Welcome to The Works, a show dedicated to Hillsborough County's Public Works Department. In this video, I'm going to break down what public works is and how they play a crucial part in our everyday lives. Hillsborough County's Public Works Department plays a vital role in supporting the community's daily needs and long-term growth by building and maintaining a safe, thriving community through collaboration, dedication, and taking pride in public service, whether it's maintaining roads and sidewalks, improving stormwater infrastructure, or delivering major projects, such as construction of a new library. Our public works is comprised of two primary departments, Engineering and Operations and Capital Programs. Engineering and Operations focuses on the day-to-day maintenance, safety, and functionality of transportation and drainage systems, as well as mosquito management services. Capital Programs oversees the construction of long-term infrastructure projects that support mobility, resiliency, and community development. Together, these departments are responsible for planning, building, operating, and maintaining the county's critical infrastructure. Now that you have an understanding of what public works is, this show will break down the roles public works plays in Hillsborough County. So, be sure to subscribe on our social media pages and be on the lookout for future episodes. Welcome to The Works. In today's episode, we're taken to the skies with Hillsborough County Mosquito Control to find out how they combat the spread of disease in the rising mosquito population. So, when it comes to mosquitoes, how exactly are we combating them in the sky? Nobody complains about larvae. They complain about mosquitoes, and specifically adult mosquitoes, female mosquitoes, the ones that bite you, right? But it's a lot easier to control adult mosquitoes by controlling the larvae. What we do is we use a larvicide product that attacks the larvae in the swamps, the mangrove areas along the coast here. We stop their growth so they never grow up and become adult mosquitoes. There's the second one, Sean. Aw, little puppy. Hold on, I got two right here. No, there's two right here, two little ones. Obviously, when we pull up, we're asking, like, hey, is that your dog? They said when they approached it, it started to growl at them. They were obviously hesitant, but they're like, it doesn't look in good condition. We found one dog in there that was barely alive. It's literally skin and bones. Oh, my God. That is just ridiculous. Where loyal companions await, one place stands as their beacon of hope. The Pet Resource Center of Hillsborough County, where you can adopt your very own superhero. Adopt the dog, find your sidekick, and unlock the power of unconditional love. Suit up, show up, and adopt today. For more information, visit hcfl.gov slash pets. The walking extrobaters is what we use to traverse and stabilize and mow the canals in the various locations. It's a very specialized piece of equipment with a specialized skill set for the operators. They were originally designed to operate on the side of mountains, but there's been uses of finament to be used within swamps and canals. Its main role is to traverse into the canal to remove the sediment that's been washed away from the banks and into the bottom of the canal and reestablish that onto the banks. We've got to bring the wet dirt from the bottom, set it on top, let it dry a little bit, and then it gets repacked into the banks to recontour and also to open up the capacity of the canal. Once that is complete, then we come back in either a time frame of the job starting to stopping, either Mother Nature has started to grow grass back through. If that is not the case, then we will actually order sod to be laid down to help ensure that the dirt that's been repacked stays in place. According to the National Geographic, ocean plastic is estimated to kill millions of marine animals and seabirds every year, and scientists predict that by 2050 plastic will outweigh the number of fish in the entire ocean. Plastics often break down into smaller and smaller particles, called microplastics, which can be ingested by both animals and people and remain in our environment for hundreds of years or longer. Here are a few helpful tips on how you can help stop the tide on plastic pollution. Tip 1. Bring reusable bags when grocery shopping. Tip 2. Avoid using plastic straws or use reusable straws when having a drink. Tip 3. Drink from a reusable water bottle instead of buying individual bottles. Tip 4. Tell your friends and family about the effects of single-use plastics. You can help reduce the amount of single-use plastics by spreading the word and going green. For more information and to take the pledge, visit ReduceYourUseTampaBay.org. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to this evening's zoning hearing, master hearing. My name is Steve Luce, and I'll be conducting tonight's cases. We do have one item on the agenda, the very first item on the agenda, which Susan Finch and other zoning hearing master for the county will hear that one case. So at this point in time, if you'd all please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of 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. You may be seated. At this point in time, I'd like to introduce Michelle Heinrich, who will introduce the other staff members and go over any changes to tonight's agenda. Good evening. Michelle Heinrich, Development Services. Also up here at the Dice with the county attorney's office to my left, we have Mary Dorman and Jared Delfino. With the planning commission staff, we have Willow Mickey. And on the other side, with transportation staff and development services, we have Richard Perez. And we do have withdrawals and continuances from the agenda, and then, like you mentioned, one off the agenda. Let's see, we have two applications that have been withdrawn, PD24-1257 and Major Mod 25-1261. The following cases have been continued to the July 20th, 2026 zoning hearing master hearing, and that would be Major Mod 26-62, PD26-0437, PD26-0445, Major Mod 26-0546, Major Mod 26-0556, PD26-0558, PD26-0660, PD26-0665, PD26-06671, PD26-0672, PD26-0673, Standard Rezoning 26-0785, Standard Rezoning 26-0811. And then the following two have been continued to the August 24th zoning hearing master hearing, and that is Major Mod 26-0154 and PD26-0283. We do have one off the agenda request for tonight, and that would be Agenda Page 7, Item D6, Major Mod 26-0553. The applicant is requesting a continuance to the October 19th zoning hearing master hearing, and this is not a matter of right request, so it has to be decided on by the zoning hearing master. Okay. At this point in time, they are given, by the time they file the application, how many months or days are they given? Six months from the initial hearing date. And where does this application stand? They have until November. Okay. Right now is the appropriate time to hear from the applicant. The applicant, please, regarding the continuance only, not the merits of the case. Good evening, Mr. Lutz. William Molloy, 325 South Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. We're requesting a continuance tonight because, actually, it's a little bit of an embarrassing transportation blunder we ran into with the final staff report. I have a turn lane I need to account for that I do not have accounted for right now. Okay. And we're requesting the October date, sir. Okay. October 19th? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. Anything else? Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak to the continuance? I see no one responding. Given the reason presented by the applicant for the continuance, the need to go back and review traffic, I will allow for the continuance of this item to the October 19th ZHM at 6 o'clock p.m. in these chambers. Okay. That concludes all the changes to the agenda, Ms. Heinrich? Yes, sir. All right. I have a few instructions to read into the record regarding the procedures for tonight's hearing. County Attorney's Office has a few instructions to read into the record, and then we'll get started with the first item on tonight's agenda. Our hearing today consists of agenda items that require a public hearing by the zoning hearing master. I will conduct a hearing on each agenda item and will file a recommendation within 15 working days after the conclusion of today's hearing. Those recommendations are then sent to the Board of County Commissioners who will make the final decision. Our hearing will be informal. I will 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 will 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. The order of presentations are as follows. Ms. Heinrich of the Development Services Department will make a brief introduction for each agenda item, and the applicant and their witnesses will have 15 minutes to present their case. Then, Development Services presents their staff report and findings. They have five minutes for that purpose. Then the Planning Commission staff has five minutes to present their findings regarding consistency with a comprehensive plan. Then those people that are in support of the application will have 15 minutes to present. Then anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition will have 15 minutes to speak. Then, Development Services has an opportunity to amend any of their findings, or provide additional comments. And finally, the applicant has five minutes for rebuttal. Regarding the time for proponents or opponents, the 15-minute time frame is the total time for each category. If there are a number of people to speak, we will add up the total number of people, and the 15 minutes will be divided as equally as possible. You may wish to designate a single spokesperson to more efficiently use the time. When you come up to the podium to speak, please start by giving your name and address for the record. The meeting is being recorded, and we want you to make sure we accurately document who is speaking on the record. When you are done speaking, please sign in with the Clerk's Office with your name and address and the application number of the agenda item you are speaking to. And there's a pad down at the end of the podium. The Clerk has the form right there where you come up and sign in. At this point in time, the County Attorney's Office will now provide the legal requirements which govern your participation at the Board of County Commissioners' meeting. Good evening, Mary Dorman from the County Attorney's Office. Tonight's public hearing is the first step of a two-step rezoning process. This hearing is the time for rezoning applicants and interested parties to present evidence and testimony. Any evidence presented tonight will become part of the complete factual record of each application, and no additional evidence can be introduced after the closing of each application. The second step of the rezoning process is a public meeting before the Board of County Commissioners where the Board will make a decision on each application heard tonight. Tonight's applications are scheduled to be heard by the Board at its August 11, 2026 land use meeting unless a different date is stated by staff. When considering applications, the Board will only review the record and the recommendation made by the land use hearing officer for each application. The land use hearing officer will file a recommendation for each application heard tonight on July 14, 2026. The Board of County Commissioners has established a policy that directs which rezoning and major modification applications are to be placed on the consent agenda of the Board's land use meeting. The following applications may not be placed on the consent agenda. Applications that propose to add density outside the urban service area, applications on roadways with a failing level of service, applications that do not have consistent recommendations of approval, and applications that have had evidence or testimony in opposition provided to the record by non-applicant parties of record either prior to or at tonight's public hearing. The Board will allow testimony by any party of record at its public meeting to consider the land use hearing officer's recommendation for any item on the regular agenda. Testimony by a party of record shall be limited to the record of the proceedings before the land use hearing officer unless additional evidence has been found admissible in accordance with section 10.03.04d of the Land Development Code. A party of record is an individual who fits into at least one of the following four categories. First, someone who is present tonight and presents testimony or documentary evidence. Second, someone who has been certified by the U.S. Postal Service as having been mailed notice of tonight's hearing. Third, someone who submitted documentary evidence to the master file at least two business days prior to tonight's hearing. Or fourth, someone who submitted documentary evidence by proxy at tonight's hearing. The content of oral argument before the Board shall be limited to the content of the testimony and other evidence submitted verbally or in writing to the land use hearing officer. It's the role of the County Attorney's Office to ensure that only individuals who have met these requirements are allowed to speak before the Board and to ensure that no new evidence or testimony is introduced or allowed at the Board's public meeting. For these reasons, please make sure that all information you wish the Board to consider at its public meeting is entered into tonight's record. Okay, thank you. All testimony must be provided under oath. Therefore, if you wish to speak tonight, please stand and raise your right hand so I may swear you in. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Okay, thank you. You may be seated. Before we get started, Ms. Heinrich, is there an overflow room tonight as well? Yes, we do have an overflow room available for any of the later applications that might have a large group. Okay, and where is it? It is on the first floor facing the non-Kennedy side. Okay, and there's TVs down there? There is, yes, and agendas. Okay, all right, with that, it concludes all the procedures to read into the record for tonight's hearing. I'll turn the hearing over at this point in time to Susan Finch. All right, thank you. I appreciate it. Then we, Ms. Heinrich, we are ready to call the first case. Our first application is standard rezoning 25-1026. The applicant is requesting to rezone property from RSC 6MH to CG with restrictions. Logan McCaig with Development Services has reviewed this application and he will be providing his staff comments virtually. All right. Good evening. Good evening, Robert Martin. Logan McCaig, Hillsborough County Development Services. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property. Apologies. Is that requesting to rezone the property from RSC 6MH? Mr. McCaig, Mr. McCaig, I apologize. We're going to take the applicant first. So if you could just hold those thoughts real quick. Thank you. Good evening, sir. And as you know, this is a remand. So if your presentation could include the reasons for the remand on the record. I'm sorry, what's that? The remand, the remand you're requesting. If your presentation could include the reasons for the remand while you're back. Okay. Thank you. So to start off, my name is Robert Martin. The address is 4512 South 66th Street, Tampa, Florida. This is Leonardo Colon, the property owner. So the property was under your review at the last hearing. It was denied by the Planning Commission and Development Services. There was information that was found showing that the neighboring property to the north of Mr. Colon had 66 people write letters of recommendation allowing the rezoning for that property. There was four people that opposed it. None of those four people were the current person that's opposing his property as of right now. Based on our research and everything else and the Planning Commission, we seem to understand that the rezoning is allowed in that area. Now they did CG zoning, but it was PD with restrictions. So we've been communicating back and forth with Development Services to come up to an agreement that we're willing to also do CG zoning with restrictions. However, we have approval from Development Services. I've discussed the restrictions with him. He's okay with that. The only opposition we have right now other than the neighbor is the Planning Commission stating that the property is more than 1,900 feet from a major intersection, which is Hartford and 66th Street. Based off of the report from the Traffic Department Transportation, they have no objections to the property being rezoned CG. And they basically give us information that based on the traffic pattern during non-peak hours is 82 vehicles. During peak hours, 7 to 8 vehicles. Now he's not open 24-7. I believe the paperwork said that he could be open from 8 o'clock until 7 p.m. And on weekends, 7 p.m. to 4 p.m. He's not operating on those hours. He's not bringing in commercial vehicles. He hasn't increased the traffic pattern on that property at all. And currently, the business has been there for six years. So, again, when the property was re-zoned next door, the neighbor didn't have an opposition to it. And then the property has been under this category for multiple years. And he just came up with a complaint, I think, in 2024. However, he's not one of the ones that complained about the other CG zoning. So I brought the property owner to basically ask the Planning Commission, what's the difference? Because when I looked up their code on the community's commercial location criteria, there's nothing in your code that specifies that a property has to be less than a certain amount of distance from a major intersection. And this is straight from Tyreek from the Planning Commission. So, also, if you recall, the last time we were here, they were asking about a commercial location criteria waiver. And that was my argument about the waiver. Development Services requested that I submit a narrative explaining why I feel the property would be okay to be re-zoned CG in the urban service area, which I provided that. This, according to Planning Commission, is the waiver. Because I sent this to the Planning Commission after sending it to the Development Services. And they sent it back to me saying this was the waiver. Now, if you recall, back in the day or March when we were here, they claimed that they didn't receive one back in October of last year. Because I'm the only one that submitted a narrative to Development Services. Mr. Colonna and Mr. Turner did not. So, I just want explanations on if the commercial location criteria waiver is what I submitted. Development Services has approval already with restrictions. Explain to me what the 1,900 feet from the intersection has any impact on the property being CG zoning when the traffic department has no problems with it. Allow Mr. Colonna to speak. If any questions come up that I can't answer, he would definitely speak up. Okay, absolutely. All right. I don't have any questions for you at the moment. So, if you want to just sign in, we'll move on with the hearing. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Now, we'll go to Development Services. Mr. McCaig. Good evening. Apologies for that. Applicant requesting to rezone the property from RSC 6 with mobile home overlay to commercial general with restrictions. The property located, excuse me, properties located in the area developed with residential manufacturing uses. Manufacturing uses are developed to the west and open storage to the north, separated by open space. Single families present to the south and east side of the site. And to mitigate impacts, the applicant has agreed to a use which will not include high-intensity automotive or drive-through uses, provided hours of operation and enhanced buffering and screening. The residential subdivision to the east was applied in 1975 and did not extend to the 66th Street. All development standards of the CG zoning district will be met or exced. County staff recommends approval subject to the applicant's proposed restrictions. Ms. McCaig, if you could, for the record, as you're aware, this is a remand. As my understanding, the original request was for CG with no restrictions and they are back to agree, they are now agreeing to restrictions that appear to be drafted by the Development Services Department. If you could say, previously, obviously you were recommending denial and now you're recommending approval subject to those restrictions. What do those restrictions do that resulted in the change of the staff's recommendation? The applicants, yes, we are. Our previous recommendations was denial on Commercial General alone. With the included restrictions, Development Services believes that it is not, it will not be as impactful to the neighborhood. The restrictions proposed would be all CG zoning districts are permitted except for the following, major and minor neighborhood servicing and auto repair, schools private and charter K-12, schools publics, bank reception halls, convenience stores with or without gas sales, heliports, heli-stop, vehicle auction and retail, wholesale distribution and trade, freestanding emergency rooms, hospital, outdoor paintball, ambulance services, drive-throughs associated with any use. Additionally, their restricted operating hours will be limited from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays and 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on weekends. They are also proposing additional buffering and screening with additional 20-foot wide buffering and screening along the eastern and southern property lines. Type B screening shall be enhanced with additional staggered rows of evergreen shading, which are not less than 10 feet high at the time of planting in a minimum 2-inch caliper and are spaced no more than 20 feet apart. Okay. Does that complete your presentation? Yes, ma'am. We're available for any questions. All right. Thank you so much. Before I move on to the Planning Commission, Ms. Heinrich, I just want to ensure for the record, it looked like the notice that the property owner sent out for this hearing requested CG and not CG restricted. I just want to ensure for the record that the notice is in order. It is. If it's going to something more intensive, it is in order. All right. Thank you so much. Then we'll call on the Planning Commission. Willamickie Planning Commission staff. The subject site is located in the residential 6 future land use category, is in the urban service area, and is within the Palm River Progress Village Community Plan. The surrounding area is characterized by a diverse mix of land uses with varying levels of intensity. Although the broader vicinity includes a range of moderate to high intensity commercial and industrial uses, the immediate context of the site, particularly its direct adjacency to single-family residences, creates a transition area where compatibility is a key planning consideration. This request would introduce a use that is operationally intensive and visually impactful in close proximity to residential properties. Additionally, during a site visit, staff noted areas of open storage, which is considered a commercial intensive zoning district use. The request is to the CG zoning district. It should be noted that the CG zoning district is not allowed for the consideration of open storage. FLU's objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 further reinforce the requirement that new development and land use changes should be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and reflect the area's predominant character. The proposed rezoning would represent a significant increase in intensity and a fundamental shift in use introducing open storage and pallet sales activities that are operationally and visually more consistent with industrial or heavy commercial environments. The subject site also does not meet commercial locational criteria required by Objective 4.7 of the Comprehensive Plan and Planning Commission staff recommends denial of the submitted request to waive the commercial locational criteria. The site is in the Palm River Progress Village Community Plan. Although the concept map generally identifies the broad area as industrial in nature, it does not negate the importance of respecting existing neighborhood patterns or override adopted future land use designations at the parcel level. Based upon the above considerations and the following goals, objectives and policies, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed rezoning inconsistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan. Thank you so much. Ms. Mickey, I have a couple of questions. I reviewed the latest report submitted to the county from the Planning Commission and compared it to the prior report to see what the differences were. And it appears that there's only one sentence that was removed between the last report and this one. There's no mention of the restrictions, not in the cover page of the request and certainly not in any of the document to say that they were reviewed by the Planning Commission. Have you or the staff of the Planning Commission reviewed this revised request? I also do not see those in the most recent staff report. I am not positive if the planner was aware of those restrictions that were added. I can reach out to the planner. Well, we don't have that opportunity tonight and then the hearing closes. I do not see that in the report. There was a change. There is one sentence removed on page four in the it's in the second paragraph down and it addresses the sentence removed only addresses open storage. So just to highlight that it doesn't appear that the changes were reviewed at all by staff to reflect and therefore the recommendation remains the same. I just want to put that on the record. If you could address Mr. Martin's questions regarding the commercial locational criteria and the development services staff participation in the transportation review. For the commercial locational criteria objective 4.7 talks about the different future land use categories that are subject to the commercial locational criteria. So I'll read directly from the future land use section. In policy 4.7.2, 50% of the site must front along a roadway with a context classification of suburban commercial, suburban town, or urban general. Or another one to classify would be within a thousand feet of an intersection, both functionally classified as a collector or arterial. And when looking at the subject site, the nearest qualifying intersection that would be classified would be Hartford Street and 66th Street South, which is approximately 1900 feet from the site, which exceeds the maximum 1000 feet distance. And so therefore the site does not meet the commercial locational criteria and planning commission staff felt that the waiver should be recommended denial due to the compatibility concerns with the site and the residential. Alright, and just to clear up the issue, the development services staff transportation comments don't contribute to your review of commercial locational criteria. That is correct. Ours is a separate policy. Thank you. I appreciate it. Did you have anything else you want to add before I move on regarding Mr. Martin's comments? I do not. Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. All right. At this time, we'll call for anyone who would like to speak in support, any proponents of the rezoning. Mr. Martin, you'll have time at rebuttal. This is for proponents. Seeing none, then we'll call for opponents, anyone who would like to speak in opposition. While Mr. Schiff is coming up, is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition? All right. Seeing no one. Good evening. Good evening. Gordon Schiff, 4155 West Cypress Street, Tampa. And I'm here representing Scott and Rebecca Hendry, H-E-N-D-R-Y for the court reporter or whoever takes the minutes. I have a couple of handouts, Madam Hearing Master, and I would like to hand those, or just one handout, but it's got a number of photos. So you want one, two, or three copies? So we only need one, and you would submit it to the clerk. You're welcome to show whatever you'd like on the Elmo and then submit it to the clerk. All right. We'll do that. Like I said, I represent Scott Hendry and Rebecca Hendry. I'll first, at the outset, say I don't think the applicant gave you a reason for the remand. I did not hear a legitimate, rational basis for the remand, and in fact, I'll get into what actually happened in a few minutes. But anyway, we represent our clients. We've just submitted a supplemental letter of opposition to this, and that sets forth our legal and factual arguments why this should be denied. This has been going on for a while. The application has been pending for one year. It started as an application, followed by Mr. Martin, saying the reason for the request is currently selling pallets and need the correct zoning to continue the business. That was his application. Proposed zoning not able to confirm was his second statement. And there was an affidavit to authorize agent under oath, signed by Mr. Cologne, who's here today, and John Turner, one of the owner's authorized agents, and notarized by Mr. Martin, and the other authorized agent, which states under item four, that the property constitutes the property for which a request for rezoning to CG from RSC 6 garage slash storage slash warehouse slash outside open storage nature of the request in parentheses is being applied for. None of those uses appear to be permitted, none of those uses are permitted today, and many of them aren't permitted in CG, but that's what was filed. It was treated as an application to rezone to CI, which actually makes sense because the CG would not allow the uses that they were applying for. And it was, but again, it's RSC 6, so all that testimony you heard about uses, and they've been there for six years, et cetera, they're all illegal for six years. And so there's no basis to have the use there. You heard the plan, you heard the hearing on January 26th, you had recommendation of denial from staff, you had recommendation or inconsistency determination by the Planning Commission, and you recommended denial. So it was scheduled for final hearing before the board on March 10, and over the objections of this owner, we were not allowed to be heard. The application was remanded as being out of order, which it wasn't, and we're objecting that it was even remanded, and we reserved the right to continue that objection. So while it's been pending for remand, the application was actually continued some more, just to add a few more months to it. And they submitted, I think it was referred to by, in the testimony, I'm not sure if that's what Mr. Martin was referring to, but they said, they submitted an additional revised information sheet on or about June 2. The additional sheet includes an attachment entitled Comprehensive Rezoning Justification and Staff Consistency Package. I don't think it's any of that. The sheet is not authored, and it has not been established. It's anonymous. It has been established who the author is or whether they're qualified to be an expert witness in planning, transportation, zoning, or any other land use area. Additionally, it should be noted that there's no mention on the sheet of the proposed use, which this applicant is even proposing. So you don't even have before you an application that says, here's our proposed use. Some statements of the sheet are unsupported conclusory statements, and some are speculative, have no probative value. In addition, the sheet incorrectly states, in finding the fact number three, that the property fronts a collector roadway. It's not, it's a local roadway. And then they say it's suitable for commercial access. That's just a conclusory statement, has no probative value. South 66th Street is functionally classified as local and is substandard, and that's what the transportation staff noted, it's a substandard roadway. And it's also noted in the planning commission report. They also have finding a fact number four, and this is incredibly important for your consideration. The proposed zoning, this is their updated request. The proposed zoning allows neighborhoods serving low intensity commercial uses consistent with surrounding development. That's their request. That's what's before you. And then, and they also say all potential adverse impacts to adjacent residential uses can be mitigated through enforceable zoning impacts. So let's get to the facts. Let's look at some photos. This is in your packet. All right. If the Elmo's on, we'll go through these quickly. This is exhibit A. Sorry. Exhibit A. As you'll see, there's apparently a semi park. This is back in January, by the way, when they already were CG and they already were saying they're not going to do open space. I'm just going to go through these quickly. There's pallets, trucks, trailers with tires in them. Leave that here and just go on top of them. There's the gate. You'll see all the pallets piled. That's 20 or 25 feet high, those pallets in that picture. Another picture. Now you can really see the pallets. Here's a nice little dumpster of about 30 or 40 feet in the front. Here's more pallets, more junk in a dumpster. Another picture of the same dumpster. Here's more pallets and other, some things we can't even recognize what they are. Here's where their employees were parking. Here's another picture of a semi. Here's a picture. Here's a view my client has. Another view of what my client has. Those are pallets stacked way up in the air there. Here's some more accumulations and junk, more accumulations and junk, more pallets, junk accumulations, and who knows what's in those blue barrels. Or old accumulation of pallets or junk. It's hard to say, but they're maybe both more of the same. And here's an old boat stashed in a tree. That's that red, red, that's a boat or was a boat. It probably is not seaworthy. All right, let's go to fast forward to last week. Let's see how much better it is. This is exhibit B starting with the first photo. Those are industrial liquid tanks lined up along my client's property. Who knows what's been in them? Who knows what's going in them? Here's some more pallets. Here's some more junk pallets, whatever. Here's more pallets, semis. Here's more pallets and junk and accumulation. Here's some more. Here's the view from the front with their sign posted. Pallets stacked 20, 25 feet up in the air. Here's another view of those same pallets. I don't know what the cones are doing there, but they're not supposed to be there. That's not permitted under the county code. Here's some more cones. So we don't know what they're doing there. So that's our exhibits. So that's the use on the property. That's the use that's been on the property for now going on six years. And none of that is permitted under CG. So we have a situation here where you can put all the restrictions on that you won't allow a drive-through, but that's not addressing the issue. The issue is they want to do what is a use that's not permitted in CG. And that's, it should be, it should be denied. Now we've put, we've put in the record, we'll remind you, there are two code enforcement cases pending. One of them is from 2025, and that is for four, and the order was entered, one, accumulations, two, outside open storage, three, improper use of zoning, and commercial vehicles. Those four things have not been addressed since 2025. Code enforcement case number two that we've submitted, the order imposing a fine, that was because the owner, Mr. Colon, was, this goes back in 2022 or 2023, decided he should do land alteration without permits. And that has, that order's been in place since 2023, three, now almost three years, accumulating fines, and nothing has been done. So both code enforcement cases remain pending. They were supposed to be accumulating fines in July, on July 16 of this year. The second one will be three years old. Overall, nothing has significantly changed since the original zoning master hearing, and this recommendation of, and the recommendation of denial should stand. The applicant is seeking approval of uses that are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, and, and incompatible with the surrounding area. Now, I'll go through, I have gone into detail with all the code sections, and or the comprehensive plan sections, but the proposed zoning is clearly inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The uses and businesses being conducted on the property, as described in the authorized agent sheets, and the updated additional information are not permissible uses under the residential six category, that's for sure. And the future land use map draws a clear line of demarcation. If you look at the various categories, there's a demarcation line to their north, and there's a demarcation to their west. So this property does not have the proper land use. It obviously doesn't have the proper zoning to do the uses they want to do. I've cited all the future land use sections. I won't recite them again. I've cited them to you last time. They're in the submittal I made, but there are numerous future land use sections. The Planning Commission report is a detailed and thorough report. It also is several pages long. They go into great detail to explain why this use is not appropriate. They talk about compatibility, a long compatibility discussion. They talk about what objectives they have, which are not being met. It talks about future land use policies, which are not being met. And it talks about why the request for commercial waiver of the locational criteria should not be granted. They also, and I don't know if it was pointed out in the staff report, they also looked at the Palm River Progress Village Community Plan, which is relevant and must be considered. And they point out that this is inconsistent with that plan. The Planning Commission report concludes overall staff finds that the uses proposed are not allowable in residential six future land use category, are not compatible with the existing development pattern found within the surrounding area, and does not support the vision of the Palm River Progress Village Community Plan, and the proposed rezoning would allow the development that is, the proposed rezoning would allow for development that's inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. And they made a recommendation that this is inconsistent. I also have summarized what code criteria have not been met, but 66th Street is a substandard roadway. The property doesn't have water or wastewater. The closest water connection is 1,875 feet away, and the staff report failed to mention that there is a report by the Utilities Department saying that it should be in the consideration of this. There's no CG zoning in the general area on the east side of 66th Street. The lot size of the subject property is way too small to include effective buffers and screenings, only a little over an acre. The lot size of the property appears to be too small to allow for adequate commercial access, parking, loading, circulation, stormwater drainage, et cetera, and so you can't even get a commercial site plan approved on this, I don't believe. The Code Enforcement Board Special Magistrate has determined that the applicant has violated multiple provisions of the code, and nothing's been corrected. The improper and unpermitted business operations being conducted to this day, including today, on the subject property appear to lack adequate fire safety, and there's no report on fire safety. This is a pallet business. Anyone who knows a pallet business knows it's a high-fired hazard. No fire safety. So we looked at the compatibility of the staff report. There's one paragraph in the staff report on compatibility, and it, with all due respect, it doesn't really say anything. All it says is that the, how they believe the area is developed, which isn't actually accurate. It just talks about manufacturing and residential. There's plenty of other things. It talks about where the manufacturing is to the west, but they forget to mention that there's no access to the manufacturing to the west. It accesses off a separate street to the west. They talk about single families present to the south and east of the site, but the applicant agreed to, this is their words, agreed to use, which will not include high-intensity automotive or drive-through uses. Well, this business is a high-intensity business. So I'm gonna go about another 30 seconds, and I'm gonna let Scott speak. The staff does not, the report itself doesn't even mention the pallet business. How can you not look at, how do you examine compatibility and not talk about what the compatibility issue is? It's not even mentioned. So there's no vested rights, you know, if they get up and talk again about their idea that this is some sort of hardship. It's no hardship, it's an illegal use. And the restricted zoning district, if it were to be approved, must be limited to neighborhood-serving commercial uses. And there's a very important thing to look at here. This use is not proposed. If you look, and if it were proposed, it should have been analyzed. And since it wasn't analyzed, there is nothing in here that has any support for the use. Scott, I'm gonna let you speak. So with that, we request denial of this, a recommendation denial, and we've suggested some alternative restrictions, if in fact, which we disagree, would disagree with, there's some sort of restrictions put in on the uses. Scott, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. There is about 15 seconds left. I'll let you expand on that. My name is Scott Hendry. I'm the neighbor directly to South, 4608 South 66th Street. I've watched this business. I watched it when the property was bought out of foreclosure. The man had a mobile home there, no problem. Started keeping a few trailers here, no problem. And it's grown to this. It is certainly not compatible, and I'm tired of looking at it. Thank you for your comments if you both sign in. All right. Seeing no one else in opposition, we'll close that portion of the hearing. We'll go back to development services. Ms. Heinrich, if you could help address Mr. Schiff's comments regarding the use on the property. And does the revised request, including the restrictions, allow him to have a pallet business? Michelle Heinrich, Development Services. As the pictures showed, it appears to be an open storage type of business, which requires CI or M zoning or a PD that would allow that. We have advised Mr. Martin that the existing use would not be cured by a CG rezoning. Only those uses allowed in CG, in the use table, with the ones that they've offered to restrict would be permitted. So he, at the prior hearing, I recall Mr. Martin stating that they proposed to have an enclosed building, three sides enclosed, and store something enclosed to alleviate the open storage component of this. I don't see any of that referenced in the restrictions. Is that unnecessary because open storage in and of itself would not be permitted? Correct. And then also, if they are having a warehouse type of facility, I don't know if they, if he mentioned it would be a connection to a principal use, or that would be the only use occurring on the property. But in our review of the CG zoning, you know, the uses that were restricted were the ones that we also felt would be most impactful to single family residential and work with manufacturing that's currently happening on the other side of the street. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. And I did have just one more item, Ms. Finch. Sure. Just to clarify the reason for the remand for you, the notice for the zoning hearing master, which was conducted in January, the existing zoning was incorrect. So that's why we were not able to bring it before the board and remand it back so that the correct notice could be done and the hearing could be done. I see. So that's when Mr. Schiff noted in his comments and also his documents that staff noted it was out of order. Correct. It was because they had noted improper notice. Right. I see. All right. Thank you for that clarification. I appreciate it. All right. Then we will go back to the applicant who has five minutes for rebuttal. Mr. Martin. Thank you. So we did look up the 4.7 and the 4.71. The only thing I could find online was a draft and half of it is literally blotted out. Mr. Martin, can you put that document on the overhead so I can see what you're talking about? Oh, you're referencing commercial locational criteria. Okay. So as we mentioned before, yes, originally we were asking for the CG zoning and then when it came back with the restrictions, we were okay with that. Based on the outside open storage as a violation for CG zoning, we were planning on building a warehouse. The reason I brought Mr. Colon is because he's now in the process of eliminating the pallet business altogether. So that's what he's going to speak on right now. Okay. Good evening. If you could give us your name and address, please. Leonardo Golan, 4512 South 66th Street. I've been trying to get rid of my tenants from that property with the pallets, but I have to follow the law. I cannot just get there and just get out and go. So I'm on that process. I'm pretty sure it will take me less than a month if I don't get no fight back, let's put it that way, from them on the legal matter. And once they get out, that property will be clean. And my plan is to go back to the property and leave, you know, start my business in the property. Anything else? Yeah. Based on what he said earlier about the land alteration, for some reason there was permits pulled. What year was it that you pulled the permits to build a retention pond in the back? Now, he dug the retention pond and then somebody in county staff came back after it was already done and gave him permission to fill it back in, which would have been the buffer in the back. And based on the photos that he showed, there's a 20-foot buffer at least on the south side of the property from his neighbor that gives him the 20-foot buffer. However, the objective here is to get the CG zoning with restrictions, he's going to eliminate the pallet business, and then whatever he needs to do from there on, he'll just move forward from there. Does that conclude your comments? Yes, ma'am. All right, thank you so much. Then without- Ms. Finch, I'm sorry, just to clarify, so that the applicant has all the information that he needs, if this is rezoned to CG, single family will no longer be permitted on the property. We understand that. Thank you for that clarification. We understand that as well, yes. Okay, just to make sure. Thank you. Yes, thank you. That's an important point. Thank you. All right, then with that, we'll close Rezoning 25-1026, and I'll turn the hearing back over to Hearing Master Luce. Thank you, Ms. Finch. And Michelle, if you could introduce the next item on tonight's agenda. Our next item is Item C1, Standard Rezoning 26-0786. The applicant is requesting to rezone property from RSC 4 to RSC 6 with restrictions. Sierra James with Development Services will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation. Okay. The applicant, please. Good evening. Kayla Harrell, Tampa Civil Land Use Planner. I am representing the applicant this evening. I am at 2841 Executive Drive, Clearwater, Florida, and I have been sworn. First and foremost, I just want to thank staff for working with us collaboratively to get us here today. The request before you today is just a standard rezoning request from RSC 4 to RSC 6 for the flexibility and development standards of constructing single-family homes. Can you see the screen? Not if you've got a… There it is. There it is. All good. This is just an aerial of the property to provide context of the property's location. It is 1.8 acres in size. It's located in northwestern portion of unincorporated Hillsborough County along Leisure Avenue. The site is located approximately one-half mile west of North Boulevard, one mile west of North Florida Avenue, and approximately one-half mile south of West Bears Avenue. Additionally, the site sits along Lake Newlands. The current zoning of the property is RSC 4, as seen here with much of the surrounding area designated RSC 6. This is the future land use of the property, and the surrounding area, as you can see here, it is R4. I just want to provide a quick overview and summary of the request. Again, the property is 1.8 acres in size. It's in the Greater Carolwood Northdale Community Planning Area, located within the urban surface area. This request to rezone from RSC 4 to RSC 6R is for flexibility and lot standards for single-family homes. The development will be limited to the four dwelling units per acre to remain consistent with the R4 future land use. Minimum lot sizes of 7,000 square feet, and we are not doing any impacts to the wetlands. Just want to go over these real quick. The site development will follow the RSC 6 development standards, which is the 70-foot minimum lot widths, 25-foot front yard, 7.5-foot side yards, and 25-foot rear yards. In addition to staff support for approval and consistency, this rezoning is compatible with several goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan and components of the livable communities element. We respectfully request your approval and available for any questions. No questions at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Development Services staff. Good evening. Sierra James with Development Services. The applicant is requesting to rezone the parcel from RSC 4 to RSC 6 with the following restriction. Development shall be limited to four dwelling units per acre. The RSC 4 zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet with a width of 75 feet, while the RSC 6 zoning district permits a minimum lot size of 7,000 feet with a width of 70 feet. However, the districts maintain the same setback and maximum height requirements. The subject site is surrounded by residential development, primarily zoned RSC 4 and RSC 6. The properties directly north, east, and west are zoned RSC 4, while the property directly to the south was rezone RSC 6 with the same restrictions on density. Based on these considerations, staff find the proposed rezoning approvable. The revised staff report corrects the typos in the introduction summary and compatibility where the future land use designation was referred to as destination. I'm available for any questions at this time. No questions, thank you. Thank you. Planning Commission staff. Willaminkie Planning Commission staff. The subject site is in the residential four feature land use category, is in the urban service area, and is within the limits of the Greater Carolwood Northdale Community Plan. The subject site is surrounded by existing single-family residential development and vacant residential land. The proposed rezoning maintains the site's single-family residential character and does not introduce a new or incompatible land use into the area. Therefore, the request is compatible with the surrounding development pattern. The proposal satisfies the intent of future land use section objective 4.4, which requires new development and redevelopment to be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. The surrounding area is characterized by established single-family residential development, similar densities, and lot configurations. While the proposed RSC 6 restricted district allows reduced lot dimensions compared to RSC 4 zoning, the applicant has indicated a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet and a maximum density consistent with the Res 4 feature land use designation. The proposed development pattern represents a logical residential infill opportunity that complements the existing neighborhood while maintaining compatibility with adjacent uses. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Greater Carolwood Northdale Community Plan, as it maintains the residential character of the area, supports appropriate infill development within the urban service area, and is compatible with the surrounding residential development pattern. Based upon the above considerations of the following goals, objectives, and policies, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, subject to the restrictions proposed by the Development Services Department. Okay, thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? Is there no one responding? Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? Is there no one responding? Staff, anything further? No, sir. Any applicant opportunity for rebuttal? Nope, no need for rebuttal. All right, with that, that concludes this application. Ms. Heinrich, are you ready for the next item? Our next item is item C2, Standard Rezoning 26-0892. The applicant is requesting a rezone property from RSC4 to BPO. Logan McCaig with Development Services has reviewed this for Development Services and will prevent staff findings after the applicant's presentation. The applicant, please. Hello. Good evening. Bryce Pinson with Half Associates, 1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 900, Tampa, Florida, here representing the owner and applicant. The subject site is a .87 acre site located in the greater Carrowood Northdale community plan area. The future land use is residential four and it has a current zoning of RSC4. The request is to rezone to BPO. It is located at the intersection of Rawls Road and Hutchison Road, both of which are classified as collector roadways. There is single family to the north and east of the site. There is a cell tower to the west of the site with associated infrastructure. There is also a nursery to the southwest of the site and another office building located less than a quarter mile southwest of the site. BPO offers a good transitional use between the single family and the collector roadways and more intensive land uses. They generally have minimal external impacts because of their operating hours are usually during the daytime. The building scale is going to be compatible with the surrounding development with the height of the building, the size of the building, and it will have buffering and landscaping that will mitigate for any potential impacts. The development services staff report also said that due to the property size, dimensions, and location along the major roadways, use of the property as residential is not as viable as office or low-intensity commercial uses. Staff found the request compatible with the surrounding area, and the Planning Commission also found that it was consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan. So I'm here if you have any further questions. Just one minor question for you. Sure. I think you showed a graphic that showed the surrounding uses. Could you bring that back up on the elbow? Where that cell tower is, it looks like there's a warehouse-type building. Do you know what that use is? It just said wireless communication facilities. I don't really know exactly what the… Okay. All right. That's it. Thank you. Development Services staff. The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property from residential single-family conventional to business professional office. The subject property is surrounded by residential and agricultural zoning and uses which can support BPO uses. Additionally, due to the property size and dimension and location along a major roadway, use of property as a residential is not as viable as office or low-intensity commercial uses. Development standards of the BPO zoning district will address any compatibility with the adjacent residential uses, such as setback, building height, buffering, and screening requirements. Staff recommends approval and is available for any questions. The same question I had from the applicant. The use that's across the street from the subject site? Yes. Do you know what that might be? Yes. That was noted in our initial review. It appears to have been utilized as a small-scale business at some point in the past. It was cited for code enforcement violations related to open storage. As of now, there's no commercial operation that we can identify on the sites. And it pretty much functions as, for lack of a better term, an oversized garage for the residential property to the south of it, not the property south, excuse me, the residential structure to the south of it on the same property. Okay. All right. Thank you. Planning Commission staff. The subject site is in the residential four feature land use category, is in the urban service area, and within the limits of the Greater Carrollwood-Northdale community plan. The residential four feature land use category allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, and multipurpose projects. It allows for a maximum of four dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25. The proposal is consistent with uses allowed under the res four category. The subject property is currently vacant and surrounding land uses consist primarily of single-family residential development, with some public quasi-public uses to the north and west and, like commercial, to the south. Collectively, these existing land use patterns establish a predominantly residential context that supports the proposed development. The proposal satisfies the intent of objective 4.4, which requires new development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Policy 4.4.1 specifies that any increase in density or intensity must be compatible with existing proposed or planned development, and that development or redevelopment should be integrated with adjacent uses through the establishment of like or complementary uses. But business professional office uses are lower in intensity compared to many commercial uses. Overall, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is compatible with the existing development pattern found within the surrounding area. The proposed rezoning would allow for development that is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan. Okay, thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? No one responding? Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in opposition to the application? Yes, ma'am. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Anita Kong. Actually, the back neighbor, my fence divided the adjoined property is going to be there. If you could give your address for the record as well. I'm 15704 Woodshed Place. You guys are from our neighborhood too, so we're all here for that. You guys can go ahead and talk. Yes, I live 15602 right in front of the property. The trough is extremely heavy. And your name, please? Arturo Talbot, 15602 Hutchinson Road, Tampa, Florida. I live right in front of the property. The traffic is exaggerated to an office building there. It will just create more traffic. It's right on the crossroad. There's at least three to four accidents a month to add more traffic to that road. I think it's just not suitable for that. And also, it will just drop my property price badly. And if you guys can just not allow that to happen, we will really appreciate it. Thank you, sir. Good. Please sign in. Next, please. Good evening. Alan Sjobert, 15604 Hutchinson. I live immediately across from the property. And I've lived there for 28 years. Hutchinson Road is busy enough. There's office spaces on the road that aren't, as far as I know, aren't fully occupied already to begin with. And there's plenty of commercial enterprises in space at both the corners of Hutchinson and Ehrlich and Ehrlich and Lynn Turner. And the cell phone tower is a very quiet neighbor. Thank you. My name is Mercy Victor. I live just across from the property. Your address, please. My address is 5234 Rawls Road. I just live across from the property. And I'm very concerned about the traffic. And there are several accidents which I've witnessed. And just in front, I mean, the police officers are right in front of my property. And when I get to work, it's actually a problem. It's always like my driver is always blocked. So it's really causing hazard. And I'm a nurse at the VA hospital. So it affects my work, too. All right. Very good. Thank you, ma'am. Thanks. My name is Linda Kent. I live at 15708 Woodshed Place. And my property is right beside Ms. Kong's. So I'm concerned about what's going to happen to that property that's so close to our properties. Okay. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Just one. It's my back. I'm sorry. Anita Kong again. 15704 Woodshed Place. It's my backyard. It's that fence that's behind mine and there. So I'm just worried about what's going to happen there. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Good evening. Evening. Steven Suarez, 5224 Rawls Road. I'm about 300 foot east of this property in question on the south side perspective. I've lived out there for 51 years. We moved out there as a kid in 1967. I'm opposed to this zoning tremendously from that RC4 to the BPO business professional office. It's all residential around there. I don't think we need to put a business at this address for several reasons. I mean, you're going to have access, according to what I read on the application, not going to have access on Rawls Road. It's strictly going to be on Hutchinson, which is great. But Hutchinson, it is a curve there. And as Mr. Talbot said, there's probably two or three accidents a month there. Their entrance and exit or ingress and egress is going to be on that curve. And it's just, to me, it's going to create more of an issue. Traffic says that it's going to be an increase to somewhere around 200 vehicles for the day, plus 200. I think that's kind of adds quite a bit. Another thing that I happen to note within his property, it's 0.87 acres. Okay. When I was a kid, when I out there, it was a residential house that was there. Then a daycare went in there. It went vacant. To answer your question on that building that is across the street or that cell tower, HSW and associates who fought to get that cell tower there, we were against that as well, has a property at 5305 Rawls Road. And it was incorporated that warehouse. That warehouse was basically for his car collection that he had. So it was the only reason he got that is because it is part of that residence. And I hope he never tries to split it because I'll be here fighting that again if he tries to make it like commercial. Talking about like commercial, they're saying it's 0.25 south. South. It is. That used to be the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, District 3 office. It was put there for that. When District 3 decided to move the gun highway, for some unknown reason, it's still PD. There's businesses like business running out there that's vacant most of the time. So I don't even know why we need this additional light commercial BPO zoning when there is plenty. You have that place, but also on Ehrlich Road, which is less than a half mile away, you have everything you could ever want. There's no need to add a business professional place here, which is going to increase traffic. The other thing I noticed on traffic is we talk about the long term plan. They're going to do, they're going to four lane Rawls, I mean Hutchinson Road. They're going to need 23 to 25 foot of right away. That's going to take that 0.87. It's going to move it down to the 0.71 or 0.7 of an acre. So we're going to have business in there if that ever goes through. It may be like the other right away that they've never done anything with. I'm not sure. Trying to make sure I'm covering everything here. Yeah. I mean, Planning Commission states it is consistent. I don't know when we do this. I know we have all our planning stuff. People, do they ever go out there and actually look at what's there? There are no businesses there. There's a nursery that's agriculture. He's been there forever. Okay. Just to manage a property that's now homes on Rawls Road. It's not consistent for our area. So I'm kind of disappointed with the zoning saying there's no objections to that as well. So, you know, and in their application basically saying that it's consistent. It's not really consistent to that area. Maybe to the south. You go down to Ehrlich Road, there's plenty. You got that. Unfortunately, the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office that was turned into that. To me, that should have never happened, but it did. And then the other thing is on the notifications, I know they get the notifications from the planning or somebody here when they do the zoning for who gets it. But what I didn't notice, one of the organizations that was not notified was the Country Place Community Association, which actually abuts this property. So I'm just kind of wondering, you know, was that just an oversight or what? It's still listed online that you can get to that. I'll ask staff in a moment. I'll let you conclude your comments and make sure that HOA's got notified. I think that that pretty much, and what is considered quasi-public institutional when it comes to, is that like the playgrounds and stuff like that? Ms. Heinrich, maybe you could expound on what quasi-public means. Quasi-public, which is also found in the comprehensive plan, is typically uses like a university, a college, a hospital, things that are mainly open for the public to serve their needs but are privately owned. Okay. I mean, I don't know that there's any of that up there other than the playground and Country Place. That may be what it is. Okay. I think that pretty much covers everything. I have to say again, I am in opposition of the zoning change. It needs to stay residential. All right. Thank you, sir. Does that conclude all those that wish to speak in opposition? Okay. Staff, anything further? What about the community association? Sure. The notice pulled up here and the registered neighborhood associations with Hillsborough County that were sent notice is Carolwood Meadows HOA, Bell Mead HOA, Keystone Civic Association, Northdale Civic Association, and the Lutz Citizen Coalition. Did you mention the one that he just mentioned? No. They have to be registered with. Okay. At the beginning, these are the ones that are registered with Hillsborough County, therefore they do get our notice. Okay. You can certainly have an HOA or Civic Association, but not have it registered with the county for notice purposes. Understood. All right. Thank you. Country Place has about 1,500 homes. So, I mean, I don't really know why they wouldn't be on that list. It's initiated by the HOA or the Civic Association. They're not designated by the county. They would come to the neighborhood services division to become a registered neighborhood association or Civic Association. Odd. No. A registered neighborhood organization, huh? At this point in time, the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal. William Malloy, 325 South Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Mr. Lutz, I believe most of what we heard the concern about was transportation and traffic related. I have Michael Yates with me, who I think can shed a little bit of flavor on the situation, particularly right here. Yeah. Good evening. Good evening. Michael Yates with Palm Traffic, and I have been sworn. I just want to go through a couple of the comments to address those on the record. I'm going to reference the staff report because this is a Euclidean zoning. We did not do a traffic study, but the staff report does go through and address the level of service on Hutchinson as operating an acceptable level of service. It is operating at level of service D. Both Hutchinson and Rawls are collector roadways, and there is a signal at the intersection there at Rawls and Hutchinson. The right-of-way preservation is noted in the staff report. I think, if not all, most of that right-of-way has already been dedicated to the county, so that has already been set aside, and whatever is not part of that will be as part of the requirements of this zoning for any future expansion of the roadway. And then, also related to the access, as the staff report notes, we have ample frontage on Hutchinson for an access. The Rawls frontage is limited to about 100 feet, and so we would not meet connection spacing standards there, but we would on Hutchinson. Given the location of the driveway, probably on the northern end of the property, I do not see site distance being an issue. I know that was raised with the curve there. Say that again? I do not foresee site distance being an issue related to the curve on Hutchinson that was raised, but we will go through site engineering when we develop a site plan for the project, and that will be one of the requirements that we need to address. Okay. So, you said Hutchinson is currently operating at a level of service D? Correct. All right. Background plus project, will it still operate at a level of service D? Correct. Correct. Okay. Will you have to do a southbound left turn lane into the project? If we exceed 20 cars per section 6.0404 of the land development code, if we exceed 20 cars, we would need to do a southbound left, but until we get to the point of doing what the anticipated use is, the square footage, and then generate the number of trips with a distribution, I foresee probably it will be limited to be below that threshold for the 20 trips. So, will there be a northbound right turn into the site? That is, anything greater than 50 cars, we will not be anywhere close to that. Okay. The only one that would be the potential would be the southbound left, but I would anticipate, based on the size of the property, what they're going to be able to yield in square footage, they are going to be below that left turn lane marked. Okay. But that will be a requirement of site permitting. All right. Anything else? I think we're good. Okay. All right. Thank you. With that, that concludes this application. Ms. Heinrich are ready for the next item. Our next application is item D1, Major Mod 26-0063. The applicant is requesting a major modification to IPD1, number 90-0097. Sam Ballwood Development Services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation. Okay. The applicant, please. 063. Get it again. Thank you. Good evening. For the record, Elise Batzel on behalf of Ashley Furniture, the applicant for this application tonight. I am here with our development team. I do have a few documents to submit into the record with your approval. That's fine. This is an existing PD that we are asking for a major modification for. It is located at the southeast corner of I-75 and East Broadway Avenue, east of I-75, west of Williams Road, and north of Columbus Drive. It is within the urban service area, is within the Brandon community plan area, and it has direct interstate frontage and regional access from this site. The property is currently zoned PD, that's 90-0097, with several PRSs and modifications. The future land use is CMU 12, which allows 0.5 FAR. Right now, there are many tracks, A, A1, A2, B, and C, with a mix of commercial, lodging, and industrial entitlements. If I can switch over just for a moment to the Elmo, I think the area will be helpful. Okay, I can move it. So just for your edification, this stormwater retention pond is being moved further to the south. Right now, this is a development pod that's fully entitled. The development pod is moving up closer to the intersection here, so that it's further away from the residential development. So this is really simple. We're consolidating all of those tracks into one larger track to expand the warehousing uses that are already permitted on the site. We are asking for the addition of approximately 52,000 square feet for warehouse distribution center. There's an existing Ashley Furniture Distribution Center there today. In the conditions, we worked with staff to clarify what light industrial is precisely. The old condition was written a little oddly, so it clarifies that M district uses are permitted, but heavy industrial uses are not permitted on the site. We also have added an access point on Broadway Center Boulevard. Right now, there's one. The proposal is to add one additional. And again, relocating that lake further to the south, closer to the residential property. This application does not have any kind of variations and no waivers. This is sort of a colored site plan so that you can see the areas. The shaded out portion is all existing development. The new development pod is the larger, darker red there. And of course, the blue is where that pond would now be relocated. You said a moment ago that they're adding a new connection point. Yeah, so it's an expansion of the building. If you see the shaded out red area is, oh, connection point. Connection. Yeah, Broadway Center Drive. Let me see if I have a good graphic of that. If not, I'll point it to you in the staff report. So Broadway Center Drive, you can see here there's a connection midway up, Steve, and then there's an existing connection. It's grayed out so it's hard to see. But it comes off the road as it starts to curve around to the south. Can you see that? Not well. I think so. At this point in time, I'm going to turn it over to David Smith and get you a better graphic on the access. Okay. David Smith, 401 H Jackson Street, Director of Development and Zoning for the applicant. As Elisa indicated, this is an existing PD that's substantially built out. The only unbuilt entitlements were for an area south of the existing retention pond. That's being relocated to centralize on the north portion of the site the industrial uses, which are essentially in this particular specific plan is warehouse uses. We have CMU 12. CMU 12 allows substantially more FAR than we're proposing in the overall development plan. Also, it should be noted that the far north and townhouse development that's shown in this graphic is part of the PD, was built as part of this. It could have been industrial or multifamily. So really by relocating the industrial area as it's approved today further north, we're protecting the residential development that's not within the PD from the additional traffic. The Plan Commission found it consistent with the comprehensive plan and various, not surprisingly, various policies because this has already been approved at these intensities, but for the 52,000 square foot expansion. This is an infill development in the urban service area. It's going to more efficiently use the infrastructure. We've already established buffers that already exist to protect the residential areas. We're not asking for any variations. We've gone through a separate process with EPC to review the impacts, and EPC is not objecting to the plan that's proposed. It's in the Brandon Community Plan. It's in the industrial area. So we're clearly consistent with the Brandon Area Community Plan. If I can get my arrows to work here. There we go. So this is a little bit better graphic there. The two access points in the development are essentially, in the new plan, will be similar to the one that's located now that you can see clearly, but then there is an additional one that is midpoint on this curve here. So we're trying to distribute the two pods essentially of development, splitting it to two access points. There's a detailed plan in the. Hold on, Mr. Smith. Looking at an aerial, I think where you say new, doesn't that already exist? What I'm saying is that there's a reconfigured in the plan of development that is in there. There's, there were two access points. They asked us to clarify those locations. What was that? Okay. It is existing. It's the northern one's gated. That's, that's the difference. Right now it's, the northern one is gated and the southern one is open. Both of them will be open in the new configuration on the site plan. Okay. Sorry for the confusion on that. That's why we bring Steve along. He straightens that, straightens that when we get off base. So in looking at it overall, this is a more compatible plan with the existing residential. By the site plan moving to that consolidation, the two access points that currently exist, all the truck, major truck traffic will be exiting and going north into the site. It will not be dragging it further from the south. The reason we're asking for 52,000 square feet, that we did not want to take any entitlement potential from the already developed parcels. So therefore we gave them full FAR. And once we got through doing that, we determined that we needed 52,000 square feet for the consolidated plan. So it's very minor increase. So with that, we would request approval. At least we'll have some closing comments. Be glad to answer any questions. It's really not per se a zoning issue, but moving forward with site development, you're moving the pond to the south and you're going to have to work around an irregular configuration to put the pond in. Have you, how far have you gotten in terms of a site plan review process? So EPC has approved all of the wetland impacts. That process is actually finished. With respect to engineering, this hasn't been all fully engineered. So timing of how that's going to work is to be determined at this point. But you're right. It's an odd, oddly shaped and configured site. So it's going to be challenging at times. Okay. And in an event they can't stormwater engineer it, they won't be able to get as much square footage. Pardon? In the event they can't engineer it to work. Right. Less square footage. Actually furniture would have to scale it back. Absolutely. Thank you. All right. This is just a great, sorry. I wasn't, yeah. I'm not going to go into traffic. Steve Henry is here. This is just a graphic representation from your staff report and your staff. And we would respectfully request approval. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Development Services staff. Good evening. Sam Ball, Hillsborough County Development Services. The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 90-0097 that would modify the development track configuration, access, clarify light industrial use, and increase light industrial entitlements by 52,817 square feet to accommodate a warehouse and distribution expansion. The property covers approximately 54 acres and is located at the southeast corner of I-75 and East Broadway Avenue. Uses in the immediate vicinity to the east of I-75 include conventional single family, multifamily, mini warehouse, an industrial flex space development, and religious institutions. To the west of I-75 is Hillsborough Community College and City Corporate Campus. If approved, Tracks A-1, A-2, and a portion of Track B would be consolidated into a new Track A, which would be permitted up for up to 620,610 square feet of light industrial use, which would be the M-District uses except for the ones that fall under the definition of heavy industrial. Any occupancy proposed for another allowed manufacturing use would be subject to a trip cap for Track A. Lodging would no longer be an allowable use. The existing lake would be relocated. Entitlements in the remaining portion of Track B would be reduced from 800,000 to 307,209 square feet. The number of access points on Broadway Center would be altered or changed until 2. The proposed warehouse distribution building would be limited to 300,463 square feet, and the building area would be confined to the warehouse building envelope as shown on the general site plan. The applicant is not requesting PD variations or waivers to the LDC. Based on the immediate proximity of I-75 and the northerly shift of the allowable light industrial uses away from existing residential development, staff finds proposed modification would reduce the impact on neighboring residential properties and would be compatible with the zoning and development pattern in the area. Based on these considerations, staff recommends approval subject to conditions. That concludes my report. If you have any questions. If you could, there's a graphic in the staff report. I'm just going to hold it up, but it crosshatches a track in the southeast corner of the site. Can you explain to me? I can't see it. Steve, that is for the PRS. That was an area of modification, and then the next page had what they did on the area of modification. Okay, it was related to a prior action? Correct. That was the, it's the latest site plan, but the PRS dealt with that teeny little area, and then the next page has a detail. All right, so that crosshatched area is not part of this rezoning. It's part of, go ahead, sorry. She's correct. It is not part of the modification area. Okay. All right, very good. Thank you. Planning Commission staff. Willa-Mickey, Planning Commission staff. The subject site is in the community mixed-use 12 feature lane use category, is in the urban service area and within the limits of the brand and community plan, specifically the light industrial character district. The surrounding area consists of a mix of land uses, including light industrial, vacant land, residential, and public quasi-public. Collectively, these land uses establish a development pattern that supports the proposed use and is compatible with the surrounding area. The CMU 12 feature lane use category allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, commercial, office, research, and corporate park, light industrial, multipurpose, and clustered residential or mixed-use developments. The maximum residential density is 12 dwellings per gross acre, and the maximum development intensity is a 0.50 floor area ratio. The proposed development intensity is well below the maximum threshold permitted for the site. Correspondingly, the proposed major modification is consistent with the range of uses and development intensity permitted. The proposal satisfies the intent of objective 4.4, which requires new development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. According to the revised site plan, the applicant will comply with the required landscape buffering standards. The proposed major modification complements the surrounding… The proposed major modification complements the surrounding… Hold on a second. I'm sorry. Whoever's got a phone that's beeping, announcement for everybody in the room. Please turn off your alarms so we don't have to hear it anymore. Thank you. I'm sorry for interrupting you. Okay. According to the revised site plan, the applicant will comply with the required landscape buffering standards. The proposed major modification complements the surrounding development pattern and appropriately integrates with adjacent land uses. The subject site is located within the light industrial character district of the Brandon Community Plan, which encompasses this northwestern portion of Brandon and is primarily devoted to business parks, light industrial, and government uses. The proposed major modification to the existing light industrial uses consistent with the Brandon Community Plan. Based upon the above considerations and the following goals, objectives, and policies, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed major modification consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan subject to the conditions proposed by the Development Services Department. Okay. Thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience I wish to speak in support of the application? One responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? One responding. Staff, anything further? No, sir. Okay. Okay. Applicant an opportunity for rebuttal? Only one clarification for the record. Sam mentioned that the warehouse building was 300 and something square feet. That's the additional building footprint potential. There's an existing 300 plus thousand square feet on there today, so combined it's over 600,000 if it was fully built out. Okay. Thank you so much. All right. Very good. Thank you. With that, that concludes this application. Ms. Heimerick, we're ready for the next item. Our next application is item D2, PD26-0095. The applicant is requesting the rezone property zone PD850325 and RMC20 to plan development. Carol Ann Peddle with Development Services has reviewed this, and I will present her staff findings. Okay. Applicant, please. Good evening, Mr. Luce. Jesse Blackstock with Blackstock Engineering, 1646 West Snow Avenue, Tampa, Florida, here on an agent of record for the applicant, Mr. Jeff Stardiscoe, which is also in attendance if there's any questions for the owner. As Michelle was saying, how do we get this to go down? The project overview, it's roughly 2.49 acres. It's located along North Church Avenue, and the entrance will be through the existing Church Arbor Avenue, which is part of the first phase of development that was developed quite some time ago. The current use is a vacant multi-use family land to the rear or to the west, which is considered phase two, which is what the proposal is really, we're here to talk about tonight. Phase one, as I said, is an existing residential units. The current zoning is RMC20 as well as PD, and the future land use is R20. The project is located within Egypt Lake planning area, and the purpose of this PD rezoning request is to allow for a total of 35 townown units, 10 of those be existing within the phase one eastern portion, and a total of 25 within the phase two western portion. Our resultant density would be 14.06 dwelling units per acre. As far as the site plan itself, there are no EPC slash SWIFT mode of jurisdictional wetlands on site, which have been reviewed and approved by EPC, and so there are no impacts or anticipated mitigation required for the site, and this would be associated with the western undeveloped portion. We went through several sufficiency rounds to address staff's concerns. The project will be served from an entrance standpoint, ingress, egress from North Church Avenue to the east. There will be a secondary access to our west to North Grady, but that will be limited to EMS and 911 slash fire access. It will be gated with an ox box. The unit sizes as proposed, again, for phase two, which is the proposed portion of the project, the western portion, the minimum sizes of the actual lots will be 22.46 by 83.2 feet for phase two, and the maximum of three stories based on the RMC20 allowance. The existing units within the phase one portion, again, there's no proposed changes to the phase one portion, but as far as the overall PD, since we are accessing phase one, as far as our main points access, it is part of this PD request. Those existing unit sizes are 15 by 36 feet. Again, the phase one is more of a condo product in that the unit sizes are based on the actual building units. There is a large overall folio as part of phase one that is not part of the fee simple ownership. So the phase one is a condo. Phase two will be fee simple traditional townhome development with lot sizes, as I said. See, the existing site, the proposed site, is providing a 10-foot setback along the northern perimeter of the PD and a five-foot type A buffer along the southern perimeter of the PD. These are both listed in our requested waivers and are based on the minimum size requirements for the units, as well as the internal private drive that we are proposing. This is in the City of Tampa service area for water and sewer, and as such the project will be served by the City of Tampa for water and sewer. As far as off-site applicant commitments, North Church Avenue is substandard. The project has been granted, or not granted, but found to be approvable for a design exception by Mr. Williams from Hillsborough County for the TTM based on North Church Avenue. And what that consists of is approximately 255 linear feet off-site sidewalk that will be constructed along the west side of Church Ave. That will connect, essentially, and fill in the gaps for existing sidewalk that is not there currently. There is an existing sidewalk south of West Idlewell Ave to our south. And again, we're putting in 255 feet from that project's entrance up to our existing sidewalk that is on the north side of our driveway. And the driveway, again, is existing for the phase one portion that's there now. As far as the project in summary, the partial zone RMC20 and PD currently with a future land use of 20, R20. The proposed zoning is PD to allow the 35 townhome units as depicted on the site plan. The project's density is resulting in 14.06, which is well below the 20 dwelling units allowable based on future land use category. The project is consistent with the county comprehensive plan. The project is not within a special zone. It's not within a coastal high hazard area. It's not a cultural resource zone, nor is it a surface water resource protection zone. And the project does not have any designated historical landmarks or historical or archaeological sites within its PD boundary, 150 feet of the PD boundary. The project is not within a scenic corridor or adjacent to one. Again, the project in conclusion is requesting the PD rezoning based on the 35 townhomes. 25 of those being proposed tend to be existing. I would request your proposal, your approval tonight, Mr. Luce. Okay. I mean, it's clearly one zoning application, but is the track that's already developed? Yes. Is that under the same ownership as the piece that's vacant? No, it is not. Okay. But they both signed off on the application. That is my understanding. Correct. And you're working with both of them? Yes. You represent both of them? Yes. And the driveway connection is to church? Yes, sir. And it'll go through the existing portion and then serve as the back portion as well? Correct. And is there any amenities within the front portion? The front portion has an existing clubhouse, and so there is a proposal to kind of give that a facelift, if you will. But as far as the square footage of that clubhouse, there's no intent to change that square footage. And the folks that live in the vacant area today, once developed, they'll be able to use the clubhouse? Is that the intent? The phase two would use the phase one clubhouse. Yes. Correct. So it'll be developed as one unified plan of development. Correct. The only caveat was what I mentioned about the first, the eastern portion being more of a condo type unit. Right. It didn't have dedicated lots that they own. It's one overall common. Okay. HOA owned property. All right. Got it. Thank you. All right. Development Services staff. Michelle Heinrich, Development Services. Staff reviewed a rezoning request for properties zoned RMC 20 and PD 850325 to a new PD to allow for 35 townhome and condominium units. PD 850325 is currently approved for 18 multifamily units and has already been developed with six of those units. The RMC 20 property is currently developed with four units. The existing development area is delineated as phase one on the site plan. The additional 25 units, which is delineated as phase two, will bring the total number of units to 35. The site is located on the west side of Church Avenue, south of Pinecrest Manor Boulevard, which is located in the urban service area and within the rez 20 future land use category. The surrounding area is developed with both single family and multifamily developments. Existing single family residential is found to the southwest. The PD's layout is primarily the same as approved in 1985, with the difference being the number of attached townhome units and the dead end on to Grady Road becoming a emergency only access point. The project proposes a 20 foot wide buffer with type B screening where abutting the residential single family to the west. A five foot buffer with type A screening where abutting the single family to the south is proposed, which requires a PD variation request. Staff would note that the 1985 PD also provided the same distance of five feet from the property line due to the internal roadway, which is not changing under this PD. The project will comply with RMC 20 front yard setbacks and maximum height will be limited to 35 feet, which is 10 feet lower than what's permitted in the RMC 20 district. Staff received no objections from reviewing agencies and finds the request approvable, subject to proposed conditions. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. Okay, no questions. Thank you. Planning Commission staff. Willamicki, Planning Commission staff. The subject site is in the residential 20 future laneies category, is in the urban service area and not within the limits of a community plan. The surrounding area contains a mixture of residential and institutional uses. Collectively, these uses establish a mixed residential development pattern, consisting of varying housing types and densities. The proposed townhome development is residential in nature and provides an appropriate transition between the lower density single family residences and the existing multifamily developments in the area. Res 20 is intended to accommodate high density residential development at a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per gross acre. The applicant is proposing 25 townhome units, which is below the maximum density permitted under the Res 20 designation. The proposed townhome development is compatible with the surrounding mix of residential and institutional uses and provides a logical transition between the existing single family residences west of the site and the multifamily developments to the south and east. Staff have not identified any compatibility concerns associated with the request. Therefore, the proposed plan development is consistent with objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1. Based upon the above considerations and the following goals, objectives and policies, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions proposed by the development services department. Okay, thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? I see no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? I see no one responding. Staff, anything further? No, sir. Applicant, an opportunity for rebuttal? None. Okay, very good. Thank you. That concludes this application. Signed, Rick. We're ready for the next item. Our next application is item D3, PD26-0270. The applicant is requesting to rezone property currently zoned PD940260 and RC6 to a new plan development. Chris Granlenard with Development Services will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation. Okay. Applicant, please. Hearing officer, this is Todd Pressman. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, there we are. And let me share my screen. Can you see the PowerPoint? Hello? Yes, we can see that. Okay. This is application 26-0270. We come forward with- Did you announce your- Services supporting- Excuse me, did you announce your name and address? Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me, Todd Pressman, 200 2nd, 2nd Avenue South, number 451 in St. Petersburg. All right, thank you. Thank you. Left that out. Development Services supports. Planning Commission is consistent. No agency objections. No public opposition, which I did check earlier today. 20 persons have been notified. We are in the Brandon area and along Falkenberg at a small crossroad, Lynn Avenue. I'll show you a little closer. Falkenberg here, Lynn Avenue abutting on the north. These two parcels would be brought together a unified PD plan, which is parcel one and parcel two. Comprises a .27 acres commercial building and six-foot enclosed fence. Issues of PD rezoning with variations conditions for the specific use of a contractor's office with open storage. Condition is that the use on site will be restricted to a contractor's office with open storage. The use of Suncoast development. Families full service family owned site development company utility contractor license for the state of Florida underground utility excavation contractor. Also holds a state license for fire license. PD plan shows that if Falkenberg and Lynn access on Lynn existing one story will remain with open storage. As noted in these two spots cross hatched. So same one story building and two open storage areas. This is probably the most important slide to make you aware that the site is surrounded by M zoning. Site being located here PD and RC six. M, M, M, M and M. And as well under the future land use map. You and your 20 which is intensive category which is urban intensity and density of uses. Typical uses include commercial and light industrial. So on street level. These are the ends, the abutting warehouse structures to the east and to the south. And then across west on Falkenberg is Hillsborough County elections office. Sheriff and county warehousing. As you can see noted Hillsborough County warehousing is included with the uses and a large antenna for the sheriff's office. Which is shown here further. Now also importantly across Lynn Avenue abutting to the north. The applicant or one property owner owns both parcels. And is in support. And that is in the record. This is a copy of the record. Indicating from that property on the north that he is in support. The variation has to do with accessory open storage and view of a street. Screening shall extend interior minimum of 100 feet. Which obviously would be very difficult. Actually be impossible to do. It is supported by staff. In that the opacity still achieved in full compliance would be impractical. Development services note the area does consist of light industrial institutional uses. Building height overall development intensity remain low. Transitions between the project area and surrounding parcels in manner is consistent. Along north Falkenberg planning commission notes. It is located with the limits of the branding community plans specifically in the light industrial character district. The existing single story which is 11,132 square feet. Well within the allowable densities and will complement the area. As is located off the county Ontario roadway. With other non-residential uses. It meets the intent of the character district. And the county transportation report notes. This would be a reduction. Of 40 trips in the 24 hour. Two way volume. And reductions in the AM peak. AM and PM peaks. So with that we appreciate your attention. Happy to answer any questions you might have. No questions. Thank you. Development services. Is it on. Okay. Planted with development services. Presenting PD26-0270. Which is a request to rezone two parcels totaling approximately 0.27 acres. At 2601 Falkenberg road. at 2601 Falkenberg Road to a unified plan development. The proposed PD would allow a contractor's office was associated open storage using the existing commercial structure on site as a principal building. The site is enclosed by a six foot opaque fence and the proposed plan establishes setbacks of 10 feet along the North Falkenberg Road, 10.5 feet along the south and east, and three feet along Lynn Avenue frontage. The property is surrounded by a mix of uses. There's a single family residential to the north and east and there's a warehouse and industrial uses to the south and west. To address compatibility, the applicant maintains the existing building footprint, limits storage to a designated interiors of the site, and provides full visual screening along site boundaries. The building height is limited to 14 feet and maintaining a low intensity profile that complements the nearby residential. Variation is requested to reduce the depth of the required street facing screening for the open storage area. Due to the size of the site, meeting the standard would not be feasible. And the alternative screening maintains the required opacity while accommodating the parcels physical constraints. Development services finds the request approvable subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. That includes my staff report. And I'm glad to answer any questions you might have. No questions, thank you. All right, thank you. Planning Commission staff. Willamickie Planning Commission staff. The subject site is in the urban mixed use 20 future land use category, is in the urban service area, and within the limits of the Brandon community plan, specifically the light industrial character district. The UMU 20 category is intended for urban scale residential development at a density of 20 dwelling units per gross acre or non-residential development at a floor area ratio of 1.0. The existing single story building is well within the allowable intensity. The surrounding land use pattern is comprised mostly of single family residential light and heavy commercial uses, light industrial uses, and public quasi-public uses. The proposed development will complement the area as it is located off of a county arterial roadway with other non-residential uses. Although the applicant is requesting PD variations for building setback and landscape buffers, the applicant is still providing mitigation measures given the legal non-conforming location of the building on the northern boundary. The proposal includes a six foot opaque fence surrounding the perimeter of the site and a three foot landscape buffer on a northern boundary, providing screening from the single family residential. The subject site is located within the limits of the Branding Community Plan, specifically in the Light Industrial Character District. This area is intended to be devoted primarily to business parks, light industrial, and government uses. The proposed contractor's office with associated open storage meets the intent of the uses found in this character district. Based upon the above considerations in the following goals, objectives, and policies, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, subject to conditions proposed by Development Services Department. Okay, thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? Yes, sir. Good evening. Good evening. Rod Fisher, 2506 Orient Road, Tampa, Florida, 33619. And I'm in favor of the proposal for the rezoning. I own the residential properties to the north and the east side of the proposed property. Okay, very good, thank you. Thank you. To anyone else in the audience, I wish to speak in support of the application. You know, on responding, anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? No one responding? Staff, anything further? No, sir. Applicant, an opportunity for rebuttal? I think we're good, thank you, Mr. Hearing Officer. You're good? Yes, sir, we're good, thank you. All right, very good. All right, with that, that concludes this application. I'm sorry, we're ready for the next item. Our next application is item D4, PD 26-0422. The applicant is requesting the rezone property from AR and plane development to a new plane development. There are two comprehensive plan amendments associated with this rezoning, and all three are scheduled to be heard at the August 13th BOCC CPA public hearing. Chris Graylenard has reviewed this for development services and will provide staff findings. Okay, applicant, please. Good evening, Cammie Corbett with the law firm of Hillward and Henderson representing the applicant, Holmes by West Bay. Subject property is off of Lithia Pinecrest in the Lithia area. We're located within one-half mile of a fire station. We have sufficient schools capacity in the CSA or adjacent CSA concurrency service area. We have parks and recreation opportunities within three miles of the site. There's a 12-inch water main located in the northern right-of-way, and we have a four-inch force main located in the northern right-of-way. This is the PD. It's just for single-family homes. It's 280 single-family homes. And then this is a rendered conceptual plan, and what this actually shows is we are supporting putting conditions into the record this evening in the purple area requiring 90 by 130 lots, and then we have a vertical screening area shown on green, in green on below the purple, and that's a 20-foot vertical screen, and we're keeping that in the conditions, but we are adding the ability to keep existing vegetation. There are some nice trees that we do want to retain, and so we're just proposing that as a condition, and I'll pass a copy to Michelle and then put a copy in the record. So again, those are measures that we added after the staff report. The staff has found the request for a minimum 60-foot lots to be consistent, both the Planning Commission staff and development services, but in hearing some of the concerns of the residents, we thought that we would make an additional effort and provide the 90-foot lots on the south side. And with that, I'd like to ask our planner to come up and make a presentation. Kayla Wipkowski with Clearview Land Design, 3010 West Dezeal Street, Tampa, Florida. Although there is a comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use of the property to Res. 2, which would allow for up to two dwelling units per acre, our actual entitlement ask of 280 units amounts to a density of 1.47 dwelling units per acre. This development is a natural extension of the existing suburban pattern to the west, and it mirrors the scale and the feel of Fishhawk to the north. Importantly, we've taken deliberate steps in site planning to soften the transition to adjacent properties, particularly to the south. Like Ms. Corbett already mentioned, we are proposing a 20-foot landscaping and vertical screening area to the south and to the east. And to further reinforce compatibility, we are also offering 90-by-130-foot lots, specifically to create a more gradual transition to neighboring larger lot properties. Approximately 54% of the site is open space with our current concept plan and natural features like ponds and wetlands provide further separation. Towards the bottom of the slide, you can see a rendering of what the landscaping and vertical screening area could look like. It's important to note that this type of transition is not unique to this project. In fact, this is a very common and well-established development pattern in Hillsborough County where different lot sizes and densities coexist successfully. For example, in southern Hillsborough County, the South Shore Bay subdivision is currently under construction where townhomes are directly adjacent to single-family residential properties ranging from 1 to 10 acres in size. Another example in – oh, this is an example in Wamama where there was recently an urban service area expansion, reinforcing an already established growth pattern and avoiding the need for significant new off-site infrastructure extensions. We see two-acre lots located directly adjacent to much smaller 40-foot wide lots, demonstrating that significant differences in lot size can and do exist compatibly when properly planned. Another example in northwest Hillsborough shows five-acre lots coexisting with 65-foot wide lots. These are separated by vegetated buffers that create a cohesive development pattern. And the graphic to the