Zoning Hearing Master - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. Uh my name is Steve Loose. I'm the zoning hearing master tonight and I'll be conducting tonight's hearings on each application. Before we get started, if we could all stand for the pledge of allegiance. 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. You may be seated. At this point in time, I'd like to introduce Michelle Heinrich, who will introduce the other staff members here at the DEAS and other staff members that'll join us and also go over any changes to tonight's agenda.

Sure. Again, Michelle Hinrich, Development Services. To my left, we have Mary Dorman with the County Attorney's Office. Uh to her left is Melissa Linhardt with the planning commission. And then to her left is Richard Perez with Transportation Review Staff. And we do have um one change to the agenda um that will require um hearing officer action and that is agenda page nine item D1 PD resoning 25-0582. The applicant is requesting a continuence to the February 23rd 2026 uh ZHM hearing. Okay. Is that staff initiated or applicant initiated? The applicant would need to request it.

Okay. Is the applicant here? Good evening, Colin Rice here virtually. Okay, go ahead. Yes, thank you, Miss Hinrich. Um, appreciate that introduction. Yes, so we are working through a couple of traffic components. Uh, we're feeling good about everything. It will result in a much smaller scale project. Uh, we just need time for those changes to come into place and be thoroughly reviewed. So, we're requesting to February. Uh, happy to answer any questions you might have. No, no questions. Is there anyone in the audience that wish to speak to the continuence only? Um, sir, can you please um state your name and your address for the record?

Yes, my apologies. My name is Colin Rice, attorney with the law firm of Older Lundy, 1000 West C Street. Okay. Okay. I see no on responding. Therefore, this item will be continued to the February 23rd zoning hearing, master hearing, 6 p.m. in these chambers. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Okay. I have a few instructions to read into the record. I believe the county attorney's office has a few instructions to read into the record and then we'll get started with tonight's agenda items. Our hearing today consists of agenda items that require a public hearing by the zoning hearing master. I will conduct a hearing on each agenda item and will file a recommendation within 15 working days after the conclusion of today's hearing. Those recommendations are then sent to the board of county commissioners who will make the final decisions. Our hearings will be informal. I will ask questions related to the scope of direct testimony. I may call and question witnesses as I deem appropriate and I will decide all questions of procedure. I will take evidence but will exclude evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious. Evidence may be presented in written form and all testimony must be under oath. Hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain other evidence but shall not be sufficient alone to support a finding by me unless it would be admissible over objections in a civil action. The order of presentations are Miss Hinrich will first introduce the item then the applicant and their witnesses will have 15 minutes to present their case. Then uh development services will have five minutes to present their staff report. Then the planning commission staff will present their findings of consistency with a comprehensive plan, they have five minutes for that purpose. Then those in support of the application will have a total of 15 minutes to speak in support. Those who in the audience that wish to speak in opposition to the application will have to 15 minutes total to speak in opposition.

Then development service will have an opportunity to correct anything on the record, answer any questions. And finally, the applicant will have an opportunity for rebuttal and that is five minutes maximum. Regarding the time of proponents and opponents, the 15-minute time frame is a total time for each category. If there are a number of people to speak, we will add up the total number of people and the 15 minutes will be divided as equally as possible. You may wish to designate a single spokesperson to more efficiently use the time. When you come up to the podium to speak, please state start by giving your name and address for the record. The meeting is being recorded and we want to make sure we accurately document who is speaking on the record. When you are done speaking, please sign in with the clerk's office with your name, address, and the application name number of the agenda item you are speaking to. At this point in time, the county attorney's office will now provide the legal requirements which govern your participation at the board of county commissioners meeting. Okay. Um, good evening. This is Mary Dorman from the county attorney's office. Tonight's public hearing is the first step of a two-step resoning process. This hearing is the time for resoning applicants and interested parties to present evidence and testimony. Any evidence presented tonight will become part of the complete factual record of each application and no additional evidence can be introduced after the closing of each application. The second step of the resoning 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 February 10th, 2026 land use meeting a diff 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 LAN use hearing officer will file a recommendation for each application heard tonight on January 8th, 2026. The board of county commissioners has established a policy that directs which resoning and major modification applications are to be placed on the consent agenda of the board's lane use meetings. The following applications may not be placed on the consent agenda. Applications that propose to add density outside the urban service area. Applications on roadways with a failing level of service. Applications that do not have consistent recommendations of approval. and applications that have had evidence or testimony in opposition provided to the record by non-applicant parties of record either prior to or at tonight's public hearing. The board will allow testimony by any party of record at its public meeting to consider the lane use hearing officer's recommendation for any item on the regular agenda. Testimony by a party of record shall be limited to the record of the proceedings before the land use hearing officer unless additional evidence has been found admissible in accordance with section 10.03.04D of the land development code. A party of record is an individual who fits into at least one of the following four categories. First, someone who's present tonight and presents testimony or documentary evidence. Second, someone who's been certified by the US Postal Service as having been mailed notice of tonight's hearing. Third, someone who submitted documentary evidence to the master file at least two business days prior to tonight's hearing. Or fourth, someone who submitted documentary evidence by proxy at tonight's hearing. The content of oral argument before the

board shall be limited to the content of the testimony and other evidence submitted verbally or in writing to the land use hearing officer. It 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.

Okay. Thank you. All testimony must be provided under oath. Therefore, if you plan to speak, please stand and raise your right hand so I may swear you in. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God? Okay. Thank you. You may be seated. Okay. Those are preliminary instructions. And Miss Heinrich, we're ready for the first item.

Sure. Our first item is item B1, PD application 25-0500. This is a remand from a previous hearing and um the applicant is coming back through the process to uh look at a different future land use category. Tanya Chapella with development services review this and we'll provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation. Okay. Applicant please.

Good evening hearing officer and staff Todd Presman 2002nd Avenue South number 451 in St. Petersburg PD25-050. As Miss as Miss Hinrich has indicated, uh this was remanded at direction by the board of county commissioners for the SMU6 category versus what had been filed for the OC20. Uh the only difference is some buffer and screening variations. Uh but I would ask um the prior file which is the same file to be brought forward and is included with everything that is moving forward the board of county commissioners.

Okay. U Mr. Preston, let's help me understand the context. If it was remanded, typically they they go through the ZHM process, go to the board and get remanded. Did this one go to the ZHM prior to tonight? Yes. Okay. Pamela Joe Hatley did a report and a recommendation. Okay. Did I answer your question? It does. And I just need a a copy of that ZM report if I could. Okay. Sure. which which was positive, I might add. Okay,

so we're located in the east county and looking closer, it's on State Route 60 to the west of James Redmond. Looking closer, still development services and planning commission support. The ZHM previously supported the request. There's no agency objections. There have been no citizens objections to date. We've had a number of hearings obviously including this evening. This is a family agricultural trucking business. Uh the issue is seeking AS1 to PD with the comp plan change. The uses are one residential unit with a truck dispatch office, warehouse uses, and open storage of nine commercial domestic vehicles, which are basically the domestic vehicles are for the truck drivers that they arrive, leave their domestic vehicle, then they jump in the truck and go off in the truck. Uh, and that is typically done once a week. Uh, this is Navaro Produce. They make weekly weekly trips out to Texas and back for agricultural products. It's a family business. just to familiarize yourself with the uh with the use. Uh they bring a lot of their goods from Texas back to Plant City Farm and Flea Market, which is a very large uh market as you can see here. Now, the site plan uh as you can see here is very deep, not very wide. So the uses shown on it are very specific and just small portions inside the property. There's a residential residential home and office is located more uh closer to State Route 60. Then the middle you have the you have the nine commercial and domestic uh parking spaces open storage and an internal or interior dry storage as well uh in the middle of the uh of

the property. So, it's about 600 feet plus or minus from the uh truck storage to the north property line and approximately 482 feet more or less from State Route 60. So, there's vast distances both from the front of the property to the rear of the property. Looking at the aerial, [clears throat] there's uh a lot of forestation to the north and to the east. And there's actually some pretty intensive uses in the meeting area. To the west is large intensive agriculture use. To the east of budding is happy pets which is a pet facility and a church compound. Future land use map is u in the vicinity is pretty standard or is very uh homogeneous throughout one of the north one in the south. So the abu east abunding use is a daycare Florida trusted pet services. The church is actually very active as as I pulled from their website with a lot of activities. The intensive agricultural budding is obviously a very open vast area and we just make note which we think is interesting that the similar use because it's agriculture is next door which is truck and vehicle parking and use. So it's kind of interesting because by code they can do on one side which is the truck equipment parking on on the other side the subject site they can't which is just to make a point on how the code is working how the code is working in the area. So it's okay to store trucks on one side of the fence not on the other and of course that's what we're proposing. Um we had a decision to make under the code because the code does recognize agriculture uses as a perpendic because we have a sort of a mixed use. We have the residential, we have the warehouse which is involved with

