Zoning Hearing Master - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the works. We're going behind the scenes with Hillsborough County's temporary traffic control to find out how they plan, manage, and monitor our roadways and traffic, all while keeping the county running smooth.

TTC is critical to the safety of the roadway in Hillsborough County. We're making sure that that work zone is set effectively so that it provides the safe traveling path for the persons that are driving through that work zone.

Most people to the untrained eye are going to sit here and say that this owner starved her dogs.

We're going to head up to that dog call right now. We'll go out, we'll assess the situation.

I'm looking at these dogs, I'm like, garbage. I mean, that's just not, did you see those bags of food there?

She was very upset about losing all of her cats. She called me up a few times in tears. I need my photos.

I need to be able to paint this picture for the judge so that he sees what I see.

In Hillsborough County, your tap water is more than just convenient. It's safe, trusted, and affordable. Every drop is monitored 24 hours a day and tested regularly to meet strict state and federal standards so you can trust what's coming out of your tap. Skip the plastic water bottles and go with tap. That way you're choosing sustainability and savings. Hillsborough County Water Resources is proud to deliver quality on tap. For helpful tips and for more information, visit hcfl.gov slash quality on tap.

Welcome everyone to tonight's August 24th, 2026 Zoning Hearing Master Hearing. My name is Steve Luce and I'll be handling tonight's hearing. At this point in time, if you could all rise 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 all. You may be seated. At this point in time, I'd like to introduce Michelle Heinrich. From the development services staff who will introduce the other staff members and go over any changes to this evening's agenda Michelle Thank You Michelle Heinrich development services Up here at the dice from the county attorney's office.

We have Jared Delfino with the Planning Commission staff We have Lily line in and with transportation staff Richard Perez and we do have Some housekeeping items to announce for anyone who's waiting for any of the cases and Let me see. We have three cases that have been withdrawn. Those include Major Mod 260154, 260206, and 26-0979. And the remaining cases that I'll announce have been continued to the September 28th ZHM hearing, and that includes Major Mod 26-0215, PD 26-0237, PD 26-0281, PD 26-0283, Major Mod 26-0546, PD 26-0665, PD 26-0706, Major Mod 26-0735, Plane Development 26-0799, Plane Development 26-0801, PD 26-0802, PD 26-0957, major mod 26-0970, and standard rezoning 26-1158. And we don't have any unpublished changes to the agenda to announce.

Regarding tonight's hearing, is there any additional seating for anybody that can't find a seat inside this?

Yes, we do have the overflow room available on the first floor. It is the glass room when you exit the elevator to your right. There should be chairs and a TV there so that you can watch the hearing.

Okay, and there's generally enough time between applications that they can come up when their item is on the agenda. Okay, very good. I have a few instructions to read into the record. The County Attorney's Office has a few instructions to read into the record. and then we'll get started with tonight's cases. 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. We'll file a recommendation within 15 working days after the conclusion of tonight's hearing. Those recommendations are then sent to the Board of County Commissioners who will make the final decisions. Our hearing will be informal. I will ask questions related to the scope of direct testimony. I may call and question witnesses as I deem appropriate, and I will decide all questions of procedure. I will take evidence, but will exclude evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial, or duly 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. Regarding the order of presentation for each item, first Ms. Heinrich will introduce the case on the agenda. Then the applicant and their witnesses will have 15 minutes to present their case. Then development services staff will have five minutes to present their case. Then the Planning Commission staff will have five minutes to present their position. Next, proponents, those people in support of an application, will have 15 minutes. And those people opposed, the opponents, will have 15 minutes total. Then Development Services will have an opportunity to provide additional comments. They have five minutes for that purpose. And finally, the applicant will have five minutes for rebuttal. regarding the time for proponents or opponents, the 15 minute timeframe 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 start by giving your name and address for the record. The meeting is being recorded. We want to make sure we accurately document who's speaking on the record. When you're done speaking, please sign in with the clerk's office with your name, address, and the application number of the agenda item you are speaking to. The pad where you sign in is at the end of the podium. If you could raise your hand, that's where you go to put in your name and address in the case you're speaking to. At this point in time, the County Attorney's Office will have a few instructions to also read into the record.

Good evening, Jared Delfino, Assistant County Attorney. Tonight's public hearing is the first of a two-step rezoning process. This hearing is the time for rezoning applicants and interested parties to present evidence and testimony. Any evidence presented tonight will become part of the complete factual record of each application and no additional evidence can be introduced after the closing of an application. The second step of the rezoning process is a public meeting before the Board of County Commissioners, where the Board will make a decision on each application heard tonight. Tonight's applications are scheduled to be heard by the Board at its October 13th, 2026 land use meeting, unless a different date is stated by staff. When considering applications, the Board will only review the record and the recommendation made by the land use hearing officer for each application. The land use hearing officer will file a recommendation for each application heard tonight on September 15th, 2026. the Board of County Commissioners has established a policy that directs which rezoning and major modifications applications are to be placed on the consent agenda of the board's land use meeting. The following applications may not be placed on the consent agenda. One, applications that propose to add density outside the urban service area. Two, applications on roadways with failing level of service. Applications that do not have consistent recommendations of approval. And applications that have had evidence or testimony in opposition provided to the record by non-applicant parties of record, either prior to or at tonight's public hearing. The board will allow testimony by any party of record at its public meeting to consider the land use hearing officer's recommendation for any item on the regular agenda. Testimony by a party of record shall be limited to the record of the proceedings before the land use hearing officer unless additional evidence has been found admissible in accordance with section 10.03.04d of the land development code. A party of record is an individual who fits at least one of these four following categories. First, someone who is present tonight and presents testimony or documentary evidence. Second, someone who has been certified by the U.S. Postal Service as having been mailed notice of tonight's hearing. Third, someone who has submitted documentary evidence to the master file at least two business days prior to tonight's hearing. Or fourth, someone who has submitted documentary evidence by proxy at tonight's hearing. The content of oral argument before the board shall be limited to the content of the testimony and other evidence submitted verbally or in writing to the land use hearing officer. It is the role of the county attorney's office to ensure that only individuals who have met these requirements are allowed to speak before the board to ensure that no new evidence or testimony is introduced or allowed at the board's public hearing. For these reasons, please make sure that all information you wish the board to consider at its public meeting is entered in tonight's record. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. All testimony must be provided under oath. Therefore, if you plan to speak tonight, please stand and raise your right hand so I may swear you in. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

I do.

Okay, thank you. You may be seated. I do. Okay, with that, we're done with the introductions and instructions. Ms. Heinrich, we're ready for the first item.

Our first application is item C1, standard rezoning 26-1168. The applicant is requesting to rezone property from CG with restrictions to CG with restrictions. Michelle Montalbano will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

The applicant, please.

Yes. My name is Larry. Do you want me to just present myself?

Okay, go ahead.

Okay, my name is Larry Polliner. I'm the engineer of record with RCE Consultants. My address is 617 Arvern Drive, Altamont Springs, Florida. I am here at the pleasure of the board. We are just removing one of the restrictions to allow for- I'm trying to listen.

I can't listen.

I'm sorry, sir. Somebody tried to speak over you, but please proceed.

Okay. The purpose of this rezone is to remove one of the restrictions. The original restrictions on the property were no automotive sales, no adult shop, and no agricultural sales of large equipment. We do not plan on selling large equipment like, I don't know, giant weavies or anything like that. This is just a small business that sells planting supplies. But we wanted to make sure that the restriction did not adversely affect the business. And that's the whole purpose of this rezone.

Okay. Very good. Thank you, sir. You're welcome. All right. And development services staff?

The applicant is requesting to revise the zoning restrictions of the existing Commercial General with restrictions Zeleny District. The request is to remove the language prohibiting sales and rental of farm and garden equipment. The property is currently occupied by Farm and Garden Supply Center, which does not expressly permit the sales and rental of farm and garden equipment. If approved, both uses would be permitted. The property is located on Lineball Ave near the intersection with Northdale Mabry, with the area with commercial and office uses. Staff finds the rezoning supportable. I'm going to be able to have any questions.

No questions. Thank you. And Planning Commission staff?