right shows how a semi-rural neighborhood with 70-foot lots was designed in harmony with rural-style development. This example also demonstrates how property with residential to future land use can exist in harmony with AR 1 to 5 future land use. We also see cases where 50-foot wide lots are located next to lots exceeding two acres with natural features and buffers used to create separation. This example is directly comparable to our proposal where we're using open space, setbacks, landscape buffers to achieve the same compatible relationship. On this slide, we are illustrating the physical separation between the proposed development and surrounding properties. The closest residential structure to our property line is 132 feet, which does not include buffers or rear yard setbacks. To the west of the site, the narrowest part of the wetland is approximately 150 feet wide. And based on our preliminary engineering analysis, we also anticipate that we will locate a stormwater pond, creating an even greater distance of over 500 feet between our property line and the nearest residential lot. In addition to compatibility of development style, the site is surrounded by existing neighborhood-serving uses, including gas stations, grocery stores, and restaurants. This indicates that the area is already functioning as a supported suburban community, and this project is consistent with that established pattern. There are also nearby retail and professional services, such as medical offices, banks, and personal services. This level of infrastructure further demonstrates that the area is already built to support residential growth like what is being proposed here. The presence of schools and daycare facilities in close proximity shows that the area is already designed to accommodate family-oriented residential development, and this proposal fits naturally within that context. Finally, nearby parks, churches, and public services provide additional community support and reinforce the established residential character of the area. And with that, I'll turn it back to Ms. Corbett. Cammie Corbett, again. Again, talking to school concurrency, wanted to include this map, and then also the school comments, the school board comments, clearly say that there is concurrency in an adjacent service area for the high school. And so under Florida law, that means that there is concurrency available and school capacity available. As you know, that doesn't get determined at this stage. This is only a preliminary finding. Should it happen that at the time that we go to file a preliminary plat, there is not adequate capacity? Hillsborough County has a proportionate share process where we pay our proportionate fair share of a student station, and we pay that ahead of time so we can establish concurrency, and that's also mandated by state law. Also wanted to just point out the regional infrastructure investments. The widening of Lithia Pinecrest has been talked about and planned for many years. It's finally being funded. It's in the CIT. FDOT has set aside $100 million programmed over the next five years for this expansion. The county is also doing improvements at Lithia Pinecrest and County Road 89. If you could back up, what's the segment of Lithia Pinecrest you're talking about? I will ask Mr. Henry to give that detail to you. Okay. And then there are intersection improvements at Lithia Pinecrest and County Road 39, and that's a $10.9 million investment. And then there's regional infrastructure investments with One Water that are coming along this same corridor. And Mr. Henry, if you could come up and speak to the segment. Steve Henry, Linkson Associates, 5023 West Loyola, Tampa 33607. Right now, the plan is for it to extend down to the Fishhawk Ranch Boulevard and then taper from there. What do you say down? Where does it start? It starts up at 60. Basically, you know, it'll go from 60 all the way down, basically a four-lane section from there down. For where it's not four lanes today, it'll extend down to Fishhawk Boulevard. Fishhawk Boulevard is proposed to be a roundabout at that location, and then it'll transition from there back down to the two lanes south of there. But it's basically from, it'll be four lanes from 60. The actual start of the improvements are south of that, but basically it would be a four-lane section from there south to Fishhawk Boulevard. Thank you. Thank you. Once again, Development Services has found this application supportable, and the Planning Commission has found it consistent, and I'm also here to answer any questions, should you have any, and if you don't, we do have five minutes remaining. I'd like to possibly reserve that for rebuttal if it's needed. Thank you. Development Services. Good evening. Chris Groundlinar, Development Services. I'm presenting PD26-0422. I request to rezone approximately 190 acres along with the Pinecrest Road to a plan development that will allow up to 280 single-family detached homes. The rezoning is accompanied by a comprehensive plan amendment to place the property within the urban service area and change the future land use designation to a residential two. The surrounding area consists primarily of single-family residential and agricultural uses. Development has been designed with residential lots concentrated towards the interior of the site, while the perimeter includes open space, landscape easements, and a wetland conservation area. Development standards include minimum lot sizes of 6,000 square feet, minimum lot widths of 60 feet, and front side and rear setbacks of 25 and 15 feet, respectively. Building height is limited to 35 feet. These standards help maintain a scale compatible with the nearby residential areas. Environmental features have been incorporated into the plan, including protection of wetlands, required conservation setbacks, and retention of significant trees where feasible. The wetland boundaries will be integrated in the future site plans, and environmental permitting will occur during later review stages. The planning development services recommends approval subject to the contingent as a staff report. I'll be glad to answer any questions you might have. No questions. Thank you. Thank you. Planning Commission staff. Hello, Mickey. Planning Commission staff. The site is in the rural area and within the limits of the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan. The requested rezoning is concurrent with plan amendments HCCPA 2605 and 2606, which are amendments to expand the site into the urban service area and change the future lane use to residential too. Therefore, this rezoning request is reviewed as if the amendments are approved. The current area is largely agricultural and residential with lower density rural style development occurring to the south and east of the site, and denser residential occurs to the north and west of the site within the urban service area. This category allows for a maximum of two dwelling units per gross acre or a 0.25 floor area ratio. The proposed plan development is for 280 dwelling units, which is an allowable use in 100 units under the maximum allowable density. The proposed plan development will provide additional single-family housing within a predominantly residential and agricultural area. The lower proposed density of 280 units will provide for a gradual transition of density between the agricultural and rural areas to the south and east and the denser semi-rural areas to the north and west. The proposed lot sizes is 6,000 square feet or approximately 0.13 acres in size. While the lot sizes proposed are much smaller than the lot sizes in the rural area to the south, they are extremely comparable to the lot sizes abutting the property directly to the north, which are approximately 0.11 acres in size within the USA and the residential to future lane use category. The smaller lot sizes will also allow clustering of residential units to preserve the wetlands and open space currently on the site. Policy 4.4.2 requires that neighborhoods be designed to include an efficient system of internal circulation and street stub outs to connect adjacent neighborhoods. At present, the main entrance to the proposed plan development is via Lithia Pinecrest Road. There is an additional access to the site from Dorman Road. However, this entrance is proposed to be an emergency access only to protect the existing rural neighborhood to the south of the site. The proposed plan development meets this policy and as the proposed access is oriented towards the existing semi-rural neighborhoods with additional access into the rural areas that is restricted to control traffic impacts while still providing for potential future connection. Based upon the above considerations and the following goals, objectives, and policies, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions proposed by the Development Services Department. If you could, what's the status of the plan amendments from AR to R2? Where is it in the process? It has been heard by the Planning Commission and is coming to the Board of County Commissioners with an official finding of inconsistent from the Planning Commission members. Inconsistent? Inconsistent. They voted for an inconsistent finding. So the Board of County Commissioner will hear this on July 13th. And from rural to urban, what's the status of that amendment? That is concurrent or joined with the land use change. And so they will be heard together. Okay. But was it voted on separately or? I guess it's not done really substantially matter. But the inconsistency also is attached to go from rural to urban. I believe so. Let me double check on that for you and then I'll let you know. Okay. Okay. So the Planning Commission has voted to find it inconsistent, but your recommendation is consistent. The PC staff did recommend consistent on the plan amendment. However, Planning Commission Board recommended inconsistent, correct? Paypal, you find the current application as proposed consistent? The PD we are finding consistent as well because we are viewing the rezoning as if the amendment has been approved. Okay. That helps. Thank you. Mr. Luce. I'm sorry. Yes. Just to add some clarification on where the CPA is right now, and I can ask Willow to confirm. I believe the transmittal hearing was last week. Oh, last month. Okay. Kimmy has been at both of those meetings, so she would know better. You are correct. Yeah. There's only one hearing left, and that was the date we announced of August 13th. Yes. Is that correct, Willow? I apologize for that incorrect information. It has been transmitted to state. Got it. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Thank you for that. But the findings are, as you put on the record, inconsistency? Correct. Okay. We'll deal with any inconsistency in what was put on the record. All right. Corbett, only relative to the question about the status of the Compline Amendments and the findings of the Planning Commission. Yes, sir. Okay. The Planning Amendments, both the Urban Service Expansion and the Request R2, were found consistent by Planning Commission staff. There was a split vote at the Planning Commission hearing, a 4-3 vote for inconsistency, with two Hillsborough County Planning Commissioners absent. And then the Board of County Commissioners heard it last month, and they found it consistent and transmitted on a, by a vote of five to two. Okay. Thank you. All right. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? I see no one responding. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition to the application? All right. Before we get started, I will recognize for the record that there's quite a few people that stood up in opposition. I don't know if you have a, a designated speaker or not. Yes. All right. Well, let's, let's give it a try. Let's see where we go. All right. All right. Good evening. My name is Jane Graham, attorney at Sunshine City Law, 737 Main Street, Suite 100, Safety Harbor. I represent Preserve Rural Lithia, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting the rural character and quality of life in Lithia in the area directly surrounding the proposed development. With me tonight, I have land use planner Susan Swift, who is joining virtually, as well as Miles Scott, Mia Stutzman, Lisa Wolfson, and Erica Taylor. And we've prepared a 15-minute presentation. Ma'am, just so you know, you, there's a total of 15 minutes in, in opposition, so I don't know if, you know, you are the spokesperson for the group? Yes. Okay. Um, the gentleman standing next to you is, I'm not so sure he agrees with you. All right, but I understand, your 15-minute presentation is part of their 15 minutes as well. Yeah, I'm going to talk for about two minutes and introduce them. Okay. I'm just the lawyer, they have the evidence. All right, go ahead. All right, go ahead. Good evening, this application fails to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and the applicant fails to provide competent substantial evidence that the criteria of 10-03-00E are met. As a threshold issue, this application is contingent on two comprehensive plan amendments, which the Planning Commission found inconsistent, based on, among other points, the lack of transition between surrounding land uses. You will hear testimony from Land Use Planner, Susan Swift, as to the numerous other inconsistencies with requirements relating to protecting rural uses, neighborhood character and compatibility, and agricultural uses within the comprehensive plan. Further, a plan development under Section 5.0304 is the incorrect tool for this application, because adjacent land use compatibility is clearly a significant factor, taking up at least a whole page of the staff report, as well as you will hear lots of testimony tonight about compatibility. The evidence packet, which I'm going to provide into the record, provides further details on the incompatibility with the surrounding area, including surrounding deed restrictions from Dorman Ranch, Dorman Meadows, and Lithia Ranch, which expressively contemplates and protects the investment-backed expectations of the surrounding property owners for single-family homes on 5-10 acre parcels with explicit requirements and allowances for a variety of livestock and architectural requirements. I have all this in here. Finally, the proposal lacks the required specificity in its site plan as to development requirements 6.2.1, and fails to provide meaningful notice as to the impacts to the area. The new plan, which was just presented tonight, has not previously been part of the staff report, and we do object to that in that we haven't had an opportunity to fully evaluate. In addition to the package of evidence, I'm also providing Preserve Rural Lithia's documents relating to the request for denial of the two comprehensive plan amendments, which are important, as well as the bylaws for Preserve Rural Lithia and the stack of letters from Preserve Rural Lithia's members as to their specific impacts. And I would say the next person is Susan Swift. Thank you very much. All right, thank you, ma'am. Okay, next person. Thank you. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. My name is Susan Swift. I'm a certified planner, and my report and resume have been submitted by Ms. Graham. I'm speaking on behalf of Preserve Rural Lithia, Inc., in opposition to this rezoning. First, the general site plan is deficient according to the Land Development Code and the Development Review Procedures Manual. It does not provide, quote, sufficient graphic and notational information to provide a clear understanding of the proposed development and its relationship with the surrounding area, close quote, and that's Section 6.2.1 of the manual. Earlier site plans submitted by the developer were already missing required information, but the June site plan is more like a survey than a site plan, not what you saw tonight. The applicant has removed the roads, buffers are missing, open spaces are inaccessible. They show no ponds, no amenities, trails, pedestrian connections, and the phasing information is internally inconsistent. All of these items are required either by the code or by the manual. There is no conceptual design, or wasn't until tonight, and according to the plan on file, there is zero predictability for where these lots would be located within the 190 acres. Never in my career have I seen a site plan so devoid of information that got to a hearing, the point of a public hearing. I'm surprised that the county didn't require resubmittal before what you saw tonight, and delay this hearing, especially since the plan amendments are trailing behind this. The site plan also violates the intent of the PD, which says the intent of these districts is to encourage creative, innovative, and or mixed-use development, and to ensure and promote land-use compatibility and harmony, Section 50301. And also says, when adjacent-use compatibility is not a significant factor, Section 50303A. This project is not creative, not mixed-use, and its density and lot sizes are certainly making compatibility a significant factor for the property rights of the surrounding owners. Second, the project is not compatible with surrounding properties. The proposed 6,000-square-foot lots, which is all that is on the on-file site plan, are 100 percent incompatible with the lot sizes on all 28 abutting lots on three sides of the project, where those lots are a minimum of five acres, according to the future land-use plan, the zoning, and as flatted. There are only two single-family districts in the entire county that have smaller lots. The setbacks are also not compatible. The proposed setbacks, as shown on the filed site plan, are among the smallest setbacks of any zoning district in the county. The application implies, and it was stated again tonight, that they are merely extending the development pattern of Fishhawk Ranch. However, the site plan has none of its design creativity, curvilinear streets, open space, or amenities. And contrary to what was said tonight, Fishhawk's lot sizes along the boundary of the north are approximately 7,000 square feet average, larger than the 6,000 that is in the PD on file. Fishhawk's setbacks are also larger, and their lot coverage on the site plan is 35 to 45 percent, whereas 65 to 75 percent, which has Fishhawk, is 35 to 45 percent lot coverage. The .11 lot sizes that were referred to tonight are only on a smaller portion to the east of Fishhawk, near Lithia Pinecrest. Third, it's not consistent with the comprehensive plan. These differences are significant. They are not, quote, gradual transitions as required by policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.2. The rezoning would increase the density 630 percent, from 38 lots to 280. Said another way, 36 6,000 square foot lots can fit into just one five-acre lot, which is what this zoning is abutting on three sides of the site. The project is not designed to be, quote, related to the predominant character of their surroundings, objective 4.4. The project is not consistent with the urban service area or the urban expansion area goals and policies, goal one. And the project is not consistent with objective 1.2 and policy 1.2.1, which emphasizes protection of rural areas. Thank you very much. Ma'am, can we get your full address for the record? 3621 South Hesford East Street, Tampa. Thank you. Flora. Okay, next, please. Thank you. Miles Scott, I live at 18505 Dorman Road, across from the proposed site. This is a rural area. There is no debate. The question in front of you is narrower. Whether a Res 2 subdivision is compatible with the rural area that surrounds it. And it isn't. The site is bordered on three sides by agricultural rural properties, with one home per five acres, and on the north, it boxes in two AR zone properties, cutting them off from rural uses around them and stranding them inside of a subdivision. There is no natural transition between these things. These are completely different types of places. And that conflict only sharpens over time. The sounds and smells of a working farm, the animals, the early mornings, all become complaints once a subdivision sits next to them. The easiest fix to this is to keep well-defined areas for dense housing separate from agricultural land. Just because we have a grocery store and a pizza shop does not make us a suburban community. On behalf of ProReserve Royal Lithia, I ask you to recommend denial and define on this record that Res 2 is not compatible with the surrounding rural area. Thank you, sir. Would you mind repeating your name and address? Miles Scott, 18505 Dorman Road. Thank you. Thank you, sir. My name is Mia Stutzman and I live at 18917 Boyette Road in Lithia. My ten acres comprises approximately 50 percent of the subject property's western border. Allowing two units per acre is more dense than anything built around it. Twenty percent higher than the Fishhawk Ranch development to the north and more than ten times greater than on the other three sides. While the request is not for ultra-high density, the transition would not be gradual but profound. This is the last large tract of land between the urban and rural area at this location, so it is critically important that the transition be managed. My neighbors and I respectfully disagree with the statement in the Development Services report that the homes are located on the interior of the site. Based on the site plan, other than where the emergency exit is, there is no open space or conservation area along the south side of the site plan. The development will barely touch the PDs to the north because of the location of the protected wetlands. Homes built ten feet apart will be adjacent to the low-density properties to the south and east. Many feet of landscaping cannot fully mitigate the noise, traffic, pet, and lighting impacts on horses and livestock. And I will say that this is the second time we've had a very last-minute change to the site plan and to the documentation provided, which makes it extremely frustrating as a member of the public to prepare for meetings like this and presentations like this. While we appreciate the applicant's revised site plan that was provided tonight, the lot size is still only a quarter acre. And again, it will be abutting residences that are on five to ten acres. Also to the examples provided, just because it exists does not mean that the surrounding residents are happy with it. Policy 3.1.3 requires sensitivity to all surrounding development, not just suburban neighbors. A significant portion of the perimeter is rural. We respectfully request that the hearing master deny the proposal and adhere to the density included in the approved comprehensive plan. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Next, please. Lisa Wolfson, 18330 Lithia Town Road, Lithia, Florida. For ten years, we lived just north of the subject property, an extremely active wildlife corridor follows Little Fishhawk Creek leading to the subject's northern border. We observed deer, bobcat, otter, and one night we watched a Florida panther cross the road following the creek to the subject. This is an overview of the wildlife corridor in pink that follows Little Fishhawk Creek onto the subject property. The numbered circles are 11 panther sightings by people that I know personally. Their encounters are on email, on file, their emails are on file with the VOCC portal. The pathway of sightings starts at the Alifia River, passes through the subject property, and then onto Cheeto Branch and Alifia State Park. I had a second encounter while riding my horse in Cheeto Branch. This is the FWC's photo verified panther sightings in our area. These are only the ones where there's photos. These are some of the photos provided by FWC. This is just some of the wildlife corridor pictures. So they've changed the sizes here. Five acres, a 60 by 100 lot is only one-thirty-sixth of five acres. This is actually my property. The yellow box is the five acres, and the little tiny white box there, that's a 6,000 square foot. You can make it a little larger like they did, but it is still significantly different. We respectfully ask that you reject this. Thank you. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Next, please. Good evening. Okay. Good evening. My name is Erica Taylor. I live at 406 Swilly Road, Plant City. Lithia Pinecrest Road is a two-lane substandard arterial road with uneven shoulder widths. It's also a designated truck route serving phosphate mines used daily by semis, dump trucks, and large agricultural trailers. Per section 6.4.4D, turning lanes are required but can't be accommodated, so applicant is requesting roundabout at the entrance. Next to the TECO Natural Gas Facility that has National Fire Protection Association sign indicating that it's a health and fire hazard. So it's kind of concerning with the circulation of the roundabout if something were to happen and someone go off the roundabout, possibly hitting that. This project will add over 2,500 daily trips, pushing the corridor to almost double the 16,000 trip capacity to 28,000 vehicles per day. Yes, there is widening construction planned for Lithia Pinecrest and the intersection of Lithia Pinecrest and 39, but that can also be going on at the same time as this construction of this development and it's going to add more homes and construction on the same road. Variances should only be allowed when the hardship is not self-created and when public health, safety, and welfare are protected. This hardship is entirely self-created by the applicant because they designed a sub-suburban scale project on a rural arterial that cannot support it and now ask the county to waive the very safety standards that protect the public. Oh, do I get to keep going? How much more time do you need? Oh, just like a minute. Okay. And there's one more speaker. Okay. Okay. I'll give you total combined three more minutes. Okay. Thank you. Meanwhile, there could be possibility of schools overcrowding and emergency response times are expected to worsen and agribusiness is concerned about transporting crops and livestock delays. The transportation network and public services are already overburdened. County code requires two independent access points for developments generating more than 180 peak hours or peak trips. This project generates 248 with only one entrance. A future Eastern stub out is speculative and the emergency only connection to dormant is 16 to 18 foot substandard rural road and doesn't qualify as a secondary access. The applicant also seeks an access spacing variance, reducing the required 330 feet down to 70 feet between driveways on a freight corridor with limited eastbound site distance. The roundabout and spacing issues exist only because the applicant is trying to upzone from AR15 to Res2. These variances are being requested because the project can't meet code and granting them would shift the burden onto residents, travelers, and emergency responders. It's clear this project doesn't meet county codes and isn't safely supported by the surrounding infrastructure. Please deny this rezoning. Thank you. Thank you ma'am. Good evening. Good evening. Michaela McFadden. I live at 4502 Coconut Cove. I live down before the proposed development on Lithia Pinecrest. Hillsborough County utilizes Vision Zero to help make our roadways safer. If you are unfamiliar with the county initiative and want to read more on it, the plan can be found on hillsborough.org. In support of Vision Zero, I want to address traffic around my home. In a stretch of just one mile on Lithia Pinecrest, in just a little over a year, three fatalities have occurred. One a child pedestrian. Their memorial is located on Lithia Pinecrest. As a reminder to drive safely and that this is a neighborhood where there are many children walking to playgrounds and their friends' homes. In that mile is also an elementary school zone where children walk to and from school. Just beyond that school zone is another school zone where a police officer has to stand out in the road every morning to direct traffic in order to help those families get into that school safely. No traffic pattern changes have occurred. No widening of a shoulder. No well defined bike lanes. Which is how the second fatality occurred. Unkept sidewalks, lacking sufficient crosswalks, and no warning lights by the bridge. Where another fatality occurred. In fact, two fatalities now occurred in the same spot on that road. That road is the road to my house. Right where I pull in to my home. Right where the school bus stops. I live off Lithia Pinecrest. I had no idea how bad traffic was when we purchased our home. My family has unfortunately witnessed the emergency response of two of these fatalities. My family is behind me. I've said fatality a lot. What do you think the consequence will be to adding 300 more families to this area? It is going to put them at risk too. They will be unknowingly buying into this mess. We are still at step one in regards to Lithia Pinecrest roadway development. A community meeting has occurred to address Lithia Pinecrest roads traffic patterns change. Properties have yet not been acquired. The desire and support for that change is there. The support to increase the risk of severe injury and fatality is not. To develop Lithia. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate that. At this point in time, staff, anything further? Michelle Heinrich, Development Services. Just to, I guess, clarify for the site plan that is associated with this review and reference in our report, the June site plan, which was referenced earlier, is not what we used in our report because it was lacking significant information. So the April site plan, which was fully correct, is the one that was used in reference in our report. Okay. Could you clarify? So did you make that clear in your staff report that you're referring to an April? Yes. Site plan? And then regarding the changes, have you seen the conditions earlier today or have you reviewed those conditions? I've received those from the applicant 13 at this hearing and it looks as if it is proposing larger lot sizes along the south and the ability to have existing vegetation in addition to plain and vegetation for the screening that they've noted. Okay. My question is, have you reviewed the condition and do you have an opinion about the conditions? Our opinion would be we would be supportive of anything more compatible. We don't have any concern with them increasing the lot sizes along the south or increasing the screening. Okay. And how do you implement that? Does the condition say per the graphic that was shown at the hearing on June 22nd? It can be done that way. Typically what we will do is in the conditions of approval, we will specifically state what is required such as the type of plantings or fencing or the frequency of those and make sure that it is clear on the site plan where that's required if it's not specified in the conditions. All right, between today and when I have to write my recommendation, do I get to see your updated staff report that addresses the proposed conditions? We would not be filing another staff report. So nothing else? Correct. And the conceptual site plan that was presented by the applicant that I think they committed to the location of where those larger lots would go. And I think they said something about at least one more stormwater pond in a specific location. The only thing that's mentioned here is the minimum lot size and lot width. I don't see anything in regards, let me see stormwater. No, nothing in the changes that were provided to us from the applicant's team. Okay. Okay. Anything else? Nothing from zoning. I don't know if transportation has any information to… Yes. I would like to ask transportation about the status of Lithia Pinecrest. I heard the applicant say it's proposed to be widened to four lanes. Can you provide any additional information on the status of that ongoing planning process? Yes, Mr. Zoning Herring Master, Lithia Pinecrest is the subject of a project development environmental study that was in the final approval stage as of earlier this year, I believe it is approved. It is identified in the county's capital improvement plan as a roadway corridor improvement. The final programming of the construction has not yet been determined, but the capital improvement planning process is an annual process which is updated each year. I did bring copies of the project sheet to provide you with and to put into the record. Okay. Also, if I may have the opportunity, there were some comments made regarding the project spacing and the number of access points. Both of those are requirements of part 604 of the land development code access management. The county engineer did review requested administrative variances, 604 to be administrative variances for those components and did find approvable the request for relief for the spacing, the minimum driveway spacing and the minimum number of access points. Okay. I know it's zoning level, but I think the testimony was they want to also build a roundabout at their entranceway? Yes. The applicant proposed to build a roundabout at the entrance and staff reviewed that with the county engineer. It is part of the proposed conditions of approval, which would be designed, the final design would be determined at the time of sight. And then the one last thing is the substandard roadway the applicant has elected to defer the determination of the final improvements for the substandard roadway, but they will be required at the time of sight to make improvements that are consistent with the transportation technical manual. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Anything else, Michelle? No, sir. Okay. All right. At this point in time, the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal. Good evening. Cammie Corbett again. I'd like to ask Steve Henry to come up and address some other traffic concerns. Good evening. Steve Henry again. A couple of things. One, I wanted to on the CIP project. It actually starts at Lumsden, so I just wanted to make that clear, I think, in the information that Mr. Perez gives you, which is the summary of it, it will say that it is from Lumsden to Fishhawk Boulevard. So I just wanted to make that clear, that clarification. But then I want to talk about, if I can get to the Elmo, so a couple of things were brought up about the roundabout. So one is the fact that it is adjacent to the TECO gas facility. In fact, in my opinion, that actually makes it safer because the TECO facility is here. As you approach that, if we made it a regular intersection, you'd be going at speed as you went across there with people coming in and out. With this, everybody is slowing down to 25 miles per hour in the roundabout. So that actually decreases any of the speeds going next to that. And second, as far as the spacing, the why we're putting the roundabout, where we're putting it, what we've tried to do here is there is an eastbound left turn lane into the subdivision here. So we are maintaining their left turn lane at their current size. So that puts the roundabout here. The only spacing criteria that we are doing is to this single family home that actually has two driveways to Lithia today. So that's what we're doing. So we were trying to balance the difference between a subdivision entrance versus a single family when it has two driveways. So that was the reason for that. And then second, as far as the number of driveways, as indicated, we are asking for a design exception to that administrative variance to that. The requirement would be 1.38 if you take the actual numbers of the code. So yes, we are technically over one, barely over one. But we have done the analysis to demonstrate that the roundabout does operate acceptable level of service. We have reviewed the layout with the county engineer, and he is deemed it approvable from that standpoint. And is there sufficient right away in that location for a roundabout? Yes. That's why we actually, that was one of the county engineer's questions was for us to be able to demonstrate to him with the layout here that there is sufficient right away to be able to put that in and that it will function. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, Evan Poorman, 3010 West of Zeal Street, Tampa, Florida. I'm an environmental scientist at Clearview Lane Design. I'm just up here to talk about the Panthers issue that the public brought up. One second. Here we go. Thank you. Right now is a map of current scientifically verified sightings of Florida Panthers. The orange is U.S. Fish and Wildlife, or the green is, and the orange is FWC. That's not the only data sources available. The public has pictures. But as a scientist, I have to use what's verified scientifically by these agencies. But what it does show is that I think the public is right that the Alifaya River floodplain is a wildlife corridor for panthers. They might occasionally come up. But given the number of sightings in this area, it's rather a rare occurrence. And going off of, let's see, like I've done panther habitat mitigation in the past. And so they might occur near project site, but what matters is, is the habitat on site actually viable for them. And panthers require large, dense, uninterrupted forest land. And that's just not present on the habitat or the project site right now. For example, territory of a male panther is around 200 square miles. And that's just now represented on the project site. But when we go to permitting and construct or permit the project, FWC will receive our permit application and have a chance to look at, you know, habitat, these panther sightings. The issue can be brought up then too, but they will ultimately decide whether some sort of mitigation measure needs to be pursued. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Chris O'Kelly who's going to address stormwater. Chris O'Kelly, 3010 West Azale Street, Tampa, Florida, 33609 with Clearview Land Design. I know there was a few questions regarding stormwater on the project. So we have looked at the Pillsborough County Alifaya River watershed. A large portion of the site does drain to Little Fishhawk Creek to the north. Then also a portion drains to the south to Dorman Road. So for this site, it is going to be heavily restricted with stormwater criteria if it's developed. So we've listed some of the permit requirements here, Swift Mud, Hillsborough County. The site, portion of the site also falls in a peak sensitive drainage basin, which has additional attenuation requirements. We also have to follow the new statewide stormwater treatment requirements, which requires a net reduction in nutrient runoff. So there's a little summary below. As you can see, there's going to be a net reduction in stormwater runoff and also a net reduction in nutrient runoff as well. Also with the new statewide stormwater treatment requirements and Swift Mud ERP requirements, there will be long-term operation and maintenance requirements. That's it. Well, let me follow up. You've seen that conceptual site plan that's been shown tonight? Yes, I have. How realistic is that in terms of general location of stormwater ponds? The locations are good. I mean, they're generally located. Usually stormwater runs off from high to low points in topography, so we actually have an abundance of ponds and plenty of area for stormwater treatment attenuation. If there is floodplain on the site, which there might be small portions of on the west, we've got plenty of ponds to attenuate that. So on a typical site, on average, you know, we would recommend around 20 percent pond. We've got, you know, more than that, probably about 25 percent pond on the site, and that's developable footprint. All right. Thank you. Sure. Tammy Corbett. Mr. Hearing Master, if I could please ask for three additional minutes. I don't think I need the entire five that I had reserved. I might not even need the three, but there's just a few things I want to address. I gave the folks that were here to speak earlier in opposition three extra minutes, so I'll grant you three extra minutes as well. Okay. Thank you. Just for, I have a copy of the conditions. If you would like to actually see them. I would. Okay. That's a red line version. So the red line shows where we've increased the lot sizes along the southern boundary. Two, that's how we've worded it. If you want to tie it to this conceptual plan, that's fine, too, in your review of the conditions. We can also, we don't have any conditions in there as to these distances, but if you wanted to incorporate those that are shown on this conceptual plan, you may also include that. And again, I just want to remind you that, you know, again, I heard there was an objection for their lawyer for these addition of these conditions. I think that they address compatibility. If you were to reject those conditions, then we would end up with 60 foot lots all around the perimeter. So I don't think that that would be something that would be a result that they would want should this get approved. So, and again, this is not the comprehensive plan amendment. It's not your role, as you know, to decide the matter of whether the urban service boundary should be expanded in this area and whether or not residential to future land use category is appropriate for this site. The request is concurrent with the rezoning. So you're asked to review it assuming that the comprehensive plan is approved by the Board of County Commissioners. If the expansion is denied, then none of this, this all goes away, right? And so if the expansion is denied and the board does not think residential two is an appropriate category, then you're looking at this in a completely different lens, which is you've been asked to this evening is to keep it one to five. That's not within the purview of this zoning hearing. And so I just wanted to place that on the record as well. And again, look to the development services staff report and the planning commission staff report who often see PDs, they see different sizes of land use, they look at buffering and screening techniques, and in their professional opinion, they found that this request is compatible as it was proposed at 60 foot lots. And certainly according to Ms. Heinrich's testimony that the what we're proposing in the conditions improves compatibility. And with that, we'd respectfully request your approval. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. That concludes this application. I appreciate everybody's patience and coming down tonight. And Michelle, if we don't, if you don't mind, let's take a 10-minute break, roughly nine-minute break. It's 8.50 now. Let's reconvene at 9 p.m. So let's temporarily adjourn and we'll come back in nine minutes at 9 p.m. Okay. Welcome back, everyone. We're reconvening tonight's June 22nd, 2026 zoning hearing master hearing. And Michelle, we're ready to introduce the next item. Our next item is item D7, PD 26-0651. The applicant is requesting a rezone property from AR to plane development. Carole Ann Peddle. James Baker has reviewed this for development services and I'll provide staff findings after the applicant. Hold on a second, Michelle. Did you skip over 26? My apologies, Gina. Thank you. Going backwards, the next item is D5, PD 26-0433. The applicant is requesting a rezone property from RSC 9 and CG to plane development. Michelle Ann Peddle has reviewed this and I will provide her staff findings tonight. And also this does have another associated comprehensive plan amendment scheduled for the August 13th BOCC CPA hearing. All right. Very good. The applicant, please. Good evening. Mr. Luce. My name is Gina Grimes with Bradley Aaron Bolton Cummings, 1001 Water Street, Suite 1000, Tampa, Florida. And I'm here this evening representing Cadence Partners on this rezoning request from RSC 9 and CG to PD. The property is on the west side of George Road about 500 feet north of Hillsborough Avenue. The proposed uses are limited to light industrial uses of no more than 100,000 square feet. And that just would allow for warehousing, wholesale, or manufacturing, just those three uses. As an accessory use, we've also proposed temporary storage of bulk goods. I will discuss the PD and more specifics a little bit later in this presentation, but first I'd like to address the staff report. The county staff has recommended approvable with conditions. There are no other agency objections through the county. There are conditions requested by transportation and natural resources to which we've agreed to those conditions as requested. The planning commission staff, that's really the only objection that we need to address. The planning commission staff has made a recommendation of inconsistent and interestingly, it's the same position that they took with regard to the companion comp plan amendment to LIP. They also recommended to their board inconsistent. However, the planning commission board voted on May 11th to recommend approval. They voted that the proposed comp plan amendment to LIP was consistent. And the reason that they did so was because they looked at the uses in the larger surrounding area and not just those uses close to the site. And in particular, they considered the fact of the proximity of this site to Tampa International Airport and to other commercial and industrial development in the area. So let's look at the subject property. I've already described for you the location. The size of the property is 6.7 acres and it's vacant and it's in the urban service area. So it's not often that you see a vacant lot of this size in the urban service area. This is a great lot for an urban service area infill project. The reason that it is vacant is although it's been marketed by the owner for several years now, he marketed it as under the RSC 9 zoning, was not able to attract a buyer. And I've said previously that if you can't attract multifamily residential to a site of this size in this market, then you're not likely to ever attract that type of use. So we have been told by the real estate professionals that have been involved that it's just not suitable for residential development. The reason it's not suitable is take a look at the configuration of the lot. It's a long rectangular lot. It's about 330 feet in width and about 900 feet in length. That type, that configuration definitely constrains development flexibility. We've also been told by the real estate professionals that it's too small to support surface parking lot and onsite retention that would be needed for multifamily residential development. And if they move to structured parking, then it would substantially increase the construction costs and make the rents too high for this particular location so close to industrial. So another reason it's not suited for residential is it's also in a coastal high hazard area and an evacuation zone as we've heard discussed a lot in the last two years since the hurricanes that it's not appropriate to encourage more residential in this area. So another reason why residential is no longer appropriate. And I've cited for you some comp plan policies that in fact discourage increases in density in, in the coastal high hazard area. So when you look at the surrounding area, you're going to see a, that there's already a mix of commercial and industrial zoning and industrial uses. And I'm going to go ahead to the zoning map. On the north and the west boundaries, you do have the RSC 9. However, this site does not directly abut that residential. To the north is about a one and a half acre site owned by Hillsborough County and to the north of that is a drainage easement that's privately owned. On the west side, you also have another strip of land kind of underneath the red line, but between the red line and the, and the residential, you have a 20 foot wide county drainage easement. On the east side of the site across George Road, the property zone CI and the uses there are industrial and heavy commercial. You have a mini warehouse. You can see all those long containers, that's actually a mini warehouse facility. And then directly adjacent on the east, on the, on the east side of George Road, you have a paver company that has a lot of outdoor storage and large vehicles, forklifts and so forth that are stored outdoors all along that western boundary of the site on the other side of the street. And you also have auto sales on the south side. South, directly south of the site, you have a, I think it's a Thornton's gas station and convenience store. To the west of that, you have more CG zone property and, but it, you'll see that, that, I don't think I can use the cursor on this, but that facility to the, to the west is, is labeled under the, um, planning commission's maps as an industrial use. It's a small, um, manufacturing facility. You have CG along, uh, Hillsborough Avenue to the south of that. Um, that CG contains, um, some auto sales and some other retail uses. There's even a, an auto repair, small auto repair facility. All of those, those, um, intensive zoning districts are all adjacent to that same residential area. Um, south of Hillsborough Avenue, I want to point out there's quite a bit of CI down there and, um, directly south of the site on, on the south side of Hillsborough Avenue is a, a large, um, auto, uh, uh, uh, uh, car lot, um, a large auto car lot. So, um, with those mix of uses as well as a mix of zoning districts, um, we believe that the site is appropriate for, um, industrial warehouse use at this location. And, um, when you look at our PD plan, you also see that, that, that makes this proposal even, even more appropriate and more reasonable. So, um, let's take a look at the PD plan. Um, I'm gonna go ahead and put it up on the map. I want to point out to you on the right side is north. On the top of this is, is, um, is west. On the bottom is east. And on the left side of the, of the plan is south. I had to do it that way to fit it all on here. Um, but the height of the proposed, it's a hundred thousand square foot building limited to those three uses, warehouse, wholesale, and manufacturing, um, no more than a hundred thousand square feet. It is, um, gonna be forty-five feet in height, and, um, in my PowerPoint, um, I have that it was a, a .36 FAR, it's actually a .34 FAR, um, on the zoning, so that was a typo. That .34 is approximately half of the .75 FAR that's permitted under the proposed LIP comp plan category. And another interesting outcome in this proposal is that based on the traffic analysis, and this is, um, this is supported in the staff report, the proposed PD generates 1,600 fewer daily trips compared to, um, the development that could occur under the existing zoning. So this rezoning actually decreases the traffic impacts. And um, I also wanna talk about the compatibility measures, um, cause that's really the most important issue on this proposal, um, setbacks. On the north side, we have 120 feet, um, that's the, uh, on the right-hand side. On the east, which is along George Road, we have 118 feet to the building. Um, on the west, I'm sorry, on the south, we have 145 feet from the property line to the building. On the west, we have 30 feet. Why is it so small on that side? Because of our, the effort to fit all of the, um, loading dock and the parking on the, um, east side of the building away from the residential. So, um, what we ended up doing is, um, agreeing to, uh, what we, let me go back. We do need a waiver for the buffer distance on the west, not because it doesn't meet the buffer requirements, but because there's an additional two-to-one setback that's in section 6.0101 of the code that requires us to increase that buffer from 30 feet to 80 feet, because of the, um, height of 45 feet. Um, it's kind of an unusual requirement, but, um, it's, it's nonetheless required. So, we've agreed to an additional condition which provides that buffer compatibility measure on the west. I think that justifies the waiver, and I think it was also probably the basis for the county staff's recommendation of approval. And so, what we'll have on the west, we have a, a 30-foot-wide buffer type-c screening, but we'll have a masonry wall that's eight feet in height, and then we'll have two staggered rows of evergreen shade trees, which are not less than 10 feet at the time of planting. So, rather than just one row of trees, we're gonna have a double row of trees, and again, a higher wall. So, when you look at, um, when you look at the, the site from, coming from, um, Georgia Road, you have, um, 118 feet to the building. Within that area, you have the loading dock and the parking, that's where all the activity is gonna occur. Then you have the building behind that, which will shield a lot of that activity at 45 feet in height. Then beyond that, you have a 30-foot buffer area, and in that buffer area, you have a double row of 10-foot trees. And then beyond that, you're gonna have an eight-foot wall. And then beyond that, you have another 20 feet of the county drainage area, and that's before you even hit the residential. So it, we believe these compatibility measures really does, do protect and buffer the residential. In addition to that, you also have a, um, a, uh, a one-acre retention pond along the northern boundary. And then, um, keep in mind that under the Land Development Code, you do have performance standards for manufacturing. They include