because they are a threat to public health. There are many mosquito-borne illnesses that they can pass on to humans and other animals. Therefore, we want to mitigate their populations. And we're only spraying whenever we have justification, and that could come from our surveillance data or from our inspectors who go out and are looking at different larval production sites every single day. We don't have a spray schedule because everything we do is based on data that we collect. So it's based on the number of mosquitoes that we find in our traps every day. It's based on what the inspectors are finding out in the field. If they're finding a lot of breeding, they'll obviously treat then. But we don't have a set schedule because everything is based on data that we find. We don't do any individual spray requests. You can always submit a request for a spray, a request for a property inspection, or report any standing water that you have around your house. And we'll come send out an inspector. They'll come look at that area, see if it's breeding, and then based on the data that they find, we'll see if that area is eligible for treatment. But we don't do treatment based on special events. We're spraying right at sunset because dawn and dusk are the most active times for mosquitoes. So in order for our treatments to be the most effective, we obviously want to treat when the mosquitoes are most active. And we're going to be able to mitigate the population best at those times. If you could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you so much. Please have a seat. Good evening, everyone. I want to welcome you to the September 28, 2026 zoning hearing master hearing. My name is Susan Finch, and I will be presiding as the hearing master over tonight's cases. Let me start by introducing Ms. Michelle Heinrich. She is with the Development Services Department, and she will introduce other staff members who will participate in tonight's hearing, as well as go over any off the agenda changes. Ms. Heinrich. Hi, good evening, Michelle Heinrich. With the county attorney's office to my left, we had Jared Delfino. With the planning commission staff, we have Tyreek Royal. And then on the other side of the dais, we do have James Ratliff with transportation. And we do have three off the agenda items to go through before we go through the published withdrawals and continuances. OK. The first one is agenda page 9, item D2, Major Mod 26-0546. The applicant is requesting a continuance to the November 16, 2026 zoning hearing master hearing. And that is not a buy-write request, so they will need to have you make a decision on that. OK. Is the applicant here for that item? Good evening. If you could give us your name and address to start. I'm not sure your microphone is on, is it? If you press the button that has a face on it. There we go. Perfect. If you could just say that one more time. Yes, Dallas Evans, address 4522 West Village Drive in Tampa. I'm here on behalf of the owner, North Tampa Church of Christ. What had happened with this is that a communication tower developer had filed this application on behalf of the church. They were looking to install a tower on the property. During their application, the church had decided to modify some aspects of the existing PD themselves. Communication developers now decided to withdraw. But the church would like to continue with a couple modifications that they asked for. OK. And you're asking for November 16? Yes, ma'am. OK, perfect. Let me see if there's anybody else that would like to speak to the. Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak to the continuance only and not the merits of the case? This is major modification 26-0546. Anyone to speak to that? OK, then given that, we will continue major modification 26-0546 to the November 16, 2026 zoning hearing master hearing at 6 PM. Thank you so much. The next item we have is agenda page 9, item D3, PD 26-0665. Staff is requesting a continuance of this application to the October 19, 2026 ZHM hearing. And that does not require any ZHM action. OK. Let me just make sure that any. Is there anyone in the audience that is here for agenda item D3? It's rezoning 26-0665. Anyone to speak? OK, perfect. Go ahead, Ms. Heinrich. And then we have on agenda page 10, item D5, major mod 26-0970. The applicant is requesting a continuance to the November 16, 2026 ZHM hearing. OK. And that does require your approval. Perfect. Is the applicant here? Name and address, please. Good evening. Dallas Evans, Flamingo Civil Design, address 4522 West Village Drive. This application we have had in the process for a bit. This is for an indoor pickleball court. We had a design exception filed for this with transportation. Had that all worked out, had the GDP prepared. And in the last minute, we realized there's a discrepancy between the survey and the cross-section design exception. We're just asking for a continuous to be able to work that out. All right. And November 16th is the date you're requesting? Yes, ma'am. All right. Any audience or online that would like to speak to the continuance of major modification 26-0970. It's agenda item D5. All right. Seeing no one, we'll continue major modification 26-0970 to the November 16th, 2026 zoning hearing, master hearing at 6 p.m. Thank you so much. Thank you. Does that conclude the changes? That includes the op agenda and I can then go over very quickly the published withdrawals and continuances that we have for tonight. We do have three withdrawn applications. The first one being PD 26-0237. The second withdrawn application is 260283. And thirdly, the withdrawn application standard rezoning 26-1158. We do have a list of applications that are continuing to the October 19th hearing. And that would include PD 26-0801, PD 26-0802, PD 26-0957, Major Mod 26-1042, Major Mod 26-1048, PD 26-1071, PD 26-1114, PD 26-1146, Major Mod 26-1139, PD 26-1140, Major Mod 26-1141, PD 26-1146, PD 26-1156, Standard Rezoning 26-1230. And then we have two applications that are going to be continued to the November 16th hearing. That one is PD 26-0799 and Standard Rezoning 26-1287. And that concludes our continuances and withdrawals. All right, perfect. Thank you so much. Let me start by going over our procedures for tonight's hearing. Our hearing today consists of agenda items that require a public hearing by a zoning hearing master. I'll conduct a hearing on each agenda item and will file a recommendation within 15 business days following tonight's hearing. Those recommendations are then sent to the Board of County Commissioners who will make the final decision. Our hearing tonight is informal. I'll ask questions related to the scope of direct testimony. I may call and question witnesses as I deem appropriate and I will decide all questions of procedure. I'll take evidence but will exclude evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious. Evidence may be presented in written form and all testimony must be under oath. Hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain other evidence, but shall not be sufficient alone to support a finding by me unless it would be admissible over objections in a civil action. Our order of presentation today is as follows. Ms. Heinrich of the Development Services Department will make a brief introduction for each agenda item. Next we go to the applicant. The applicant and their witnesses have a total presentation time of 15 minutes. Then next we'll go back to the Development Services staff planner that was assigned the case and they will explain the county's findings regarding the application for a period of five minutes. Also true next when we go to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission also has five minutes to explain their findings of consistency with the county's comprehensive plan. We'll then turn to proponents. Anyone who would like to speak in favor of an application. Everyone combined together 15 minutes total time. Also true when we go next to opponents. Anyone who would like to speak against an application. Everyone together 15 minutes. We'll circle back to the Development Services Department to see if they have any changes or comments based on today's testimony. And then finally the applicant has the last word with five minutes for rebuttal. Regarding that time for proponents and opponents when we get to that section. I will ask for a show of hands. We have people in the room that would like to speak as well as people online. And so we will count how many people want to speak either in favor or against. And we will divide that time that 15 minutes as equally as we can. If you have a group of people that want to speak it may be more efficient to have a speaker to use that time. Otherwise we'll just divide the time and make it as fair as possible for everyone that would like to go. When you come up to the podium to speak if you could start by giving us your name and address. We are recording this hearing and we want to make sure we have your information correct. If you are in the room and you're done speaking if you could see Jennifer. Jennifer raise your hand. She's with the clerk's office and she is keeping a written log on top of the dais. So when you're done at the podium if you could just see her and sign in with your name, address and the case number to which you spoke. All right. As I mentioned we have the county attorney now who will provide the legal requirements which govern your participation at the Board of County Commissioners meeting. Mr. Delfino. Good evening. Jared Delfino, Assistant County Attorney. Tonight's public hearing is the first 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 a 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 December 8, 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 October 19, 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 meeting. 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 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 has submitted documentary evidence to the master file at least two business days prior to tonight's hearing or fourth, someone who has 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 is 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. Thank you. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. As I mentioned, all testimony must be under oath. So if you plan to speak tonight, if you could please stand, raise your right hand, and I'll swear you in. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you so much. Please have a seat. Then with that, Ms. Heinrich, we are ready to call the first case. Our first item is item B1, which is a remand application of Major Mod 26-0215. The applicant is requesting a major modification of PD 18-0296. The purpose for the remand was to allow for additional transportation information into the application for the Board to consider at their future Board meeting. For development services zoning, we do not have any changes to our previous findings, and I'm not sure if James Ratliff has anything to note or if you just need him for questions. Okay. Well, we'll let the applicant go first, and then we'll follow up and see if anybody wants to speak. Good evening. Good evening, Isabelle Albert with HAF 1000 North Ashley Drive. Just kind of hoping that James would go first. Basically, at the hearing, the Board, they asked for a remand to address an intersection near a site, and we have met with staff, and we're working on a MUFASA, and therefore, that's why they added a condition. So basically, the remand is just to add the condition number, I believe it's 14. Is this for the signal at Royal Hampton? Correct. Correct. And so, yes, it is condition 14 was added to address that. Okay. Anything else? Any other questions? No questions, but don't forget to sign in. Yes. All right. Mr. Ratliff, did you have anything you wanted to add regarding this? Nothing further. Okay. We'll go to the Planning Commission, if you had anything else. If you would like to give me a testimony, I can, but the changes did not affect Planning Commission's finding inconsistent. Perfect. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Is there anyone in the audience or online that would like to speak in favor of this application? Seeing no one. Anyone in opposition? No one. I assume, Ms. Heinrich, we're good? Yes, ma'am. All right. Ms. Albert, anything to add before I close? All right. Thank you. Then with that, we'll close the Major Modification 26-0215, the remand, and we'll go to the next case. Our next item is Item C1, Standard Rezoning 26-1295. The applicant is requesting a rezone property from RSC4 to ASC1 with restrictions. Sierra James with Development Services has reviewed this and will present staff findings after the applicant. All right. Is the applicant here? Good evening. Hello. I'm Nick Colomarino, 5519 Rawls Road. How do I get this? So this is us here in green. Can you see that? Yes, I see it. Okay. Awesome. So we're requesting to rezone this property from RSC4 to ASC1 with a voluntary restriction limiting the property to passive agriculture uses. Our plan is to reserve the property largely as open green space and establish a small seasonal UPIC farm. So like I said, that's us in green. The surrounding properties that are currently zoned for agricultural are highlighted in blue. Agricultural zoning is well-established in our neighborhood. There is agricultural zoned properties to our north, south, east, and west, including directly across from Rolls Road. Our request is not to introduce agricultural to an exclusive residential area. It's to establish a lower intense agriculture use on a property that is already surrounded by a lot of agricultural zoning. This rezoning represents a decrease in development intensity. The staff report calculates a maximum of 22 units under the existing RSC4 compared to just five under ASC1. Under existing zoning, staff estimates 443 average daily trips compared to just 45 under the proposed zoning. That's about a 90 percent reduction. And unlike residential traffic, which is year-round, and on weekdays, our activity will occur seasonally and primarily on weekends. So these are conceptual images showing two very different development patterns. Under existing zoning, the one on the left there is a maximum of 22 dwelling units. And under our proposal, the existing residence remains. Their property remains open and green with maintained rows of crops. And these are not approved plans. They're just illustrations to show the fundamental difference. Also, this property has a historical connection to Rawls Road. The house that's there today is the original lake cottage built by the Rawls family, which is the family Rawls Road is named after. In 1946, when the cottage was built, Rawls Road ended at Hutchinson Road. Then by 1980, you can see that there's agricultural rows throughout the subject property, and agricultural surrounding it. So our proposal is not just about compatibility with the area's history. It gives us an opportunity to preserve part of that history, keeping the original Rawls Cottage, maintaining the property's open character, and returning it to its agricultural use. We designed this proposal around compatibility with the surrounding homes. We voluntarily restricted the property to passive agriculture, so there's no livestock, no manufacturing, industrial, or other intense uses. I was able to speak with six property owners who share a property line with us. All six told me they supported the project, and two submitted written letters of support that are included in the record. We've also picked crops suited to a Florida's environment, mostly muscadine grapes, and we intend to use the UF Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences best practices to minimize fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticides. So the Planning Commission found it consistent. Development services found it approvable. Transportation has no objection. We're asking to reduce the potential development intensity of this property, reduce its potential traffic impact by 90 percent, preserve the original Rawls Cottage, preserve open space along Half Moon Lake, and return a historically agricultural property to its original historic use. And we believe this is a better fit for this property and for Rawls Road than maximizing the residential development that it's currently permitted today. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. I don't have any questions at this point. If you don't, don't forget to sign in. Sure. Development services. Good evening. Good evening. Sierra James with development services. The applicant is requesting to rezone from RSC 4 to ASC 1R with the following applicant proposed restriction. Agricultural uses permitted on the property shall be limited to passive agriculture as defined by the LDC. The subject site is located off Rolls Road approximately 600 feet from the Veterans Expressway. The surrounding area is occupied with residential uses with property with the property to the south being zoned ASC 1. Based on these considerations, staff find the proposed zoning approvable. Let me ask you a quick question. The gentleman proposes a UPIC operation to this agricultural use. Is that permitted under the passive agricultural definition? Yes, ma'am. It was determined that a UPIC farm would be permitted, not as a commercial operation, but a UPIC farm would be permitted with passive agriculture. Okay, perfect. Thank you. That was my only question. Thank you so much. Planning Commission. Good afternoon, Terry Grohl, Planning Commission staff. The subject property is located within the residential floor, future lane's category. The site is located in the urban service area and located within the limits of the Greater Carroll Road North Dell Community Plan. The subject site is surrounded by the residential floor, future lane use categories. The surrounding area consists of single family residential uses. The subject site is situated off Half Moon Lake. Flu policy 3.1.3 requires all new development to be compatible with the surrounding area. Additionally, neighborhood protection policies in the future land use section under objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 require new development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The rezoning is a decrease in overall development intensity and will largely accommodate agricultural uses. Based on the existing development pattern of low-density large-lot residential along Half Moon Lake and within the adjacent neighborhoods, the zoning district, which allows for the consideration of single family, suits the character of the existing area. Initially, the applicant is only proposing passive agricultural uses and not including more intense uses such as livestock and industrial uses related to agriculture. Fluid objective 5.1 and policy 5.1.6 recognizes importance of agricultural as an industry and valuable economic resource in the state of the state that Hillsborough County shall promote economic viability of agricultural activities by recognizing and providing for its unique characteristics in land use planning and land development regulation. The policy further states agricultural and agricultural related uses shall be permitted in non-rural land use categories. The rezoning from ASC1 within the residential floor feature land use with the applicant's commitment to preserve green open space and only include passive agricultural uses, aligned with its objective 5.1 and policy 5.1.6 by allowing for the opportunity for agricultural activities within a viable area within the county. Fluid objective 3.2 and 3.2.4 require community plans throughout the county to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The site is in the limits within of the Greater River and Northdale area. There are no plans or goals related to this community plan based on these considerations planning commission staff on the proposed plan development consistent with the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support? Anyone in favor? Seeing no one anyone in opposition to this request. All right well I see one hand. How many people would like to speak total? Two? Two people? Okay both of you go ahead and come forward. We'll do seven and a half minutes each but feel free to not take that long if you don't need to. Thank you. Good evening. Good evening. Uh Billy Hooven 5640 Half Moon Lake Road, Tampa. Um myself and some other members uh from the Half Moon Lake Pump and Preservation Fund that's a 501 C3 and we are charged with preserving the quality of the lake as much as we're able as residents on the lake. Um we do have a few concerns. Um one is the water supply for any potential irrigation for uh drawing from the lake uh specifically. We ask that any water that is drawn is drawn from a well or from a rain fed pond. Um secondly um the water quality as far as the vegetation we ask that there's no um um clearing filling of the lowlands and fertilizer and spraying within 150 feet of the lake shore. And then lastly um events and noise uh to in respect for everybody that lives on the lake. We ask that there is no amplified music no weddings events or uh venue rentals um at that location. All right thank you sir. Appreciate it. Don't forget to sign in. He covered most of it. Melissa Patel. I live at 15701 Willowdale Road. Um obviously you pick farm. Sounds great except for the fact of the lake. That is our biggest concern is the lake. Any type of pesticides or herbicide drifting um any spraying and how it's going to affect the neighboring houses. We all have children. It is a very tight-knit small lake. It's not large. We have a lot of kids that are constantly on that lake. They're fishing from that lake. So that is a big question is any type of potential runoff. Obviously the wedding venue the noise sound. Um I have six boys. They use the lake a lot. Everyone knows our number. If they are loud. I got to work. Please. Great. No problem. I get it. They come off the