agriculture, we had to do the PD but I think it's important to note that the code in some manner does reflect this kind of use let alone agriculture use. Traffic count stations on state route 60 showed as 21,500 vehicle trips per day. It is a state arterial principal roadway and part of Hillsbor County truck route plan. Uh the comp plan has a lot of support for agriculture uses and agriculture support uses. Objective 5.1 is knowing the recognition of importance of agriculture as an industry and valuable economic resource promotes the economic viability of agriculture activities. 5.2.5 2.5 agriculture agriculture sport uses are the preferred uses in rural areas which I think is a critical comp plan policy here 5.2.4 agriculture related commercial uses more intensive or heavy than neighbor and semiccommercial may be considered in the rural land use categories 5.1.8 8 support existing agriculture uses as a historical component of the community and their economic importance to the county. 5.1.1 Encourage agriculture uses within and around such centers. 5.1.6 Agriculture and agriculture related uses shall be permitted in non-ruural land use categories. Development services notes that is compatible keeps with the general pattern of the area. The proposed setback for the truck domestic veh areas is indicating exceeds 600 feet and what's proposed is 0.021 is under the 75 maximum F allowable at least in the OC20 and it's obviously much lower SMU uh category desired here planning commission notes meets the intent of objective 4.4 4 4.1 about new development being compatible aligns with the character of the surrounding area compatible with the existing development pattern and

consistent with goals, objectives and policies. So the variation specifically I will say actually the staff did a really really good write up in their in their zoning staff report but noting residential office uses 50 foot front rear setback 15 on the sides 8 foot vehicle use area or a visual area on the buffer on state route 60. I've noted again the warehouse uses the uh long distance to the north. We're seeking a type A versus type C which isn't the C is just not needed or necessary. Uh on the south 99 foot setback west is 15 foot setback and 155 ft to the PD boundary. Trucks and domestic vehicle storage area. Also noting the buffer looking for and requesting the A versus the C which is really not needed in the site as indicated by the staff. So again noting seeking the A where the C's are required uh and just an emphasis one of the main reasons uh this is being pursued is because they have had a lot of difficulty with um stolen trucks and stolen goods in in the trucks when they park them at different locations rather than their own home where they can keep an eye on them. So I just threw this in because it's an important element. they've had difficulty and had uh difficulty with criminal activity at other sites. They're kind of target these trucks when they're left alone. So, this is a much more safe uh situation for them. So, happy to answer any questions you might have.

Um really no questions, but maybe you can help me clarify something. It's on page 14 of the staff report. I don't know if you have a copy of it. Uh

I'll have to grab it. Oh. Thank you. [clears throat] Okay. Thank you. All right. The top paragraph talks about the applicant requests of variance to the urban scenic corridor requires tree plantings along State Road 60. Um I don't see any sort of argument as to uh wanting a variance from that requirement. I maybe I'm not understanding what's being presented on this page. Um along State Route 60 is considered an urban scenic corridor uh plantings and LDC requires one street tree for every 40 feet and one canopy tree for every 50 feet being 325 ft in width. Um that requires nine trees and seven shade trees. Um and I'm looking for that variance. If you don't mind, let me ask staff as well. Michelle Hinrich if if you know,

are they requesting a waiver to the planting the trees along State Road 60? They are. and um Michelle Hinrich Development Services. I've also noticed um previously when they were going to OC20 that would put them in an urban scenic corridor u Mr. Presman has changed it to SMU6. So that would be a suburban scenic corridor. Either way, I believe he does not want to adhere to those requirements. And I believe mainly it was because some of the screening and vegetation that was going to be further back in the property would um screen any anything that should be necessary. That's my recollection, Mr. Brisbane.

Thank you. [laughter] I I wasn't aware of the change under the SMU, so I appreciate it, Michelle. Thank you. All right. That's the only question I had. Thank you. Thank you. All right. At this point in time, development services wants to present their staff findings.

Good afternoon. Da Chapella, Development Services. Um, so this application is to resone from AS1 uh to PD to allow one single family truck dispatch warehouse open storage for nine commercial vehicles and nine uh domestic vehicles. The proposed 0.93 F is under the uh maximum F allowable in the SMU6 comprehensive plan category. A 30 foot wide buffer uh with a type A screening will be provided to residential area along the north and to agricultural uses along the west. Um to the south u an 8 foot wide buffer will be provided. Um, no buffer or screening is required uh to the east while the proposed setbacks to the east exceed the requirements reducing the impact of the warehouse building height and bulk. The proposed building height meets the 2:1 height restriction along the north uh west and east. The proposed setbacks from the warehouse use to residential provide over 500 ft distance to the closest residential lot to the north. Meanwhile, um the proposed setback for the truck and domestic vehicle storage area to the residential lot to the north exce exceeds uh 600 ft. Um I think Mr. Presman already cover uh all the variations in buffer and screening. So I'm going to jump to the next part. Uh the project is proposed to contain a residential use, office use, warehouse use and open storage use. And given this, the open storage component of of the overall project is considered accessory structure requiring screening from any street view and any residentially zone property using a 6 foot height wall uh wood fence, PVC fence or shrubbery. Um the parcel is not

adjacent to any residentially zone parcels. The applicant has agreed to provide a six foot high fence along the southern border of the open sto area. So given the above and subject to approval approval of the CPA 251, staff finds the proposal to be compatible with the surrounding properties and in keeping with the general development pattern of the area. So, uh, staff recommends approval of the applicant's request subject to approval of CPA2501 and the conditions. Okay. Thank you. This point on the planning commission staff.

Thank you. For the record, Melissa Linhard, planning commission staff. The subject property is located in the residential one future land use category. There is a pending plan amendment request HCCPA25-01 to the suburban mixeduse 6 future land use category running concurrently with this resoning application. The site is in the rural area and it is not located within the limits of a community plan. This case was remanded due to the direction of the board of county commissioners on August 18th. Um the board of county commissioners directed a change on the associated comprehensive plan amendment 25-01 from office commercial 20 to suburban mixed juice 6. The suburban mixed juice 6 or SMU6 future land use designation allows for consideration of agricultural residential neighborhood commercial office research corporate park light industrial multi-purpose and clustered residential and/or mixeduse development with 9.67 67 acres. The subject site could accommodate up to 58 dwelling units or up to 211,266 ft of light industrial uses. The proposed request is consistent with the range of uses and intensity that of uses light commercial, single family and agricultural uses are in the immediate area. The range of uses um proposed aligns with the character of the surrounding area which is consistent with objective 4.4 4 and it's modifying policies relating to neighborhood protection. Future land use section policy 4.4.1 states that any density or intensity increases shall be compatible with existing proposed or plans surrounding development. There should be a gradual transition of intensities between different land uses given the residential uses surrounding the subject site. The applicant has ensured this gradual transition by locating the action of activity to the northern portion of the site which is approximately 1,000 ft away from the

nearest residential home while also being buffered by alarm a large storm water pond. To the west of the site, there are no residential uses and strictly agricultural uses. the proposal meets the intent of this policy direction and based upon those considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the uninorporated Hillsboro County comprehensive plan subject to the conditions set by development services. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. This point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? I see no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? See no one responding. Staff, anything further? Uh, yes. I did need to add, as mentioned by U, Miss Linhard, this is traveling with a comprehensive plan amendment. So, these will be heard at the board's CPA public hearing rather than the land use hearing. And that hearing date is February 12th, 2026.

Okay. All right. At this point in time, the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal. Applicant's good. Um, with that, that concludes this application. We're ready for the next item. Our next item is item C1, standard reszoning 25-1281. The applicant is requesting to reszone property from CG to CI. Um Logan uh McC with development services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation. And this case is also tr uh traveling with a comprehensive plan amendment. So this will be heard um at the February 12th, 2026 um public hearing CPA before the board.

All right. At this point, the applicant.