Lillian Linehan, Planning Commission staff. The subject property is within the Office Commercial 20 Future Land Use category. It's within the Urban Service Area and located within the limits of the Greater Carrowood Northdale Community Plan. It is currently developed with commercial uses and surrounded by mainly heavy and light commercial uses near the West Limewall Avenue and Northdale-Mabry Highway intersection. And in the surrounding area, the land uses consist of primarily commercial development with some public quasi-public institutional and residential uses to the east and west of the site. And there are some light industrial uses located to the south Collectively, these existing land use patterns establishes a predominantly commercial context that supports the proposed rezoning, and it's compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with FLU's objective 3.1 and policy 3.1.3, which require developments to be compatible with the surrounding areas. It also satisfies the intent of whose objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1, which required new development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The removal of the restriction for the sale of farm and garden equipment will not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood, which consists of heavy and light commercial uses. An applicant is still leaving the other original restrictions that prevent the sale of domestic vehicles, pleasure craft, hobby vehicles, and prohibits sexually oriented businesses. And the original planning commission findings were contingent upon these restrictions. The addition of farm and garden equipment sales will further the operation of the existing agricultural plant nursery and would result in compatible development. And lastly, the addition of the sale of farm and garden equipment is supported by several policies under objective 5.1, which state that in recognition of the importance of agricultural as an industry and a valuable economic resource that Hillsborough County shall promote the economic viability of agricultural activities by recognizing and providing for its unique characteristics and land use planning and land development regulations. So based upon the above considerations, the following goals, objectives, and policies, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, subject to the restrictions proposed by Development Services Department.

Okay, thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? There's no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? See no one responding. Staff, anything further?

No, sir.

Any applicant, an opportunity for rebuttal? Sir, are you good? All right, I don't know what happened to him, but I think we're good on this one.

I have no rebuttal, I'm sorry.

Okay, thank you. All right, with that, that concludes this application. I'll sign record ready for the next item.

Our next application is item C2, standard rezoning 26-1184. The applicant is requesting a rezoned property from AS1 to RSC9 with restrictions. Sierra James with Development Services will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay, the applicant.

Good evening, Cami Corbett, 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 1100, Tampa, Florida. here representing Madam E. Holmes. This is pretty straightforward. This is a standard rezoning request to RSC 9 restricted. The restriction is to the four units to the acre that's allowed by the comprehensive plan. The site that's outlined in dashed is actually a site we rezoned earlier last year. And this is a continuation of that. And you can just see this exhibit. We're going from the AS 1 to the RSC 9 restricted. We have minimum lot widths of 50 feet. I'm sorry, 60 feet with 7,200 foot lots and a maximum density of four dwelling units per acre. These are some examples of the product that Mattamy builds. They do a really nice job. Staff has found this consistent and compatible with the comprehensive plan and the land development code. And we have no objections from any reviewing agencies. And we're here to answer any questions should you have any.

No questions. Thank you. Development services staff.

Good evening, Sierra James of Development Services. The applicant is requesting to rezone the site from AS1 to RSC9 with the following applicant proposed restrictions. Development will be limited to four dwelling units per acre. The minimum lot size will be 7,200 square feet and the minimum lot width will be 60 feet. The subject site is located within the Riverview Community Plan area off Rulson Road. Much of the surrounding area consists of single-family residential uses. Notably, properties to the north are zoned RSC 9 with similar restrictions. Based on these considerations, staff find the proposed rezoning approvable. Yeah, thank you. Thank you.

All right, Planning Commission staff.

Lillian Linehan, Planning Commission staff. The subject property is located within the Residential 4 Future Land Use category, is within the Urban Service Area, and within the limits of the Riverview and South Hillsborough County community plans. The intent of the residential four category is for low density residential development, which aligns with the proposed use for single family detached units. The maximum potential under this category is for dwelling units per gross acre. And the maximum non-residential development potential is 0.25 FAR. The planning commission requested to add a restriction to the rezoning, which would limit the residential development to a maximum of four dwelling units in align with the residential four feature land use category. The applicant agreed to add this restriction, which made a total of three restrictions. The other two include a minimum lot width of 60 feet and to have a minimum lot area of 7,200 square feet. The surrounding land use site pattern consists primarily of residential uses with some agricultural land to the north. And this request would provide a compatible use that is consistent with the surrounding residential uses and existing character. and is consistent with Objective 3.1 and its associated related policies. The surrounding zoning pattern consists of agricultural rule to the east, RSC 3 to the south, AS 1 to the west, and RSC 9 to the north. This requested rezoning from AS1 to the RSC9 restricted is consistent with the existing zoning and development pattern in the vicinity, and therefore the request is consistent with Objective 4.4 and Policy 4.4.1. And lastly, the site is within the Riverview Community Plan, which desires to reflect the vision of the Riverview District Concept Map. It is within the residential district on this map, which encourages residential development that complements the surrounding area. It promotes housing diversity. The request would provide additional housing opportunities in an area already characterized as a residential district. So based upon these considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed plan development consisted with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions proposed by the Development Services Department. Thank you.

At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? No one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

Yes, please.

Yes, ma'am.

Mary Yompieri, 11405 Rollerson Road. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. We had a meet and greet with the consultants and the builders, which was wonderful. Answered a lot of our questions. Just want to kind of make sure that they're going to stick to the plan since the other three developments in the area have not stuck to the plan. We wanna make sure, she did mention Rollerson Road. We wanna make sure that there is no egress to Rollerson Road other than the emergency locked entrance. That was very important to us. We wanna make sure that that's for sure. Actually, I think I'm the only one that's gonna be here because everybody's feeling totally defeated again since this is our third neighborhood. We wanted to have the streetlights to be covered at the top and pointing down into their roadway. We discussed that with the builder also. We wanted requesting an eight-foot fence between their properties and ours instead of the six-foot fence. Compliance is another issue which we continue to have a problem with in all of these developments that back up to our rural acreage. They need to comply with the work days and times, including crews that they hire, the construction crews, the roofers, I'm sorry, not the landscapers, the concrete trucks, the framing crews. Been quite the problem in the past, and we're going to be doing this for another two years since this project is the 11 acres. The other project is the first phase, which backs up to it. Anyhow, regardless, we want to make sure that they're going to honor what they're supposed to honor. They weren't sure about if they were utilizing natural gas or not. We were curious about that. I don't know if that'll get answered later. We do have issues about the density. Our schools are at just about bulk capacity. We gave them a copy of all of those percentages. We have six schools in this area, right across the street from each other, blah, blah, blah. It's terrible to get in and out of here. You can't until after the school buses are gone. uh we're hoping that that gets addressed i don't know how but we're hoping that that gets a second look the um drilling of the wells if they're drilling any wells for reclaimed sprinklers one of the neighbors just mentioned that and i thought that was discussed that they weren't going to have any wells on that property our wells have never been the same since they put the last two neighborhoods in a few of them have collapsed we've had to pull them up we've had to re-drill Very expensive. Pump stations are a concern. The new neighborhoods that are all around our acreage, they have a pump station, but they're not monitored 24 hours a day. So we could go a day and a half, two days listening to the sirens go off from their pump stations. I understand their phase one and phase two are going to have separate pump stations. So that, of course, is another concern. Just a curious question about the notices. I think they just said this was done a year ago. We got a notice put on the street July the 15th. That was the first notice that we all saw. The letters came shortly after that. I guess I can call the county tomorrow and find out about how many other notices they put up last year here and at the Cat House project. I'm the only one here because everybody is feeling pretty voiceless and bulldozed over. We used to be a country. We have a little one-lane road dead end that we live on. We can't get in and out of our property out to Foyette Road either. Takes forever if you want to go out and go in a different direction. I was hoping all this building wasn't going to keep happening and hit out here for at least 10 more years. Not much property left since we just drove down the road and saw that the Girl Scout camp has sold more property. There was no notice for that. Nobody saw any signs for that. But it looks like it's going to be quite a big project down there too. So we've lost our rural area. We're very, very concerned about the wildlife, the turtles. We have a number of foxes, coyotes, armadillos, possums, raccoons. The bobcat, we have not seen him for quite a while now. One of the other neighbors on the adjoining properties to this on Hillcrest, they were concerned about the drainage to their property also, since these homes are going to be at a higher elevation than theirs. I thank you for your time and consideration. And I hope the county just keeps following policy and doesn't just let these builders bulldoze over them. Thank you for your time. Thank you, ma'am.

Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition? No one responding. Staff, anything further?

I'll just note for the citizen who just spoke, we don't have any restrictions in regards to some of the items that she talked about, just to let her know, specifically in terms of the emergency access and where that might be if it's necessary, and anything with a perimeter fence. I know she mentioned eight feet. The highest that it can go is six feet, unless you obtain a variance.

Okay. All right. To clarify, it's a request for Euclidean zoning, right? Yes. It's not a plan development, right? Correct. So that's why you only addressed a few items. Correct. Okay. All right. Very good. Thank you. At this point in time, the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal.