lake. It echoes even if they're not loud. Um that was a lot of the things they'll say. They're just being very quiet but it echoes. So definitely the sound the irrigation. We do have a permit to augment. Meaning we pump back into the lake when that water level level drops. So we're paying to put the money back in the lake. So that is a huge concern. Um any type of buffer zones. Are they going to have vegetation buffers to keep from the neighboring? Um I know the area used to be a lot of agriculture but since then with the lake all those zonings on the water side have actually changed. On the other side of the lake are more agriculture. So those are just the main concerns is how one it's going to affect the water and potentially any pesticides to surrounding houses. All right. Thank you so much. Thanks for coming down. All right. Seeing no one else to speak in opposition. We'll go back to development services. Ms. Heinrich if you could address the comments regarding the wedding venue and and that if that's a permitted use under this restriction. Sure that would not be permitted by right as a we do know that there's event type of facilities. However for this type of zoning the only way they would be able to have any type of event is if it was under an agritourism. But that is dealt with the property appraiser and the building department. They are the ones that check to make sure that it is being used ag buildings and there are bona fide ag use. All right. So there would be recourse to those agencies if any events or things were going on property. Yes. All right. And regarding the uh buffers and so forth there are buffers required? Um for this with the agricultural next to single family there's no required buffering and screening. You know the applicant may may choose to have things on their property line. You know fences bushes whatever but there's nothing required by zoning. All right. Perfect. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. We'll go back to the applicant who has five minutes for rebuttal. If you could address the neighbor's comments I would appreciate it. Um my first comment on the preservation fund is that I actually don't need to do that. So if this doesn't go through I want my money back. But that's a joke. But um in a serious note the the water supply is a concern and I actually was going through this process about two years ago and our first thought was we wanted to do blueberries and then looking into blueberries I found out oh you know you have to change the pH of the soil. You have to use fertilizer herbicides all the things that the neighbors were talking about they didn't want. So then I kind of abandoned the idea and then read about muscadine grapes which are native to Florida and according to the UF website they don't require like the fertilizers the herbicides and any of that. As far as like the water supply um I did have a a rebuttal on that which was you know our proposal is for something that's you know used to our climate. It uses targeted drip irrigation which is you know and the alternative this is a bunch of residential lawns up to 22 and unlike our our seasonal irrigation the uh the additional residential development is year-round water consumption and um we're definitely going to use water but there's no evidence that our proposal is going to consume more water than all the residential development that's currently permanent under the current zoning. Yeah that's it and then you know we also have a well on the property so we would supplement with that. As far as I know from the UF website the the big watering months are May and April that's when it's um the most dry and then the the summer the summer rain should handle that and then you're not supposed to water them in the fall so that the grapes sweeten up so we won't be using as much water as you know most people think so that's all I got. All right thank you so much I appreciate it. Then with that we'll close rezoning 26-1295 and go to the next case. Our next application is item C2 standard rezoning 26-1346. The applicant is requesting to rezone from RSC 6-MH to RSC 6-MH with the show business overlay. Sierra James has reviewed this for development services and will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation. Is the applicant here? Good evening. Good evening Isabelle Albert with Half 1000 North Ashley Drive. I am here representing the applicant. This is for a half acre approximately half acre site located on Shirley Road or Shirley Avenue just east of Lula Avenue and this is the site is located in Gibsonton area and it is for a request for rezoning from RSC 6-MH which is a mobile home overlay but to add also the show business overlay district on the site. Surrounding area is predominantly residential development and the code has section 3.01 addresses the show business location and we meet all those for criterias and I'm here if you have any questions. No questions at this time. Thank you so much. Development Services. Good evening. Sierra James with Development Services. The applicant is requesting to rezone the site from RSC 6-MH to RSC 6-MHSV. The subject site is located off Shirley Avenue approximately a thousand feet from South US Highway 41. The surrounding area is largely occupied by residential and show business uses. Per LDC section 30102B staff find that the request meets the following location criteria. The site is directly across from right away from an existing RSB zoning, SB overlay, or PD zoning which permits show business uses. The site is otherwise part of a grouping or connection of show business zonings or and or SB overlays. Based on these considerations, staff find the proposed zoning approvable. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Planning Commission. Hello, Tariq Grohl, Planning Commission staff. The subject site is located within the residential 6 future lanes category. The site is located within the urban service area and within the limits of the Gibson Community Plan and the South Hillsborough County Community Plan. The proposed rezoning to include a mobile home and show business overlays consistent with the uses allowed under the existing residential 6 future lanes category. The request is therefore consistent with future lane use section goal 2 and objective 2.1. For a few flu policies 4.6.2 to accommodate the special needs of show business residents including limited storage, attendant services and show business uses may be considered within the Gibson Community Plan as depicted on the map within the zoning districts that allow residential uses. The proposed rezoning aligns with these principles complements the surrounding development pattern is consistent with flu objective 4.4, objective 4.6, and its accompanying policies. Goal 4.4 of the Gibson Community Plan stateside Gibson and the county would take steps to ensure that sustainable agricultural and residential service business zone areas are protected from incompatible adjacent development and to allow conversion to other land uses only when the landowner wishes to seize farm, ranch, or RSB operations. Existing RSB surrounding zonings surround the subject site. Goal 4.4, the cultural and historic objective of the South Hillsboro plan seeks to maintain housing opportunities for all income groups. Additionally, housing policy 1.2.9 states manufacture housing and mobile homes shall be acknowledged as viable means to provide affordable housing within the county. Based upon those considerations, the goals, objections, and policies planning commission staff find the proposed rezoning consistent with the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Anyone in the room or online like to speak in support? Anyone in favor? See no one. Anyone in opposition? No one. Ms. Heinrich anything else? No ma'am. Ms. Albert anything? Okay. Then with that we'll close rezoning 2-6, Nash 1-3-4-6 and go to the next case. Our next application is item C3 standard rezoning 26-1350. The applicant is requesting to rezone property from AR to AS 0.4. Michelle Montabano has reviewed this for development services and I will relay her staff findings after the applicant's presentation. All right. Thank you so much. Is the applicant here? Good evening. Good evening. You can bring that down to you. There you go. Perfect. My name is Josephine Lauder. This is my husband Robert Lauder and we are at 0 Carleton Lake Road and this application also involves 15624 Carleton Lake Road both Wyamama, Florida. We are requesting to rezone from AR to AS 0.04 to reflect the approval of CPA 2614 of the future land use map change from AR to AS 0.04 as approved by the Board of County Commissioners on August 13th of this year. So what you're looking at right now are two properties. The one in green is the property that we just recently purchased and the property in red is the adjacent property 15624. At one point these two properties were one lot and as you can see collectively they are under 10 acres to meet the requirements of AR the AR zoning one to five and so what we found out next slide please shortly after we purchased the property the history was they were created by deed in 1996 what we had learned was that it was common in the rural service areas to be split off by deed with family and other reasons without going through a formal subdivision next slide we learned through our first step in the parcel certification zoning review that if we were to be approved for a certified parcel that this would then create a non-conforming lot situation for folio uh eight eight seven three six point zero eight zero zero after multiple conversations with both comprehensive planning and with development services staff we did come to a resolution that in order to properly sub the subdivide our first step would be to apply for a comprehensive plan amendment which we did and has recently approved and now the next step is to apply for our standard rezoning in order for those zones to match the recent approval next slide please so as i stated in the beginning we are looking to request a rezoning of the properties from AR to AS.04 and it is our understanding that under all reviewing agencies there are no objections for the rezoning thank you thank you so much this one's in the category of nothing is simple not at all yes but you did a good job explaining it so and good job sir with the slides all right thank you thank you very much all right development services please michelle heinrich development services staff reviewed a rezoning request from AR to AS 0.4 in accordance with a previously approved CPA to the AE future land use category if approved this change will allow for a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres rather than the current requirement of five acres the site is located in the rural service area and surrounding uses include low density residential and agricultural uses as the standard zoning district all development standards of the AS 0.4 zoning district will be followed staff received no objections from