I hope she gets to speak after. And this is just a general UAF impact on the community. So I hope you guys have an opportunity to review this at your leisure. And thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to speak. Thank you so much. You're welcome to submit that into the record. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? There's two minutes left. Good morning. Good morning. This is Dawood Syed. I'm a board member. Sorry. At 20663 Longleaf Fine Avenue, Tampa, Florida. And so I have been a board member since 2014. I have, we had three kids. I had three kids at school, and my daughter is, she is doing pulmonary critical care right now with the University of Ohio. And my son did mechanical engineering with USF, and now he is doing, he is in medical school now, fourth year. And my, the other son, he completed his dental school from UF, and one of the top five schools in the country. And he has been, he has been enrolled, he has got a seat now in Harvard for endodontics, which is going to be starting in 2027. So I'm just giving some examples of the achievements the school have provided just for my family, and there are so many cases like this. I think what we are, what I'm asking is your help to further improve the school, and we need your support. That's all. Thank you. Thank you, sir, for coming down. Don't forget to sign in. All right. Mr. Pressman, there's about 45 seconds left on the presentation time. You're good? All right. Then we'll go to Development Services. Good morning. Good morning. Tim Lampkin, Development Services. As the applicant stated, the property is just over 10 1⁄2 acres, and it currently operates as a pre-K through 12th grade private school. With the gymnasium child care facilities as permitted by special use permit 15-0768. The school is currently allowed for up to 400 students that are divided and spread across three divisions, and the proposed special use permit requests to expand the number of students to allow up to a maximum of 950 students, and that's comprising 20 child care students, 680 students in elementary and middle, and up to 250 high school students. As shown on the site plan, the buildings on the subject property are existing, and the applicant does not propose any additional buildings. And regarding the variance, you already asked the applicant that question, so they're really codifying the nonconforming setbacks for the mechanical equipment and then the stairs. And to the immediate, the surrounding area includes, there are two single-family homes in the northwest quadrant that are abut it, and along the eastern and southern boundary, there are single-family homes. And the applicant, pursuant to the previous special use, additional buffering and screening does exist, consisting of a 20-foot wide buffer with type B screening, exceeding the land development requirement of a 10-foot with a type A screening, along the eastern boundary where the predominant homes are located, and which the applicant is proposing to maintain for this application. The applicant also is proposing to maintain the same increased 20-foot wide buffer with type B screening along the preponderance of the southern boundary, with the exception of where the two-story building G is on the site plan. And this is also the location where they're requesting the variances on the south side to the mechanical equipment and the stairs. And the applicant is not proposing any expansions of the existing buildings, an increase in the building square footage, or a change to the previously approved land use. Rather, the request is limited to increasing the student enrollment within the existing educational facilities. The child care center, which serves as an approved secondary use, remains unchanged from the previously approved special use and continues to operate as part of the overall development. The request is limited to operational changes within existing structures and does not modify the approved site plan, building area, or land use composition. Accordingly, staff finds the proposed special use remains compatible with the development pattern and consistent with the intent of the previously approved development, as the request is, again, limited to the increasing of the student enrollment within the existing facilities. Based upon the above findings, staff finds the request approvable, subject to the conditions. One quick question. Yes. You're, and more pertains to the Planning Commission, but I'll lead up to that after their presentation. You're aware that the Planning Commission's objection is based on that secondary use and the square footage not being large enough to qualify as the secondary use in that land use category, correct? Yes, very well aware. So the child care center was existing from the original approval. Yes. Do you happen to know, and now I see the conditions limited to 20 students in that child care. Do you know, by any chance, if that was the same number in the original approval? So in the original approval, there were no specific numbers for child care or for the pre-K through 12. It was just a blanket number of 400. Okay. That was my only question. Thank you so much. Thank you. We'll go to the Planning Commission. Good morning. Alexis Maris, Planning Commission staff. The