I think I would just say, as you are aware, and as the county is aware, a lot of the issues with respect to access and drainage and those types of things happen at site development, and we're happy to keep a dialogue going with the neighborhood. The builder actually did the community meeting, and they would continue to meet with the community and try to address any concerns that they have. But with that, we don't have anything further to offer.

All right, very good. Thank you, ma'am. With that, that concludes this item. Ms. Heinrich, ready for the next case.

Our next application is item D1, Major Mod 26-0062. The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 77-0123. Sambal with Development Services has reviewed this and will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Good evening, Mr. Luce. My name is Tyler Hudson. My address is 400 North Ashley Drive. We're going to go ahead and jump into a PowerPoint. The site is located sort of behind a Publix and between a public storage and a general kind of retail commercial cluster off of Apollo Beach Boulevard. It's about 9 and 1 half acres. This is a part we'll talk about DRIs in a second, a part of DRI 59. Specifically, this is in pocket 62B. So a lot going on in this DRI from 1979. The project we're proposing is a multifamily apartment building, four stories in height, 237 total units with access off of Apollo Beach Boulevard. This would really sit sort of squarely in the green pastoral land behind the Publix right now. We are not in much of a dispute with staff about the things that typically cause disputes in these chambers, which are things about compatibility or even the use of multifamily. This is really a fairly ideal multifamily infill site. Not really fighting about heights. We're not really in disagreement about buffers, screening, things like that. After some time, we are no longer in disagreement about the administrative variances and design exceptions. The staff report indicated those were recommended for disapproval, but I believe that that has been squared away. What we are disputing is about a couple of words in the DRI development order. So of course the Apollo Beach DRI was implemented through a development order resolution in 1979. It's typical for DRIs of that vintage. It's been amended a couple of times. But the section on trip generation has not been. Like most DRIs, the coin of the realm is PM trips. That is the basis for which trip generations are determined. And while there is a reference in the context of land use exchanges to referencing equivalent trip generation based on ITE, we don't dispute that ITE is the correct what. That is where you should be looking for the trip generation numbers. The dispute we have is that staff has asked that we evaluate cumulative AM, PM peak trips. The reason that's problematic for us, and Steve Henry is going to speak about this in greater depth, is there is no AM trip baseline in the development order. We have a bundle of vested rights arising from the ownership of the property Going back to 1979, that said that PM trips are how you calculate these conversions. So we're talking about Apple. Staff is asking us to consider oranges. Oranges are good, but they just have no business in affecting the conversion we're seeking here by this. So I'd ask Steve to touch on a couple of these points on the slide, and then I'll be back to wrap it up.

Good evening, Steve Henry, TMC 5023 West Laurel, Tampa 33607. As Tyler had indicated, I'll talk to you a little bit about the traffic. So the reality is we actually did the original traffic analysis for Apollo Beach. We did the phase two, phase three analysis. All those were based on the PM peak hour. I've actually got a copy of the analysis that we can, enter into the record if need be. But in addition to that, we also did the DG Farms DRI analysis that was based on PM peak hour. We updated the loom based on PM peak hour. We also did the South Shore DRI, which was also we updated the loom for that one, all based on PM peak hour. So the reality is, you know, when you're looking at the trips associated with it, the analysis for all DRIs are based on PM peak hour. So now to be asked to do AM, the staff had to actually go through an analysis to determine what AM trips were even supposed to be analyzing since they weren't in the DRI. So from our standpoint, we believe the PM peak hour is the reasonable equivalency for the purposes of evaluating land use equivalencies.

Thank you.

And that slide just says what Steve just said. So the way the dominoes have fallen here is that we have some staff opposition to this request. Really comes down from a very narrow basis, which is what's the appropriate exchange methodology for a 1979 DRI that only provides for PM trips as the coin of the realm. proposed to do. This is, we think, redundant. We think it's not necessary, but we have filed a DO amendment to say what we think it already says, which is that when we talk about these land use exchanges, it's about PM trips as provided in the original development order. I think if that is approved, whether staff recommends its approval or not, is a separate thing. I think if that were approved, that would allay any doubt here. But again, we just see this as just an add-on curing mechanism. We do dispute the premise that AM peak trips have anything to do, and that's completely irrelevant to staff's analysis on the conversion. So with that, I will just note in closing, this is a pretty substantial impact fee generator for the site. This is an ideal place for infill housing. There is some multi-family in the periphery. It's a blank piece of land near a major road behind a Publix and some employment centers. With that, appreciate your time. Thank you.

Yeah, if I could, because I read the staff report and they're taking the position, maybe it's an information you provided to them, that the site is Currently entitled for, I don't know, 34, 35,000 square feet of retail?

That's what we're seeking to convert. We're seeking to convert 35,000 retail.

That's what you think the entitlements are on this?

It's 37,400, I believe.

9.48 acres. Correct.

Converting that to 237 units.

So if you could, or Steve Emery, walk me through, how do you get from the 35,000 square feet of retail to 237?

UNITS. THE STAFF HAD DONE IT BASED ON PM PEAK HOUR. THEY ALSO LOOKED AT AM PEAK HOUR. THE PM PEAK HOUR GETS US WHERE WE WANT TO BE. EXPLAIN THAT TO ME. And I will, because we didn't actually do that. Those were done by staff. So I will pull that out here. But essentially what staff was looking at was, and they were looking at both the inbound and outbound trips. And then you look at the equivalency of those trips to get there. And again, I'll have to go through their numbers. I didn't get their numbers. Really, it was just a matter of, from our standpoint, we were asked to look at What's a reasonable rate? Was it the PM, the AM, or what? That's what we were asked to look at that. So I have actually run through the numbers. I'm happy to do that.

All right, well, let me just, let's back up a step. Sure, sure. Just like intuitively, you've done traffic for a while. Yes, a couple years. 35,000 square feet of retail. Is that equivalent to?

237 units yes, yeah again p.m.. Peak hour when you look at the gross trips that that would be probably equivalency Okay, and again. I'm happy to look at the numbers again because we were just simply looking at What was the the reasonable whether it's a.m.. Or p.m.. So I didn't run through that the actual calculations for that, but I'm happy to do that I'll ask

county staff, transportation planner, the same question. Maybe you can come back on rebuttal.

Right.

And show me the math. Sure, absolutely. All right. Very good. Okay, thank you. Thanks. Does that conclude, Mr. Hudson, your presentation? All right. At this point in time, development services staff.

Good evening. Sam Ball of Hillsborough County Development Services. The applicant is requesting a major modification to pocket 62B of PD 770123 to allow for the development of 237 multifamily dwellings through an exchange of commercial or office use entitlements. This application is being heard concurrently with a modification to the Apollo Beach DRI under DRI DO 26-0245. The subject property is located in the Apollo Beach Community Planning Area, The development site adjoined properties within the same PD on all sides, which are approved and developed for a mix of office or commercial uses that include retail, light, industrial, and many warehousing. Additional uses in the area include a religious institution, multi-family, conventional single-family dwellings, multi-user office complex, and a mobile home park. Pocket 62B is approved for 440,207 square feet of commercial or office use. The proposed modifications include reducing the commercial office entitlements to 405,696 square feet, allowing for the 237 multifamily dwellings and establishing vehicular and pedestrian access points along Apollo Beach Boulevard and pedestrian cross-access for the property located to the north and south. The application includes a PD variation request to the buffering screening requirements of LDC section 60606 that if approved would reduce the required buffering screening requirements from a 30 foot C to a 10 foot B between the proposed building envelope and the light industrial site to the north. The activities associated with the light industrial use to the north are contained within a structure position approximately 120 feet north of the property boundary. The manufacturing, excuse me, the industrial facility The north is also screened from the subject property of dense vegetation and protected wetlands. The loading docks of the industrial facility are located more than 275 feet from the proposed development and are oriented towards the opposite direction. Based on these findings, the staff finds the approval of, excuse me, finds that the approval of the requested waiver will have no impacts. Staff finds the proposed development compatible with the area based on zoning development pattern in the area and the above considerations. However, the proposed number of residential units would be provided through a conversion of commercial entitlements to residential entitlements as provided for in the Apollo Beach DRI. The trip exchange requires at least 310,364 square feet instead of the 34,511 square feet proposed by the applicant due to directional daily inbound and outbound, directional AM inbound and outbound, and directional PM inbound trips. I do this final consideration. Staff finds the request not supportable. That concludes my presentation. If you have any questions.

Only with regard to traffic. So I'd like to hear from the transportation planner for the county.

Okay.

James Ratliff. Okay. Thank you.

Good evening.

James Ratliff, Development Services Transportation. Unless you have other comments you want to make, but the question I had for the applicant's transportation planner was, show me the math. How do you get from 34,511 square feet retail to 237 multifamily units.