reviewing agencies and recommends approval thank you so much planning commission thank you terry grope planning commission staff there's a comprehensive plan amendment hgcpa 2614 that became effective september 13 2026 this map amendment amended the existing future lane use category on the site to agricultural state 1 to 2.5 please be advised that this report has been written based upon this update future lane use amendment the site is located within the rural area within the limits of the bomb in south hillsborough county community plan the subject site is in the rural area where according to objective 1.2 the future lane use section is a planning area intended to preserve agricultural activities rural character and low density development patterns the subject site is largely surrounded by agricultural rural one to five future lane use categories there's a mix of large lot single family residential and agricultural uses within the area the area embodies the intent of rural area as it is defined by objective 1.2 flu policy 3.1.3 requires all new development to be compatible with the surrounding area knowing that compatibility does not mean the same as or rather infers to the sensitivity of development proposals and maintain the character and existing development additionally the neighborhood protection policies in the future lane use section under objective 4.4 and policy 4.1 4.4.1 require new development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood the site is surrounded by single-family agricultural uses on all sides based on the applicant's request which would allow for a single-family residence to be developed on the subject site the proposed rezoning request will be in line with the existing character of the surrounding development pattern there are no applicable goals objectives or policies within the south hillsborough county plan that apply to this request and based upon those considerations planning commission staff find the proposed planning development consistent with the comprehensive plan thank you so much appreciate it is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak and support anyone in favor seeing no one anyone in opposition to this request all right Ms. Heinrich anything further no ma'am Mr. and Mrs. Lauder anything else you'd like to add all right thank you for your diligence i really appreciate it then with that we'll close rezoning 26-1350 and go to the next case our next item is item d1 pd rezoning 26-0281 the applicant is requesting a rezoned property from rsc4 to planned development i've reviewed this for development services and will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation all right good evening yeah there you go perfect go ahead justina gail forward planning and design 514 howell street dunedin florida and i'm representing the applicant the proposed pd is located on the southeast corner of livingston avenue and curry road intersection it's approximately 4.79 acres with 0.20 acres of wetlands that have been delineated the future land use category is residential 12 with existing zoning of rsc4 it is within the urban service area and it is not within a community plan area the context of the surrounding area include the general area is developed with single family residential multi-family residential and conservation areas it is approximately a half a mile south of i-275 and the cypress creek preserve is located to the east of the site the proposed request is to rezone the subject site from rsc4 to planned development to allow for the development of 56 unit multi-family project the proposed multi-family project is compatible and aligns with the zoning and land uses of the adjacent uses along livingston avenue there is multi-family development that's located to the east of the site as well as a quarter mile south of the site on both the west and east sides of livingston avenue the project is proposing a density of 11.6 units per acre which does not exceed the maximum 12 units per acre that can be considered for res 12 future land use category some of the proposed conditions include a minimum building setback of 20 feet that shall be provided along all the pd boundaries a maximum building height of 45 feet and we will comply with the two to one setback for buildings over 20 feet in that per the land development code the project's buildings buffer open space and stormwater areas shall be located where generally depicted on the site plan a 30 foot wide natural buffer shall be provided along the northern pd boundary and also a five foot wide buffer type a screening shall be provided along the northern eastern and southern pd boundaries additional setbacks and bufferings the properties to the north are developed as single-family residential there will be a minimum of a 35 foot buffer that will be provided along the northern boundary this will consist of a 35 foot natural buffer and a five foot wide type a screening the northern property is also zoned rsc3 which requires them to have a 25 foot rear yard setback the property to the east is fiddler's cove condominiums and it is developed as a multi-family residential with a density no no no not going to comment from the audience units per acre and it is also within the res 12 future land use category the ponds were strategically placed to the east of the site and also the common open space and there is wetlands provide that provide additional bufferings along the eastern boundary additionally the the subject site provides a five foot wide buffer with type a screening along the eastern and southern boundaries which exceeds the land development code the project proposes one full access connection on livingston avenue as shown on the pd site plan livingston avenue is on the corridor preservation plan as a future four-lane roadway and the developer shall preserve up to 55 feet of right away from the center line of the future roadway improvements the project site was found to generate less than 50 peak hour trips the project is not expected to produce any significant traffic impacts on the adjacent roadways the county engineer found the design exception approvable as livingston avenue is a substandard arterial roadway the developer shall make certain improvements consistent with the design exception which include a five foot wide off-site sidewalk along the east of livingston avenue from the project site to the existing sidewalk that's located to the south approximately 780 feet also the the county engineer approved found approvable the administrative variance this administrative variance will permit reduction of minimum access spacing from livingston avenue access to curry road to the north and fiddler's lane to the south such that a minimum spacing of 152 feet is permitted between the roadways and project driveway connections in conclusion um the the proposed pd is consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan and the recommendation um is for approval subject to proposed conditions thank you thank you so much don't forget to sign in development services michelle heinrich development services staff reviewed a rezoning request for a 4.79 acre property from rsc4 to pd to allow for 56 multi-family units the site is located in the urban service area and is not located within a community planning area the future land use category of the site is res12 which would allow for 12 units per acre staff notes that multi-family zoning is approved and developed to the immediate east and south of the subject site within the larger general area there is single family and multi-family at various densities and those zonings that permit 12 units or more are present to the south on both sides of livingston avenue the proposed project will be limited to a maximum of 56 units as you heard from the applicant there will be buffering along the north which would consist of a 30 foot wide natural buffer and then the required five foot buffer with type a screening and this exceeds the ldc requirement of strictly a five foot buffer with type a screening wetlands and storm waters stem water areas will provide significant distance from the eastern properties as you saw on the layout direct access will be taken from livingston avenue with no cross access points to the north south or east livingston avenue is shown on the hillsborough county corridor preservation plan is a future four-lane roadway as such right-of-way presentation along the site's frontage is required and is being provided by the applicant no pd variations to buffering and screening parking or fencing are requested staff reviewed no objections from reviewing agencies and does recommend approval subject to proposed conditions i'm available if you have any questions not at this time thank you so much planning commission thank you target royal planning commission staff the subject property is located within the residential 12 future lane use category the site is located within the urban service area and not located within the limits of a community plan the subject site is surrounded by residential 4 residential 12 and natural preservation future lane use categories those are heavy mix of single-family multi-family public cause a public institution uses the site is directly adjacent to existing multi-family development that is accessed via livingston avenue the applicant is requesting a multi-family development intend to utilize a buffer area an existing wetland area to provide additional buffering and screening from the existing residential uses to the north of the site additionally along the eastern property line the applicant is proposing soil water management area to add additional buffering between the existing multi-family development and the proposed develop development the south side of the site abuts access road adjacent to residential development and does not require any additional mitigation measures giving the existing mix of residential uses along livingston avenue coupled with the additional mitigation measures between the adjacent developments the rezoning request is consistent with all flu objectives and policies related to compatibility and neighborhood protection based upon these considerations planning commission staff finds proposed planning development consistent with the alisborough county comprehensive plan thank you thank you i appreciate it is there anyone in the audience or online that would like to speak and support anyone in favor all right is there anyone would like to speak in opposition let me see how many hands we have okay it totally is okay if everybody who wants to speak can come forward it speed it speeds it up a little bit if you don't mind so three of you have a presentation and then past the three how many people would like to speak how many do we have i see one hand is there is that it we'll have several minutes at the end okay i just want to make sure that we give everybody a fair shot so jennifer let's just do 15 minutes and then as you get at the end of your presentation of three we'll regroup