The Board of County Commissioners will make a final decision on each item at a separate public hearing, currently scheduled to be held on October the 21st, 2025 at 6 p.m. The Board of County Commissioners meeting will be held at 333 Chestnut Street in the Palm Room. The procedure for today will be as follows. Staff will make a brief presentation, not to exceed 20 minutes. The applicant will then state their case, again, not to exceed 20 minutes. We will then hear from proponents who will be given 3 minutes each, unless representing a group of 5 or more, in which case they will be given 10 minutes. Non-speakers must be present and waive their time to get the 10 minutes. We will then hear from opponents who likewise will be given 3 minutes each, unless representing a group of 5 or more, in which case they will as well receive 10 minutes. Again, non-speakers must be present and waive their time. Finally, the applicant will be given the opportunity to close, answer questions, or respond to any concerns raised by the opponents or proponents for a period of time, not to exceed 5 minutes. Before your presentation, please give your name and address for the record. All testimony will be under oath, so if you've not been sworn in already, and you plan to testify, please rise now and be sworn. Madam Clerk, I assume everyone in the room has been sworn? All right. Thank you. Also, please fill out the slip on the table and present it to the clerk before you speak. Do we have anyone online who needs to be sworn at this time? Good morning, Madam Chair. Yes, we have two people, the applicant and one proponent for one of the agenda items today. Madam Clerk? Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give the Board today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. All right. There will not be continuing rebuttal, so please try to present all information and concerns while you're at the podium. If you plan to provide letters, written comments, studies, or other documents in response to the LPA's findings and recommendations, those must be received by the zoning section 15 days prior to the Board of County Commissioners meeting in order to be included in the record that will be transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners. With that, we'll proceed into the agenda. We will now move on to Item 2, the quasi-judicial statement. Counsel? The zoning matters heard by the local planning agency are quasi-judicial in nature. Please note that only competent, substantial, fact-based testimony or evidence may be considered by the Board in deciding the matters before it. Pure speculation or opinion, not based on competent facts, cannot be legally considered by the Board. Lay testimony with fact-based support, including but not limited to meeting minutes, surveys, engineering reports, et cetera, may be considered competent and substantial evidence. Thank you very much. And now we'll move to Item 3, approval of the minutes. Board members, do we have any discussion on the minutes for August 13th, 2025? Move to approve the minutes as submitted. All right. Motion by Hamilton. Second. Second by Hendricks. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. The motion passes unanimously. We will now move into Item 4A1, FLU 25-04. And staff, is it my understanding that Items 4A1 and 2 will be heard separately? Yes, they will be heard separately. Glenn Bailey will be presenting Item 1, FLU 25-04. Good morning. Glenn Bailey, Planning Division Manager. Good to see you all again. As mentioned, this is case number FLU 2504. Subject property is 636 Gandy Boulevard, unincorporated St. Petersburg. It's about, you know, it's on the way between the interstate, well, it's below the interstate, going out towards Gandy Bridge toward Tampa there on the south side of the road. We'll see a map in a moment. The future land use map amendment request is from RU, residential urban, 8.54 acres, and commercial general, 0.4 acres to residential medium, with the entire property at 8.94 acres. Existing use is a twin city mobile home park, and the intended future use is multifamily residential. You can see the area on the left, again, you see Gandy Boulevard going, you know, going to the north of such a property. A large complex, basically to the west, is the old Derby Lanes dog racing track, surrounded by a mix of other uses, which is apartments, which is in the city of St. Petersburg, across the street. And you have some single family, just to the east, and some, basically, boat storage, boat, you know, equipment repair, things like that, to the southeast. And the map on the right, in purple, you can see is all in the city of St. Petersburg. This is almost, it's kind of like a quasi-enclave area. It's not quite an enclave, but it's surrounded by, in large part, by the city of St. Petersburg. Everything in white is unincorporated county. Existing use, twin city mobile home park, was established in the 1950s, prior to land use map, and zoning code, so it predates everything, all our rules. There's 103 mobile home spaces and three apartment units per its master plan on file, site plan on file. It's flooded heavily. You may have seen this in the news multiple times during recent storm events, particularly during Idalia and then last year during Helene. It's approximately 24 mobile home units remain occupied. I believe that number is, that was at the time you're writing of this. I think that's numbers down to around 13 is my latest understanding there. But the homes must be elevated to prevent damage during future events. They were all deemed substantially damaged, so they can't just stay there and remain as they are. And it's really infeasible to bring these structures up. They've been there so long, they would fall apart and be very expensive to do that, to be worth more than they're actually, cost more than they're actually worth. Anything also new brought in would have to be elevated as well out of the floodplain to meet current standards. Again, back in the 1950s, there were no standards. It is considered grandfathered or non-conforming to the number of residential units. The 103 approved spaces, the 64 would be maximum allowed in the current standards. And of course, again, any type of new construction that to meet today's development regulations for stormwater building, building elevation, things like that. A request over you, again, the future land use map amendment from REU and CG to RM would increase the maximum, Nancy, maximum possible number of units from 64 to 134 residential units. REU, residential urban, allows up to 7.5 units per acre. CG, the small part of CG, commercial general, does not allow residential in the coastal high hazard area, coastal storm area. RM would allow up to 15 units per acre. Again, multifamily residential proposed. There's no concept plan submitted. This would also require a zoning change. That's just separate case you're going to hear because the current zoning would not allow for multifamily residential. If you see the map of the existing future land use map on the left, you see most of it's the yellow. That's residential urban. The panhandle there to the north, it connects to Gandhi's, is red. That's commercial general. And on the right, you see the residential medium, the brownish-orange, just burn sienna color. It's what they're proposing. Again, the yellow is RU. The red is CG. That large, kind of brownish to the south is commercial recreation, the Derby Lane's property. The gray there is employment or light industrial uses. You see there's also some residential medium to the northeast there. That's all single-family homes. It's been there for decades. So that's also not forming the density. However, they're built at approximately three units per acre. Subject property entrance on the left, coming off Gandy Boulevard, going into the mobile home park, as it looked about a month ago or so. And you see on the right, it's just a view, giving you a view of the Gandy Boulevard. Just to the west there is the motel and the cell tower. You can see that. There's also a Goodwill facility there as well. Again, the current land use, RU, is 7.5 units per acre. That acreage, based on 8.5 per acre, would generate up to 64 units. And the current commercial general does not allow residential in the coastal high-hazardary or coastal storm area. Proposed RM land use would allow 15 residence units per acre, up to 134 units. Potential traffic impacts would be at 35 additional PMP power trips with the change of the approved. Just briefly, some zoning information. This RMH, residential mobile manufactured home, allows mobile homes, a single-family or detached residential only, would not allow multifamily, which would require zoning change. That's against separate standalone zoning cases, not depending on the outcome of this case here. Sometimes they are. This time, it is not. As you might guess, there's a huge flood risk on this property. It's highly vulnerable to flooding and storm surge, as we have seen. It's in the 25-year coastal floodplain. It's in the coastal hazard area. And the coastal storm area, the coastal storm area is a little broader. That applies to some of the uncorporated county. Where you may have an elevated section of CHHA that's outside CHHA, but you have to cross the CHHA basically to evacuate. We consider that all to be the coastal storm area, so a slightly larger area than CHHA. But this is actually in both, completely. It's also hurricane