Sure. Let me start by saying that I think you asked the question whether the things that they were presenting about how the other projects had been done, DG Farms was something that had been presented to us. That data was provided. This went up to the director of development review who you know essentially interpreted what the development order states in terms of how we would analyze this project. They also then I believe sent that information to the county attorney's office who again agreed with staff's interpretation of how the development order reads. So notwithstanding whatever was done in those other projects, we have to review this project based on what this development order says, not what's usual or customary, but what was approved. So in terms of the math, let's see, I haven't used this thing in about 20 years. Sorry, you have a little homework.

I gave the other side a homework too.

And going to need to zoom. Let's see.

OK.

So if that's hopefully, you can see that. Yes.

Essentially, this is essentially a two-part problem. The first part is the exchange of equivalent uses. And then the second part of the problem is assuming that the exchange was done correctly. It's kind of a subpart to that question is do they control the entitlements necessary to effectuate the exchange? And then if you will, kind of a third problem or the main second problem is does that exchange violate the trip cap? So those are kind of, Separate but related issues and in the DRI development order again It introduces this concept for this particular DRI of directional Equivalency and the trip cap only looks at p.m. Peak hour, but with regard to the exchange we look at all three periods and directional Equivalency as well. So what you can see here is this first line basically shows what they're proposing to exchange to which is 237 dwelling units of apartments four stories or higher. And that's an important consideration because the particular code they used, the higher the apartments are, the lower the traffic they generate per unit. So that's what that first line is showing. The next line is essentially taking of the 870,464 square feet of commercial entitlements. We said, well, how much do we have to reduce that number by in order to achieve equivalency in all three time periods in both the inbound and outbound directions? So achieving average daily equivalency inbound and outbound, so on and so forth. So it took quite a bit of non-residential entitlements to achieve an outbound AM peak hour equivalency. And that's because, again, the code that was utilized when the DRI was originally studied, code 820, generates a relatively lower number. of outbound AM trips. And so in order to get the number of outbound AM trips to be equivalent for residential, which generates a lot of outbound AM trips, everybody's leaving for work in the morning, you have to exchange 310,364 square feet in order to achieve that outbound equivalency. Okay, so that's what you're saying.

You're saying they have to exchange 310,000 square feet of retail to get to 237 units.

Correct, and it's all because of this one column right here, which is the outbound. In order to get that 71 units to be equivalent, right, you have a lot of overage in these other categories. It's that one directional equivalency in the AM outbound. That was the controlling factor. Got it. All right. I understand. And so then the second part of the test was, well, assuming they had the entitlements to exchange and they could do that, then how does it interact with the trip cap? So... And according to this, it would be, it would exceed the cap by 10 trips. He mentioned that, you know, they were looking at a potential DO amendment as a curative mechanism, I believe. But again, that's not of record right now. So we reviewed this case based on what's currently being proposed. And, you know, possibility we wouldn't support that even if proposed. But the point being, it's not being proposed currently. So we're reviewing it as it currently sits.

Okay. All right.

That's helpful. Thank you. Sure.

At this point, I'm planning commission staff.

Lillian Linehan, planning commission staff. The site is designated as office commercial 20 on the future land use map and is within the urban service area and within the limits of the Apollo Beach community plan and South Shore area wide systems plan. The site's also part of a development of regional impact development order and planning commission staff finding is contingent upon the application being in compliance with the DRI. The intent of the Office Commercial 20 category is to accommodate commercial and office development while still allowing for the consideration of compatible residential uses, and the proposed residential development exceeds the base density of the 20 dwelling units per acre allowed under this category. However, because of the DRI, the proposed units utilize a portion of the remaining residential entitlements, and therefore the proposal is consistent with the intent of the OC20 category subject to its compliance with the DRI. Flues Objective 1.1 of the Future Land Use Section directs 80% of the county's growth into the urban service area, and Flues Policy 3.1.3 requires new development to be compatible with the surrounding uses. The proposed residential development is compatible with the surrounding development pattern, which includes light industrial and commercial uses with residential development farther west along Apollo Beach Boulevard. Proposed development also meets the intent of FLU's Objective 4.4, Policies 4.4.1 regarding compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. While the Apollo Beach Community Plan discourages residential development that exceeds 50 feet in height, the subject site is located within an Intensive Future Land Use designation of Office Commercial 20 in an established commercial node. Given the surrounding commercial intensity and the location along Apollo Beach Boulevard and US Highway 41, The proposed building height is considered compatible with the surrounding area. And lastly, the proposed major modification is consistent with the vision of the Apollo Beach community plan and South Shore area wide systems plans by supporting development within an established activity center and providing additional residential opportunities in an area served by existing urban infrastructure. So based upon these considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed major modification consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan subject to the conditions posed by Development Services and compliance with the requirements of the DRI.

Okay, thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? No one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

Good evening, Chair. I believe we have eight people signed up online to speak.

Okay. All right. First person, please proceed.

Brad, are you able to hear me?

I am. I'm sorry. I didn't know I was first. My name is Brad Algren. I'm a business owner at 208 Apollo Beach Boulevard, about 350 feet southeast of the proposed development. And as I've said on the record that I've submitted, I'm not opposed to progress. I'm not opposed to improvements. However, I believe this application would be to the detriment of the community and a few things were said tonight that the applicant was not really in opposition to the staff on heights and setbacks and things like that. And in my submission to the county, I've, I've, I've had a variance with that is we do have opposition to the height. We do have opposition to the setbacks. And I trust that you all have had a chance to read that. Submission on the record. However, I would like to speak with speak about the comprehensive plan objective 2.2 point 2.2, which sets the density. Let me pull that up. That sets maximum density. And I don't believe any DRI or trip conversion can allow excess density that the objective withholds. So for OC20, it allows up to about 189 units. I don't believe the DRI conversions, the trip conversions can now exceed something that the objective withholds. So I do have an issue with that. And then I also have submitted on record that I don't believe it is consistent also with policy 3.1 in the scale, the mass, the bulk of structure, pedestrian and vehicular traffic. And so for the record, I've put six points down that I believe support and corroborate that with video evidence. with just document evidence from the traffic engineer and from others. And so I don't, how much time do I have with eight people? Two minutes?

There's, yeah, if you divide it by eight, it's about roughly two minutes a person.

I'm probably very close to that, so I will have to yield my time. But I trust that you all have read that document. And then towards the end there, I'm asking that you do not grant variances on the setback. or the height, keep consistent with the plan. These plans were put in place. They're good plans, just like you were looking very carefully at the DRI and trip conversion. I believe the comprehensive plan should take precedent over all of that. So I'm opposed to it. All right.

Very good. Thank you, sir. All right. Next person who wishes to speak in opposition?

Laura?