Good evening, Mr. uh hearing officer. Uh Todd Pressman, 2002nd Avenue South, number 451 in St. Petersburg. This is RZ25-1281. It's located uh in the General Sephner area located on Martin Luther King just off of Macintosh Road between Rico and Macintosh. as the property appraiser has it, it's these it's two parcels uh again located on Martin Luther King and showing the two parcels. So the re the issue is resoning from ASC1 to CI and as Michelle has indicated there's companion future land use amendment as well with this planning commission finds a consistent development services supports. So looking at the zoning map, the site indicated in uh the white lettering, there is a use next to it which is similar or characterized as a CI zoning use which I'll talk about in a minute. Uh then you have CGCN. You have an old PDC and then manufacturing further to the east. the actual uses is a radio tower complex and uh open storage trucking trucks, rental trucks, uh and things of that intensive nature. So that PDC was approved in 1988 to a PDC which allowed for u more intensive uses and commercial uses at the time. This is a long list of the PD or the C1 which was the PDC approval back in 1998. So a budding on the west is a radio antenna farm as shown here which are special use 07-0326. Uh and according to the planning commission public communication public

communication towers are typically found next to or within higher intensity commercial or industrial areas because of the infrastructure needs. uh and planning commission development services and ZHM at time approved it. This is a budding east of the property and existing CG on the next eastward site under the zoning that moved eastward and existing on the CG eastward. Again, another important characteristic of intensity of the site is that the CSX railroad track runs along the other side of MLK is shown here in the aerial the site u bordered in red. Planning commission notes a railroad runs along Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard reflecting the area's role as a transportation service corridor. Looking at traffic counts on one side of MLK is 14,300 on the other side is 11,200 and is part of the truck route plan of the county. Planning commission's recommendation notes uh the new development uh that it does meet the objectives for new development to relate to the predominant character of the surroundings is a reasonable compatible fit already surrounded by a mix of higher intensive uses. notes under go goal three of the community plan directs commercial development toward US19 and Dr. MLK boulevard corridors uh and that is uh goal three also uh under that goal notes to encourage revitalization redevelopment of older exist existing commercial areas and uses. Uh we do have a letter from one property owner who owes a number of parcels uh actually two and noting the area in red at the bottom. These would be the parcels and properties that those two

property owners own and letters are a part of this PowerPoint indicating their support uh of the request. So that we appreciate your attention and happy to answer any questions you might have. No questions. Thank you. Thank you. Uh this point in time, development services staff.

Good evening. Logan McK Development Services application 251281. The applicant is requesting to reszone two parcels from CG to CI. This application is in companion with comprehensive plan amendment CPA 25-31. The surrounding area is the sorry the site is located along East Dr. Martin Luther King Boulevard approximately thousand ft east of the intersection of North Del Rico Road and Dr. Martin Luther King Boulevard surrounding areas developed with agricultural, residential, commercial, and manufacturing uh uses and zoning. The site will be developed with uh associated CI development standards. Such standards would include buffering and screening requirements per section 60606 of the Hillsboro County Land Development Code as well as an increase on setbacks by 2 feet for every 1 foot over 20 foot in height per section 60101 footnote 8 of the Hillsboro County Land Development Code. M manufacturing and CI commercial intensive zonings are found approximately 444 miles east of the site on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. The staff finds proposed resoning to be approvable subject to the approval of CPA2-31. Available for any questions.

No questions. Thank you. Planning Commission staff.

Thank you, Melissa Linhard, planning commission staff. The subject property is located in the residential one future land use category. There is a pending plan amendment request HCCPA25-31 to the light industrial future land use category running concurrently with this resoning application. The site is in the rural area and the subject property is located within the limits of the Sephnner Mango community plan. The light industrial future land use category allows for the consideration of agricultural and light industrial uses and can be considered for a maximum of 75 floor area ratio with 4.45 45 acres. The site can be can be may excuse me may be considered for a maximum of 145 381,000 square feet of non-residential uses. The proposal aligns with the intent of future land use section objective 4 and its modifying policies which call for new development to relate to the predominant character of their surroundings. The area around the site already contains a wide mix of uses. While there are single family homes and mobile homes nearby, the corridor also includes several long-standing industrial, commercial, and utility uses. A railroad runs along Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, refle reflecting the area's role as a transportation and service corridor. To the east, the light industrial future land use category supports container trucking storage and a U-Haul rental facility. And there are additional vehicle storage areas along with RV storage and repair operations. Directly west of the site are public communication towers that are typically found with or industrial areas because of the given theive or CI zoning direction to This which additional

plan seeks to prevent commercial encroachment US 92 and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. The subject site is already surrounded by a mix of higher intensity uses including industrial activities, vehicle and RV storage, public communication towers, and the adjacent railroad corridor. Because this existing content proposal does new commercial intrusion intrusion into a stable residential neighborhood. Instead, it aligns with goal three of the community plan, which directs commercial development toward both the US 92 and the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Given the site's position between these corridors and the established pattern of non-residential uses around it, the proposed commercial intensive zoning is consistent with the community plans vision. Based upon those considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed resoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsboro County comprehensive plan. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. This point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? See no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? We do have one person virtually signed up. Uh Grace Mccomomas in opposition. Okay. Grace, go ahead with comment.

Thank you. Grace Mccomomas, 805 old Darby Street, Stephan, Florida. First, Mr. Prener will tell you that I do not live in the impacted area. However, this has no bearing on my concern for Seth or the Seth community plan and I know he already knows this. So, it will save him some minutes of his rebuttal time. The important facts are I am opposed to this reszoning because I am opposed to I am opposed to and our SPNA mango community plant opposes new commercial in the rural area or uh areas on Martin Luther King and or Highway 92 for that fact that are west or east of State Road 579 which is Mangle Road. So I I do I'm opposed to this industrial or intensive uh commercial intensive zoning. Mr. Pressman states the session of community goals two and three and so apparently did the uh the uh planning commission I just heard. but only part of the statements stating we encourage commercial on these two corridors which we do but he chooses not to complete the statement as they are described in community plan in goal two we discourage commercial encroachment into the residential areas between US highway 92 and Martin Luther King Boulevard and south of Martin Luther King Boulevard also we support infill and redevelopment within the urban service areas of those borders. But that's the important point within the urban service areas and west and anything west of

I74 579 we have permitted it in that in that urban service area but east of I79 we've discouraged this um pretty clearly in our community plan is not planned for our Stephano community in the rural areas or any area east of South State Road 579. Pole three commercial is encouraged on Highway 92, Martin Luther King Boulevard, which is highway 574 west of State Road 75, Vango Road in the urban service area as well. So, I don't find this to be appropriate in this area at all. These are important decisions the county and citizens provided when forming our Stephen Mango community plan. And it has been unpleasant for the citizens that enjoyed the suburban and rural nature of our tiny town to hear that these goals are being ignored at every reasonzoning. Please recommend denial for this request for CI in this area east of State Road 579. Thank you for your time.

All right. Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? I see no one responding this point time. Staff either development services or planning commission have any comments? Nothing further. Thank you. Okay.

Very good. At this point in time, the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal. of Downing Street at commercial general and the property is located south of Downing Street a residential pro street at residential property. The uses on that neighborhood north of Street are basically aluminum screening services. The pieces we can see some examples that I have. The boat is stay on the water. They bring everything to the workshop. That's another example that I that we have with the boat remain on the water and bring on the furniture. uh in this in about the future land news comments they say that there is they have a co a a con I think that is um I want to be clarified that we have not bring the commercial boat to the site the commercial boats got to remain on the water we just bring all the furniture to the ch up and repair on site. In that way, uh we don't we are not doing something that be not consistent with the future land use in the in that area for the commercial uh commercial boat.

Um the proposal for commercial general require does not vulate the intention for the future land use objective as the use is intented for the restoration and repair of furniture and this is not for repair or con or construction of the boat. We are not repairing the boat. We are not painting the boat. We are just refernishing the the up story furniture and if you have any other question that maybe I can.

No, no questions at this time. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you very much. All right, development services staff. [snorts]

Good evening. Sierra James with development services. The applicant is requesting to reszone the parcel from RSC6 to CG with the following applicant proposed restrictions. Uses will be limited to furniture refinishing, repair, upholstery, including but not limited to boat furniture and a 6 foot high fence shall be installed at the time of development along the southern boundary. The site is located directly south of the Seabard Coastline Railroad and takes access from Downing Street. Properties to the north, south, and west of the site are zone RSC6. However, only the property to the south is developed with a single family residence. Parcels to the east are zone CG. The subject site and adjacent parcels on the north side of Downing Downing Road are fall within the OC20 future land use category while par properties on the south side of Downing Road are zone RSC6 developed with single family homes and designated within the res 4 plan category. Based on these considerations, staff find the proposed use approvable.

Okay. Thank you. A planning commission staff.