lighting, sound, vibration, airborne discharges, and dust standards. So all of that will be addressed. So now I'd like to go on to the Planning Commission's recommendation. Planning Commission staff's recommendation. There were two comp plan policies that the staff cited regarding compatibility with the character of the area. We believe that the Planning Commission staff did not evaluate enough of the surrounding area to determine the true character of this, of, of this area. Um, and again, this was the reason we think the Planning Commission Board itself recommended that the LIP comp plan amendment was consistent, and they overrode staff's objection in that instance too. The site is only 1,700 feet from Tampa International Airport. So when you're that close to the airport, you're gonna, um, you're gonna undergo daily impacts, um, if you're a residential use. You're gonna experience noise, you're gonna experience vibration, and you even should have safety concerns. And that's why in the comp plan you have policies that require the county to coordinate land planning outside the airport boundaries, protect the airports from development of incompatible uses like residential. Um, and when you look at the larger surrounding area, north and south of Hillsborough Avenue and around Tampa International, you're gonna see there's also a mix of heavy industrial, or light industrial and heavy commercial uses, and then there's substantial amounts of commercial and industrial comp plan categories. So here is the comp, here's the map from the, um, Planning Commission's report, this is their map, that shows the existing uses in the adjacent area. And you see the subject sites surrounded by black. Immediately on the other side of George Road, you have an industrial track. Surrounded on two and a half side, or one and a half, two and a half sides by light commercial. You have industrial just to the west of that, right up against that residential neighborhood that the Planning Commission staff is concerned about. Then you have the heavy commercial at the entrance there along Hillsborough Avenue. On the south side, you have light commercial and heavy commercial, um, uses. So you have an area that is already surrounded, um, a residential area that's already surrounded by industrial and commercial uses. And then when you look at the future land use map of the surrounding area, north and south of Hillsborough Avenue, um, you can see on the, um, on the graphic that's on the left-hand side, you can see the subject site with the yellow, with the, uh, blue arrow, um, pointing to the yellow, um, part of the subject site. You can see there's massive amounts of industrial in very close proximity that, they're also adjacent to that, uh, residential area. You also have the UMU further north and then you have, uh, CMU 12. And then when you look on, on the uses that are in the comp plan categories that are south of Hillsborough Avenue, you can see how close it is to the airport. And then you have all of those CMU and UMU comp plan categories again along the airport property and then abutting the residential area. Um, so in conclusion, um, I think you, I think it's important to note that the county staff has recommended approval with conditions. The conditions definitely provide the buffering that's necessary. And other than the planning commission staff, no other reviewing agencies and departments have objections. The PD site plan does ensure that buffering and compatibility. Our uses are limited, light industrial uses, just three uses. We have a low FAR, it should be 0.34, not 0.365, not good at math. And then, um, the PD is consistent with the character of the area when you look at the larger surrounding area. And again, the site isn't appropriate for residential. So with that, we would respectfully request your recommendation of approval. Okay. I'll ask staff the same question is, is that I think the zoning also has in its general area, like a Hillsborough Aviation Authority overlay of some kind. No, there was a Hillsborough Avenue overlay, but I wasn't aware of an aviation authority. Yeah. I think you're referring to the special public interest. Yes. Oh, yes. This is not located in that. It's not. So there's a map somewhere where it shows the cone? STI. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's actually, you have that at the end of, I think, the forms that show that, um, if you're in certain areas, you can only go up to a certain height. And if you go over that, you have to obtain the aviation authority's approval. But this is not in that cone? No. Okay. I mean, when you're talking about apartments, the thought came to mind that it was in the cone. And then there's noise issues if you live in an apartment and then there's extra costs and soundproofing apartments. Right. And maybe not in the cone, but you're still close. Yeah. I mean, the cone, I mean, the cone is more of a, my understanding is more of a safety issue, that cone, you know, it lines up with the runways. But when you're talking about noise and vibration, that's not going to stop at the cone. It's going to keep going until it, until it goes. Okay. It's, it's, you're going to feel the impacts of it. Okay. So. You can be out in Carolwood when the planes are coming and going, you, you can feel it. Right. All right. So it's not an aviation overlay. It's a Hillsborough Avenue overlay. Mm-hmm. And I, I'll ask staff the same quote. What are the, what kind of overlay requirements have to be met with the Hillsborough Avenue overlay? If you know. Sure. For the Hillsborough Avenue overlay, it has requirements for landscaping along Hillsborough Avenue, enhanced design requirements, parking lot locations to be to the side or rear. Um, and then I think interior to the vehicular use area, some increased tree plantings. Does this application have to meet the Hillsborough Avenue overlay? It. Yeah. They, um, if they were not coming in for a rezoning. Yes. And they are asking as part of this PD to not adhere to any of those requirements. Well, let me, let me also, can I explain something with regard to that? Yes. If you look on, in the, at the staff report on, um, page 9 of 14, um, it says the project will not comply with the overlay district, which requires the following, and it identifies all the different requirements, but this is what it goes on to say. The subject site is separated from Hillsborough Avenue. The, if you, I, I brought this map back up, Mr. Luce, because I wanted to show you that the convenience store on the, on just south of our site is actually owned by the same individual that owns the subject site. I almost think that, um, that it was, that it was, that the overlay was applied because of that ownership issue. Maybe I'm wrong about that. However, some of these requirements only apply if you're on Hillsborough Avenue and the site is not on Hillsborough Avenue, and they make that point in the staff report and say it's separated from Hillsborough Avenue by a commercial project. And instead fronts George Road, and then it says, the proposed use is not intended to be used by the general public, which would otherwise benefit from a project with enhanced building design and landscaping. Lastly, compliance with the required parking locations and setbacks would take place, would place activity closer to the residential, to the west. Due to these factors, staff does not object to non-compliance with the overlay district. So there's some things, some requirements in the overlay that just simply aren't applicable. And then some of the overlay, if we complied with some of the overlay requirements and put the, in fact, we had this discussion with county staff, we were going to put the, um, the, uh, the, the court, the, the, um, the parking lot and the loading dock area, they, we talked about flipping it and putting it on the west side and we said that would make it to comply with the overlay. And everyone agreed that would make it worse, not better. So that's why they didn't have an objection to that. All right. Very good. That's all the questions I have at this time. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Development Services staff. Michelle Heinrich, Development Services. Staff reviewed a rezoning request for property zone RSC 9 and CG to PD to allow for a warehousing and manufacturing use. A concurrent CPA is proposed to the LIP future land use category. Both applications will be heard at the August 13th BOCC CPA public hearing. If approved, the PD will allow 100,000 square feet, resulting in an FAR of 0.34. The site is located on the west side of George Road, north of Hillsborough Avenue, which is located in the urban service area and the Hillsborough Avenue overlay district. The surrounding area is developed with single family manufacturing and commercial uses. Existing single family residential is found to the west. To address compatibility, the project has placed the loading and activity area along the east side of the building fronting George Road. A 30-foot wide buffer with enhanced screening is proposed along the west. One PD variation is requested along the area of the southern boundary to recognize an existing cross-access point with the property to the south, which is developed with a convenience store. Proposed building height is 45 feet, which is less than the maximum of 65 feet in the standard manufacturing zoning districts. The additional setback due to building height along the west will be mitigated with enhanced screening, which would include an eight-foot high wall and double tree planings and no proposed activity between the western facade and adjacent parcel. The residential is also separated from the subject site by a 20-foot wide county owned parcel. While the site is located in the Hillsborough Avenue overlay, the site is not fronting or connecting to Hillsborough Avenue. Due to the nature of the use and parcel location relative to Hillsborough Avenue, enhanced building design is not warranted. The parcel is not abutting Hillsborough Avenue and thus required landscaping along the roadway would not be applicable. The proposed building height is five feet less than the maximum permitted in the overlay, which is 50. Lastly, required parking behind it to the site of the use would place activity closer to the single-family residential, which is why it has been reversed to not comply with the overlay standards. Based upon these factors, staff does not object to the relief from the overlay standards. Staff received no objections from reviewing agencies and finds the request approvable, subject to proposed conditions of approval and approval of the CPA. The conditions of approval regarding access points, to be clear that the site has three access points and the two northern ones are to be used by the subject site development, and the southern one is not to be used by this applicant. Correct. The southern one is the secondary access point to the convenience store. Okay. And it came onto this property because, as I mentioned earlier, it's owned by the same owner initially, you know, that's why that access point is on this property. All right. But we, because of the way that truck traffic would come in and out of the site, they're not able to use that additional access point, so it's completely separated, it's not being used. But pedestrian, bicycle access would be allowed through there. All right. Let me ask the traffic staff person, I don't know how to ask this question, but there's a driveway connection for the convenience store out to George Road, but it's not appropriate for that driveway to be used by both property owners, cross access? Yeah. In terms of access to the subject property, it is predominantly a truck traffic type of use. And so that existing access and its configuration creates certain problems with trucks to being able to maneuver that that could become a safety hazard. In that case, the conditions of approval recognize that there are three access points. One that has vehicular access serving the use on the corner, while at the same time we're retaining that pedestrian cross access there. Okay. All right. That helps. Thank you. Our engineer, Michael Yates, is here. If you have any other questions on that point. Maybe. Let me hear from planning commission staff first. Okay. Willa Mickey, planning commission staff. The subject site is in the urban service area and within the limits of the town and country community plan. The subject site is in the residential six and office commercial 20 feature latest categories. There is a pending comprehensive plan map amendment to change the future land use to light industrial planned. This request for a plan development is considered concurrent and dependent on their approval of HCCPA 2607. The analysis provided throughout the staff report is based on the pending IP future land use designation approval. The proposal raises significant compatibility concerns when evaluated within the context of the surrounding area. Single family residential uses are located immediately north and west of the site, establishing a lower density residential character along those boundaries. The proposal would introduce light industrial uses that have the potential to generate a greater level of operational activity intensity and associated external impacts than the existing residential development pattern. The proposed plan development does not adequately demonstrate compatibility with the surrounding development pattern and the proposed intensity and character of development have the potential to adversely affect adjacent residential uses. The comprehensive plan language supports light industrial uses within the LIP designation. However, considerations related to site design buffering operational characteristics and compatibility with adjacent residential development remain subject to further evaluation under the comprehensive plans compatibility policies. The proposed plan development does not meet the intent of objective 4.4 which emphasized the importance of ensuring that new development is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and protective of established community character. Although light industrial uses exist within the broader vicinity, their concentration along major transportation corridors in east of George Road helps maintain compatibility through separation and buffering. If the subject site were located east of George Road or in closer proximity to existing LIP designated properties, the proposed PD may present fewer compatibility concerns. However, given the site's location and its direct adjacency to establish single-family residential development, the introduction of light industrial uses including warehousing and wholesale distribution is inconsistent with the prevailing land use pattern and character of the surrounding area. The applicant is requesting a variance from the acquired 2-1 setback along the western property boundary. Based on the proposed building height, an 80-foot setback is required. Planning Commission staff recognizes and appreciates the applicant's efforts to mitigate potential impacts through reductions in building square footage and the provision of type C screening along the western boundary. However, absent compliance with the required 2-1 setback, the proposed building would remain in close proximity to an established residential neighborhood, thereby limiting the effectiveness of the intended transition and buffering measures. Based upon the above consideration and the following goals, objectives and policies, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed development inconsistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan. Okay. And I think the applicant covers the territory, but the status of the Comp Plan amendment? The Comprehensive Plan amendment was heard by the Planning Commission on May 11th. Staff found the amendment inconsistent and the PC Board voted consistent. So it will be going to the Board of County Commissioners with an official finding of consistent, and that is going to be, sorry, of inconsistent, wait, sorry, of consistent, and that is going to be heard on August 13th. All right, thank you. Okay. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wish to speak in support of the application? No one responding? Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? No one responding? Staff, anything further? No, sir. Okay. The applicant has an opportunity for a rebuttal? For the record, Gina Grimes. The only thing I wanted to mention was that it's not clear to me if the Planning Commission staff in their inconsistency recommendation, if they considered the additional buffering that we offered because their report was prepared pretty early, June 11th, and our discussions with county staff to negotiate that condition with the enhanced buffering didn't occur until after that. So I don't believe that they considered the enhanced buffering and the additional screening that we're providing in their recommendation. All right. Let's ask the Planning Commission staff, and you heard the question? Yes. Yes. Our staff reports are submitted June 11th, so if any conversations were had past June 11th when we filed our staff report, then the Planning Commission did not review those. Okay. So the summary is that they did not consider the... Okay. Yeah, we didn't know about them. Okay. Okay. And then last thing is I'd just like to put my PowerPoint into the record. And if I could, could I address the traffic in the three driveways? Sure. Michael's going to address that for you. Yeah. We have up the PD site plan. Okay. Good evening. Michael Yates with Palm Traffic, and I have been sworn. The question is why don't you share that driveway? Yeah. There were a number of factors related to that. If you can go back to the overhead. So you can see in that lower left corner there, that's the curved driveway. And so because of the volume related to the Thorntons and that curvature, it became very difficult to make a connection that close to the intersection of George Road. And with the volumes coming in and out of that driveway, it became an operational and safety issue. And so what we did is provide... In what way is that an operational and safety issue? So what was happening was that if you had someone turning out of... Say we made a connection there where it says existing sanitary sewer easement, those arrows, that's kind of out where we would connect. So if you had someone turning northbound onto the little curved road, and you had someone trying to turn out of our driveway, because of the curvature of that road, you would have then conflicts. But then you're also not providing enough stacking at the intersection. So the cars making the eastbound right out of the driveway would potentially block that driveway location. So because the throat depth of that driveway, the curvature of the road, and the volumes using it from Thorntons created that operational and safety issue. But what we did was provide the driveway to the north of that, the southern driveway there that you see, that meets the access connection spacing standards. And that's where the other driveway does as well. All right. Thank you. Did that answer your question fully? It did. I needed to understand why it wasn't being used and shared. We tried. That was the initial attempt. And we went through everything with the county engineer and staff in great detail, trying to figure out if there was a way to get that to work. We all just felt it was, it made us all a little uncomfortable. And that's why we did the driveway where we did. Very good. Thank you. There'd be no reason for us not to agree to it since the owner owns both sides of it. So we just weren't able to make it work. Okay. Got it. Thank you. All right. Thank you. That concludes this application. Ms. Heinrich, we're ready for the next item. Our next application is item D7, PD 26-0651. The applicant is requesting to rezone property from AR to Plain Development. James Baker with Development Services has reviewed this, and I'll present his staff findings after the applicant's presentation. Okay. The applicant, please. Good evening. Ann Pollack with Trenum Law, 200 Central Avenue in St. Pete. I represent the applicant and owner. And with me tonight are Margaret Perez and Theo Petrich with Landis Evans. So generally, this property is located along Thanatosassa Road, just east of the lake and just west of McIntosh Road. It's 14.6 acres. It's in the rural service area, and it's in the Thanatosassa Community Plan area. The future land use is Res 1, and it is surrounded by Res 1. To the west is pasture land, which was approved for a 30-unit single-family subdivision with one-acre lots. To the south is single-family residential zoned AS1. To the east is agriculture, and then further down is AS1 and CN. There's a circle K, I think, down there. To the north is rural residential and pasture land, a mix of AR and AS1. We are requesting on this 14-acre property an 11-unit single-family subdivision. The property will have access directly onto Thanatosassa Road there on the bottom. And we are providing a stub out to the west in compliance with code that requires connections to, like, every direction. But the area to the west is actually privately owned, so we cannot actually connect until we, you know, something happens in the future. Similarly, rather than putting another driveway and a big cul-de-sac going north, we've provided 10 feet on the west side that could be used to expand that driveway later and create a better connection if the property to the north ever were to be developed. But for now, we can't do anything. We are also providing 30 feet of scenic road preservation along Thanatosassa and widening and repaving McIntosh Road in accordance with the substandard road design exception. This property is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the Res 1 category and rural area policies. The Planning Commission provided a detailed report on how it's consistent, but I'm going to briefly go through that. The Res 1 intent is to designate areas for rural residential uses compatible with short-term agricultural uses, which is exactly what we're doing here. The max density allowed is 14. We're only providing 11 units, which is about .75 units per acre. Res 1 and rural residential uses are found on all sides of the property and throughout the Thanatosassa area and comparable densities nearby, which I'll get into in just a minute. Private well and septic tank will be provided, so there will be no extension of county utilities. And again, the Planning Commission found the project consistent and complementary with the land use pattern in the area. Importantly, the project is consistent with the Thanatosassa Community Plan. It provides minimum one-acre lots, which is what's required by the plan. And I think what's important is Goal 3, which gets really at what the Thanatosassa Plan is looking for, a balance of a variety of uses, including residential. It encourages agriculture, protection of property rights, and rural residential, which is what we're providing here and can be provided throughout this area. The Planning Commission also confirmed that the request meets the intent of Goal 3 and is otherwise consistent with the Thanatosassa Community Plan. We also meet the neighborhood protection policies of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly Objective 4.1 and 4.4. We meet all the land development regulations. We are not requesting any variances. We continue the transition of intensity along Thanatosassa Road. We are creating like uses similar to the large lot single-family residential that's all around this area. We are mitigating adverse impacts through our plan, our design, our transportation improvements. And again, the Planning Commission found that the addition of the single-family units to this residential area is sensitive to the existing development patterns and is compatible use. And the one-acre lot size aligns with the existing lot sizes in the area and complies with the requirements of the Thanatosassa Plan. So to get into the compatibility, if you can see here, our site is in pink. To the west, those two in blue are developments that have been approved for one-acre single-family residential. The green surrounded by yellow, that is Stone Lake Ranch, which has been approved and developed with one-and-a-half and two-acre lots. And then to the south in red is a mobile home park and also single-family residential generally there. If we zoom in on that purple box along Thanatosassa Road to the east, you can see that there is a significant amount of rural residential here in this area, particularly lots that are less than an acre-and-a-half in size. The pink, again, is the subject properties. Light blue to the west, again, is that 30-unit subdivision. The parcels in blue on this map are less than two acres and the parcels in red are less than an acre-and-a-half, and green is between those two. So you can clearly see that the project is compatible with the surrounding development in the area. We are also compatible with the nearby zoning, as you can see, and as in the county and the Planning Commission report. You've got, again, the PD with the one-acre lots to the left, similar to an AS1 zoning. You've got AS1 to the north, to the south, and a little bit further to the east. And then in light green is the AR, but you also see we've got CN here. So this is just becoming a little more intensified area, and yet what we're bringing in is rural residential that is directly compatible with all the other development that's going on here in this area. So for transportation, we received a, the notice that's like all roads practically in the county and the county is a substandard road. However, we did receive a design exception deemed approvable by the county engineer to widen and repave the notice as a road to Macintosh Road. The project will create less than 50 trips. It's, you know, practically 11. The notice as a road is level service B. And I'm sorry, this project segment is level of service B, but the standard is C, so we're above that. And widening and repaving the notice as a should be a good improvement to the community. Other projects in the area are also being required to do the same further down. So the notice as a will be able to be improved significantly. And we've heard from neighbors that they're really interested in the notice as a being improved. Again, we're providing the stub out to the west and the 10 feet to the north. The driveway to the west is privately owned. So until that becomes developed, these would not be used. However, they're there for future development. And we are providing the scenic road preservation 30 feet on the notice as a road. And that