and say how much time is left all right you give us your name and address please thank you thank you good evening alan vernick 2110 curry road lutes well here we are again because in 2021 the same property came before the zoning hearing master and the board of county commissioners as 20-1282 in that case the bocc voted seven to zero to retain the existing rsc4 zoning the property had an uh ras 12 future land use designation then just as it does today yet the board denied multi-family rezoning because the proposed density and development were incompatible with the surrounding area and failed to maintain its existing character so i ask what has changed future land use establishes what may be considered it does not by itself establish compatibility the board demonstrated that on this very property in 2021 this area transitions from semi-rural loots to more urban development to the south but that transition is already well established can you go to my slides please starting at the top as you move south development transitions from large residential lots to mid-sized and smaller lots to town homes and eventually apartment complexes the existing apartment communities sit on substantially larger tracks than this 4.7 acre parcel allowing greater setbacks mature trees and landscaping that help maintain the back to nature feel of loots oops today they request rezoning from rsc4 to planned development for 56 apartments up to 12 units per acre in two and three story buildings up to 45 feet tall but the application itself gives us three reasons why this increase should not be allowed first they say berms and hedges create a transition from the large lots to the north and fiddlers cove to their higher intensity three-story apartment buildings but even that transition is constrained on this 4.7 acre parcel second they seek an administrative variance to place the entrance about 152 feet from both curry road and fiddlers lane instead of the 245 foot standard third the applicant argues that it meets compatibility objective 3.1 in part by pointing to fiddlers cove as nearby multi-family development but fiddler cove does not have the physical character of a multi-family development we will have more about its actual character in a minute these are indications that this intensity simply does not fit this site instead the comprehensive plan calls for gradual transitions of intensities and densities slide one showed that such a transition already exists along this corridor this proposal would interrupt that established pattern rather than continue it the applicant was not required to submit a full transportation analysis because the project generates fewer than 50 peak hour trips but there are realities that the residents must deal with every day in the recent zoning 26-0560 case the applicant's traffic consultant analyzed available capacity and told the bocc that livingston had enough capacity for that development but barely here we don't have that same capacity analysis but the county's own transportation information shows livingston avenue operating a level of service f both north and south of this area earlier i asked what changed since 2021 one thing that changed is continued development along livingston and in pasco county adding traffic to an already congested corridor this property may be just outside the lutes community plan boundary but this entire area all the way to bears avenue has a lutes mailing address in the zip code map you can see fiddlers cove toward the top and bears avenue and bruce b downs at the bottom everyone sitting behind me will tell you regardless of the neighborhood they live in they live in lutes the reason most of us move to this area is because of the mature trees the rustic feel and the fact that we can escape the urban environment but are still close to shopping schools and work although the policies have been updated since 2021 their overall intent remains the same in 2021 the board looked at the actual density lot sizes and characters surrounding this property not simply whether higher density exists nearby and that request was for 41 multifamily townhomes the board determined that the proposed density and lot sizes were incompatible with surrounding lower density development the proposal failed to maintain the established character of the area it represented a substantial change in scale and intensity and compatibility requires considering height scale mass and bulk traffic access landscaping and architecture not simply allowable future land use density this demonstrates that our elected officials apply these policies across a broader geographic context than the very narrow application used by the applicant and planning commission staff in this case today the applicant proposes an even denser development on this same property but nothing about the site's relationship to the surrounding community has changed in a way that makes this intensity more compatible for all these reasons i respectfully ask that this zoning request be denied um i do ask that that after these people speak if we can have other people come up and get their name on the record just uh there should be enough time to do that absolutely um so i will now ask zach burke to come up and speak um about the uh about fiddler's cove and then maria elena d'amico we'll wrap things up all right just so you know there's about eight and a half minutes left okay go ahead good evening good evening my name is zachary burke uh my address is 2633 fiddlestick circle lutes florida 33559 i'm the president of fiddler's cove condominium association as alan mentioned the applicant references fiddler's cove as an example of nearby multi-family development and uses our community as part of its compatibility analysis i want to show you what fiddler's cove actually looks like although we do use condominium form of ownership our physical development pattern is detached single-family residential homes a condominium may be a form of property ownership but not the particular building type so the fact that fiddler's cove is a condominium doesn't mean that its neighborhood character is comparable to a conventional apartment or condominium complex you may or let's see so you can see from this slide perspective looking west from fiddler's lane where the proposed development would be located fiddler's cove is a 40 home residential condominium community consisting of detached single family style homes although legally organized as a condominium its physical character is that of a small low density residential neighborhood we are located at the end of fiddler's lane well removed from livingston avenue and bordered by the cypress creek nature preserve the community was developed beginning in the mid-1980s and consists of primarily of detached two-story homes with a smaller number of one-story homes as well the homes are individually owned and arranged along private roads in a neighborhood setting the photographs displayed here are representative of what residents and visitors experience when they enter our neighborhood in fiddler's cove when people drive through fiddler's cove they do not see an apartment complex they see detached homes beneath a mature tree canopy adjacent to preserved natural areas in a quiet residential setting that distinction is very important the proposed development consists of 56 apartment units in two and three-story buildings up to 45 feet tall you saw the comparison between the heights of the homes in our neighborhood and the proposed apartment buildings they will overwhelm our neighborhood and completely change the character that we have maintained for over 40 years we are also concerned about the impact this could have on reseal values throughout our neighborhood i do not believe the proposed development is compatible with fiddler's cove or the surrounding neighborhoods and i respectfully ask that you pd 26-0281 be denied and i also want to point out everybody here in red is in opposition as well so thank you so much all right good evening good evening hello my name is maria elena d'amico and i reside at 16105 darnell road in lutes um before discussing the current proposal i think a little bit of history might be important here um they did mention that the same project had been uh brought before zoning application 20-1282 um for rmc12 it was denied with the board of county commissioners at that time uh ken hagen who was our our county commissioner also promised that no three plus story buildings would be built it is in the transcript of that hearing pages 172 and 173. um the question is what has changed since then which al also brought up um this proposal isn't less intensive it wants to put 56 multi-family units in there um compatibility zach has talked about it does not fit fiddler's cove they claim that it is a condominium neighborhood with multi-family it is not at a single family family homes the bigger question that i have around this is when the proposal was first submitted in december of 2025 the survey showed approximately 49 acres of wetlands with 4.3 buildable uh acres of land there we go as you can see on here in the northeast to southeast corner all of that open space is considered wetlands a new survey was done in june of this year and this was submitted with the original application now in december suddenly in june there's a new survey submitted the wetlands has now been decreased to just 0.2 acres that's 12 600 square feet less reduction of almost 60 percent i'm not an engineer where did this wetlands go to why did it suddenly change and because in that southeast corner is where they want to put the storm drain this will impact fiddler's cove the storm drain on what was wetlands now suddenly is not wetlands will impact the community um and finally my bigger thing too is there are multiple deviations or exceptions required for this property access transportation storm water any one of them could be a deal when all of them have to be done to make this property work is it the property driving the design or the proposed density because everything has to be adjusted for this property um we plea i also please ask that the zoning is denied for this um there are 30 or 35 of us here another woman wishes to speak um but we'd like to have this all put on record thank you all right thank you all right okay if we could please not clap it just takes up the time so whoever would like to speak please come forward there's about three minutes and 15 seconds left good evening hi my name is renee glasgow i live at 2909 east 148th avenue lutes florida 33559 i live 1.1 miles below this area already it's miserable trying to exit my neighborhood trying to get across the street to turn the opposite direction you wait and you wait and you wait my neighborhood was built in 71 1971. i do not have the infrastructure in the lower area of livingston to account for more traffic in this area it's just not compatible with how many of us live there there's only one exit for many of our neighborhoods onto livingston 52 more units