Thank you. The subject property is located in the office commercial 20 future land use category. The site is in the rural area and the subject property is not located within the limits of a community plan. The site is in the rural area where according to objective 1.2 of the future land use section. This area is intended for long-term agricultural uses, large lot rural residential uses, and undeveloped natural areas. Per policy 1.2.1, 2.1 Densities in the rural area shall be no higher than one dwelling unit per five gross acres unless located within an area identified with a higher density land use category on the future land use map as a suburban enclave, a planned village, a planned development pursuant to the planned environmental community category or a rural community which will carry higher densities. Policy 1.2.2 two defines suburban enclaves as existing areas shown on the future land use map as higher than one dwelling unit per gross acre outside of the urban service area. The current future land use category of the site is designated as office commercial 20 which would fall under the category of an urban enclave a suburban enclave as the OC20 category has a higher density than one dwelling unit per gross acre and the site is in the rural area. The OC20 future land use category is intended for existing commercial and office centers and provide for future development opportunities. New commercial developments should be part of a mixeduse development or be clustered at intersections of major roadways. Commercial uses should be discouraged outside of these nodes. The request is to develop the site with new commercial uses. However, the site is not clustered at a major intersection or a major roadway. The property is located along a local roadway and although it is south of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. There is uh the CXX railway corridor between the site and the roadway and is therefore not accessed by that road itself. The request is therefore not

consistent with the intention of this category and having new commercial uses located at major intersections. Future land use section policy 3.1.3 requires that all new developments be compatible with the surrounding area. Noting that compatibility does not mean the same as rather it refers to the sensitivity of development proposals and maintaining the character of existing development. According to the Hillsboro County property appraiser, the site currently consists of vacant land. There is a CSX railway to the north of the site with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to the north of the railroad. North of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, there are heavy commercial uses with a heavy industrial use. To the west, there are single family residential uses directly south of the site across Downing Street. To the west, there is a public quasi public parcel owned by the county, as well as single family residential to the east and light commercial that exists further eastward. The proposal for commercial general restricted does not meet the intent of future land use section objective 3.1 as the use of the furniture refinishing and repair uh use and commercial boat upholstery would be too intensive of a use in such close proximity to the single family residential located directly south of the site. Policy 3.1.1 states to restrict incompatible land uses to protect established and planned neighborhoods and communities. do that by utilizing planning principles that limit commercial development and residential future land use categories. While the site is not technically within a residential future land use category, it is directly north of the residential 4 and residential one future land use categories as there is no access to the property from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. The only access to the site is from a local road that travels through those adjacent residential future land use categories. Policy 3.1.2 two emphasizes the importance of gradual transitions of intensities and densities

between different land uses. These transitions shall be provided as new development is proposed and approved through the use of professional site planning, buffering and screening techniques and controlling the specific land use. Screening and buffering used to separate new development from existing lower density communities should be designed in a style compatible with the community and allow pedestrian penetration. In rural areas, perimeter walls are discouraged and buffering with BMS and landscaping are strongly encouraged. With this request being a standard resoning and not a planned development, there is not an opportunity to build in mitigation measures to the site plan to help alleviate compatibility concerns. One of the restrictions included in this request is for there to be a 6- foot high solid PVC or wooden fence to be installed at the time of development along the southern border to add additional screening between the use and the residential properties located to the south. While planning commission staff recognizes this mitigation effort, it does not fully address the broader intent of policy 3.1.2, two, which emphasizes gradual transitions and contextsensitive buffering. Without the ability to incorporate additional mitigation techniques and site plan specific measures through a plan development, the proposed resoning still poses long-term compatibility concerns with the surrounding lower density residential community. And based upon those considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed resoning inconsistent with the unincorporated Hillsboro County comprehensive plan. Thank you. Okay, at this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? See no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application. See no one responding. Staff, anything further?

No, sir. Okay. Um applicant opportunity for rebuttal. You're good. Very good. Thank you, ma'am. Um Okay. With that, that concludes this application. Ready for the next item. Our next item is item C3, standard resoning 25-1418. The applicant is requesting to reszone property from ASC1 and CG to CG. Logan McKake with development services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation. Okay. Applicant, please.

Good evening. Robert Martin representing Farmer Enterprises at 206 West Highway 92. This is just a standard U dual reszoning. The property is zoned CG. It's actually 1.03 acres and one acre is CG and the back portion 03 is ASC1. This came to our attention due to a code enforcement violation. So, we're requesting that we combine the lot into CG so that we can move forward with a commercial building in order for him to be able to continue with the property. It's off of Highway 92. Kingsway is east of it. Kingswood Elementary School is across the street. There is an auto parts uh CG property to the east, west, sorry. And there's a mobile home park to the east. There's a 6ft screening all the way around with a uh PVC fence and he's to prepared to do whatever we need to do in order to just get the CG zoning for the whole parcel.

Okay. Um sir, you know, have they been in business at that location for a while? Um actually the property has an office on there right now and he's been using it for storage. He's had three commercial uh semi-truckss parked there. His goal is to build a commercial building to continue with his painting business. Okay. So, where he just does distribution.

Again, it was only brought to his attention because of a code enforcement issue um because they cited him for inop vehicles and outside open storage. Okay. Thank you. All right. Development Services Staff.

Good evening. Logan Mccay Development Services application 251418. The applicant is requesting to reszone this property from C um this property 2CG from split zone zoning of ASC1 and CG. The property exists along the south side of East US 92 approximately 400 ft west of the intersection with North Kingsway Road south of Bernett Middle School. The area is also developed with suburban residential and less than 2 miles away from I4. Property in question is primarily zone CG. By reszoning the portion of the property zoned AS12CG, it would allow the full use of the property in a commercial capacity. Development of the site will require compliance with all CG zoning district standards, which includes minimum setbacks, provisions of buffering, screening, and height maximums. A review of historical zoning maps uh does not indicate the split zoning uh recognize different part recognizing differing parcels and uses rather the zoning line to appears to reflect the angle of US92 staff recommends approval and is available for any questions.

Yeah, just just real quick, did you check like old vested rights cases? Do you know if they during zoning conformance they ever applied? There was nothing uh recorded in optics that we could find. Um uh so unfortunately no not uh not that we could locate. Okay. Thank you. All right. And planning commission staff.

Thank you. The subject property is located in the residential for future land use category. It is in the urban service area and the subject property is located within the limits of the Suffner Mango community plan. Future land use section policy 3.1.3 requires all new development be compatible with the surrounding area. Vacant lands occupy the subject site and the area immediately east across North Kingsway Road. Light commercial uses are present to in both the east and west directions while heavy commercial uses are located directly to the east. Light industrial uses are found to the west. The range of uses in the surrounding development patterns support the conclusion that the proposal is consistent with policy direction relating to compatibility. The subject site meets commercial locationational criteria which is established under future land use section objective 4.7. Specifically, a property must be located within 1,000 ft of an intersection where both roadways are classified as collectors or arterials on the Hillsboro County functional classification map. Additionally, a minimum of 75% of the subject property must lie within the one required 10,00 foot radius of the qualifying intersection. The nearest qualifying intersection to the subject site is East US92, a state principal arterial roadway and North Kingsway Road, which is a county collector roadway. As the site is located 490 ft away from this intersection, it is within the required distance and therefore meets commercial locationational criteria. The subject site lies within the boundaries of the Sephnner Mango Community Plan, which goal three of the plan directs commercial development toward the US 92 and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard corridors, recognizing their established commercial character within the urban service area. The plan further encourages the revitalization and redevelopment of older commercial areas and existing commercial uses. In this context, the proposed resoning from CG and ASC1 to CG is consistent with the

intent and strategies of the Sephor Mango community plan as articulated in the livable communities element. Based upon those considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed resoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsboro County comprehensive plan. Thank you. Thank you. U Miss Hinrich, just maybe you can clarify for me. The agenda says the acreage is 1.03 03 acres and the staff report says the acreage is 1.14 acres. Do you know which one's right? We can check the information provided by the applicant. Okay. And um I either just I guess can you send me that information I guess after the hearing? Sure.

Okay. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? See no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application. See no one responding. Staff, anything further? Um, I did have one question for the applicant, um, which he could certainly address on rebuttal. He had mentioned painting and I didn't know if he meant auto painting, bodywork type of, um, use that would be occurring on the property. All right, the applicant, if you could come forward, please. Sir, you heard the question. What kind of painting is it?

And the acreage is based off of the property appraisers website, which is uh 1.03. And that's where the issue came into a play because it was a property appraisers that had actually classified as CVA1. And to answer Michelle's question is no, he won't be doing any body work or painting. It's actually just distribution and warehouse. Thank you. Okay. Anything else? That should do it. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. That with that, that concludes this application. Miss Heinrich, are ready for the next item?

Our next item is item C4, standard reszoning 26-0037. The applicant is requesting to reszone property from AI to M. Logan McK with development services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation. Okay. The applicant, please. Good. Good evening. My name is Mela Rodriguez, 7710 and Balor Road, Tampa, Florida 33634.