Oh, that's me. Hi. My name is Laura Craig. I live at 6348 Cocoa Lane in Apollo Beach. And I'm here to voice my concern over these major modifications. First and foremost, you guys talk about PM and AM traffic. Did anybody that did these studies actually live in Apollo Beach and go down the AM and PM times that they did these studies in? The schools, the traffic is just horrendous. Apollo Beach Boulevard is two lanes in, two lanes out. You have one car that fits into the turning lanes. There has not been any improvement to Apollo Beach Boulevard in many, many years. There was a 2025 study, proposed improvements, which have not, they were under review. One of those being taking one of those lanes and putting it into a golf cart and bicycle lane. So that cuts two lanes down to one. You wanna go and put 237 units, which roughly you figure two people per unit minimum. So that's almost 500 people. Everybody has a car. In and out, there's just no, I didn't hear anything to go and address the infrastructure about this. And not to mention the pickup lines that extend down going east on Apollo Beach Boulevard to the school. It extends all the way down Apollo Beach Boulevard and all the way down Dickman Boulevard or Dickman Road. It's impossible. I'm surprised that there hasn't been a major accident as of yet or any children being hurt or killed by crossing these streets because it's a 35 mile an hour zone. People use it as a 50 mile, 60 mile, depending on how fast they want to go. So that's my issue with traffic. It's so close to 41 and Apollo Beach Boulevard intersection. There's approximately 33 to 35,000 vehicles that pass through that intersection already on the other side of Apollo Beach on They already built, I don't know how many hundreds of apartment buildings. They've already proposed another 250 apartments on the south side of Paseo El Mar in 1941. It's just, and to go and voice evacuation. We're in a flood zone. We were flooded two years ago, the whole Apollo Beach Boulevard. How do you plan on getting 30, right now as it estimated about 33,000 people live in Apollo Beach. How do you expect to get all these people out in case of an emergency? There's one way in and one way out. Um, it's there's there, and there is no evacuation plan in any review. There's nothing, nobody, you know, oh, when we, when we found the siren, it's time to go. Um, you also have to go and contend with the water shortage. We're only allowed to go and water our, our grass or plants or whatever once a week. And you're only allowed it for 15 minutes or 20 minutes. And now you plan on doing 237 more people in a five story building, which by the way, does not, is not compatible with Apollo beach. You know, there is nothing over two stories. Uh, they're trying to get, there's two other apart. There's two other, uh, complexes that are trying to, uh, the, the water set complex is the one I've mentioned. And we're not mentioning the hotel, the condominiums that they want to do on Surfside Boulevard, which is another 50 to 55 condominiums with retail. They don't know retail or no retail. They haven't decided yet. So between the water shortages, the traffic issues, the road is in horrible condition. I mean, you have to weave and dodge potholes and sink holes. And then they come in and they do a shoddy job patching it anyway. And this doesn't even address the amount of people that are going to be, how many kids are going to be going into the schools? I mean, they're over already overcrowded. We have five schools right around us and there, I mean, traffic is just insane. I don't leave my house until after 10 o'clock in the morning because you can't get through. And then I make sure I'm home by two o'clock because the traffic coming home from school is crazy. And then at 4 o'clock, all the traffic coming in from Tampa, people working. The traffic has made this once paradise into a nightmare. You don't want to even leave your house. So I don't think that what the developer or these studies are showing is the actual impact of what you're trying to do here. It sounded like you all live in Tampa. How about flooding? You guys go and deal with flooding. The pipes over here, they're all 50 years old plus. They're all breaking. My road already had three issues with pipes bursting. It's just not It's just not compatible. Again, I'm not, just like the gentleman before me said, I'm not against growth, but I am against this unbridled development, and it's unfortunate that we live in an unincorporated Hillsborough County because we don't have a voice. We are the voice, and it seems like we're not being listened to. We moved here for a reason, and that reason is being eroded so quickly that it makes your head spin. You know, they have water set that's already gone all the way down through 19th Street. There's no more rural land. There's none. What used to be tomato farms and cattle farms is nothing. It's just houses and houses and houses. So, yes, I am. There's this high density projects with everything going around. And now they approve Costco and Target over there by across the street from the high school on Big Bend. It's going to be even more of a nightmare. I mean, to get up, it used to take me 15 minutes to get up to 75. I'm lucky if I could get up there in 35 minutes to the highway and then get stuck on 75 trying to get up to Brandon, which takes me almost 45 minutes. I mean, it's a 10-mile trip, 45 minutes.

I think that there's a few more people that want to speak, so please wrap up your...

I know. I'm sorry. I'm done. I'm done. Yes. I just hope that these developers give... There's no thought to the quality of life, and I respectfully ask for this major modification to be denied. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Next person who wishes to speak in opposition. Glenn Banks.

Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Hi, my name is Lynn Banks and I live at 102 St. George Court. Back in April, I put together a petition. As a member of the over 500 unit Caribbean Isles Waterfront Mobile Home Community Co-op, I want to express our significant concern and oppose the construction of this huge apartment building. And the reasons are as follows. Number one, I want to completely support the documentation submitted by Brad Ogren. His analysis of the entire process is absolutely right on. Number one, the problem we have at Caribbean Isles Mobile Home Community is water runoff and our canals are filling up with silt and other items that are causing our canals to be overrun with the silt and they're filling in. Our community spent almost a million dollars in the last couple of years dredging the community that has been touted as a waterfront boating community. Many people cannot even get their boats off their lifts, let alone navigate out to Tampa Bay to enjoy the wonderful environment that we have. So number one concern would be to ask the developer if he's willing to put up a million dollar surity bond to address all damages and issues that may affect the Caribbean Isles mobile home community in the future if this plan should go through. I think that's certainly reasonable. If there's no damage, it's no cost. If there's damage, we would like to be compensated for the ability to use our canals that we purchased over the last 40 to 50 years. Lastly, or secondly, as a retired law enforcement officer, having watched everything going on up and down Apollo Beach Boulevard, I am appalled that the traffic study was number one, inaccurate, and number two, it hasn't been significantly and adequately um documented or finalized as to the amount of traffic problems that could be if this ability this apartment building goes through there's no ability to put in left turn lanes right turn lanes there's no ability for traffic to get across apollo beach boulevard to go north and south and what the developer is proposing is absolutely ridiculous from a safety perspective you can't ask trucks fire department engines ambulances or anything else to make U-turns at the south end or the north end of this building. So that's not going to work for them. Plus, we also had a golf cart fatality at the road, Apollo Beach C Boulevard, where Caribbean Isles gets off of Apollo Beach Boulevard. That was never documented. That was in December of 2024. So I think the traffic study needs to be done. I also think that we are in agreement that a final traffic study from Hillsborough County as to what the plan is for Apollo Beach Boulevard from the bay all the way to Highway 41. It's absolutely, as I can only imagine, everybody agrees, is a nightmare. Nobody would want to drive on that. Um, thirdly, the height is non conforming to the 50 foot guidelines. Please please adhere to the 50 foot guidelines. They were put in place for a reason. A 65 foot building. I will be able to change the televisions with my remote control to the people that live on the 3rd, 4th and 5th floor of this building. If this should go through. What irritates us to no end is that because the zoning purpose notification purposes are only 350 feet, you miss notifying Caribbean Isles community by about 125 feet, which we consider completely unfair and actually kind of disappointing because it sounds like the developer was trying to hide from us. So, the height is awful. There are no other 4 story or 5 story buildings West of highway 41 and what's going on East of highway 41 is already at a 40% or more vacancy. They're not filling these buildings up. Nobody can afford them. Lastly, as, um, as, um, was pointed out in the documentation from. Mr. Algren, the sewer and water issues are going to be a huge concern. The wastewater is not able to be handled right now with what is in place. You start building more of these buildings without having a plan in place, who's going to pay for that? That's going to have to come out of taxes someplace. There's absolutely no way that you're going to put in a new water treatment plant without costing everybody in Apollo Beach an exorbitant amount of money. So with that said, I'm gonna defer my time to anybody else that wants to speak. Just remember, we have over 500 people in our community and 350 of them signed a petition against and opposing this development. Please stick to the rules and the regulations that have been written and that have been planned. Major modifications don't need to be addressed right now. I think that's just totally unheard of.

Thank you for your time. All right, they're about out of 15 minutes. How many more people wish to speak in opposition? I see one, two people, three. Okay, I'm gonna grant.

There's people in the audience as well, Mr. Luce.

And there's people in the audience. You raise your hands. I got two people in the audience as well. So that's five. I grant five more minutes. So please keep that in mind. That's roughly a minute a person, unless you have a designated speaker. So next person, please.

Mary Laverly.

Okay. My name is Mary Lavery. I'm at 123 St. Martin's Way in Apollo Beach. And I'm speaking then in opposition to this. And my concerns are with the existing traffic and the intensity. As Lynn Banks had stated that there was a death from our community that was not documented in the traffic study. I also want to talk about the 237 unit DRI Thank you for acknowledging that there's still questions with that exchange because it did not make sense to me for about 35,000 square feet being changed into 310,000 square feet. So that was a shortage of 275,000 square feet. It did not make sense. The map did not make sense to me. Speaking about the height and compatibility, we in Apollo Beach really only have two-story buildings so having this now go to four-story buildings that's definitely not compatible we probably need to have eyes on rather than paperwork submitted to say yes it is compatible there's also concern for drainage and the environmental uh As Lynn also spoke about, we are in a canal community, and those canals are significantly impacting our way of life. And there is also then concern about the coastal evacuation that has not been addressed. So I would request the board that the transportation access changes have not really been resolved. 237 unit dri entitlement exchange remains sufficient the transportation staff concerns or continues to object and there are specific questions regarding the intensity the drainage and commune of Immunoleptic impacts, evacuations have not been answered fully. And for these reasons, I respectfully ask the board not to approve.

Okay, thank you, ma'am. Okay, next person, please.

Michelle Reed.

Thank you very much. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. The traffic is the problem. I come out of our small community onto Gulf and Sea, and there are no adequate turnoffs anywhere. It's very dangerous to cross from the south side of Apollo Beach Boulevard to the north side in any U-turn fashion and vice versa. It's just extremely dangerous, and you wait and wait and wait. I would like to give the rest of my time to Mr. Abagin to the six points that he spoke of.

Okay. All right. Thank you, ma'am.

Ma'am, can you please say your address for the record?

423 Island K Way, Apollo Beach.

Okay. Next person, please.