right above us is going to make it terrible this is a major artery for the pasco residents coming down into tampa they block our neighborhood up you cannot add more to us we are suffering already we also live on well water there's no fire hydrants in my neighborhood what am i going to do i live in the woods this is just hey let's put 52 more places that might burn us all down it just makes no sense to increase the amount of infrastructure in my neighborhood we also have a hard problem with no sidewalks below sinclair hills people have been struck walking biking pets are constantly laying dead in the road in that area adding 52 more units 56 more units however many is just going to make it harder on my community i vote no thank you ma'am for coming down i appreciate it all right who would like to who would like to put their name and address on the record is that okay if you go ahead and come forward and just put your name and address on the record and then please sign in when you're done go ahead valerie rebecki 16103 darnell road thank you so much thank you yes please sign even rebecki 16103 darnell road thank you sam allen 2643 fiddlestick uh fiddlestick circle thank you so much al mitrovich 2643 fiddlestick circle thank you karen loesch 2509 high oaks lane thank you nelson oreña 2604 cello lane lutes florida thank you so much to jeff vernick um 2110 curry road and i will say that we are one two houses away from livingston thank you for coming down appreciate it anna coleman 2609 cello lane lutes florida thank you so much sarah hassam 2606 cello lane lutes florida amy grams 2606 cello lane lutes florida 33559 thank you so much megan rathman 2604 cello lane thank you dawn newman 2503 high oaks lane lutes 33559 thank you so much nathan randall 2503 high oaks lane luce florida 33559 thank you beth beth ristano 2507 high oaks lane lutes thank you joseph ristano 2507 high oaks lane thank you sir carl brown 2002 curry road lutes 33549 thank you so much jan de camp brown 2002 curry road lutes 33549 thank you ma'am cheryl stevens 2513 high oaks lane 33549 559 33559 thank you paula britain 2507 regal oaks lane lutes florida thank you mary ellen fredo 2506 high oaks lane lutes florida thank you so much barbara garofalo 2502 high oaks lane lutes florida the traffic is horrific now i can't imagine having those building thank you for coming down appreciate it richard bodding 2635 fiddlestick circle lutes thank you sir paul spitzberg 2604 fiddlestick circle lutes florida thank you dolly maddox 2501 high oaks lane lutes florida 33559 thank you so much daniel urea 2501 high oaks lane lutes florida thank you sir kimber spitzberg 2604 fiddlestick circle lutes florida thank you very much muhammad barnes vadirani 18413 timberland tribe lutes florida thank you very much yeah ernest black 2008 curry lane thank you so much all right is that the last person we just want to make sure we have everybody all right so with that we will close the period of opposition for the hearing and we'll go to development services ms heinrich do you have any comments you'd like to make based on the testimony uh sure i can provide some background information um based on that previous rezoning uh i see that it was a request to a standard rezoning of rmc12 not a plane development which is before you tonight and it looks as if development services the planning commission and zoning hearing master recommended approval but as you heard from the um speaker that was not approved by the board and also the question in regards to epc and looking at their comments the applicant has had an official wetland delineation done and that is what they based their findings on and epc did recommend approval and that wetlands delineation is valid until july 10th 2031. so the revised uh delineation that the opposition presented that is the official one where it was there was in essence more upland acreage yes okay thank you all right does that conclude your comments yes ma'am unless you have any questions uh i don't thank you um mr ratliff if you could just confirm the transportation status and your recommendation uh yes um staff did review the application uh there was not a trans uh detailed the trip generation inside access analysis required which is consistent with our development review procedures manual for projects that generate fewer than 50 pm peak hour trips so the uh you know the application did submit what they were required to submit uh and that was reviewed uh including by the county engineer who reviewed the um the transportation related administrative reviews that are bundled in with this um regarding access spacing so and the county engineer found those two the variance and the exception approvable pending the approval of the rezoning is that correct that's correct all right thank you is there anything else you want to add uh nothing for all right thank you very much i appreciate it then with that we'll go back to the applicant who has five minutes for rebuttal justina gail forward planning and design um so as part of the conditions this um the project buildings shall be located where generally depicted on the site plan and as they are located currently there is um from the building to the north set the setback is approximately 100 feet um which is very significant and to the east from the building to the property boundary it's over 150 feet i think almost like 180 feet and we um we strategically designed the site to have more of the stormwater pond the natural buffer and the open space to create more of a buffer between the existing residential um also with the 56 units um i know we have the maximum height but the way that it is designed only um one building will be three stories the other two will be um two stories and we could make that a condition of approval as well okay thank you all right are there any other questions uh no i have no other questions thank you appreciate it then with that we'll close rezoning 26-0281 and go to the next case our next application then is item d4 major mod 26-0735 the applicant is requesting a major modification at pd18-1054. chris connor with development services will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation is the applicant here or is the applicant virtual i believe applicants are virtual you may begin speaking what's your name and address good evening uh good uh good evening uh hearing master keith polyakov here on behalf of the applicant my work address is 200 south andrews avenue in fort lauredale florida with me uh today is uh ron gaither uh from the property ownership uh guillermo from the property ownership and jeff kadems our planner um we thank you uh for your time this evening may we proceed yes go ahead okay thank you um i uh after the length of that uh last item uh we're going to be a little bit briefer uh because we come before you with uh both staff and planning commission support and we're here tonight um really based upon the fact that we're just uh modifying some of the timing on one of our our uh improvements need to be made uh by way of background uh electro america is one of the largest multi-family platforms in the country with more than 40 000 units across the united states this project was really important to them because it's really in our backyard uh closest to our north american headquarters we saw this development failing uh terribly it had stalled for years uh and we made the decision to come in and step in and and take it over when we became involved the project was in real serious distress the infrastructure was completely uh incomplete permitting issues were unresolved and the prior ownership had left both the property and the surrounding community in limbo whether or not this project would ever be uh completed so we negotiated uh the takeover and we spent nearly 51 million dollars of our own equity to put it into the property and our lender also agreed to come in and help us complete the project based upon of our historical background that we have in completing projects of this magnitude unfortunately uh taking over this project meant inheriting major problems the first 60 units were a disaster all the windows needed to be replaced uh stairwells had handrails that were disconnected the roadway improvements on lakewood and paul's drive hadn't been completed and the traffic signalization had never been properly permitted uh resulting in about six months in delay we also discovering major missing infrastructure uh unbuilt and unpermitted clubhouses requiring retaining walls uh paving deficiencies pond elevation issues and much much more the reason i'm telling you this uh hearing master is we didn't create these problems but we acted responsibly and we've come in to fix them and our commitment goes beyond just getting the certificates of occupancy we intend to complete the vision originally approved by the commission including the town square the passive community park the commercial space that will serve both the residential and surrounding community so uh completion of phase one and issuance of the certificate of occupancy that we've requested will allow us to close the financing to move into phase two so um without our intervention there's no doubt that this project would have failed we stepped in because we believe that our community deserves better and we've committed the capital and our team to finish this project so all we're doing tonight is asking for the opportunity to finish what was started uh and the necessity of these changes to the development order is really just so that our financing can continue to finish this project and co's can be issued in stages uh so that we can close out financing on on one group of apartments and then start uh the financing on the second part until phase one is completed we we truly appreciate the county's assistance in getting us this far we met with staff way before we ever closed on the property and they've been our development partner going forward so uh we agree with all the staff conditions uh and planning council conditions again we have a full presentation but we were speaking while the other item was going on and we said let's just dispense with that to give you a real quick overview and turn it over to the staff and planning council who are in support and have done wonderful presentations ron and guillermo are on the the line as well as jeff if you have any further questions of our team we're happy to answer them thank you for uh the brief the brevity and uh no questions at this time but thank you so much we'll go to development services good evening good evening chris groundlin our development services i'm here to present major modification 20 26 735 which is a modification major modification to pd18 desk 1504 uh brandon main street this request does not change the approved site plan or permitted uses it clarifies the timing of previously approved improvements including transportation upgrades access connections and the initial 8800 square feet of non-residential development the modification