Um, so um we are currently at zoning AI agriculture. So we are in the process of getting that property to M as manufactured for just parking purposes like trucks, right? trailers and all that stuff. Mainly some areas there are manufacturer. Okay. Sony, but that's basically it. That's fine. Thank you.

Yeah. And development services staff. [snorts] Evening. Logan McKG development services application 260037. The applicant is requesting to reszone the property from AI to M for the purpose of open storage for vehicles. Um however all Mzoning districts are uh uses are proposed am um to be permitted. The property exists along uh the west side of Benjamin Road approximately half mile southeast from the intersection uh of Waters and Veterans Express. Waters Avenue and Veterans Expressway, excuse me. Um, the property is also just under two miles from the Tampa International Airport. Property is located in an area developed with um with/zoned for other highintensity uses such um high intensity uses, excuse me, such as resoning this property to M brings it more in line with the surrounding zoning district. staff finds the proposed resoning approvable and is available for any questions.

No questions. Thank you. Plan commission staff.

Thank you. The subject property is located in the light industrial future land use category. It is in the urban service area and the subject property is located within the limits of the town and country community plan. The subject site is largely surrounded by the light industrial future land use category and the agricultural and manufacturing zoning districts. The area is currently developed with higher intensity commercial and industrial uses with minimal residential uses. The commercial uses include a gas station, tire shop, car rental and repair, and open storage of commercial vehicles. The majority of residential uses are located west across the Veterans Expressway. The site is within and surrounded by the light industrial future land use category with office commercial 20, research corporate park, and urban mixed juice 20 to the north of the site. Future land use section policy 3.1.3 requires all new development be compatible with the surrounding area. Additionally, the neighborhood protection policies under objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 require new development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Given the current development pattern that consists mainly of higher intensity commercial and industrial uses, the proposed resoning is compatible with the surrounding area and neighborhood character. The light industrial future land use category allows for the consideration of agricultural processing, manufacturing, and assembly of materials, offices, and neighborhood serving commercial. This category allows for a maximum of a 0.0 I'm sorry, 0.75 floor area ratio. With 68 acres, the subject site can be considered for up to 22,215 square ft. The vision statement of the town and country community plan states that we encourage redevelopment of our older commercial centers and desire a strong business sector that contributes to the community and provides meaningful employment opportunities. The reasoning to allow for additional business in a compatible area will provide for

additional opportunities to grow the industrial business sector and provide job opportunities within the community and therefore aligns with the community plan vision. Based upon those considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed resoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsboro County comprehensive plan. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? See no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application. See no one responding. Staff, anything further? Nothing further, sir.

Okay. Applicant opportunity for rebuttal. applicants. Good. With that, that concludes this application. And Miss Hinrich, we're ready for the next item. Our next item is item C5, standard reszoning 26-0124. The applicant is requesting to reszone property from AM and PD82-0223 to the AM zoning district. Michelle Montabano will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Good evening. Cammy Cor with the law firm of Hillward and Henderson representing Tiko who's the applicant here. Um this is known as the Mosaic Hopewell site. It's owned by Mosaic. It is way out east in uh the rural parts of the county. Its future land use is agricultural mining. The subject property is actually in an old PD from 1982. And this is kind of what the 1982 uh certified site plan looks like. And then this was later amended in 01, you know, sort of part of the operating permit for the mine. They explained the mining area and you can see that this area of the subject property is largely in the mining area. Unfortunately, in the PD, they allowed interm agricultural uses but didn't allow new prospective agricultural uses. So, we needed to amend the zoning to allow Tiko to be able to use about 500 acres of upland for solar or other energy related uses. And rather than trying to amend this old PD, we just decided to go for the standard zoning district of agricultural mining. It's pretty straightforward. It's surrounded by agricultural mining. We do have a companion PRS to pull this out of the PD that will be heard at the same time. Uh staff's in support and we would respectfully request your approval. Do

you have any questions? Um if I was dealing with the PRS and looking at how you review obligations under the OPD. Maybe I had some questions, but I think that's going to be handled in a parallel process. Yes. And it'll go to the board at the same time. Yes, it's filed and it will go to the board at the same time as a companion item. All right. I think the zoning itself is straightforward. Okay. All right. Planning commission staff. I'm sorry, development services staff.

Good evening. Malar development services. The applicant is requesting to resone approximately 1620 acres from a PD district to the AM standard district. The parcel is currently zoned within PD820223, most recently modified by PRS 260299. The area proposed for removal from the PD is approved for mining activities. Reszoning to AM will allow different uses on the property, still including mining activities, but also agricultural, single family, and solar power production facilities. The site is surrounded by properties on AM AR or within PD830223. Due to these considerations, staff has in support of the request and finds reszoning to AM consistent with the existing zoning and development pattern. That concludes my presentation.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Plan commission s.

Thank you. The subject property is located in the agricultural mining 1 to 20 future land use category. The site is in the rural area and it is not located within the limits of a community plan. According to objective 1.2 of the future land use section, the rural areas intended for long-term agricultural uses, large lot rural residential uses, and undeveloped natural areas. The agricultural mining 1 to 20 future land use category is a rural land use category and is intended for long-term agricultural character, I'm sorry, agricultural development and mining productivity as well as other rural uses. The site is surrounded on all sides by the agricultural mining 1 to20 future land use category, further supporting the compatibility of the agricultural mining zoning being requested. Future land use section policy 3.1.3 requires all new developments be compatible with the surrounding area surrounding the site. To the north, west, and east is agricultural land with vacant land to the north and west. Additionally to the west there is a mining use that is owned by Mosaic and to the east there is also mining. Mining is already an established and pro predominant land use in the immediate area with mining uses existing to the west and east of the site as well. The request for the agricultural mining zoning district is compatible with the existing development pattern of the area and meets the intent of the policies under the in the future land use section relating to compatibility within the environmental and sustainability section of the comprehensive plan. There are policies that relate to the subject site regarding the significant wildlife habitat surface water resource protection areas as well as wellhead resource protection areas that are present on the site. For instance, environmental and sustainability policy 3.5.2 states to collaborate with the environmental protection commission through land planning and development review processes to prohibit unmitigated encroachment into wetlands and/or other surface area uh other surface waters and

maintain equivalent functions. Policy 3.8.1 states to protect and conserve the significant wildlife habitat and ensure a no net loss of essential wildlife habitat. All of these environmental policies in the comprehensive plan collectively emphasize that any proposed development on the site must demonstrate full compliance with these policies relating to wetlands, surface water protection, well, and wellhead resource protection areas as well as significant wildlife habitats. A full compliance review will occur at site development and will be monitored by Hillsboro County Development Services. Based upon those considerations, the planning commission staff finds the proposed resoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsboro County comprehensive plan. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. This point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? See no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application. See no one responding. Um staff, anything further? No sir. You confirm that this applicant would moving forward we have to go through a permitting process. Yes sir. Yeah there and the companion pur has been filed. Okay. All right. Any applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal.

Cammy Corbett again just to clarify on the wetlands issue. Uh Tikico's specific lease is going to lease upland. So we're in due diligence now trying to identify which of the 1600 acres are going to be the 500 acres that they're going to lease. So we will be carefully watching out for wetland and wildlife habitat. So just wanted to add that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. With that, that concludes this application. Min, we're ready for the next item.

Our next um application is item D2, major mod 25-0586. The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD92-000099. Um, James Baker has reviewed this for development services and I will be presenting his findings tonight on his behalf.

Okay. The applicant, please. Thank you.

Hi, I am Elizabeth Rodriguez, 18156 Sandy Point Drive, Tampa, Florida. Um, with me today, Wall-E didn't show up, right?

Yeah. Uh, Ray Petrus, uh, the developer. And this is major modification 25586. Um and it's major modification to PD uh 9200099. Um can you show the first location map? Um the subject property is located to the south at the southeast corner of Van Dyke Road and Lakeshore Road and it's bounded on the south uh by the Veterans Expressway. There's an existing Shell gas station on the site. So the main things that we're requesting are uh first of all an increase in the square footage. We want to expand the building envelope so that we can build on the entire site, the eastern portion of the site. And then um reduced front yard setbacks uh reduced to 15 feet along Van Djk, 10 on Lakeshore, and then just a five-foot setback from the veterans. Um can you switch to the other location map? This is a little bit more of a zoomed in location map um just to show you what is in uh the surrounding area. So to the south again if you want to indicate Lizzy is um the Veterans Expressway which is obviously a huge you know buffer in terms of any other land use. To the north we have the Lakeshore Preserve Apartments. Um note that they are designed with their backs to um Van Djk and oriented the other way with a lot of landscaping and uh fence along Van Djk and that's between um the apartments and then what we have which is again an existing gas station. Um to the west of them is the Salvation Army regional headquarters. But then to the west of our gas station are the Avia Point apartments and lake like the Lakeshore Preserve apartments.