Sorry. Mario Vittoni. And I believe besides him, we had two more people signed up online.

Hi, I'm Mario Vittoni. I represent Cat 4 Holdings. We own 220 Ellsbury Road, which is directly to the north. We're the light industrial building to the north of the property with nine acres. I need 30 seconds. Our concern is just that... uh the impact all all we want to do with our land is is is develop it as the the pd says to develop it just with with more um we want to put about 20 more uh white units for the people of apollo beach to work in apollo beach we're just looking to put up some places that small businesses can open up right there and uh So, our concern is that is that will is if this development will impact the amount of square footage that we have left when we, when it comes time for us to develop our land and that's it. Okay. And so it's not really, I'm not for against the property. Mostly because we moved out of Apollo beach because of traffic. So. We escaped it, but it sounds like a valid complaint. But for us, my concern is just what it does to ours, which is the last remaining land to be developed in the zone. Thanks very much. All right.

Thank you, sir. All right. Next person, please. Rick French.

Rick, are you there? What?

No, it's close.

Rick, are you there?

Hello? Hello? Well, if you don't mind, I'm going to put him on hold. There's a couple of people in the audience that raised their hand that wanted to speak in opposition. If you could, please come forward.

Good evening. Good evening. Thank you. My name is Robert Davie. I live at 1407 Jumanah Loop, Apollo Beach. I moved to Florida. It'll be five years in January because California turned into a cesspit of certain things in areas of crime and the whatnot, hoping that Florida was a little bit different than it is. It's a terrific state, except this I am all for live local thing that is nice, but the Section 8 housing and there's a lot of vouchers in California and those crime rates do go up. That has not been addressed yet. Crime rates go up in those areas unless there's a real good screening of people that come in. But I've experienced, I have a seven year old, The traffic is crazy. I've seen it increase since I first got here five years ago. It's just increased. And as they say, there's the Costcos, there's this, there's the Walmart. They're building up like crazy. There's homes all over the place. And to put this here in Apollo Beach, it'll hurt land values. And if that happens, I think then developers that are putting this kind of thing in should be held responsible.

OK. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right, one last speaker. Please sign in, sir. And then we'll, sir, if I get you to sign in.

Oh, sorry.

Yeah. I'll get the last speaker here because time's up.

Greg Ellett. I live at 6510 Dolphin Cove Drive. While there's a lot of reasons to not approve this major modification, I think we heard them here this evening. There's a lot of stuff with the traffic counts, sorry, with the traffic counts that, you know, like I hope everybody realizes the inbound and outbound traffic was based probably on the 237 units, but there's also a low-income apartment building that was already approved that no one could stop right beside this current one that's up for approval. In addition to that, we obviously heard that the traffic's awful, but that this traffic signal right there at 41 and the boulevard is substandard. It cannot handle the traffic that goes through currently. It was originally designed for a T-intersection. Now it's a four-way when Paseo opened a few years ago. There's also the county's getting ready to approve administrative variance for median spacing. The boulevard is substandard as it is. So I don't know why we would go approve a variance. In addition, the county's also going to approve a design exception. But the road is substandard. So even if you acquire more right-of-way or get more right-of-way to put a shared use path in there, there's no other shared use paths there. So why are we jumping through hoops to approve something that nobody wants? Okay. I'm done. Thank you, sir.

All right. With that, development services, staff, anything further?

Nothing further. Nope. Transportation is saying no as well.

Okay. Very good. At this point in time, the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal.

Evening, hearing master. Lots of cover in five minutes. Don't want to be late with homework, so Mr. Henry is going to talk a bit about the assignment you gave him, and then I'll come back. Okay.

Good evening. I'll put it up here. This is my handwritten notes, but at least it'll give you... So we looked at the PM peak hour. And so as Mr. Ratliff had indicated, we were looking at the inbound and outbound. So in this case, in the PM peak hour, you can see the apartments on the top, which match Mr. Ratliff's table. is 57 cars, so that's the inbound for the apartments. So we compare that to the retail trips and for 36,000 square feet, it's about 57 trips inbound in the PM and about 60 outbound. So that's how you get that equivalency based on that, based on the actual trip generation. Okay. When you look at AM, that's where the difference is because of the trip generation of AM. But this gives you what that is for the PM, which we believe is the appropriate conversion.

As far as you know, development services, transportation staff, they don't argue with you about the PM peak hour? No, I think they agree with the numbers.

It's a question of whether you do AM or PM. That's the question. But PM, you guys both agree on those numbers. Well, on our trip generation, when he did his table, he just did it based on what is the worst case, which the worst case was the outbound in the AM. All right. I got it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Just to close briefly, in 1979, the County Commission adopted a development plan for this area, and that preceded a lot of the Externality is a growth that you hear about. You hear about it every time you're here on your side of the podium. There's no part of the county that's immune from the consequences of how much growth we've had and some of the infrastructure shortages we have. This probably isn't something popular to note, but it's through developments of any kind that new revenue comes into the county, and it's the new buildings that fill the potholes. That's just math, and that's how it is. The comprehensive plan, one of the folks in opposition mentioned that the comprehensive plan imposes some type of ceiling on the density that we're piercing. This is a vested development order that goes back to 1979. And the trips and the uses that are attendant to that are vested rights that run with the property. And again, what we're really talking about is how those are exchanged. We believe, to be true to the text, it aligns with our interpretation in our proposed conversion, and that that is the most legally defensible, strict reading of the way the text as it is, and as it's been since 1979. And I appreciate your patience tonight. I have nothing further. Thanks. Thank you, sir.

Okay. With that, that concludes this application. Ms. Heinrich, you're ready for the next case.

Our next application is item D2, PD26-0363. The applicant is requesting to rezone property from PD1373 to Plain Development. I've reviewed this for Development Services and will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay, the applicant, please.

Good evening, hearing officers, staff members. Todd Pressman, 200 2nd Avenue South, number 451 St. Petersburg. This is RZPD 26-0363. Planning Commission finds consistent development services supports. There are no agency objections. We're located in the Sefton-Mango area, 4.11 acres. You can see that we're close to I-75 and MLK Jr. Boulevard. were located on Lakewood Drive, abutting south on Jim John Lane, as shown by the property appraiser. So the issue is a PD for 14 single-family homes. It was previously approved for four to six single-family homes. This is the proposed PD, again, for 14 single-family homes. It is being removed out of a much larger PD, a companion PRS has filed. And the existing PD is primarily mobile home community. This is being removed for the single family as indicated. And that larger PD is a 425 unit mobile home community. Zoning is really sort of a mix on the residential side. You see RSC-6, you see AS-1, a lot of PDs. It is a variable residential area, but primarily, almost exclusively is residential. This is just to show you an aerial to the side. You can see the various types of residential from mobile homes to single family. Planning Commission does note we're compatible. Could be considered for up to three to six dwelling units. And they note the request supports intent of goal two of the Sefton-Mango Community Plan. Development Services note, while it's located in a residential area featuring single-family detached and mobile home park uses, single-family residential, again, a nice mix of different various types, the proposed density is under the maximum in the RS-9 future land use category. Hearing officer, I'll tell you that we did send out 26 notices two times. There are two letters in the file. One has to do with referring to clear road improvements or traffic study would make safety and congestion worse. The county transportation department does indicate no objections and our transportation department expert is here. The other letter has to do with no infrastructure being considered when of course infrastructure is considered for the location. And concerned about Lakewood only having two lanes and there are trees that should not be cut down. But of course as a standard that's not an issue at the moment. And that's an issue, of course, that would have to go through quite a few departments and approvals as it would come in for a site plan. So with that, if you have any questions or concerns, we're happy to answer them. Jason, are you here if you want to make any comments, if you feel necessary?

If you would allow. Good evening. Good evening, thank you. My name is Jason Renard. I'm at 3242 Henderson Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. I'm a landscape architect with the group that's looked at this from the civil and transportation components. We just wanted to kind of reiterate what Todd just talked about. We are gonna have to, obviously moving forward, if this is approved, we will move forward working with requirements of the Land Development Code in terms of the trees. We understand we would certainly have to do an arborist report to determine if there are grand trees Long Lake would drive and certainly any impacts we'd have to address as part of that process. So we fully support that we would have to meet that criteria.

Yeah, very good. Thank you, sir. Please sign in.

Yeah.

All right, Mr. Pressman, that conclude your presentation? Yes, sir. Thank you. All right, thank you. All right, development services staff.