also restates the requirements for ground floor live work units these units may continue in permitted locations bus but must remain exclusively non-residential to maintain the intended main street building form the surrounding area includes a mix of residential commercial office and civic uses consistent with the brandon main street community planning planning area the proposed changes do not alter the physical layout intensity or design framework of the development they refine phasing and sequencing to ensure improvements are delivered in coordination with the project build out because the request maintains all approved land uses and design standards it remains compatible with the surrounding development and consistent with the planned mixed use pattern for the corridor staff recommends approval subject to the conditions in the staff report i'm available for any questions you might have none at this time thank you so much planning commission thank you tarik royal planning commission staff the subject site is located in the community mixed use 12 future lane use category it is within the urban service area within the limits of the brandon mainstream community plan the proposed mixed use development is consistent with the growth management intent of future lane use section objective 1.1 as the site is located within the urban service area and is situated within an area established with established development and access to existing infrastructure and public facilities additionally the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding development pattern and is consistent with fluid objective 3.1 and policy 3.1.3 as the proposed mix of residential and non-residential uses is reflective of the urban and suburban character of the surrounding area in august of 2026 planning commission staff determined that the initial request was inconsistent with certain goals objections and policies of unincorporated hillsborough county comprehensive plan following issuance of the staff report development servers continue the matter to allow additional time for review and discussion since that continues the applicant and development services department have engaged in several discussions regarding the outstanding issues based on those discussions and the revisions incorporated into the request the current concerns previously identified with respect to conditions 4.3 4.5 and 31 have been resolved regarding those conditions the two mixed use buildings located in block g are currently approved for live work units pursuant to construction plans approved in 2018 in meeting with the applicants they confirm that the units are intended to function as a true live work space will not you be used as home offices or otherwise converted into residential uses this commitment is essential to planning commission's finding that the proposed development remains consistent with the intended mixed use character of the project in applicable main street development standards based upon those considerations and the following goals objectives and policies planning commission staff find the proposed planning development consistent with the hillsborough county comprehensive plan thank you thank you so much appreciate it is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak and support anyone in favor seeing no one anyone in opposition to this request no one all right miss heinrich anything else nothing further all right we'll go back to the applicant you have five minutes for a rebuttal but you don't have to take thank thank you hearing master i was hoping all the people in red were going to stay to support us but i understand um i i i i i thank again planning uh council staff for giving us the time to meet with them to resolve their concerns between the two hearing dates and clearly it showed that we were able to do so so i'm thrilled to get recommendation from both bodies and we appreciate the master's uh support as we move on to the commission all right thank you thank you appreciate it so with that we'll close major modification 26-0735 and go to the next case our next application is item d6 major mod 26-1138 the applicant is requesting a major modification to pd24-0183 jared phone with development services has reviewed this and will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation all right is the applicant here good evening good evening my name is spencer lakabu with civil on demand our address is 154 36 north florida avenue tampa florida i'm a representative of the applicant i don't have a presentation but this is a major mod to a previously approved plan development which allows contractor office without open storage and they were proposing to construct a seven to eight thousand square foot enclosed storage building the major mod is for a contractor office without open storage there's a reduced florida area ratio we have an increased eastern buffer adjacent to residential and no modifications to access or right away buffering from the previously approved pd i'm happy to answer any questions and i'll turn it over to staff just a quick question as to what is currently on the site currently on the site there's a small like modular office contractor office and a barn they're going to remove the barn keep the contractor office and then just open storage for the business because i saw in the backup it was originally approved for nine thousand over nine thousand square feet of buildable area and now it's down to 20 a little more than 2100 square feet so that represents the existing modular unit it'll be the existing modular and then give them the option to i think it was like build an 800 square foot little storage structure of some sort okay perfect that was my only question thank you so much don't forget to sign in perfect development services good evening good evening jared fallen with development services uh so this is major mod 26 1138 this is a request to modify existing plan development 24-0183 by amending the permitted use from contractor's office without open storage to contractor's office with open storage with this request there's some site plan changes and some changes to the far they're reducing the far to 0.02 down from 0.09 to make way for the open storage area which is shown on the site plan to be about a size of 0.9 acres the site is adjacent to open storage and light manufacturing uses to the west and north while adjacent to residential single family to the east and south modification proposes an upgraded buffer and screening requirement to the eastern boundary increasing the buffer area from 25 to 30 feet and changing the required screening from type b to type c which includes a six foot masonry wall in addition to the modified buffer and screening the modification also restricts the hours of operation for the open storage area from 6 a.m to 7 p.m development services is finding application approval and i'm happy to answer any questions i have one question about the pd variation there's mention of it in the uh in your narrative but i don't see uh um what's required where it's located and what they're asking for so there's a couple there's the one for the eastern boundary uh there is a cross-axis easement that is proposed um and the variation is to uh basically waive the buffer and screening so to eliminate it uh where the cross-axis is um but in the meantime there will they will be required to have a fence until cross-axis is um is constructed there and what is the um buffering and screening that's required on that eastern boundary uh it is type c 30 feet okay they also are enhancing it by doing the evergreen trees every uh 20 feet rather than 30 feet i believe so you said there were two locations they're asking one was for the cross-axis or did i mishear you um hold on there is another one i believe that's only one okay yeah so that area is the eastern boundary and they're going to put in cross-axis so that's the reason to eliminate the buffering and the screening and then the additional the the 30 foot with the type c where is that located that is the eastern boundary okay yeah so just in the area of the cross-axis obviously it's not the entire boundary correct got it okay that's my only question thank you so much appreciate it planning commission thank you terry crow planning commission staff the subject site is located within a community mixed use 12 future lane use category is located within their urban service area and within the limits of the east lake orient park community plan the subject site in the urban service area were according to objective 1.1 of the future lane use section 80 percent of the county's growth is to be directed the subject sites surrounded by community mixed use 12 future lane use categories there's a heavy mix of commercial and industrial uses to the north west and south of the site with only residential uses area in the area located directly east of the site based upon the current development pattern which favors more intense commercial and industrial uses with a mixture of residential and the addition of open storage to the existing site would align with existing neighborhood additionally the applicant is proposing to enhance the buffers that are adjacent to the existing single family uses to the east and south of the site specifically the applicant is proposing to reduce the spacing of trees from 20 to 15 feet and is adding contiguous hedge that is three feet in height given the existing character of a mix of commercial and industrial uses long garden lane accompanied with enhanced buffering screening adjacent to the existing residential uses in the area the rezoning request is consistent with all flu objective policies related to compatibility and neighborhood protection the site is within the limits of the east lake orient park community plan the economic development goal of the community plan seeks to provide opportunities for business growth and jobs in the east lake orient park community while the site is not located directly within the corridors especially listed by the community plan is located near us highway 301 is currently operating as a contractor's office proposed modification will allow for the business growth and job opportunities called by called for by the community plan the major modification is consistent with the economic development goal of the east lake orient park community plan within the livable communities element based upon those considerations planning commission staff find the proposed plan development consistent with those were county cooperative plan thank you so much appreciate it is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support anyone in favor see no one anyone in opposition to this request it's go come forward is there anyone else why he's coming up go ahead come come on forward you'd like to speak anyone else okay jennifer you set the clock thank you good evening good evening good evening hi my name is juan win 405 garden lane i've seen the proposal and my major concern obviously because the structure