They are designed in such a way that they're not oriented toward our existing gas station. Um you want to show them the site plan, please? Okay. Here is our proposed site plan. And um the one thing that I want to point out on the existing site plan and call your attention to is this right ofway line which you see is cutting through our gas station. Um and I'll show you what that's all about on the next exhibit. Can you pop up the roundabout for me, please? All right. So these are the county's plans. I'll show you the project number in a second. And all of this is in the staff report. I'm just trying to hone in on this because it's kind of a key thing. Um, see the ride ofway line and see how that goes through the building. So, um, what they're doing is they're doing a a improvements on Van Dyke. And one component of the improvements is they're doing a roundabout right there at that corner of Van Dyke and Lake Shore. And they need right away from our site um through the building. Okay. next and last exhibit. Okay, so here's the information about the county project and this exhibit is in your, you know, staff report. Um, and it includes a roundabout that I just showed you. Um, and the reason I'm bringing this to your attention to show you that if you can point to where it says to be determined in terms of some of the timing of the later phases of the county project. Um, there's uncertainty about the timing of the project. We're not sure um when we are going to build on our site relative to when they would want to knock the building down. Um so we're trying to just build some flexibility in. Um and that's why we're drawing kind of a big uh building envelope over our whole site. Uh if it's going to be a while before they want to take the gas

station, we might build a little retail development to the east. But if it's going to be pretty soon, we obviously have to move the gas building and we want as much flexibility as possible to kind of uh pivot and um possibly there might be some impact on the location of the access points. Um and that's the reason that we're asking also for the a PD variation for the scenic corridor preservation. um that would normally be a 5-ft or I'm sorry, a 15 foot buffer requirement along Van Dyke. We need as much room to react to what's happening as possible. So anyway, that's kind of the big picture of what we're asking for and um the staff reports next, but if you have any questions, please.

Yeah, just leave that graphic up for just a second about the um the schedule. Yeah. So it says design land acquisition completion mid 2025. So yeah maybe that schedule kind of slipped or something because the the developers here they haven't acquired land Oh sir you have to be on the record. Oh yeah. Do you want to come up? He's the applicant. Can he come up right now? Yes. Okay. Yeah. Here. Good evening. My name my name is Ray Petrus. I'm one of the owners of the gas station. And your address, please for the record. I'm sorry. 5524 Van Road. Okay.

So, basically what I we've been in business for 25 years and uh I mean I've I've been the manager and owner for the location. It's a it's a neighborhood store. So, uh the currently the way we have it, we have restricted square footage. Okay. So, the zoning originally of the on this property was like I think 4,500 square feet. And of course, we would like to expand the store

to meet the future needs of our customers, but at the same time, uh, we're trying to be ahead of the game because eventually, we don't know yet to be honest with you. We don't know when they're going to widen the road. So, the idea is to basically, uh, submit for the approval to get more square footage. So hopefully we'll have more flexibility in the future to build hopefully the store on the opposite side of the building because we have a we have a big pond that will accommodate the size in the future. And I think he was asking he was saying that okay could you please I'm sorry could you please speak into the microphone so it can be captured?

Yeah and I think um Mr. Loose was saying that the schedule says that the land acquisition would be complete in May in mid 20. So they have not acquired your land. No, no, no. This is this is this is not even on the agenda right now because the county does not have the funding for the project. This this project might take maybe like five, six years from now. We don't know. This is old information. Okay. Yeah. Okay. That's a question I had. Want to know where the county is in the process. Where the county is in the process? Uh actually right now I think they just approved uh the plans but like I said it's only uh the plans are being approved but there's no funding for the project. Okay. All right. I got it. Thank you.

You want to enter your thing? Oh and of course I have I have here a petition signed by my customers. I would like to add it to the records if possible. Yes. Give it to clerks please. Okay. Any other questions? Um I I just I did look in optics and look at there's you've taken a long time to get to this point. Maybe you can give me some context as to why it took so long to get to this point. You you mean why the day you filed the zoning application to today? It's been quite a long time. Um,

well, we were supposed to get heard. If you don't know, that's fine. Yeah, he's just saying why did it take us five, six, six months to get through the process. Um, well, because we have going, honestly, we're going back and forth with the uh with the zoning committee. They were asking some information on the property and we went through because we're still not sure how we're going to lay out the the building to be honest with you. So this is this is all all we're asking right now. We're asking an increase of the of the a bubble plan. Yeah. So we sub bubble plan uh to give us flexibility to actually put the future design. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right.

All right. Development services staff.

Uh Michelle Hinrich, development services. Uh staff reviewed a major modification request to PD92-000099 located at the southeast corner of Van Dyke and Lakeshore Roads. The applicant seeks to um increase the intensity permitted from a 0.04 F to a 0.25 F. is currently zippy repeated or we said we we know that this request is a compan of heavy industrial uses and intensive future land use categories in the immediate vicinity future land use In this case, the surround of agricult integrated with adjacent land uses. through the creation of similar or complimentary uses, mitigation of adverse impacts, improved transportation and pedestrian connections, and a gradual transition of the applicant has proposed an 8 foot tall op or wood fence rather than requity along property lines considering the and the industrial uses to the south. The request is section objective. and modifist with the incorporated Hillsboro County

comprehens by development services. Thank you. in the audience that wishes to seek in support of the no one responding. One in the no respond applicant hearing offer for just a second if I could do that. That'd be fine. Good evening. 1511 Ringmore code door floor 7 pattern and consistent with this policy direction with approximately 20 acres in the residential four future land use category. The subject site can be considered for up to 80 dwelling units with 60 dwelling units proposed. The proposed density is within the maximum permitted density allowed on the site and therefore consistent with development expected in the residential for future land use category. The vision of the Balm community plan seeks to maintain the laid-back atmosphere and relaxed lifestyle, allow large and small property owners to work together to achieve their mutual desire to maintain a rustic atmosphere and ensure Balm's natural assets, including its scrublands, water bodies, and wildlife, continue to be preserved. The proposed density of approximately three dwelling units per acre strives to maintain the current surrounding community characteristic of the adjacent residential area with a lower density than allowed under the existing future land use I'm sorry under the maximum that can be considered under the existing future land use category. Additionally, the approximately 2.09 acres of wetland preservation on the

site seeks to maintain and preserve important environmental features. The proposal meets the intent of the vision of the Balm Community Plan in addition to furthering goal three and objective 3.5 of the environmental and sustainability section of the comprehensive plan which support the preservation and conservation of natural resources, specifically wetlands. Based upon those considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsboro County comprehensive plan subject to the conditions proposed by development services. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? See no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application. See no one responding. Staff, anything further?

Nothing further. Okay. Applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal. No need for rebuttal. All right. With that, that concludes this application. Sin Rick, we're ready for the next item. U Mr. Loose, we do typically take a short break at 8 o'clock. If that is acceptable to you, sure, that that's fine. Just let us know when How long do we take? Uh typically five, six minutes. All right. How about this? It's 8 o'clock. We'll come back at 8:10. Oh, thank you.

All right. All right. We are temporarily on pause. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. down. Down. Heat.

[music]

Heat. Heat. All right.

Heat. Heat. Okay, welcome back everybody. Um, we just had a 10-minute break and we'll continue with tonight's agenda. And the next item on the agenda, Miss Hinrich.

Our next item is item D5, PD resoning 25-1338. The applicant is requesting to reszone uh property from RSC6 to plan development. James Baker has reviewed this on behalf of development services and I will pro uh provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation. Okay. Thank you. The applicant, please.

Good evening. Good evening. My name is Say. Last name is Ali. The my address is 602 Okonei Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Um the brief introduction of the project, the subject property is located at 7814 East Elm Street, Tampa, Florida. It lies in urban service area of the Hillsboro County is part of the East Lake Orient Park Community Planning Area. Uh the property is currently zone RS C6 as we said and carries a future land use CMU 12 which allows to have a 12 units per acre. The property is 91. As a result I think you would have only 10 units. This is what uh this top's finding was the surrounding properties are all inconsistent with the mobile home manufacturer homes or single family. So as and also lately I think there were couple of major PDS were approved abing to the property proposed property site on the north and also on the east of it. Um oh I I I I do have a slide.