evacuation zone A, which all mobile homes are, but it's also in location-wise, hurricane evacuation zone A. And this is a very important policy in the comprehensive plan. It restricts redevelopment within the coastal storm area. This is verbatim coastal management policy 2.1.3, so that Pinellas County shall not approve any request to amend the future land use map to designate parcels of land within the coastal storm area. With a future land use map category that permits more than 5.0 dwelling units per gross acre. The existing RU category, as I mentioned, already permits 7.5, so it's already higher than what's allowed. But it's grandfathered in, because it's been designated that since, I believe, around 1982, somewhere around that time frame. The requested RM category is three times what is allowed by the comprehensive plan. It's pretty clear. There's no leeway here. This is what the plan says. Additional comprehensive plan directives are similar. Future land use policy 6.3.1 says limit redevelopment or development in hurricane velocity zones and flood prone areas, which this is, and Coastal Management Policy 2.1.4, restrict public infrastructure expenditures and subsidized redevelopment in the coastal storm area. This is actually also based on Florida statutes. Some storm waters, always concerned places like this. Existing infrastructure in the area performs poorly during rain events, not only on subject property but the surrounding area as well. It's unknown how it can effectively be utilized with increased impervious area. It kind of goes back to that Coastal Management Policy 2.1.4 above, restricting public infrastructure expenditures that subsidize redevelopment in the coastal storm area. This redevelopment must meet, again, stormwater management requirements and floodplain mitigation in today's standards. Density increase alternatives. Are there other ways to get more density out there other than changing future land use map? The normal way would be affordable housing density bonus per the Penelope County Code. It's not eligible due to its location in the coastal hazard area, coastal storm area. The conference plan, the land development code does not allow density bonuses in the coastal storm area. And the applicant has not as yet indicated, to my knowledge, an intent to provide affordable housing. Also, you might have heard of the Live Local Act, Florida statutes, it's not eligible in this case because it must be zoned commercial, industrial, mixed use, zoned residential. And there is another option that seems to be viable. It's the gray water reuse system density bonus. This is in Florida statutes put in place a few years ago where it would provide a 35% density bonus if all units connect and utilize a gray water reuse water use system. So, you know, it's a good thing in that regard. It saves water. It would allow up to 86 residential units under existing RU category. Applicants were advised of this option but decided to pursue this future land map amendment instead. But it's still an option. Another thing that pertains to this case is the fact that it's a mobile home, mobile home parks being basically removed. Mobile home transition programs are requirements from the Florida statutes in the county code. It requires that there are adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities and that they must exist for the relocation of mobile home residents. And the mobile home park owners have worked, have worked closely with the county relocate residents. And 51 residents have, at the time of this riding, had applied for assistance. 42 were approved and 9 were pending. So, it's been pretty successful in that regard. But citing poor home conditions and unpaid rents, park owners intend to use evictions and condemnations. These structures, again, are substantially damaged. They can't be lived in to remove any remaining residents if necessary. And again, I believe that number is down to 13. So, I'm there. It's pretty low. It's a recommendation of proposed land use amendments from RUNCG to RM. It's simply prohibited by the Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan. You cannot increase density above five units per acre. In CSA, the request is three times that. The comprehensive plan also directs population concentrations outside of storm vulnerable areas. And Florida statutes require consistency with the adopted comprehensive plan. Another option, as I mentioned, is available to increase density. The gray water density bonus would allow 22 additional units, which is equivalent of 9.6 units per acre. Importantly, if it was changed to RM, that would also be an option to apply at that time, which would get up to 181 units at 20.3 units per acre. Staff recommends denial. And as the Chair said, the Board of County Commissioners public hearing is slated for October 20th. All right. Board members, do you have any questions for staff? All right. Seeing none, we'll hear from the applicant. Thank you, Chair and Board members. My name is Todd Prisman, 200 2nd Avenue South, number 451 in St. Petersburg. Pleasure to be here today. I'd like to begin with a very important point, which is one of the first pages from the Comprehensive Plan of the County. And the purpose of that section is to instruct how to use the Comprehensive Plan. This is on page two or three of the Comp Plan. And I've highlighted to you that it notes that it reflects a holistic approach. That when implementing the goals, objectives, and policies and strategies of this plan, consideration should support the vision framed by the guiding principles and recognize the interrelationship of the different issues and what each is trying to achieve. So those guiding principles include a wide range of elements. Sustainable future, a healthy community, strong local economy, housing options, multimodal transportation, natural resource, best practices, et cetera. The point is that the review of the plan is not just one specific policy. It's the interrelationship of all the policies. And I will tell you that there are a large number of policies that do support what's proposed here today. So with that, if I can go to the PowerPoint, please. Let me also say just process-wise, Chair and Board, that I'm required to submit the PowerPoint about a week in advance. And then it was decided or I was told later in the week, it's not a complaint or anyone's fault, that these were going to be reviewed separately. So I'm going to have to cherry pick a little bit on the PowerPoint just to make you aware. Again, no one's fault. It's just the way things had to be done in a process and submitted to the county. So we are looking at future land use 2504 and, of course, zoning is the next issue. As Mr. Bailey has indicated, the future land use item is not recommended by the staff. But I will make you aware that the zoning issue that comes up next is recommended and supported by the staff. So as Glenn has shown you some photos, and for some reason it's not showing here, this site dates back as a mobile home park in 1954. It's a 103-unit mobile home park for apartments. And basically, if we could be on the PowerPoint, please. It's up. We can see it on our screen. Okay, thank you. It's all done. Thank you. So very important and critically, we, of course, would intend to meet flood elevation, meaning building strength and all the requirements of hurricanes and storms. We would be adding stormwater where there are none, and we are seeking to increase the density. And here's an important point made by Lisa Foster, and there are a number of articles in the paper about this site, which has had tremendous difficulties that you've seen, is that the owner is being ordered to elevate their homes. And Pinellas County flood manager, Lisa Foster, says it's a requirement that the county must follow as it participates in national flood insurance program. That's exactly what we will be doing. That's exactly what will have to be done. Glenn's indicated the support to you or the location to you, which is on Gandy, just before you go over the bridge. This is a little closer view of it. Here's an aerial you can see at a time when all the units were there. As Glenn indicated, it's a goodwill to the west. There's a small motel apartments to the north, the cell tower, car wash strip center, and single family on the east. We have looked at some concept plans just to get a rough idea of what would be required, and you can see the substantial stormwater pond that would be required, which again, there is nothing of any substance or ability to control stormwaters at this point. Current zoning is RMH, which is residential mobile home manufactured home. Proposed zoning would be RM, which would allow the multifamily. Currently, future land uses indicated by the staff is RU and CG, which allows 7.5 units. What we're seeking is RM, which would be 133 total units. So it's an increase of 103 units now to 133 units, which is 33 new units proposed. And to place emphasis here because we looked at this very closely. We really had to make some decisions on what we could ask, what we think we should ask. And what you're looking at is that these are the different jump categories, the future land use categories. So residential urban would be 64 units. Residential low would be 88. We're proposing the residential medium, which is 133. There's one category higher that would allow 266. We thought that was too many, too high density. We didn't choose to do that. We