of the road would not allow for major traffic and if we development will allow for major traffic and definitely it would be cause a deadlock because that is like a the bottle from from all the every all the residents in the area and i know because i'm i i'm in the opposite direction so i i value the development scene we came in on to 2018 and uh the the traffic was okay because the it was already the business there so we can we have to take what it is but it if we concern our concern is that if we develop and allow for more traffic uh doesn't matter what you do it would be cause a deadlock and could be created chaos for everybody so unless they can think uh extend it the or making the right way to go to 301 directly because that's where we at we have a traffic light and it's very short very short so that's a major concern i have other than that as a business to the business is not uh we cannot change anything but it's increase the traffic that definitely is that the vote that my my uh vote is obviously is a no all right thank you for coming down i really appreciate it if you could please sign in thank you thank you sir all right no one else is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition seeing no one miss heinrich anything further nothing further ma'am all right then we'll go back to the applicant who has five minutes for a rebuttal should i wait a second no you can go ahead okay go ahead um in response to that um argument we provided trip generation this is for a low density contractor office if you know in reality you could imagine their trips are going to be trucks going out in the morning it may not be all of them but to some degree and then they come back in the evening so we follow the guidelines of ite trip generation it's a very low density this is not a high intensity warehouse use where we'll have traffic large semi trucks anything of that nature um and should be consistent with what's currently approved the building is just no longer being constructed i did see there's a there's a in the report there is a decrease in the number of vehicular daily vehicular trips based on that decrease in square footage i believe so yes all right does that conclude your rebuttal that'll be it thank you so much i appreciate it then with that we'll close major modification 26-1138 and go to the last case our last item is item e1 which is a special use non-conforming use expansion request application 26-1240 the applicant is requesting an expansion for a commercial use on rsc-4 zoned property logan mccaig with development services has reviewed this and will present staff findings all right is the applicant here yes we're here yes we're here go ahead give us your name and address good okay good evening my name is paul fisher and my address is 18801 north dale mabry highway in lutes in lutes and i'm greg fisher 18801 north dale mabry highway as well in lutes three three five four eight thank you go ahead with your presentation okay you start off uh i am the applicant for su ncx 26 1240. this property has remained in the same family for decades and is a legacy property for all of us mabry rfd began operating at this location in 2012 and the lutes mail depot opened to the public in 2013. before becoming the mail depot the building housed a bait shop and a landscaping business for years we have worked to preserve and improve this property not replace the existing business or construct a new building we have worked closely with county staff and uh and revised the project in accordance with their recommendations we sincerely appreciate the professionalism and consideration shown by staff throughout the process including the accommodations that allowed a disabled veteran in our family to participate okay it's my turn i'm greg fisher how are you good thank you development services recommends approval the planning commission finds the request consistent with the comprehensive plan and elutes community plan and transportation has no objection subject to the proposed conditions of course the county recognizes the existing legal non-conforming use moving parking and circulation behind the building will improve safety and bring the property closer to the current standards the requested reduction of the southern buffer from 20 feet to zero fee is expressly included with type a screening the proposed conditions also address uh frontage restoration and corridor preservation we we accept the proposed staff conditions and respectfully request uh recommendation for approval and that's what we have all right thank you so much i appreciate it we'll go to development services good evening good evening logan mckay development services uh specialties non-conforming use expansion 26 1240. the applicant is requesting to expand um and change the approved non-conforming use uh in order to relocate the parking from the front of the property to the rear and add electric vehicle charging locations site is currently zoned rsc4 and the commercial use was determined to be a non-conforming use as part of this request the applicant is requesting a reduction in buffering and buffering screening requirements from section 60606 of the hillsborough county land development code from 20 foot type b buffering to zero foot and type a buffering along the southern property to accommodate drive aisles uh to the rear of the property the existing non-conformity was approved uh under ncu 66-0004 it approves for a 1 000 square foot commercial uh based on transportations finding the existing configuration of parking and access is non-conforming with county standards subject to the approval of this special use the relocation of parking uh locations to the rear of the property will allow a flight become the site become performing excuse me um and with said standards with says standards as well as zoning requirements under section 30106 of hillsborough county land development code with the north dale maybury parkway buff or parkway buffer area uh stack staff recommends approval on subject to conditions uh subject site will be permitted to maximum of one thousand twenty square feet of c1 district uses and electric vehicle charging stations reduction of buffering um from 20 foot type p to zero foot type a along southern boundary property subject site will uh be served and limited to one vehicular and pedestrian access in connection to north dale maybury highway subject to f dot approval existing paved areas along the frontage of the subject property including occupying um the singular access connection shall be removed and restored to appropriate typical sections subject theft approval all construction ingress and egress shall be limited to north dale maybury uh highway project access deliver developer shall include shall include a note in each site and construction plan submitted uh with which indicates the same notwithstanding anything here in shown pd or site plan on the contrary bicycle pedestrian access may be permitted anywhere along the pd boundaries uh as north dale maybury highways shown hillsborough county corridor preservation plan a future six lane roadway with two lane frontage roads on both sides of the roadway developers shall preserve a 16 foot right of way uh along this north dale maybury uh highway frontage to future improvements as displayed in the pd site plan for such uh such that the maximum of 230 foot of the right of way is preserved uh west of the existing north dale maybury highway we're available for any questions none at this time thank you so much planning commission good evening tyreek royal planning commissioner staff the subject property is located within the residential two future lane use category the site is located within the rural area and within the limits of the loose community plan the subject site within the rural area which according to objective 1.2 the future lane use section is intended to provide areas for long-term agricultural uses large lot residential uses and undeveloped natural areas there is a heavy mix of commercial residential uses with commercial uses being oriented along the eastern side of del maybury highway and the residential uses located along the western side of del maybury highway and further east of the subject site the applicant intends to orient the parking and drive aisles to the rear of the building along the eastern property line the property line and butts nearby light commercial parcel that has the area east of the site which is a as a stormwater pond and vegetation area the existing configuration provides a buffer between the commercial uses and nearby residential uses to the east of the site additionally given the existing commercial character and commercial uses along the eastern side of del maybury highway adjacent to the site the rezoning request is consistent with all flu objectives and policies related to compatibility and neighborhood protection the site is located within the limits of the loose community plan the commercial character goal the community plan desire to retain existing and encourage new commercial uses gearing to serve the daily needs of the area residents and scale and design that complements the character of the community the site is located along del maybury highway which is a major roadway within the area and the site is currently operating as the lutes mel depot which is a commercial use intended to serve residents on daily basis the request expansion under special use only affects location and type of parking on the site and therefore will not adversely impact any existing uses within the area based upon those considerations planning commission staff find the proposed plan development consistent with the hillsborough county conference plan thank you so much i appreciate it is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support anyone in favor seeing no one anyone in opposition to this request no one all right miss heinrich anything else no ma'am mr fisher you have the last word if you'd like it either mr fisher yeah i'd like to say a few things uh everybody was so helpful with helping us do this during the last number of months i don't know how they put up with me on a daily basis sometimes i sent more emails to more people at the county level than i could ever imagine i just turned 68 and i gotta tell you i've never ever been part of anything like this before but your people you people are really a lot of fun to be around so i made some friends there and whatever you decide you decide but guess what we're just trying to put in a parking lot that's all we're doing and just making it a little more safe to come in and out of our place and we've been around for uh almost 15 years we'll be there another hopefully another 15 even after i'm gone but thank you for your time and your consideration thank you sir for your kind words about staff it is true for sure all right then with that we will close special use two six dash one two four zero and adjourn the hearing thank you all for your time and testimony thank you bye-bye bye-bye