I I just go Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. This is u I went through all that and u I can give a neighborhood overview. Um this is aerial from the property appraisals office as you can see on the north we have a PD approved last year I believe and also on the east there's a PD been approved and further down on the south house after that also is a PD approved. Um now this is these are the uh two PDs I know in the uh uh very much to the proposed site. Um now this is the the street view at present from the intersection of Elm Street and 78 looking towards east and these are the neighborhood and this is right on the left side you see the the properties in question and now the proposed development what we see is here the site plan drawn and shows the five uh duplexes are proposed and um it says 10 lots but I Each duplex is sitting on two lots. One and two, three and four, five and 6, 7, 8 and 9 and 10. And um this is uh this is what we proposing to have a uh this is a similar rendering of what we are proposing.

Okay. And of course it um and I think as recommended by the staff u the condition of having to extend the sidewalk from the property all the way to the intersection of 78 and Elm Street uh is going to be implemented. As far as the utility are, I'm hoping or the the applicant is hoping that those three PDs, especially the PD for the south um is on condition of getting the utilities from Sly along the 78th street to them. I think this applicant probably hoping to have their utilities tap at the intersection of 78 and Sly. Uh the other option I think we have to explore uh from the staff. uh is there any possibility to tap into the PD which was approved on the east of this side with that PD is of course 14 duplex and 57 town homes is a big you know I'm sure they have a uh lift station to tap into but that's need to be explored with the staff you know um this project was initially um helped by my assistant David Edmonds, unfortunately, he had some problem and he couldn't speak and talk. So, I'm taking over from what he left off. Um, one uh note I think he gave me is that the these five duplexes were individually owned. So, he was making a point and need to explore that that in that situation I think he was saying there is no storm water needed unless it's all owned by one entity. So that isn't a big question right now.

Uh yeah, I'll let staff answer that question in time, but why don't you conclude your comments? Sure. We'll get to that issue. Oh, I Well, that's a conclusion right now. This is a uh uh present streetcape versus the future what we trying to see. And this is the aerial view of the existing. And this is how those five duplexes are laid there. And that concludes my presentation. If anything, then I would be happy to answer.

All right. Thank you, sir. At this point in time, development services. And if you could address two items in general after zoning, there's another process, right? Yes, sir. Okay. And there's a construction plan review process where they'll look at where the points of connection are for public water and sewer. Yes, sir. And is this development required to connect to public water and sewer? Oh, you're asking if it's required to if it is in the urban service area, it is required. Okay. Okay. And then the issue about storm water.

Um, unfortunately, I don't know the thresholds as to when the pond would be required or not. We can certainly speak with the applicant, right, after the hearing and put him in touch with the staff members that would be able to help him. Okay. Right. Okay. All right. That aside, um, yeah. And now the presentation of your staff report.

Sure. Uh, Michelle Hinrich, Development Services. The applicant requests to reszone property from RC6MH to plane development to allow for 10 units in five duplex buildings. The site permits a maximum of 12 units per acre and is located in the urban service area. The surrounding area is developed with or approved for various housing types such as single family detached, single family attached, and two family attached. The site is located um at currently the end of Elm Street, which is developed with single family detached with zonings of RSC 6 and RSC 6MH. The proposed development standards will be comparable to the RSC zoning uh district in terms of setbacks and height. No objections from reviewing agencies were received. Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to proposed conditions.

Okay. Thank you. And planning commission staff.

Thank you. The subject property is located in the community mixeduse 12 future land use category. The site is in the urban service area and the subject property is located within the limits of the East Lake Orient Park community plan. The community mixeduse 12 feature land use category is intended for urban in density and intensity of uses with 0.91 acres. The site can be considered for up to 10 dwelling units. The [snorts] request is therefore consistent with development expected in this future land use category. The proposal meets the intent of future land use section objective 4 and policy 4.4.1 which require new development be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In this case, the surrounding land use pattern is comprised mostly of single family residential uses all located within the community mixeduse 12 future land use category. The proposed request aligns with this established pattern by introducing a residential development that mirrors the predominant character of the area. Residential to residential development is inherently compatible, particularly when the proposed density and scale are consistent with the surrounding homes. To further enhance compatibility with adjacent single family residences, the proposal includes installation of a six-foot vinyl fence around the perimeter. This buffer will help maintain privacy, reduce potential visual impacts, and reinforce the residential continuity of the area. Based upon these considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsboro County comprehensive plan subject to the conditions proposed by development services. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? See no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? There's no one responding. staff. Anything further? Nothing further. Okay. Applicant opportunity for rebuttal. Thank you for the offer. I I don't see anything. Thanks very much. And we will be in touch for that retention pond. I guess certainly I can provide that information to you tomorrow morning. Okay. Thank you. That' be great. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. That that concludes this application. Sign Rick, you're ready for the next item. Our next application is item D6, major mod 24-1362. The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD98-1269. Uh Sam Ball with Development Services has reviewed this application and he will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay. The applicant, please. Alex Shayaylor, 400 North Ashley Drive. Um, I'll make this pretty brief. Um, this site is located um just the corner of the I4 and I75 interchange. Um, currently there's a small commercial office area. It's about 2,000 square feet. Um, and as you can see from this aerial, it's surrounded by other outdoor storage uses, a couple different auto sales and repair uses as well. This is part of an antiquated two parcel PD. The parcel subject to this major modification is what is classified as parcel one. That is outlined in that green dash line there. So, we are not proposing any changes to parcel 2. It's not included with this application. Um, as far as parcel one goes, this table summarizes what um it's currently approved for and what we're proposing. So, the approved use is very specific. It's recreational RV vehicle storage and repair and it's that same square footage as the existing office that I mentioned was on site today for that use. Uh what we are proposing is a little bit we want to unlock some flexibility here um with some uses that we feel are consistent with the surrounding area. Don't want to be locked into just that one specific use. Um so we're proposing open storage, warehousing, manufacturing, mini warehousing, and BO uses um with a proposed square footage around 55,000 square feet. That's a 0.5 F. It is further limited by trip cap which I'll mention in just a second. Um we believe that this is a compatible request um given again what's in the proximity um both of those two major interstates there. Um we're proposing type C 30 foot buffers um where necessary and applicable. Um as mentioned we are limiting this um to an 80 trips per day that trip cap. So though we have the ability to build 54,000 or so square ft um that won't be with some of the higher intense traffic generating uses like BO um that was

based on many warehousing in the traffic study. Um so we also believe that this is aligned as mentioned um with some of those surrounding uses in the area there. Um staff found this application consistent. Um there were no objections from the reviewing departments and that concludes my presentation but I'm happy to answer any questions. No questions. Thank you. Development Services.

Good evening. Sam Ball with development services. I uh just want to make sure I did submit a revised report. Uh it's an optics. And also there uh the applicant is uh requesting a major modification to parcel one of PD 981269. The property is located approximately 200 feet southwest of I75 and I4 intersection and the development is approved for up to 2,300 square ft of gross floor area to be used for recreational vehicle uh non-engine repair uh servicing and storage. Uh the applicants request to increase the gross floor area to 54,888 square ft and change the allowable uses to warehousing open storage as a principal accessory use. many warehousing, manufacturing or business professional office uses uh office uses subject to a trip cap of 80 gross trips per day. The modification would increase the F um ratio of parcel one from 0.2 to 0.5 and it would increase the F of the overall PD from 0.10 to 0.44. Uh development in the area includes a mix of residential, industrial, commercial uses that includes uh properties with open storage, a towing business with an impound area, auto sales, uh used appliance sales, and a business that specializes in roadway barriers uh also the property. Uh the property to the north is zoned and developed for office and warehouse use. The properties to the south um are zoned for commercial and commercial intensive uses and existing uses to the south include that that towing business uh auto sales open storage single family and um two family development. The abiding property to the west is zoned AR and is undeveloped. The ASC1 property um to the east of

Carmarmac Road is developed for single family use. At this modification is approved. The access point along Carmarmac Drive would be shifted south. A 30-foot buffer with type-C screening would be required along the western and southwestern boundaries and the uses would be restricted to the 80 trips per day with limits of five gross AM peak hour trips and eight gross uh PM peak hour trips. uh based on the general nature of the uses in the area, the the buffering and screening and the number limited number of vehicle trips and the proximity to interstates and a US highway. Uh staff finds that the proposed modification would be compatible with the zoning development pattern in the area and recommends approval subject to conditions. That concludes my report. If you have any questions,

questions. Thank you. And thank you. Planning Commission staff.