is consistent with the other developments that have recently been approved along the notice as well. This just gives you a little idea of how we are designed to be compatible with the development that was approved to the west of us. Again, we've got this driveway there that creates the disconnect, but we designed it in a way that if this ever happened, that all these projects would sort of work together and take the traffic off at the notice as a and be a nice rural residential neighborhood. The project is planned to meet local, state, and federal environmental regulations. It is not in a designated environmentally sensitive area. No wetlands on the site. Environmental services and natural resources mentioned that there are trees on the site and that we should protect them. And that would be the goal as part of this single family development to do as much as we can. So in conclusion, the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan, both the res one category and the notice as a community plan. It's consistent with the rural area and the neighborhood protection policies. It meets, again, the notice as a community plan. It is compatible with the established surrounding area and with the existing development that's there that's been approved. The planning commission found the project consistent and compatible. County staff have recommended approval and we've received no objections from any reviewing agencies. And the design exception was deemed approvable. So with that, I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you. Development Services staff. Michelle Heinrich, Development Services. Staff review the zoning request for properties zone AR to PD to allow for an 11 lot single family subdivision. The site is located on the north side of the Nonesassa Road, east of McIntosh Road, which is located in the rural service area and res one future land use category. The surrounding area is developed with residential at a density of one home per one acre and one home per five acres. Lot size and lot width will be in keeping with the AS1 zone areas. Development standards for the homes are comparable to the RSC3 zoning district, allowing a 25-foot rear and front yard and seven and a half side yards and a maximum height of 35 feet. Density will be under one unit per acre and no PD variations have been requested. Staff received no objections from reviewing agencies and finds the request approvable, subject to proposed conditions. I'm available if you have any questions. Questions? Planning Commission staff. Willamake, Planning Commission staff. The site is in the residential one feature land use category, is in the rural area and within the limits of the Tonota-Sassa Community Plan. The development pattern is rural residential in nature. The proposed rezoning to add additional large lot single family residential units complements the existing land use pattern. Therefore, the request is consistent with rural area standards under a feature land use section objective 1.2 and compatibility policies. The site is surrounded by the residential one feature land use category on all sides with agricultural rural one to five being located further west of the site. The 14.6 acre site allows for a maximum of 14 dwelling units with the proposed development on the site being 11 total single family units. The proposed use and density are consistent with the residential one category. Future land use section objective 4.4 requires new development to be compatible to the surrounding neighborhood. The addition of single family units to a residential area is sensitive to the existing development patterns and is a compatible use. Goal 3 of the Tonota-Sassa Community Plan states to provide improved yet affordable infrastructure and a balance of residential, commercial, and other land uses while maintaining the rural nature of the Tonota-Sassa area. Additionally, some strategies listed under this goal include requiring minimum lot sizes of one acre for residential development within the Res 1 category. The proposed plan development proposes lot sizes of one acre. Therefore, it is consistent with this goal. Based upon the above considerations in the following goals, objectives and policies, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan subject to the conditions proposed by the Development Services Department. Thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? I see no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? Yes, ma'am. Danielle Cambrill, 1215 West Risk Street. Any development in this area is irresponsible at minimum. The Hillsborough County has received millions of dollars in federal funding for flood recovery, and they started less than a mile away from this location at Pemberton and Baker Creek. The traffic is beyond substandard. Not only does it not have a shoulder, the street itself is falling into the lake. This is I-4 West alternative. I live one house away from 92 that is the south I-4 alternative and traffic backs up multiple times throughout the day. And tractor trailer trucks use this beyond substandard road. You can go to the HCC property in Plant City right now and go to see a study that was done over a decade ago to show the water flow that runs through the city, goes from lakes in Onestasa to the Gulf of Mexico, and it lists all of the spots that have been studied and proves that the water flows in Florida. Just imagine all of those locations have been covered up. We're going to continue to flood, and we're going to continue to have to spend more, millions of our tax-paying dollars to clean up your messes. Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Excuse me, ma'am. I need you to sign in. Good evening. Daryl Meyer, 12130 McIntosh Road, Onestasa, Florida. Lived in this area pretty much all my life. As she was saying, the traffic out there is horrible enough the way it is. The roads are substandard. The Onestasa Road has been horrible since I've been driving, you know, since I was 16. Not sure if there's ever going to be anything in the planning for resurfacing the road or redoing the roads, widening the roads. If you drive down the road, I work for a phone company, and going down that road, the speed limit is 40, 45. If you're in an oversized vehicle, like I drive a bucket truck, I was actually hit by another car swerving in my lane. All you're doing is adding more traffic. And as she was explaining earlier, too, Pemberton Creek, flooded. All that whole area, I mean, we can't afford to keep covering up our messes. You know, all it's doing is costing taxpayers more and more every year. So that's my recommendation that we do a diet. Thank you, sir. Please sign in. Good evening, board. Sorry we have to be here so late. My name is Joseph Wallauer. I live at 12601 Onestasa Road. I've been a resident there since 82. Before that, my grandparents owned the property. On the traffic, it's really bad out there. Half a mile from the Onestasa Road to the end of Windward and Old Mobile Hall Park is bumper-to-bumper whenever I-4 is backed up. Google Maps and Apple Maps have made it a freeway parking lot, our intersection, right in front of this development. They're talking about doing a little widening. They need to go all the way down to the other end of the creek, actually to Taylor Road. But that's not the only road that's insufficient around there. It's also Macintosh. It's way overdue for paving. I do not drive anymore. I ride a bicycle or walk. It is dangerous. It is very dangerous. There are six and eight-foot holes on the side of the shoulder just inches from that white line, if not in the white line. I have reported it many times, every, too often. Anyway, when the water comes down from Macintosh to the Torres Lake, it washes out the sides of the road. They come and patch it up. Three months later, water comes down the road, washes it away. I don't, anyway, that's, I did write a statement here that I'm loosely following. I have some petitions five of my neighbors have signed that are in agreement with me that our road traffic is problem number one. Our water. The wells there are in danger of being contaminated, drying up. We have a water shortage pretty much year-round now, and you guys are going to throw in all these wells. It's not going to help our problem. It's going to ask, increase our problems, exaggerate them, exaggerate, exacerbate them. So water is very critical to us. And the biggest thing that we're losing is our farmland. We're not going to get this back. It's not going to just pop up all of a sudden. When this farmland is gone, that property she's showing you was a very productive hayfield, and it fed livestock. It fed horses, it fed cows, and it's not going to do that anymore. So I'm very disappointed to see that we're losing so much of the county farmland. Affordable housing, this isn't it. This is high-end housing, and there's plenty of that on the market. Just pull up the MLS and see how much high-end housing is available. It's not affordable for the people who live around there. It's for New Yorkers, Chicago, whatever. I'm not going to beat that bush. But my next thing would be my complaint about the zoning notification that the sign was not very well displayed. I have video of this. I have video of the traffic on this from Drive. I wasn't allowed to do it. I didn't see this sign until Thursday, and of course Friday was a federal holiday, so I can't enter this video into this live session here, which is very disappointing. But I do have video on this from Drive, and I also have some links. I have a couple extra of these statements that I've been working off of, along with some of my neighbors' petitions for you to put the brakes on this, slow it down. Let us get some improvements out there. Let's get some, you know what they need out there? They're going to need fire hoses. And there's no water lines out there to put these million-dollar houses out when they start on a fire. I think there's a $124 million house that's vacant right now on the other side of the lake. I know there's a $24 million house on the other side of the lake. They're vacant. And with the issues that we have there with the water quality, the traffic, I just think that you should delay this, if not postpone it or modify it to get us some more services out there. Because we really need improvements on McIntosh, the notice house and road, we need sidewalks, we need bike lanes. There's bicycles that come around that lake for, I don't know, 40, 50 years. And they get injured, if not killed. And it's not safe. I am very scared when I ride a bike on those roads, but I have no option. It's either that or nothing. And I have been hit several times. I've curbed my cycling. And anyway, I just want you to realize that it is dangerous on the roads there. Our water quality is very susceptible to intrusion and drying up. I think that, you know, 20 years ago we had a problem with having to drop the well deeper because it went dry. And that's not going to get any better. So with that, gentlemen, I'm going to let you wrap up this meeting. But realize that I do have video here. If you ever get a chance to see it, I have some video links. I have a couple extra, basically, notifications that I didn't know about this meeting until Thursday when I got out of the hospital. I had a melanoma. I've got my chest taped up. I've got tape underneath both my arms. I'm glued together, Superman. But I didn't know about this until Thursday. And I worked quickly. And I gathered petitions from all my neighbors that aren't able to be here tonight to give their two cents. Thank you, sir. If you could turn in the petition that you have. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I also have somebody online as well. All right. We'll get to the person online in a minute. There's a person just walked up to the podium. Hi, my name is Lori Walker. I live at 13016 Country View Road in Dover, which is just about three miles east of the site. Just to reiterate what everybody said. Traffic, terrible. Just to get to the Circle K in the morning. Sometimes it takes 15 minutes. The shoulders of the road, the curves in the road. Anytime it rains, they come to fill a hole. The next time it's worse than it was. I would I would rather see less homes, but I mean, it's just something that really needs to be looked at a little bit more because there is a lot of wells that have run dry around that area. The hundred year flood plain. This area was completely underwater in certain areas. I know somebody a mile away from there that lives off of Primerton Creek and Baker Creek, and they had full blown out rivers for days. And there's still roads that are just completely gutted out from all the water that was everywhere. I mean, nobody had ever seen this before. And we might not ever see it again in our lives, but our kids might and their kids might. And that's what's important to me. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. If you could sign in. All right. And there's somebody online. Yes. Three minutes. Good evening. I'm Jolie at 10730 for Schooley Road, a part of the diverse committee. Ma'am, I'll need you to state your full name. Hold on, ma'am. I need you to state your name, your full name, please. Jolie Gaviola. Okay. Go ahead. You may proceed. I'm from one. Do you get her address? Yes. I'm a part of the diverse community. Ma'am, could you repeat your address? You're cutting in and out. It's kind of. Of course. You're a little choppy. Go ahead. Repeat your address. 10730 Schooley Road in the Notice S. Okay. Go ahead. You may proceed. Did you hear that? No. Okay. Yes. I'm a part of the. Are you having trouble hearing me? Your connection is not that good. Apparently, you're very chopped up. If I continue, hopefully it doesn't chop up. Is that okay? Is it just delayed? It's just go ahead and keep talking up. I'll try my best to understand your testimony. Yes. Along with the clerk's office. Go ahead. Yes, sir. Okay. I'm a part of the diverse community that grew up in Hillsborough County since I was one years old. And I'm here opposing application RZ-PD 26-R651. If you're from here, it should be self-explanatory why we want to throw these construction signs in the trash. You got to speak into the microphone. I think we can't even hear you either. Even if you're chopping up and you're very low. Okay. Let me get headphones. Hold on one second. Headphones. Is that better? Yes. 100% better. Okay. Oh my gosh. Okay. If you're from here, it should be self-explanatory why we want to throw these construction signs in the trash that are popping up in places that are sacred. If you want to know why we're up in arms about this idea, let's just go one by one and see what's been lost. To which some might be out of your hands, but there's grounds to why it adds up. There's grace in presentation to building zones, but the standards are decreasing. The wild span of trees at the corner of 92 and Kingsway. Each year, new kids flood the personality-shaving middle school called Burnett, getting ready for the day ahead and walking out for ready for what's next. The views surrounding make for easier reflecting and embracing, plus a cute corner store with a decent shop owner and a park before you turn into your neighborhood. For it to be turned down into a storage unit is very objectionable. Big top flea market. An event worth dressing up for and greeting other fellows. A highly respectable place that blended into the tree line. Guess what it's turned into? A humongous building designed to fit as many people as it can. One thing's for sure, it turns all of 301 that used to be dead empty into a circus show, all for one turn lane to go into the apartment. The notice has this beautiful marker that intersects Williams Road into Steffner and Tampa on the other side. Although it does have the brush of trees that make it super hard to see any oncoming cars, we're all well aware of that and are on the same page. What's built on the other side of that corner now of that peaceful land is a two-minute proximity storage unit instead of trees. I did mention how Temple Terrace is right there, right? The last dairy farm stood noble not too far from that lot. What wasn't very noble was how quick the bulldozers were parked after the sold sign and the layout of an apartment with an ironic sign that reads, low prices starting at $1,200. Ma'am? Ma'am? Eventually employees couldn't stall any longer and I'd yell. Ma'am? I'm sorry? Yes. Ma'am. It's closing a testimony. Hello? About the rezoning for 11 single family home sites. Is that the case that you want to speak to an opposition? Yes, I'm talking about the lot that's on 579 on they're not obsessed. I'm getting to that though. Yes. The lot's on 579. Yes. Okay. Eventually, employees couldn't stall any longer, and I'd yell at them coming home from work. Seriously, how many more people can we fit here? Let's just see when we keep building more apartments and storage units back to back. The only housing issue natives have is finding it within our budget. But when I saw this, it shocked me. The Thonautis' ass field are priceless because a boy and a girl can meet in the magical hallways of Burnett without realizing that right behind there was the town of where they eventually lived their dream of living together. Can you show me where he used to grow up with his friends? Ma'am, your testimony doesn't seem particularly relevant to the application that's before us. So could you try to focus? It's 30 seconds. Yeah, it's 30 seconds, and I'm done. Okay. And yes, it did grow up, but the fields. It was like all the experiences we had and all the new second chances to be had were among us as we drove by them onto our first renter's home out looking saffner. It's really sad to see now. The house is planted there, standing out like a sore thumb in the middle of those fields with a new ugly 5G tower and a fake tree disguise. It can't go on. It has to stop just like how Zephyr Hills put their foot down and made it stop. Please take this into consideration. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition? So no one responding, staff, anything further? I would just add that we did check for the notice, and all notice was done properly in terms of the newspaper, mail notice, and signage. Okay. All right. Thank you. And the applicant, an opportunity for rebuttal? I just wanted to speak to a few of the things that were raised. As part of the road improvement that we are being required to do to the notice as it does expand the road and completely repave it. So even though it is a particular area that we're requiring to do it, it should expand it pretty well to at least deal with some of the shoulder issues that the residents have suggested are problematic. And hopefully the repaving itself will create a road that lasts longer than the one that they're currently saying constantly gets potholes and all of that. This property is not in a flood zone, and so we would expect that we would not have some of the flooding issues that the neighbors referenced. The development is also required to retain all the stormwater that's put onto it, so that should not go into neighboring yards or onto the notice asses. So presumably it's incorporating any runoff that might have ordinarily runoff from this a lot onto the notice asses now, keeping it in. I did want to, yeah, lastly just mention that, reiterate that this is the right area for this development. You know, I understand that the neighbors are not interested in any further development in this area, but of the areas in this part of the county, it's an area where the development pattern is these one-acre developments, one-acre lots, and this is very similar to what's proposed and what's been there for a long time. And so we would respectfully request your support here. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, ma'am. Thanks. That concludes this application. Ms. Heinrich, are you ready to move on to the last item on tonight's agenda? Our last item is item D8, Major Mod 26-0670. The applicant is requesting a major modification of PD92-0195. Carol Ann Petal with Development Services has reviewed this, and I will present her staff findings after the applicant's presentation. Okay. Yeah. Okay, please. Good evening. Cynthia Speidel, with Barbara's Kramer, 2002 West Cleveland Street, Suite 203 in Tampa, Florida, and I have been sworn. So this property consists of about 2.6 acres along U.S. Highway 301 and Walker Road. It's south of East Fowler Avenue, and it's east of I-75. It's within the urban service area, and it's part of the Thona to Sasa Community Plan. This is the current zoning is PD for a mobile home park. The comprehensive plan, the future land use is SMU-6. We are in the urban service area, and in the Thona to Sasa Community Plan. U.S. Highway 301 is designated as a truck route, and it is located within the federally designated opportunity zone, which allocates funding and incentives to areas that are designated as in distress. So this is a redevelopment opportunity to, where's my request? Here it is. The request is for 40,000 square feet of warehousing distribution, light manufacturing. We have one variation request, and that is from code 6.0606 to reduce the buffer area from 30 feet type C to 15 feet type B, and this shows you the extent of which the variation is sought, and that is basically because it's a budding happy traveler RV park. They had a similar buffer reduction. I believe their side was for 10 feet, but we agreed with staff. We had originally asked for a reduction to 10 feet, but we worked with staff, and we have agreed to a condition to revise that to 15 feet. This is a map of the surrounding area, where you can see it's heavily converting into industrial uses. So compatibility mitigation measures, the staff report and the PD site plan have a variety of conditions and compatibility mitigation measures attached to it, including the landscape buffers, capping the height at 20 feet, FAR significantly below the .5 maximum, six foot masonry wall, and limitations to the open storage areas. Transportation, there are several conditions of approval which will require to improve Walker Road to county standards unless a design exception is requested at that time, and that is to be improved from the access point to the nearest standard roadway. There is an administrative variance that was approved to allow access to be located within, oh, there's a slight typo there, not within, within 92 feet to 174 feet of the closest access to the north. There is only one full access where that blue arrow is right there. Phonotis as a community plan, we have a consistency finding from Planning Commission and Development Services staff, and this area is generally going to be re-evaluated by the Planning Commission due to all the transitional area into light industrial. And I believe that's part of the Temple Terrace account plan. We have unanimous staff recommendations of approval with conditions, and we ask that you recommend approval to the BOCC and happy to answer any questions you may have. Other questions at this time? Development Services staff? Michelle Heinrich, Development Services. Staff reviewed a major modification request to PD92-0195, which is currently approved for a mobile home and RV park and motel. Warehousing and manufacturing uses are proposed at an intensity of 0.35 FAR. The site is located at the northeast corner of US Highway 301 and Walker Road within the urban service area and SMU-6 future land use category. The surrounding area is developed with a variety of uses, including commercial, residential, open storage, and RV park uses. The request is below the maximum FAR permitted in the future land use category, and building height has been limited to 20 feet, which is below the maximums permitted in the commercial and manufacturing standard zoning districts. Emergency open storage is proposed, which will not be located along US Highway 301 and will be screened from Walker Avenue. One PD variation is requested, which is approximately 71 feet along the northern PD boundary. This area abuts a neighboring RV parks recreational area, which is also vegetated and contains no RV spaces. Staff received no objections from reviewing agencies and finds the request approvable, subject to proposed conditions. And I'm available if you have any questions. Thank you. Planning Commission staff. Willaminky, Planning Commission staff. The site is in the Suburban Mixed Use 6 feature land use category, is in the urban service area, and is within the limits of the Tenotis Asset Community Plan. The surrounding area contains a mix of commercial and residential uses. The majority of the proposed building envelope is located along the US Highway 301 frontage, with only a limited portion of the building situated adjacent to the northern property boundary. The applicant has committed to providing the required 30-foot buffer along the northern property line, with the exception of a limited area where a variation has been requested to allow a 15-foot Type B buffer. The requested variation extends only along the portion of the northern property line abutting the building and does not apply to the area adjacent to the proposed open storage. Additionally, the buffer variation area abuts a mobile home park that is under the same ownership as the site. The variation is also consistent with a previously approved county buffer variation request associated with the industrial development located to the west of the site. Goal 4 of the Tenotis Asset Community Plan seeks to provide for commerce and jobs to protect the community identity and limit the location type and size of new businesses to fit the surrounding area. The proposed rezoning is consistent with this goal in that it facilitates an employment generating use within an area that already contains a mix of commercial development while incorporating site design and buffering measures intended to reduce potential impacts on adjacent residential properties. Based upon the above considerations and the following goals, objectives and policies, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed major modification consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan subject to the conditions proposed by the Hillsborough County Development Services Department. Thank you. At this point in time, is anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? See no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? See no one responding. Staff anything further? No, sir. Applicant an opportunity for rebuttal? No, thank you very much. Very good. With that, that concludes that application. And that concludes tonight's zoning hearing. Master hearing. We are adjourned. All right, sir. Thank you. Hey, говор-l!