I'm Michelle Heinrich, Development Services. Staff reviewed a 4.11 acre parcel located on the west side of Lakewood Drive south of Clay Pit Road. The subject site is located within the Res 9 Future Land Use category and within the Urban Service Area. The subject parcel is currently Parcel B within PD 181373. And parcel A, as you heard from the applicant, the remainder part of this PD is approved for a 425 space mobile home park. Parcel B alone is permitted for four single family lots, which can be subdivided or left on one parcel. To recognize the removal of this parcel from PD 18-1373, the applicant has filed a companion PRS application. The site is located within area developed with single family detached residential and mobile home park uses, all within the Res 9 future land use category. The applicant's request is for 14 single family lots, resulting in a density of 3.4 units per acre. Proposed development standards are comparable to the RSC 9 standard zoning district. Staff received no objections from reviewing agencies and finds the request supportable subject to proposed conditions of approval.

Just for the record, how big was the parent PD that this is being sort of taken away from?

For that one, I don't know how large the original PD is. It is just visually, when I've looked at that site plan, it is quite large. It takes up almost a city block.

And it has approval for 400 and something mobile home park spaces. Is density calculated the same way for mobile home park spaces? It is. Right. So there's no issue with this track contributing to the acreage needed to maintain the 425 space mobile home park? No. Okay. So that's not an issue. Correct. Not an issue. All right. Very good. Thank you. Planning Commission staff.

Lillian Linehan, Planning Commission staff. Subject properties within the Residential 9 Future Land Use category in the Urban Service Area and within the limits of the Steffner-Mango Community Plan. Objective 1.1 of the Future Land Use section directs 80% of the county's anticipated growth into the Urban Service Area. Includes policy 3.1.3 requires that new development be compatible with the surrounding uses. and recognizes that compatibility does not mean the same as, but refers to the sensitivity of the development proposals and preserving the character of existing development. And additionally, objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 require new development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In this case, single family, two family and multifamily uses are present in the immediate vicinity of the site and the existing land use pattern establishes a predominantly residential context that supports the proposed development, The intent of the Residential 9 category is to recognize low to medium density residential uses, and Residential 9 Future Land Use surrounds the subject site to the north, south, and east, while Residential 12 and Urban Mixed Use 20 is to the west. The request is to allow 14 units and is consistent with the uses allowed under the Residential 9 Future Land Use category, and therefore is consistent with Future Land Use Section Gold 2 and Objective 2.1. Additionally, the request supports the intent of goal two of the Scepter Mangle Community Plan and its associated strategies by providing additional housing opportunities while maintaining compatibility with the character and development pattern of the surrounding area. Based upon the above considerations and the following goals, objectives, and policies, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan subject to the conditions proposed by the Hillsborough County Development Services Department.

Okay, thank you.

At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? No one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? I see no one responding. Staff, anything further?

No, sir.

Applicant, an opportunity for a rebuttal?

We're good, thank you.

Very good. All right, with that, that concludes this application. Ms. Heinrich, are you ready for the next case?

Our next item is item D3, PD26-0445. The applicant is requesting to rezone property from CG to Plain Development. Tonya Ciappella with Development Services has reviewed this and will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay, applicant, please.

Good evening, hearing officer and staff. My name is Todd Pressman, 200 2nd Avenue South, number 451 in St. Petersburg, Florida. This is PD 260445. Planning Commission finds consistent meets locational criteria. It reduces the average trips by 3,438, reduces the aim and peaks tremendously, 256, 234 respectively. No objections by seven agencies. We are in the General Town and Country area, .55 acres. The issue is CG to PD to specifically allow 11,979 square feet of professional services, health practitioner's office, medical, dental laboratory, medical offices, or clinics with scheduled emergency services by physicians. The fourth floor would be an open accessory area for the permitted uses. So we're located in Waters, West Waters Avenue, as you can see here. per property appraiser. Surrounding uses are shopping center across street, shopping center to the west, apartments, which are located to the east and to the south. This is a close aerial that you can see in regard to the apartments and the shopping center next door. The site is currently vacant. Waters Avenue carries approximately 47,500 vehicles per day, very intensive arterial roadway. So again, the issue is for more or less business professional offices, which is a down zoning from the commercial general that it is now. And I think that's really the main, I don't think, but that is the main direction. The main issue here is a significant down zoning of the uses. So looking at the PD plan on Waters Avenue, I've outlined the building footprint as proposed. We're showing a 15-foot building setback with a B buffer. The apartments are at a 10-foot, more or less, setback on the east. To the rear, the apartments are significantly further back at 75 feet. Going back to the aerial, as you can see, there's a lot of separation to the south.

Okay, if you could, just to clarify for me, The building footprint is sort of a darker, solid black line? Yes. And that building location is closest to Waters Avenue?

Yes.

Okay. And then if you don't mind, regarding the, just to clarify, the office space, is there parking below the building?

Parking would be below, yes, below the building and some would be to the rear. As you note, there's a note on the plan, conceptual parking.

All right, so there's parking below. And then there's two floors of office space?

Three floors, well, proposed three floors of office space, and then a fourth, which is really an open.

Okay, so three floors of office space, and that fourth floor is a gathering spot of some kind.

Is a what?

Gathering spot of some kind. Yeah. Okay, and so the height proposed is 48 feet. So does that work?

We know it's a tight site, and we know getting into site, as we've gone through the process, there's been a lot of issues to get through, and we know there's gonna be some nipping and tucking.

Okay.

Putting pencil to paper with site planning, it's gonna be tight. Whether all that's gonna be able to fit into a site, we're gonna see.

Okay, got it.

Okay, continue?

Go on, yes.

So zoning, as I've indicated, CG, CN, and CG is predominant along the arterial. The RM-16 for the multiple family is to the east and to the south, and again, that corridor's intensive corridors, CGs, and CNs along Waters Avenue. Future land uses are 12, which allows neighborhood commercial office uses multi-purpose projects. Again, key is the down zoning. Development Services note the applicant's proposed prohibiting many of the more intense uses permitted in the CG zoning category. CG, be right, allows car wash, 24-hour major, minor auto repair, recyclable material recovery, 24-hour shopping centers, restaurants, specifically eating establishments, not drive-through, banquets and receptions. We do have a list of conditions, restrictions, mitigations. Actually, most of these were brought forward by the staff, which we were accepting of them, about the fourth floor being recessed, having a OPEG wall, no balconies, shield lighting, screening, and location of dumpster loading services would also be controlled. Planning commercial notes that the CG, which permits a broad range of commercial uses, may generate greater external impacts, and that what's proposed are generally lower intensity and more compatible with the adjacent multifamily residential development. I will say too that I did check this morning, we've had no emails or communications of opposition or concern raised from anyone in the public. Planning Commission continued notes were consistent, directs development toward the appropriate land use arrangement, considering the surrounding uses and minimizes potential impacts or incompatibilities, and notes restrictions through planned developments provides a more suitable intensity and scale, and notes regarding goal seven that it promotes employment opportunities and contributes to economic growth and compatible development pattern providing appropriate transition between commercial and residential, which I think is an important finding by the Planning Commission for this particular project. Development services finds the development compatible with surrounding development pattern. Staff further finds request PD variants related to buffering screening supportable. So when you look at the site, what we would suggest to you is that the uses under CG would be terribly impacting, terribly, disruptive to the multifamily, which would be permissible now. For example, car washes, which would be 24-7, outdoor banquets, outdoor events, auto repair, tire repair, restaurants, 24-hour restaurants. And just for the record, I'd like to, oh, I'm sorry, one second, if I may. So we did get one, I'm sorry, there was one letter, I apologize, there was one email of concern specifically about stormwater. And I do have a letter here from the engineer who's noting that the site's flat but does drain south toward north direction into a storm sewer system. within the Westwaters right away. The site will be subject, of course, to all meeting storm water requirements of the county and SWPMUD. It's anticipated the storm water requirements will be met with a combination of surface water and underground storage system to ensure that there'll be no off-site impacts. So I'll put this in the record. And then I have three quick videos, if we could run those real quick, one after the other with audio, and that will finish my presentation. That refers to compatibility.

Thank you.

And by audio, drive home the point that these would be uses that would be extremely detrimental to the multifamily next door. Thank you, Mr. Hearing Officer.

All right, thank you, sir. All right, Development Services staff.

Good evening, Tanya Chapela, Development Services. This is a request to rezone approximately 0.55 acres from commercial general to planned development. The proposal would allow up to 11,979 square feet of professional and medical office uses in a four-story building with a maximum height of 48 feet. The fourth floor includes an open area accessory to the principal uses. The applicant requests modification to the height-related setbacks and a variation from the required buffering standards adjacent to residential property. Proposed mitigation includes enhanced 15-foot buffers, opaque fencing, additional trees and hedge, recessed floor, fourth floor, no balconies, shielded lighting, rooftop equipment, screening, and separation of loading and dumpster areas from the residential development. Development services finds the proposal compatible with the surrounding development patterns and recommends approval subject to the proposed conditions.