Thank you. The subject site is located within the community mixeduse 12 future land use category. The site is in the urban service area and the subject property is located within the limits of the East Lake Orient Park community plan. Future land use section policy 3.1.3 um requires that all new development be compatible with the surroundings recognizing that compatibility does not mean uniformity but rather the thoughtful design of proposals that respect and maintain the character of existing development. The subject site currently contains light commercial uses and additional light and heavy commercial uses are located to the south along East Hillsboro Avenue to the east um and along Carmarmac Road. Surrounding the site to the south, east and west are single family residential uses. Light industrial uses are situated directly to the north and west while public and quasi public uses are also present to the west. Given the presence of similar light industrial and more intensive uses in the surrounding area, the request aligns with the aforementioned policy direction. The CMU 12 future land use designation surround surrounds the site on all sides. The urban mixed juice 20 future land use category is located south across East Hillsboro. This designation allows consideration of agricultural, residential, commercial, office, research, corporate park, light, industrial, and multi-purpose uses. The proposed uses align with the development that are expected in the comm community mixed juice 12 category. The economic development goal of the East Lake Orient Park community plan is to expand opportunities for business growth and job creation within the East Lake Orient Park community. Goal seven of the future land use section further supports land use and development patterns that promote employment and economic expansion. The proposed modification of parcel one to allow manufacturing warehousing, mini warehousing, open storage and business professional office

uses is consistent with goal 7 and with the East Lake Orient Park community plan vision. Based upon those considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed modification consistent with the unincorporated Hillsboro County comprehensive plan subject to the conditions proposed by development services. Thank you. This point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? See no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? See no one responding. Staff, anything further? No, sir. Okay. Applicant opportunity for rebuttal.

Alex Shayaylor, 400 North Ashley Drive. I'll wave the rebuttal. Thank you. Thank you. That that concludes this application. Henrik, you're ready for the next item. Our last application for the evening is item D7, major mod 25-1375. The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD15-0694. Sam Ball Development Services has reviewed this and will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation. Good evening, Cammy Corbett. Again,

subject property is located on Boyette Road in Riverview. It's future land use of resour and it's part of a PD existing PD zoning. On the left is the original PD. It was a mixeduse residential development. It was developed by Madame Holmes and the front parcel was pod A was the commercial uh parcel and it was allowed for 50,000 a total of 50,000 square feet to the on the just below the the closeup. What you see with the gray pet suite site plan is actually a major modification that was done last year uh on the west side of the main driveway, but they didn't modify anything related to our part of p. So, what we're doing is establishing a pod A1 with this zoning that applies to our side, the east side of this New Valley loop, and we're keeping all of the same uses. Um, what we are actually doing is just removing there was a restriction on drive-throughs for eating establishments. So, we're asking to remove that restriction and we are subjecting ourselves to a condition that the call box for the eating establishment has to be 200 feet from the closest platted residential lot rather than the standard which would be no more than two or you couldn't have the use at all within 200 feet of residential uh zoning. And so with the stormwater ponds both on our site and on their site um and given that there's not very many single family residents within the 200 foot area, staff seem to be able to find a way to support this request. We are consistent with the commercial uh location criteria. The development is compatible with the surrounding area. We're consistent with the community plans and we have all recommendations for approval. And I'm here to answer any questions should you have any.

No questions. Thank you. Okay. Development Services.

Good evening. Sam Ball with Hillsboro County Development Services. Uh the applicant is requesting modifications to PD50694 to remove the restriction of eating establishments with drive-thru. Uh the applicant is also requesting that the ordering boxes for the drive-throughs be allowed within 200 ft of residentially zoned property. Uh the modification area covers 3.07 uh 07 acres and is located at the southeast corner of Boyette Road in New Valley Loop. Uh it is in the urban service area and the uh Riverview community planning area. The properties to the east and west are zoned for commercial use. The property to the south is within the same PD and is developed as a gated community with 424 lots developed as duplexes, town homes, and conventional single family. Uh the property across Boyette Road to the north contains a 12acre man-made lake. Uh other uses in the area include Riverview High School, uh freestanding strip retail, conventional single family, a religious institution, and vacant commercial. Uh if this application is approved, a portion of the commercially uh designated development pod, pod A, would be designated as pod A1 uh which would be limited to 18,000 uh square feet. Uh, eating establishments with drive-through would be allowed within pod u A1, but the drive-through order boxes would be required to be at least 200 feet from uh any plotted residential lot. Um, the development requirements would also include a 20 foot wide buffer with enhanced type screening along the southern boundary. That would include a 6-ft tall evergreen plantings with at least 75% opacity, a 6ft tall PVC fence, and a row of evergreen shade trees at least 10 ft tall at the time of planting and spaced 20 ft apart. Uh, the development standards also include a 25 ft setback from the north and west property boundaries. um based on the surrounding zoning and development pattern and the proposed uses the development standards for the modification area. Uh staff finds the

request approvable subject to conditions. Uh that concludes my report if you have any questions.

Yeah, just one specific question. Maybe the transportation staff can help with maybe the applicant and their consultant can help. I think there's a condition that says there's a an entrance road on the west side of the commercial site um that has a restriction for southbound to leftbound movements into the site. And I'd like to know I guess from staff and then the applicants rep is that's in your experience um will will that work I don't know if I'm framing the question right but usually you can control like left is in by a median but I think what they're proposing is to stripe it out and somehow say no no no lefts. Uh yes. Uh [clears throat] the um staff reviewer uh had identified a concern about I believe

[snorts] uh a restriction that was established in the previous PD um that appeared to be left out in one of the maybe the initial versions of this PD site plan um and made that a comment as a prior to certification to restore it. I think the applicant had uh revised the plan and and uh included it in the revised plan which shows uh I believe a sign restricting that left turn movement as well as perhaps some modifications to the curb

uh extension and I think the applicant's traffic engineer maybe will speak to that further. Yeah, if you don't mind to answer my question, if I can get the applicants, traffic consultants just address that one question. Good good evening. Michael Yates with Palm Traffic. Uh yes, Mr. Perez had indicated uh that will be restricted. Uh so no left in no southbound left in that was done originally. Uh it's the issue is the proximity from the intersection and so there wasn't sufficient distance to give stacking in there. There was no southbound left turn lane provided.

So given that it's already been developed, there's not enough room for stacking, but we did add a right in right out uh to the application for the parcel. So they'll be able to make that right in right out directly without coming into the residential driveway to try and make that southbound left in. So if you live in that community to the south, you could you could come into the retail by coming if you're coming out, you would make a northbound right into the site. If you want to go home right afterwards, you I you actually can make a left out. Make a left out. Yeah. You just can't make the left in.

Okay. And if you're coming home from work or parts beyond. Yeah. If you're coming if you're coming home and you live in the residential development, you can make a right into the development from the right in right out on the main road. Yeah. East West Road. Yeah. On boy. Okay. So, it was a carryover condition that somehow got dropped out and and put back in. Yes. Okay. Got it. Thank you. All right. um planning commission said

thank you. The subject property is located within the residential four future land use category. The site is in the urban service area and the subject property is located within the limits of the Riverview community plan as well as the Southshore area systems plan. The surrounding land use pattern is comprised mostly of light commercial uses to the north and east and residential uses to the south and west. Future land use section policy 4.4.1 states that development shall be integrated with the adjacent land uses through the creation of like uses, mitigation of adverse impacts, transportation and pedestrian connections as well as gradual transitions of intensity. With the mitigation measures in place, including the 20 foot buffer and the type B screening on the southern boundary of the site, as well as the condition that any call boxes associated with the drive-through eating establishment will be at least 200 f feet away from a residential property. The request is consistent with the policies related to neighborhood and community development. Objective 4.7 outlines the policies associated with commercial location criteria. Policy 4.7.3 outlines that non-residential uses and residential future land use categories can be considered if they meet certain criteria. One of these criteria applies to the neighborhood serving commercial uses that are integrated and connected as part of a larger mixeduse development of at least 10 acres in size. As the proposed major modification area is within a larger mixeduse plan development that is greater than 10 acres, this policy applies to the site. The site is connected to pod B and the adjacent commercial uses via access points and sidewalks and therefore the request meets this criteria and meets commercial locationational criteria policies. The site falls into the downtown and residential districts on the Riverview

district concept map. The downtown district focuses on direct mixeduse developments to create an aesthetically pleasing and pedestrianfriendly downtown. The residential district encourages attractive residential development that complements the surrounding character and promotes housing diversity. The request to remove the existing eating establishment drive-thru restriction is consistent with these district visions as the proposed use remains neighborhood serving and maintains a use that is compatible with both the downtown and the residential district vision. Based upon those considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed modification consistent with the unincorporated Hillsboro County comprehensive plan subject to the conditions proposed by development services. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? See no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? No one's responding. staff. Anything further? No, sir. Applicant, an opportunity for rebuttal. No need for rebuttal. With that, that concludes this application. And that concludes this evening's zoning hearing. Master hearing. We are adjourned.