subject site is located in the Community Mixed Use Future Land Use, I'm sorry, Community Mixed Use 12 Future Land Use Category. It is in the urban service area and located within the limits of the East Lake Orient Park Community Plan. The request meets the intent of Future Land Use Section Objective 3.1 and its related policies on compatibility, as collectively the site design, building orientation, setbacks, and buffering techniques provide an appropriate transition between the educational use and the surrounding neighborhood and support compatibility with adjacent residential development. Policy 4.2.1 states that all projects proposed in a mixed-use future land use category are required to develop within or with a minimum of two land uses with a single building or within a single project in separate buildings. These requirements for two land uses apply to properties that are 10 acres or greater and the regional mixed-use 35, urban mixed-use 20, and community mixed-use 12 land use categories and to properties 20 acres or greater and the suburban mixed-use 6 and neighborhood mixed-use for land use categories. As a subject site exceeds 10 acres and is designated as a CMU 12 land use category, the proposed development is required to include at least two distinct land uses. In addition, Policy 4.2.1 requires that at least 10% of the total building square footage is dedicated to be, I'm sorry, to be dedicated to use other than the primary use. The project narrative and site plan identify a child care center as a secondary use. However, the proposed child care center does not satisfy the minimum square footage requirement. The site plan identifies a total building area of 84,884 square feet, requiring approximately 8,488 square feet to be devoted to the secondary use. The proposed child care center is only 700 square feet. Although the use in total square footage remains unchanged from the previous approved special use application, that capability, trans-holes in Policy 4.2.1, were amended after that approval. Previously, the mixed-use requirements applied to properties 20 acres or greater in the RMU 35, UMU 20, and CMU 12 land use categories, and the properties 40 acres or greater in the SMU 6 and NMU for land use categories. The current policy lowers those thresholds to 10 acres for the RMU 35, UMU 20, and CMU 12 properties, and 20 acres for the SMU 6 and NMU 4 properties that have been in effect for the last eight years. As proposed, the 700 square foot child care center falls short of the approximately 8,488 square feet required for the secondary use. Therefore, the request does not comply with this policy. Based upon the above considerations, in the following goals, objectives, and policies, planning commission staff find the proposed special use inconsistent with an unappropriate Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions proposed by the Hillsborough County Development Services Department. Thank you, Ms. Myers. Let me ask you a question before you leave us. Just be clear for the record. I think you just said this, but let's just make sure this is obvious. The school was approved at a time that this policy was not applicable to them. Is that correct? Yes. Because it was previously, the threshold was 20 acres, and now it's been changed since they've opened to 10 acres, right? Yes, it was changed to 10 acres. All right. And now, even though the use hasn't changed, and I'm not sure if the number of children has changed because that was not specified in the original approval, is there not a waiver or some exception to this policy? That is a good question. One, I would have to ask our planning commission CEO, but I believe we just have to go by the adopted goals and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan. Okay. Thank you so much for your testimony. I appreciate it. Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support? Yes, absolutely. How many people would like to speak? Go ahead and come forward. Just one? Two. Okay. We just have to track the time limit, so we'll give you 15 minutes total for both people. If you start with your name and address. Thank you. My name is Amina Khan. My address is 8382 Golden Prairie Drive, 33647. I am both a parent of children who attend UAF, and this will be my eighth year teaching at the school, my family is originally from Gainesville, and we moved to Tampa in 2013 so that our children could attend UAF. We wanted them to benefit academically and socially from the programs offered, and we wanted to raise our family in a diverse community with stronger opportunities for their future. Moving to Tampa and becoming part of the UAF community has been the best decision we could have made for our family. Not only are our children excelling academically, as a family we have developed deep ties to the broader community, whether through Girl Scouts, club soccer, community service efforts, or otherwise, our family life is intertwined with the broader Tampa community and our neighbors. Our experience is not unique. Countless families have moved to Tampa from across the country so that their children could attend UAF, and with them, they bring their professional skills, financial investments, and commitment to serving and strengthening the Tampa community. On behalf of the hundreds of students and families that are served by UAF, I ask you to approve our request. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming down. Don't forget to sign in. Good morning. Good morning. I'm Karim Badr, Facility Director at the Universal Academy of Florida. Address is 6801 North Orient Road. I'm here today to just speak briefly about my experience at the academy and my career prior to joining the academy. Prior to joining the academy, I worked in many organizations, GE Healthcare. I worked in clinical trials, managing clinical trials for a pharmaceutical company. I have had the chance to have had like a fulfilling career, and the academy is no different. I pride myself, you know, in every graduation, you know, when we see the finished product and we raise our hand and we say we contributed to that. We contributed to the society, right? Just, you know, everywhere I go, like in Tampa, just, you know, like last month, I went to a dentist, and I was just chatting with the, you know, the doctor there, and he said, hey, I attended the academy about a year ago when I bought my car. I went, you know, and submitted the application. A few minutes later, a gentleman introduced himself, and he said, I'm GM here. I went to the academy. So we see this impact on, you know, in society, and I feel like we contribute to the society, and I just wanted to say here today that I'm proud to be a part of the academy, and I'm here for support of the school. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. Please sign in. I think we have one more. Good morning, sir. Good morning. My name is Shahid Bakar, 12846 Longcrest Drive, Riverview, Florida. I have children that have graduated from Universal Academy of Florida. I have friends that were at Universal Academy of Florida when it first opened in 1992. I've been an educator for 16 years, nine of those years being at the Universal Academy of Florida, and I would say that it's an extremely special place. We have seen the exponential growth and desire for families to come to Universal Academy of Florida after COVID. So any help and assistance that you have to facilitate this to stay a main focus of our community would really be great. So thank you. Thank you for coming down. I appreciate it. All right. Seeing no one else to speak in support, is there anyone that would like to testify in opposition? Seeing no one. All right. Ms. Marshall, anything further? Thank you. Mr. Pressman? I've lost you in the crowd. There you are. You have the last word. I'll just say again, I'm proud of you representing the academy, and we appreciate your time and attention this morning and for everyone coming on down. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Then with that, we'll close special use SCH26-0795. I neglected to take a break at 11 o'clock. I'll ask Kate and Jennifer, the group, if everybody good with just going on for the last case. Okay, perfect. Then let's call the last one. Last case is item I-2, special use 260796, the applicant is Tampa Civil Design. The request is a special use for a community residential home. Staff findings will be presented by CM Ball after a presentation by the applicant. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Ashley Harris with Tampa Civil Design. My address is 17937 Hunting Bow Circle in Lutes, Florida, 33558, and I have been sworn. Our request today is for a country place assisted living facility. It is operating under a current existing special use permit, which was approved in 2019. The request is to do a building addition for additional community spaces. So the reason that we had to come through the special use process was because that original special use application showed the building footprint, so we were limited to that building area. And so now we've revised a special use permit where this yellow area would be any future addition area. We have proposed a limit of 5,000 square feet to the primary building as an addition, and then 15,000 square feet including all outbuildings, sheds, and those types of buildings that are on the property. This is a five-acre site. I know that the agenda said it's 4.95 acres. The legal description that was submitted has the lot dimensions that show it's 660 by 330, which equals exactly five acres. So I did want to clarify that. The existing zoning is AR, and the future land use is Res. 6. We are approved for 25 place residents and caretakers' quarters. That's set up as 13 rooms, 12 of which are double occupancy, and then one is single occupancy. There was a label on the site plan on the building that said 26 beds, but that is 25, and we have a corrected site plan to submit for the record for that. As I said, there's no increased capacity proposed at this time. We understand that if we wanted to increase the number of residents, we would have to go through a zoning process based on our underlining zoning. So we've removed that from our original application and are just seeking the community room expansion area at this time. The buffers are to remain as existing. There's mature vegetation screening, and there will be no impacts to the buffers, and our setbacks will remain per LDC code requirements. We'll maintain a residential character on the building expansion. We have