tried to choose a level of the jump categories that fit best. Now, when you look at the surrounding land use categories, the site here indicated is seeking RM. So we have RM to the east, RM, RM. But as Glenn indicated, most of the area surrounding is under the jurisdiction of the city of St. Petersburg. So when you see that we're proposed at 15 units per acre, you can see all along Gandy that the density is already much higher than what we're even asking for. So in terms of a compatibility or in terms of what's occurring in the immediate area under the other jurisdiction, which is abutting and adjacent and close by, it's much higher already. We would be below what the status quo is. And this would be looking at the city of St. Pete zoning, which, of course, as you all know, is reflective of future land use category. But again, you can see that it reflects to a much higher density level than what we're proposing. And you've seen some of the pictures. The site is in disrepair. The homes have been impacted and damaged. And as Glenn said, which I think speaks to the owners, is that they've worked very closely with the county under the mobile home replacement rules and regulations. They've been working hand in hand. I'm told that they speak with the county once a week. That's been a process where the county actually provides some monies to the residents. And that's a transition that's been going on. But let's look at other comp plan policies, which balance or are part of the holistic or part of the interrelationship of all the policies. This is housing policy under comprehensive plan 1.2.1.2. Support the preservation or redevelopment of manufactured home communities that meet or exceed required standards. We would obviously at the site have to meet and exceed requirements in terms of storm strengthening, hurricane, and all those elements. Policy 1.3.6. Create manufactured home strategic plan, which at a minimum should consider the enhancement or redevelopment opportunities, which is exactly what we're doing. We're trying to bring this to a credible, viable level in terms of the enhancement or redevelopment of a site that is obviously in great disrepair and in trouble. Policy 1.1. Promote programs and funding opportunities for weatherization and or hardening, which clearly would be happening here. Switching gears, I think it's important for you to know that under Forward Pinellas, which, of course, as you all will know, is the next board that would review this and provide direction and policy for the county, has a balancing criteria, which enables the Board of County Commissioners as the countywide planning authority to balance these issues to be able to move forward with changes like we're proposing. So they note under Section 4.2.7, Coastal High Hazard, that the county commissioners at their sole and absolute discretion can consider approving amendment based upon a balancing of the following criteria, which is the balancing of storm impact areas and ability to develop into a density or a better density or a better product use. Objective 6.3 is encourage increased development, resiliency, minimization, impacts of sea level rise, major storm events, and hazards. Require development to comply or exceed with national flood insurance program or county floodplain management standards, which, of course, we would. Coordinate with the county departments to integrate resiliency strategies. And specific to the balancing criteria, we reviewed this with a private planner, Patricia Hortiz, who's an AICP planner. She provided responses to this balancing criteria. The first would be access to emergency shelter space. And she indicates as a private planner, AICP, that the addition of 33 dwelling units does not substantially increase the population and will have no significant increase in demand for emergency shelter space. In fact, we've learned, as she's noted, that less than 1.5% of the countywide population utilized public shelter space during the last two events last year. There's a very low population that actually seeks the shelters out. She knows the site is well positioned for evacuation to the north and to Pasco County and east and to Hillsborough County for different evacuation routes, which she's reviewed and approved or indicated provide clear and unfettered evacuation routes both to the north and to the east. Utilization of the existing infrastructure, that the areas, the natural areas are not disturbed. Maintenance of scenic quality and improvement of public access to water is no impact, again, on scenic qualities. This is not a water-dependent use. Part of the community redevelopment plan is not located in the community redevelopment plan. And overall reduction of density or intensity is part of the balancing, whether it's going to be increased or decreased. The result amendment would result in an increase in a single parcel in concert with the amendments which result in overall reduction or potential intensity in the CHHA. There's other criteria in terms of Florida Building Code and meeting the Florida Building Code, which they would, and provide more hurricane resistance. Clustering of uses, which this is not particularly a site that would be clustered. This, again, is an element switching gears about Lisa Foster, who's the floodplain manager, again, saying that the regulations to ensure repeated damage structures that are deemed substantially damaged are brought into compliance, which is, of course, again, the direction that we're following and moving towards. She notes it's important we get these folks in the safe structures. It's going to reduce our response needs, reduce those rescues and financial challenges that are associated. So all those issues in the past will go away and will meet today's standards. So, again, looking at future objectives 6.3, one of the comp plan policies, encourage increased development of resiliency, minimization of major storm events and hazards, require redevelopment to comply with or exceed national flood insurance program and county floodplain management, and support the preservation or redevelopment of manufacturing home communities that meet or exceed required standards. Outside of the PowerPoint, a few points that I would like to make is that, again, as our engineer looked at the site, he has indicated and communicated to us that the proposed stormwater system will be designed to meet the most current regulations where there are no current stormwater management systems in place. He was also, we were also a little bit confused about, and the staff report refers to the current stormwater infrastructure, which, quite frankly, again, we're looking at providing that in the site versus depending upon some other stormwater system. Mr. Bailey and the staff referred to graywater systems. Now, graywater systems are those systems that use unclean water but not, I should say, not damaging type water. So it's water that's recovered from washing machines and other uses in the home like sink uses that are clean enough to use for irrigation. And the state has allowed an increased density of these graywater systems. The graywater systems, as we've looked at them, are not real good. They're expensive, number one. Number two, there are health risks for pathogen exposure. Graywater can contain bacteria, viruses, or other parasites. It can cause soil and plant damage. And the system has to be continually maintained and has easy failures. And if it isn't maintained by individual residents and fails, then all of those pathogens and those type of elements can become very prevalent. So graywater systems, while they offer a higher density, are not a great route that we've reviewed for residential uses, particularly in a large multifamily building. So with that, Chair and Board members, we appreciate the staff's report. We appreciate the review of the land use amendment, which they're recommending in Iowa. We appreciate the review of the zoning, which you'll see next, which is a recommendation support. We're happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. All right. Board members, do you have any questions for the applicant? Madam Chair. I'm going to have Board Member Hendricks and then Board Member Larry Johnson. Thank you. Curious. Will these be rental units or will they be condominiums? Currently proposed as rental units. Okay. Good enough. Thank you. Larry Johnson. Are you recommending the replacement of these units with similar but, of course, upgraded manufactured homes that will be raised above the level of the ground by how many feet? This is proposed as a multifamily, so it would be multifamily attached. So it would be a single structure, which would have multifamily units such as like an apartment building. Okay. And it would be, of course, as I've said many times, it would be raised and meeting all requirements for stormwater, hurricane, and evacuation. Would there be one building or multiple buildings? I guess it could be multiple, but I don't think the site lends itself to that. And the current plans that we've looked at conceptually would be one building. And, again, these would be condominiums that would be for sale or rent? I'm sorry. Officially it's multifamily, so it could take a couple of different forms, but it's proposed as apartments or rental units today. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Board Member Hamilton. I know this isn't necessarily part of it, but when I went down and looked at this property, my concern is the access in and out of the property is very, very narrow, very limited. I don't know if there's anything they can do. I mean, you look at the map, there's a small motel, you know, to the west of it. And I don't know if these owners have considered trying to acquire that as well to kind of give them better ingress and egress. I don't know. It's an odd piece of property, but, I mean, we allow housing. We do allow housing in, you know, flood areas, but it has, you know, has to meet the code. And the increase in number of units versus what was there as mobile homes to what this proposal is, it's not ridiculous. So there's a lot of things to weigh. But that was one of my things, just the very narrow entrance. I mean, I went down there and I almost missed it. And I was going pretty slow and the guy behind me wasn't real happy about it. But that was just something I noticed. Any other questions from the board for the applicant? Okay. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Board Member. All right. At this time, we will hear from any proponents who wish, any persons from the public who wish to speak in support of the application. Seeing none in the room, do we have any online? No participants for this one online. All right. And do we have anyone in the room who wishes to speak in opposition to the application? All right. Seeing none and I assume we still have none online. Correct. All right. Mr. Pressman, do you wish to give any final remarks? Just very quickly, the only final remark I'll make again is I think it's critical that the board, with all due respect, consider the wide range of comp plan policies and as well the balancing criteria, which is the intent of the county to allow a density increase balancing those elements. Thank you. Thank you. Board members, any final remarks? I have a question for staff or county. Board Member Catalda. My question is a few months back, there was some mention. One mention of elevating the Gandy, extending the highway, things like that. Is there anything that's going to tie this into that or is there anything on the... Not that I'm aware of. Okay. Have you heard anything, Michael? No. I have not heard. If I may, I want to address the balancing criteria issue and that is, you know, there's a separate county-wide plan that's the umbrella that all jurisdictions in the county have to abide by. We have to abide by the standards in that plan, but we don't, we can be more restrictive if we want to be. So there is a county-wide plan provision in the county plan that says nothing in these county-wide rules should be construed or applied to preclude a local government, which is unaccorded county, which jurisdiction from having requirements in the coastal hazard area that are more restrictive than the terms sent forth herein. So St. Pete might do the balancing criteria, but the unaccorded county does not. There is, really, this policy is strongly worded as ones we have. It says shall not. There is no balancing of shall not. State is simply shall not increase density or approve, designate parts of the land within a CSA with a fluent category, permits more than five dwelling units per gross acre. It's never happened before. It would set a precedent. Okay. Board Member Hendricks. I think this area and Florida in general has exploded so fast over the past few years that our ordinances have not kept up. And I think that's probably the case here. We've got a lot of land in this county that has changed as far as usage goes because the flood maps have changed. And we're talking about the mobile homes being pushed in onto higher ground. Well, that's taking up spaces for people that are wanting to do something like this. Gandy is a great area for an apartment complex for use both by Pinellas and Hillsborough County because of its location by the Gandy. And again, we talk about affordable housing. We've got to look at that as this area grows and grows and grows. Yet we're being more and more restricted by land use maps because of the flood zone. So those are some points I wanted to make that we've, one, we need to, and I say this with all due respect because I know how hard it is. I've gone through it myself, but we need to get ordinances updated to where we're not running into this time and time again as this county is growing population wise. And I think this would be good for the community. All right. Thank you, Board Member Hendricks. Any other board members have any questions or remarks? Okay, Board Member Hamilton. My final remark would be, and I appreciate the county's position and, you know, the possibility of establishing a uncharted territory, but there is, this is not, they're not bringing, asking to bring in residential units into an area that doesn't have any. There is residential in the area. There's residential to the southeast that's on the water, much, much closer to the water. And it is, you know, they're really fairly nice units. To me, it's all, it's about building to code. And, you know, they're going to have to elevate this thing to whatever the code is. I know it's probably 12, 10, 12 feet above, you know, high water. So, you know, as long as it's elevated, you're taking the flood risk away. And, as was, Member Hendricks said, location, location, location on this is very good given the proximity to major, major roadways to get to Hillsborough County and throughout Pinellas County. So, it's, it's not a bad idea to have apartments on this, on this property in my, in my opinion. All right. Madam Chair. Mary Johnson. Uh, question for staff. Um, in the, um, the past two storms that you referred to that created the flooding issue, um, and also the fact that the Derby Lane property has been looked at for a redevelopment as well, but has been, that has not been redeveloped because of potential flooding and other issues. Can you, um, can you just give some insight into that whole area as far as I, you know, I would, I would agree that there's been quite a bit of development there, but. Yeah. Has that been done despite what we have on the books? Not in the unincorporated county. It's happened in the city of St. Petersburg. They have different criteria, have different standards, and they could annex in the St. Petersburg if they wanted to. They're right next to it. They're not, they can do that and build under their standards. Our, the unincorporated county standards does not allow this. Um, the Derby Lanes is unincorporated. Um, I don't know what they're going to do with their redevelopment. I know it's sold. Yeah, Derby Lane has new owners. Um, they haven't decided what they wanted to do with that property yet. But they would, they're unincorporated as well? Yes. So it would be facing the same criteria we heard today? For now. It's a different zoning. They're commercial zoned, so there's different parameters there. So, uh, uh, just an opinion, I mean, I think having seen what happened during the storms, having, um, experienced, I think all of us, what is happening on a regular basis, even just with heavy rain and so on in situations like this in low lying areas. Um, maybe we need to learn from our mistakes and not continue to develop in places like this. Maybe this is an opportunity for us to, um, to set a standard that, you know, or, uh, or rely upon the standard that exists already in the comprehensive plan to maybe use this land as wetlands or, you know, I'm, I'm, I'm kind of flailing here because I don't know what you could do with it if you didn't put an apartment complex on it. You could put an apartment complex in there with 64 units. Or if they use the ability to use a gray water system, which others have, um, not so many in this county yet, but I know they've had use around the state. You could get more units up to almost 10 units an acre. So there's opportunities there. It's been used in the county. It has been used in the county. We've had use for affordable housing development. Okay. We've had a... I mean, so yeah, we would support redevelopment of this property. We cannot be what it is now, but it, you know, at the appropriate density that's allowed by the comprehensive plan is what we would support. And that's why we, and Mike will talk about the zoning case, but that's a whole different question about what type of redevelopment goes in there. We're talking about the amount right now. So it's not yes or no, but it's how much? Correct. How large? We support 64 units. That's what's allowed there now. And we would support redevelopment of this property. All those policies you mentioned would apply either way. You've got to raise it up either way. Thank you for that clarification. Every one of those policies mentioned would apply to both. All right, board members, any other questions for staff? A few. All right. I guess the first thing I want to understand, and this might be a little bit outside of planning, so I apologize, but this is going to be developed as an apartment. So for a gray water system, would that be individual gray water systems tied into the landscape? Or is that like a central system with apartments? It's a central system that's, you know, hooked into each unit, but then they're central. It's, you know, when it's a building like that out in a higher rise, they have a central collection. Yeah. And that's used for the purposes. Okay. In apartments, it's not like they're watering individual lawns, I don't think. Take me back to those balancing factors. Can we put those up on