requested one waiver. There is a 500-foot separation requirement adjacent to residential uses. With the previous SUP, we were granted a waiver from that. We're increasing that waiver now to meet the setback on the side, so that's a 25-foot setback from the residential areas. Staff found that the proposed is compatible. I did see that the transportation portion of the staff report was based on that 26 beds with the 25 beds, which is what we're remaining at. There is no increase in traffic, and so I just wanted that noted for the record as well. And then any future additions would still have to go through the site permitting process, review through EPC, and so we would meet all required LDC requirements for those items. I do have some aerial photos just to show you the existing facility. So as you can see, it's a highly vegetated site. We're separated by quite a bit of existing vegetation as well as an SCM from the actual residents surrounding us, and then there is an acre of wetlands behind us as well. So even though we are requesting that waiver, there's still significant visual separation that way. And the surrounding uses are a combination of institutional uses as well, so we're in character with that. And I'm available for any questions. I have a pretty minor question as my only question, and that is I just want to ensure that we're all talking about the same square footage that you're requesting. It looks like from the staff report it said under the previous special use, it was permitted to be up to 9,365 square feet, and then there's a request for an additional 5,000. Yes, so that would be for the primary building. So that would be including any future additions for community spaces. We could go up to 5,000 on the primary building, and then the overall 15,000 would be inclusive of all sheds. I see. That's the total, and I'm working backwards from there. Okay, but 15 accommodates the expansion that you plan to do? Yes. All right, perfect. That was my only question. Don't forget to sign in. Thank you. Thank you so much. Development services. Good morning. Good morning. Sam Ball, Hillsborough County Development Services. The applicant is requesting the special use approval to allow the 5,000 square foot addition to the existing type C community residential home with 25 beds. The property covers five acres located along the north side of Memorial Highway, approximately 1.5 miles northwest of Sheldon Road, and is zoned AR. This application includes a waiver to reduce the 500 foot non-agricultural single family zoning separation required in LDC section 611-28A, which would allow the separation of 25 feet from the PD zone property to the east and 200 feet from the PD zone single family property to the south. Staff has no objections to this waiver request. Subject property is five acres in size and is a legal non-conforming lot because it does not meet the requirement that one-fifth of the required lot area may consist of conservation or preservation areas or other wet areas, which receive density credits under a comprehensive plan. The wetland conservation area covers 1.6 acres of the five-acre lot. This non-conforming lot certification was completed October 12th in 2004 because the lot was created prior. It was created December 4th, 1966. The additional building area does not contribute to density requirements. Yes, the increase to 25 residents was approved under Special Use General 19-0822. The staff finds that the proposed community residential home would comply with the land development code and would continue to be compatible with a mix of uses in the area subject to conditions. I'm available if you have any questions. None at this time. Thank you so much. Call on the Planning Commission. Alexis Myers, Planning Commission staff. The subject site is located in the Residential 6 Future Land Use category. It is in the urban service area and located within the limits of the town and country and northwest area community plans. Given the site's existing use, the limited nature of the requests, mitigation measures, and the surrounding mix of residential, educational, and institutional uses, the proposed special use is compatible with the surrounding area and maintains the established character of the community. Therefore, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Section Objective 1.1 and Policy 3.1. Objective 4.4 – I'm sorry, Objective 4.6 recognizes that neighborhood serving uses specify – I'm sorry, specifically residential support uses are appropriate within residential areas when compatible with surrounding development. An assisted living facility is classified as a residential support use. Based upon the above considerations and the following goals, objectives, and policies, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed special use consistent with the Unincorporated Hillsborough County Conference of Plan, subject to the proposed conditions 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 in support? Anyone in favor? Seeing no one. Anyone in opposition to this request? No one. Ms. Marshall, anything else? Nothing further. And you have the last word? Nothing? Okay. Then with that, we'll close special use CRH26-0796 and adjourn the hearing. Thank you all for your time and testimony. Thank you.