the screen real quick? I think it was from the countywide plan. Can we get that somewhere? It was in Mr. Pressman's PowerPoint. Just get the raw policy. Because I was trying to remember whose discretion to do that balancing act. Oh. Who possesses the discretion? That discretion is with the individual jurisdiction that wants to apply those criteria. Non-incorporated county has not done so. So St. Petersburg, for example, they probably, I'm not sure. No. But it seems like maybe they apply the balancing criteria. That would be up to them. And then the overarching thing, he's talking about the countywide planning authority. Yeah. Any jurisdiction, non-incorporated county, St. Petersburg, whatever, changes the countywide, overall countywide map, future land use map. Not the non-incorporated map, but the overall countywide map. The countywide planning authority is the ultimate decision maker there. So at that time is when they would apply the balancing criteria. Not under the unincorporated changes. Yeah. If you go to the criteria, you'll try. I was trying to see who, what body even has within the county would have that discretion. If that would be the board of county commissioners, I assume. If the board wanted to adopt those policies in the conference plan, they could do so. Okay. But they have not. So it hasn't. We've had this policy since at least 2008, maybe before. The balance of criteria's came after, and they have not been decided to change in the unincorporated county. Let's see. Did I pass them, Michael? That's it. Let's see. Fort Pinellas and CPA, countywide planning authority. It's when the board of county commissioners acts as countywide planning authority. They make decisions on the countywide plan, not the unincorporated plan. When they make decisions on an unincorporated plan, they're sitting as a board of county commissioners. Okay. So this exists in the countywide plan? Yes. To use this in unincorporated county, they would have to bring it into our comprehensive plan? Correct. Am I on the right track? They would have to. Kind of. Okay. We have the countywide provision that Mr. Pressman highlighted, but then when you go to the county plan, there's an absolute prohibition. The county plan says Pinellas County should not approve any request to amend the future land use maps to designate parcels of land within the CSA with a flung category that permits more than 5.0 dwelling units per gross acre. And what Mr. Pressman proposes opens the county to suit under 163 of the Florida statutes because we would be directly violating the comprehensive plan. I mean, there's not a balancing test involved here because we have a direct prohibition that exists in the county plan as opposed to the countywide plan. And usually, you know, if you're trying to balance or look at different policies, you do that if there's a conflict or an ambiguity. But in this place, as we go from the larger countywide plan down to the local plan, the local plan is very explicit. And, you know, the board would have to figure out what they wanted to do with their county plan. And if they don't do anything, you know, if anybody wants to challenge that decision, it wouldn't be a particularly winning case for the county if they were to move forward because it's a direct violation of the local plan. Comp plan allows the local plan to be more restrictive than the countywide plan. Yeah, that's the countywide plan policy 4.2.7.4. Again, states nothing in these countywide rules, which is the balancing criteria, shall be construed or applied to preclude a local government with jurisdiction from having requirements that are more restrictive than the terms set here. And Council, it sounded like you were saying this without saying it, but is it still the state of Florida law that a more specific section of a law governs over a general section? Is that the control? That would be the general interpretive items that you would go to in front of the court is the specific controls over general. And, you know, here the county plan, like I said, you know, there's a level. There's the countywide plan, and then there's the local plan, which is the county plan. And the county plan is very specific with the five units in the CSA. And, you know, again, some of that the department works with because of the grandfathering issues. But it's pretty clear in the county, the local plan, county plan, local plan, that the number of units is five. And then the exceptions that the staff applies because of the grandfather provisions. It's been seven and a half for 40 years, so it's grandfathered in. Okay. Board members, any other questions for staff? All right. Thank you. In the spirit of due process, Mr. Pressman, do you have any remarks you would like to say in a minute or two? I do. Thank you, Chair. I would say outside of the discussion that just occurred with the balancing criteria, the only thing I'd say is that there is an intent there to move in that direction. But outside of that, again, as Mr. Bailey, with all due respect, has recited one comp plan to you over and over again, which is his job to do. I'll just say in short order, we presented to you quite a number of comprehensive plan policies, Pinellas County comprehensive plan policies, that speak directly to the redevelopment and support and sustainability of specifically mobile home and manufactured home parks, and many policies to bring properties up to a safe, strong standard. So, as I started, I'll just finish by saying again and showing you how the comprehensive plan instructs anyone to weigh it is a holistic approach and recognize interrelationships of basically the whole plan or all those eight guiding principles. Thank you, and I appreciate the extra time. Thank you. Board members, any final remarks? Oh, yeah, Larry. Thank you. Okay. So, Madam Chair, just to clarify what Mr. Pressman just said, he was referring to a number of policies that are written for manufactured homes. In other words, to replace what's there in just a better, more sustainable way and not to build an apartment tower. Is that correct? And how would that be? How does that differ from? Well, some of those policies do refer specifically to mobile home or manufactured home parks. And other policies refer to strengthening and improving properties. So, I think there's, in my opinion, there's two categories of those several policies. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Board Member Hendricks. Yes. A couple things. One is that many residents in Pinellas County are having to move out of the county because of a lack of affordable living. I can speak to that because a friend of mine has a business with 30 employees. Most all of those employees have moved out of the county. There's just no place to go. The higher density, I would think, will mean a lower rate for these units that are going to rent out. Also, they were talking about gray water. Our gray water system has been overbuilt already. When it was initially put in, we had a monthly fee, use all you want. Now, it's triple what that fee was and we can use it for one hour a day, two days a week. So, we're already overbuilt. So, talking about gray water is just completely unreasonable because it's already overbuilt. All right. I think, can I clarify, the gray water system that you don't know is a reclaimed water system for irrigation. This statute that allows for the gray water system to get the density bonus is, I got clarification on it, that it's only to be used for flushing toilets and urinals within the building that it's not permitted for irrigation. So, it's reused in the building and then it's discharged into the sewer system. So, it's a reuse only inside the building. It's not used for irrigation or the Florida statute. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'm highly sympathetic. As a millennial, I am highly sympathetic to the housing situation in this county. I know many people who are struggling with finding housing right now. But I think we risk going into the purview of legislation as opposed to quasi-judicial decision-making. Our council has been pretty clear on where our comprehensive plan is. And I think if we look at it holistically, we have to include that prohibition. So, I am highly sympathetic to the substantive position that Mr. Pressman's client is taking. I do feel constrained by our comprehensive plan. Unless there's any additional discussion, I would be willing to entertain a motion at this time. I move we pass FLU 25-04 as written. Okay. We have a motion to approve by Board Member Hendricks. Do we have a second? I will second. Second by Hamilton. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed like sign. Nay. Nay. Madam Clerk, do you need a roll call? All right. Please call the roll. Nay. Nay. Nay. Aye. Okay, the motion fails. Um, are there any other- does the board wish to propose any other motions on this matter? That, uh, we find the- looking for FLU 25-04, inconsistent with the Penelope's comprehensive plan and recommend denial. All right. Motion by Coleman, do we have a second? Second. Second by Laurie Johnson. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed like sign? No. All right. Madam Chair, do you need a roll call? Yes. And board member Hamilton. Okay, the motion passes. All right. Everybody good to move into the next case? All right. That takes us to ZON 25-02. Staff, you may proceed when ready. Yes. This is for the zoning case on the property we just heard. I won't go through all the details. In detail, I'll run through this quick. So we just heard this is for the subject property of 10636 Gandy Boulevard, unincorporated St. Pete. This is a zoning amendment request from RMH, which is Residential Mobile Manufactured Home, to RM Multifamily Residential. The existing use, Twin City Mobile Home Park, intended future use is Multifamily Residential. Again, the subject site here, which is located on the south side of Gandy Boulevard, between there, the interstate to the west, and then off to the east is the bridge to Tampa. Again, the mobile home park, established in the 1950s prior to land use and zoning, 103 mobile home spaces, three apartment units. Again, it's considered nonconforming. It's a grandfathered use per its mobile home park plan. The number of residential units, 64 maximum allowed under our current future land use standards. The zoning amendment, RMH zoning, allows for mobile home parks or mobile homes or single-family homes on individual platted lots. Again, an existing mobile home park is nonconforming with its density. Multifamily is not allowed in the RMH zoning district, so that's the request for the RM Multifamily Residential, which would permit multifamily residential use, such as an apartment complex, condominium. And that category does not permit mobile home parks. This is the zoning request. You can see the RMH on the left-hand side there and the proposed RM zoning on the right in that pink color. As you can see, there are other RM-zoned properties in the area. Those are currently vacant. There's nothing developed on them now. Adjacent to the property is zoned R4, which is a single-family. Those all are developed with single-family uses. There's the E2, which is our employment or light industrial uses. And then the C2 off to the west is most of that is the Derby Lane property. There's also the Goodwill. There's a motel and cell tower facility. And then everything in white is the city of St. Petersburg. There's kind of an aerial shot looking at the property to see this is from earlier this year. So I'm sure it has possibly changed. But to give you an overview of the site, how it's laid out, the adjacency to the residential there, which is going to be on the left side of the screen, but that's the east, and the adjacency to the Goodwill facility on the right, and then behind and kind of wraparound is all owned by Derby Lane. And the picture is showing the entrance to the property. And the current RU land use allows 7.5 units per acre. Based on this 8.54 acres would allow up to 64 units. The current 0.4 acres of CG, which is on the very north on the entrance area, does not allow residential. Again, we covered the flood risks of this property and the issues that it's had with flooding and its location in the flood zones, evacuation zones, and coastal high hazard area, and additional policies having to do with flood risk. And we talked about how the mobile home transition program, they've already been working with the residents to relocate them out. Again, this was as when we wrote the staff report, but there are many that have left since then. So the proposed zoning amendment from RMH to RM, surrounding areas, a mix of uses and intensities in zoning districts. So you have a lot of mix of lower density, medium density, higher density residential, different types of uses, commercial uses. So it's compatible with the surrounding development. It's appropriate at this location under the existing RU future land use and consistent with the comp plan, again, under the existing RU future land use category. And staff recommends approval of the zoning change on this would go forward to the Board of County Commissioners on October 21st. And I will answer any questions. All right. Thank you, staff. Board members, do you have any questions for staff? Yes. All right. Laurie Johnson, then Board Member Hamilton. Mr. Shutterbuck, we just denied a request for a change in land use. Approving this zoning amendment seems to put us right back to what we just denied, that this could be property that would be developed into 133 units, 134 units, as opposed to 64 units? Or am I not understanding what you said? No. So the future land use case was denied. The current future land use that's out there allows 7 1⁄2 units an acre, which is 64. Approving this zoning would allow them to redevelop the property with 64 units maximum. No more than that. Correct. Okay. Yes, there's no increase in density, allowable density, per the future land use. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. You're welcome. All right. Board Member Hamilton. I'm confused, which is not unusual, but changing it in the previous item to residential medium doesn't work, but moving it to residential medium from a zoning perspective is okay. I guess my question is, if this property was annexed in the city of St. Petersburg, we wouldn't be having this discussion, correct? Correct. This is just because of the county's plan having the language that says, you cannot do it. I think that's a little bit rigid given today's society, our county, everything that goes on. It's, like I said, confusing, and I think maybe it's time, maybe the county needs to go back and relook at, you know, you cannot, because it just, I mean, there's apartments. If it was in St. Petersburg, if this was a piece of St. Petersburg property, they could do it. If it was, you know, if it was, you know, just across the street, there are apartments. I mean, there's apartments around in this general area. This is not, they're not recommending a use that is not compatible with anything else around it. It is, it just, you know, and I understand staff's perspective. They have to go by, they have to go by what it says, but what it says doesn't sound like it's what it should be. So, it's very confusing, but, you know, we'll go from there. All right. Board members, any other questions for staff at this time? All right. Seeing none, we'll now hear from the applicant. Good morning again, Chair. Board members, Todd Pressman, 202nd Avenue South, number 451, St. Petersburg. So, let me begin by saying, make sure we're all on the same page of the book, because, quite frankly, when I got the staff report, I had to read it literally four or five times to make sure I understood it, because it can be very confusing. So, the issue that we just heard was for density and contains a category called RM. That's an apple. Right now, we're looking at something completely different, orange, which is strictly for the style or what type of housing can be developed. So, density, you made a decision on. We're too thrilled about it, but you made that decision. We like the staff's recommendation on this much better, by the way. But it is strictly for style or housing. RM would be for multifamily. Mr. Hamilton, the RM under the issue you just heard is a completely different animal of the RM under zoning. Two different, completely things. That's why your staff, with all due respect, found their way to approve it, because this issue before you does not have a density element to it at all. It is strictly a non-density issue, strictly to allow going from mobile homes, which has occurred zoning style of housing, to multifamily proposed style of housing. So, with that, I think your staff made a very good presentation. I think it's pretty apparent from Mr. Hamilton's comment and staff's presentation that it would be compatible. It would be cohesive with the immediate area. It would be the direction that the county needs to go. My PowerPoint's on the record. I'm not going to go through that again. I think that's been very clear. We'll be happy to answer any questions or any concerns you might have. Thank you. All right. Board members, any questions for the applicant? Okay. At this time, we'll hear any members of the public who wish to speak in support of CON25-02. I haven't seen any changes in the room. Have we had anyone come in online? No changes online. All right. And I assume that we have nobody in the room who wishes to speak in opposition to application ZON25-02. And nobody's popped in online since I last asked, correct? Correct. All right. Does the applicant wish to make any final remarks? All right. Applicant is waived. So, it comes back to the board. Any final questions or remarks for staff or the applicant? In that case, I will entertain a motion on application ZON25-02. Motion to approve. ZON-25-02. Second. We have a motion by Hamilton. Second by Hendricks. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Nay. The motion passes with board member Cataldo dissenting. All right. Board members, do you wish to take a break at this time or press through to a combined presentation on items three and four? Okay. All right. In that case, we will hear staff's presentation on applications FLU25-07 and ZON25-05. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ladies and gentlemen of the local planning agency, I'm Scott Swearingen. I'm the long-range planning manager for the county. I will present to you those two cases before you. They are companion cases. So, I'll just jump right in. The subject property is approximately .6 acres, and it's located at 2,500 55th Avenue North in Lealman. The future land use map amendment request, which is the FLU-25-07, is to amend a future land use map from the current designation of mixed-use corridor primary commerce to commercial general. And that companion case, the ZON25-05, would amend the zoning atlas from currently Lealman form-based code to general commercial and services. Quick background about the property and the use. The owner of the subject property also owns property on 55th Avenue North that is directly adjacent to the west of this property. So, it's attached to this property. So, that's the subject property owner's property as well. And the applicant has expressed a desire to redevelop the subject property, along with that adjacent property that they own to the west, cohesively as a vehicle towing business. It is currently being used to store towed vehicles. So, it's a similar use, but to use the whole thing cohesively as a towing business. Again, the property on the south side of 55th Avenue North, it also has frontage on 54th Avenue North and is directly at the northwest quadrant of that I-275 and 54th Avenue North interchange. You can see it outlined in the blue. Character of the neighborhood, again, directly to the west along 55th, is under subject property ownership as well, and that currently consists of a single-family home. I believe their intent, but I will not speak for them, but my understanding is their intent is to use that as an office as a part of the overall business. There are a few residential properties directly to the north. To the south across 54th Avenue North is a mobile home park. And also directly to the west of the subject property along 54th Avenue North is a restaurant. I believe it's a Waffle House, I believe. So, it's a restaurant use. And, of course, the interchange is directly to the E. The future land use map on the left of the screen shows the current land use. So, you can see the subject properties as named Mix-East Corridor Primary Commerce. There's other similar properties, mostly along Haynes Road with that same designation. And then there's the Commercial General along there as well, which is what is requested change. Property directly to the north is a residential low, and to the south is, I believe, it's a mobile home or residential medium. And then the map on your right shows what the property would be with that change to Commercial General. With regard to the zoning, very similar. Here, you have the zoning is Lealman form-based code. And you can see that that zoning is also somewhat prevalent in that area, mostly along Haynes Road and then directly along 54th Avenue North. And you can also see CG direct in the vicinity with R4 zoning to the north of the property and then residential mobile home across the south, across 54th Avenue North. And then the map on your right shows the property change that would go to C2, similar to the other parcels directly adjacent to it along 55th. This is a photograph of the site where the photographer is standing along 55th Avenue North, looking directly at the subject property to the south. And then on the opposite side, from about the median of 54th Avenue North, you can see the subject property. It's looking north toward the subject property. And you can begin to make out to the right, on the right side of that photo, the exit ramp, the off-ramp from I-275 southbound going westbound on 54th Avenue North. That mixed-use corridor primary commerce flume category, it's a corridor-based land use category, and it's intended for mixed-use development in support of multimodal transportation options. It allows for a wide range and a wide mix of uses in that category. And in order to have that category, it requires a specific area plan for designation. That's what our comprehensive plan says. And so, in order to get that category, the Lealman Community Redevelopment Plan, the CRA plan, was utilized in order to establish that future land use map designation on the property and also along 54th Avenue North there, and as you can see, somewhat on Haynes Road. The non-residential floor area ratio permitted is a 1.2. However, as an incentive, if you were to include residential dwelling units as a part of your project, you could get up to a 2.0 FAR. The proposed CG, commercial general flume category, allows a wide range of non-residential uses, an office, personal service, retail commercial, commercial business, similar uses like that. Verbatim, per our comp plan, this category is generally appropriate in areas of the county that are now developed or appropriate to be developed in a manner designed to provide the community or region with commercial goods and services, to provide for employment uses that have off-site impacts, comparable to office and retail commercial uses, and in areas in proximity to and with good access to major transportation facilities. 24 dwelling units per acre is what is the maximum permitted in CG, and a 0.55 FAR for non-residential uses. And so, moving to the zoning case, Lealman Form-Based Code, the Commerce District within the Lealman Form-Based Code, is a zoning category, and that allows for a full range of uses as well, and those uses encouraging, in that code district encouraging, mixed-use development, including residential uses. It places an emphasis, a lot of the regulations place an emphasis on pedestrian-friendly site and building design, and there's a maximum height allowed of five stories in that district. And then the proposed zoning to C2, that allows for a full range, as you would expect, of commercial and retail-type uses, including a vehicle-towing business operation, thus the reason for the zoning request, because that is the type of business that the property owner would like to continue to pursue. It also allows some certain research and development, some light manufacturing-type uses at appropriate locations within the district. And it's noted that it should be located within commercial nodes, along certain corridors, and or in areas that transition from more intensive uses. A maximum height, building height of 50 feet is established for that zoning district. So in closing, our findings on both cases, the land use and the zoning amendment, is that the subject property is generally located adjacent to a high auto traffic interchange at I-275. It's a high traffic area of intensity, and so it's suitable for heavy commercial and office-type uses, is our findings in that regard. The surrounding uses are a mix of commercial and office, with some limited residential to the north, across 55th Avenue North. The proposed change would accommodate the expansion of current business operations into a single cohesive development, and would allow the property owner to expand business operations. And we find it consistent with our comprehensive plan. The staff thus recommends approval, and the Board of County Commissioners' public hearing is scheduled for October 21st at 6 p.m. And that concludes my presentation. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try and answer. All right. Board members, do you have any questions for staff? I have one. All right. Vice Chair. The adjacent parcel that is owned by the applicant? That's correct. You had mentioned that that is used currently for storage of cars? The subject property is currently used for storage of cars. Oh, subject. Okay. Thank you. They would like to have that combined into the overall development. Yes. Okay. Great. Yeah, the adjacent property that they own came through land use and zoning change, I believe, last year. That went through the process to change from residential to commercial with the ultimate is to use that as the office for this business. Okay. Great. All right. Do any other Board members have any questions for staff? All right. Seeing none, we'll hear from the applicant. Thank you for your time. Good morning, Madam Chair. We have the applicant, Angel Rivera, online, and they were sworn in. All right. And if the applicant would please state their name and address, they may proceed. Can you guys hear me now? Yes. Yes. Okay. Perfect. This is Angel Rivera. My address is 4914 East Lombo Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, 33615. Members of the Board and County staff, thank you for the opportunity to present our project and our application. Per staff report, our application is recommended for approval. So we're here mainly to answer any questions that you may have up for us. I do want to highlight that this property was already C2 a couple of years ago when the property was purchased by the current owner. Second of all, the rezoning is due to the fact that the property is owned by a towing business, but the actual uses are going to continue to be uses that are allowed by the existing overlay district, which is basically for parking the fleet and for maintaining the fleet. So we're technically not really changing the uses. Also, the type of business that this is doesn't really generate visitors, so there shouldn't be any increase in traffic. And last but not least, we will not be requesting any type of variances for any of the land development code requirements and development standards. That's all I've got to say. All right. Thank you. Board members, any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, we will hear from members of the public. Do we have any members of the public in the room who wish to speak in support of Applications FLU 25-07 and ZON 25-05? All right. Seeing none, do we have anyone online who wishes to speak in support of those applications? No, Madam Chair. We only have one other member, and they're here to talk against. All right. But that will move into members of the public who wish to speak in opposition to Applications FLU 25-07 and ZON 25-05. Do we have anyone in the room? Okay. Seeing none, we'll now go to online. Do we have anyone online who wishes to speak in opposition? Yes. Would you please say... My name is Robert Lawson. I live at 2511 55th Avenue North, directly across from the property in question. I have lived there for, I mean, I've owned the property for about 20 years, and there's been a little bit of, it's not quite as was stated. This is a very busy towing company. It's Pagan Towing, Legal Towing. You know, there's multiple brands, towing companies that seem to operate out of this facility. Some of the trucks are 18-wheeler, 30-wheel vehicles that have an extremely difficult time getting in that area. There's 90-degree turns. This is a small neighborhood. This is the gateway to a very small neighborhood. It's not a heavy traffic like 54th Avenue. This is a small neighborhood, affordable housing, and the towing really messes up traffic. It also has broken the storm drain directly across from there, and I sent pictures into that effect. The storm drain was first broken earlier in the year, and then the city came by and fixed it, and it was broke within a week. Those big tractor trailers, they cannot maneuver into this, through this street without going over curbs and sidewalks. It's just a bad fit to have these kind of large vehicles. I get noise 24-7. I mean, there's not a day that doesn't go by where my 94-year-old mother, you know, isn't awoken by beep, beep, beep. You know, the truck's backing up, or they're blowing their horns because, you know, the traffic or the other traffic in their own yard. So this is a very busy place. It's not just storage. During the hurricanes, it was, you know, they provide a valuable service. I'm not complaining. I think they're wonderful people. Their business is wonderful. However, in this neighborhood, it is a square peg in a round hole. It just, it disrupts the neighborhood. All right. I think it would be far better to develop this as residential and just, you know, this is not a flood zone. It's affordable housing, something we don't have enough of in Penelope County. I don't understand why we have to make this commercial when it's going to clog up, you know, a neighborhood. This is a primary entrance of the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have anyone else online who wishes to speak in opposition to applications FLU 25-07 and ZON 25-05? No other participants online. Board members, do you have any questions for the speaker? All right. In that case, it comes back to the applicant. Do you have any final remarks to make? Sure. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Yes. So, addressing the gentleman's comments, I wanted to make sure that he understands that the existing driveway connection was for the existing original conditions when the property, the current owner bought the property. Obviously, once this property is rezoned and goes through the permitting process, it will require to meet all the standards for engineering, design, technical, storm drain, driver connections, everything else that you have mentioned that probably have been a little bit of a problem in the area currently. Also, as far as busy noise, I mean, the property is adjacent to 275, so I'm guessing the noise is there no matter what, and basically, as far as additional traffic, the allowed uses under the existing overlay district generate, most of them generate a lot more traffic than our business itself, so we see it as actually a reduction of the maximum traffic allowed by the existing zone. That's all I can say. All right. Thank you. Board members, any questions for staff at this time? All right. I just have one follow-up question for staff. The applicant mentioned that they're going to have to go through site plan process. Is that correct? That is correct, yes. We have not had a site plan for this use on here. This came to us, the code enforcement case. Okay. All right. So, does the board have any final remarks before entertaining a motion? Okay. Board member Hamill. Has the, I mean, knowing this area and the traffic, 54th, 54th is a very busy thoroughfare. And again, not getting into the site planning because that's not our purview, but it seems to me the ingress and egress out of this property would be much more suited to come off of 54th instead of getting back into the backside of the property. As others have looked at this property, FDOT will not allow a driveway there due to conflict with the exit ramps off of the interstate there. So, yeah, they cannot access directly. We looked at even if they were to, the property to the west, putting in a shared access that would take them, you know, out to the west and stuff. And it's, that was not viable either. The only access then is that 55th Avenue North. Okay. Yeah, the, the DOT, the, I think the, I don't know if it was this owner or a previous one tried to use access there to 54th and DOT put fencing up to reiterate that no access. So, yeah, it's difficult. Okay. Vice Chair Coleman. Is, is it possible in your understanding that through the site plan process, is it possible to improve the driveway conditions to accommodate the large trucks? Yeah, they would have to meet, you know, minimum standards depending on the size vehicles that they would have coming in and out of there, demonstrate with, you know, turning movements, you know, through AutoCAD they can do, it's called an auto turn and using different vehicles and show that they have the ability to, to make those safe turning movements. Right. And if they, you know, they, there's flexibility to kind of modify the driveways so they're not going up and over curbs. And they would stage on site as opposed to on street. Right. Yes. They would have to stage everything on the property. Nothing in the right of way would be allowed. Okay. All right. Any other questions from the board? Yes, Madam Chair. Again, just a clarification, the photographs that we saw from the gentleman who was in opposition, um, so those are extremely large vehicles. Those would be put on this property if it was rezoned? Correct. Under, under the current, uh, zoning, so it's, you know, like the history, it was commercial in this area. When the Lealman form-based code came in, it went through the process, changed, uh, all these, this area, this property got captured by that. Uh, it's the uses with those heavy vehicles and stuff are, are not allowed in, in the zoning district, which was determined by, by staff. And, but they are allowed in, in the C2 zoning district on there. Uh, there, there will be buffering requirements, screening requirements. Uh, you know, of course we have the county's, you know, noise ordinance, uh, so for activities on the property, uh, within certain hours. Um, so those things would get looked at, uh, through site plan on it. But yes, heavy equipment, like those, uh, tractor-trailer size vehicles would be permitted. And you had mentioned earlier that this had come to light because of code violations. Correct. The, yes, the use operating on the site, uh, without coming in for site plan approval or permit, so they, uh, they went through code enforcement in that. Okay. Thank you. All a question to, um, Vice Chair Coleman's question. Um, staging on the road, does that constitute a code enforcement violation? Yes, they, they can't be blocking the, the public right-of-way, um, you know, uses are approved for a site, so not in a, not on the adjacent right-of-way, um, you know, anytime a site has larger vehicles, is loading, unloading, has to take place completely on your property. And part of the site plan process is to demonstrate that they can get in and out of the, the property and also meet those requirements of staging on the site. Okay. So if they were to go, they're going through this process, they get their site plan approval, they redevelop the site, if they were to continue to, um, stage on the road, they would continue to be subject to our code enforcement actions, correct? That's correct, yes. Except then they would be trying to say that with the benefit of a site that is designed specifically to handle trucks. Correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. Board members, any follow-up questions for staff, the applicant, or our public speaker? All right. Seeing none with that, I will entertain a motion first on FLU 25-07. I'll make a motion to, uh, approve FLU-25-07. Motion by Hamilton. Second. Second by Coleman. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Nay. The motion passes with board member Laurie Johnson dissenting. Next, we will, I will entertain a motion on application ZON 25-05. Does anyone wish to make a motion on that application? Make a motion. Motion by Cataldo. Approve ZON-25-05. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Coleman. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Nay. The motion passes with board member Laurie Johnson dissenting. All right. Staff, do you have any final remarks before we entertain a motion to adjourn? Just that we will, we have items for next month, so we will be having a meeting. We'll see everybody in the office. Forward to serving and seeing you again. All right. With that, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. So move. Motion by Laurie Johnson. Second. Second by Coleman. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. The motion passes unanimously. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.