Okay.

Thank you Planning Commission staff Lily Linehan Planning Commission staff the subject site has a future land use designation of residential 12 It's within the urban service area and not within the limits of a community plan under foods objective 2.2 and policy 2.2 by 1 The residential 12 category allows residential development at a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per gross acre and a non-residential development at a maximum FAR of 0.35. This category also allows for a maximum FAR of 0.54 office or residential support uses. The proposed development has a maximum FAR of 0.27, which is within the maximum intensity permitted for office uses in the residential 12 category. Proposed plan development meets the intent of FLU's objectives 1.1, policy 3.1.3, objective 4.4, and policy 4.4.1 by providing a compatible transition between commercial and residential uses. Although the property is currently zoned CG, the proposed plan development limits the site to office and medical uses only, which are generally less intensive than the broader range of commercial uses permitted under the standard CG zoning district, And this makes it more compatible with the adjacent multifamily residential development. The applicant is also proposing enhanced screening along the eastern and southern property boundaries adjacent to the multifamily development. This is including canopy trees at 15 foot intervals. And this enhanced buffering exceeds the standard spacing requirements. will help reduce visual impacts and provides an appropriate transition between the proposed office use and the surrounding residential development. And lastly, the proposed development meets the applicable commercial locational criteria as the site fronts along Waters Avenue and provides an appropriate location for office uses serving the surrounding community. Based upon these considerations, Planning Commission staff finds a proposed plan development consistent with the unappropriated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan subject to the conditions proposed by the Hillsborough County Development Services Department.

Okay, thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? There's no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? There's no one responding. Staff, anything further?

No, sir.

Michelle, if you could, just the terminology in terms of the building itself, just to be crystal clear. If we say four stories and 48 feet, how do you, you should have ground floor parking, so it's below the building. And then there's, per the applicant's testimony, three floors of office space, and then a top floor of a community gathering area. So that's, when you say four stories, that's fine.

It would not include, I believe they said the first would be open parking.

The top, the open underneath.

Right.

That would not be considered a story. Okay. Got it. I just want to make that clear. All right. Very good. At this point in time, the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal.

I would just say quickly that we did notice 15 persons twice, so we're glad that the immediate community did not come forward with any concerns. Thank you.

All right, very good. Thank you, sir. Thank you. With that, that concludes this application. I'll sign record for the next case.

Our next item is item D4, PD26-0671. The applicant is requesting to rezone property from AR and PD93-0005 to Plain Development. Tonya Ciappella with Development Services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay. The applicant, please.

Tammy Corbett, 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 1100, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Subject property is located in the urban service area along County Road 672. You can see it's near a lot of development that is very similar to what we are proposing. We are proposing to rezone from AR to PD, and there's already a PD that's approved on part of this site, but we're converting the whole thing. So we are proposing standard four units to the acre, density of 319 units, I'm sorry, four units the acre, it would be 319 units. The proposed density is 2.75 units the acre with a standard 4,400 square foot lot that is pretty common in this area. And we have minimum setbacks of 20 feet, corners 10, side five, rear 10. Access, you can see, is through other developments, existing developments. So the primary access is through to Baum Road. And we have a cross connection to West Acadia Grove Lane. And you'll see in the staff report that construction traffic cannot use that Acadia Grove Lane.

Could you repeat that?

Believe in the staff report, there's a condition that construction access cannot come to use.

Construction access?

Yes, construction access cannot use. And then this has been found consistent and compatible with the comprehensive plan. There are many policies that staff will review when they present their reports. And in the interest of time, I will yield my time and answer any questions should you have any.

No questions, thank you. All right, development services staff.

I have a revised report. Okay. This is a request to rezone approximately 79.9 acres from AR and PD 93005 to a new plan development, allowing a maximum of 220 single family detached dwelling units. The proposed density is approximately 2.75 dwelling units per acre below the maximum density permitted by the address for future land use category. The project would provide minimum 4,400 square foot lots, 40 foot lot width, and a maximum building height of 35 feet. The surrounding areas include agricultural and single family residential uses to the south and east, and approve residential developments of comparable density to the west. Staff therefore finds the proposal compatible with the surrounding development pattern. Development Services staff recommends approval subject to the proposed conditions. I'm presenting a revised report to incorporate the transportation conditions that were missing in the previous version of the report.

Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Planning Commission staff.

Lily Linehan, Planning Commission staff. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL FOUR FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY IT'S WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE BALM COMMUNITY PLAN RIVERVIEW COMMUNITY PLAN AND SOUTHSHORE AREAWIDE SYSTEMS PLAN IT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA WHERE OBJECTIVE 1.1 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE SECTION DIRECTS APPROXIMATELY EIGHT PERCENT OF THE COUNTY'S FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT AND FLU'S POLICY 3.1.3 REQUIRES THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA The proposed residential community provides an appropriate transition between the existing agricultural and residential land uses and is consistent with the established development pattern in the vicinity. Additionally, the intent of the residential for future land use category is to designate areas that are suitable for low density residential development. And this designation permits a maximum density of four dwelling units per gross acre. Based on the site's gross acreage of approximately 79.9 acres under the residential four designation, they could be allowed to consider up to 319 dwelling units. The applicant proposes a residential community consisting of 220 single family detached dwelling units. And the proposed development is of a use and of a density that does not exceed the allowable maximum under the residential for future land use category. The development is also consistent with the intent of FLU's objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1, which required new development to be compatible with the character and development pattern of surrounding properties. The proposed residential community of single family detached homes is compatible with the surrounding development pattern and serves as a complimentary use to the existing residential neighborhoods, agricultural lands, and institutional uses in the area. The proposed plan development is consistent with goal two of the Riverview Community Plan and goal one of the cultural and historical objective of the South Shore Areawide Systems Community Plan. And the proposal preserves onsite wetlands and avoids adverse impacts. So it is consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan objectives and policies that govern growth in environmentally sensitive areas. based upon the above considerations and the following goals, objectives, and policies. Planning Commission staff finds the proposed development plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan subject to the proposed conditions by the Development Services Department.

All right, thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? I see no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? Good evening. I've been sworn in. Okay, good. Raise your right hand. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God. So help me God.

My name's Al Bruner. I live on Carlton 1500 Carlton Lake Road. I am the president of the Baum Civic Association. And yes, I oppose this development along with the other developments that have violated the Baum Community Development Plan, which this said is already said there was within, which is one house per five acres. We don't want it grouped and we don't want it reduced. We already have too much traffic on that main truck route. And this adds just one more entry point into that road. That's just a two-lane road. Our school is overloaded, Sumner High School. During the planning and the school board folks, when that went in, they didn't plan that it'd grow so fast. Within the second year of operation, it was about 70% beyond its planned capacity. I know my daughter graduated there. We don't have the firehouses, we don't have the medical response, our schools are overloaded, and all you guys do is approve more and more housing. Our roads are crap. The person, some of the people in opposition to the Apollo Beach that I got to here before I jumped in a car to come running down here from Baum, since I couldn't tune in and be made a speaker from online. I literally got here right before this, happened because I'm busy. I'm working. I do a lot of work travel. But the area is getting to a point where I'm going to take my money and our resources, because I make good money, and go somewhere else that has good planning and a balanced planning and governance for all, not a select few. Get the infrastructure in there. Don't get any more housing by the tens of thousands. You're already coming down 674. 85 to 15,000 more homes. We won't even talk about what that does for reduced agricultural capacity and building for food. While we reduce our capacity to grow it locally here in Killsborough County, we're exponentially increasing that demand to come from somewhere else and assuming that those other places aren't doing the same thing that we're doing in reckless over development with no infrastructure. We want to keep one house per five, that's reasonable. It doesn't make these houses so close together you can spit and go across three houses. That doesn't produce them to make a fire hazard when they're separated by five to 10 feet apart. where you can actually drive into your backyard. You can actually have a playground. We need the right infrastructure. I am opposed to growth. I would fight it and stop it where it is. I know that won't happen. But every time we try to do managed growth, this body keeps undercutting us and letting the developers come in and change the rules. by keep coming in here and getting more changes. Every motion to change is for changing agriculture to high density. And when they do get the approval for a lower density, a couple of months later, they come in and ask for more density when they think nobody else is watching. You're not doing balanced governance, you're not doing balanced growth You're putting all the houses in one area and no infrastructure to get to the jobs or create businesses, industrial, commercial, et cetera, that are gonna generate the incomes without making commutes exponentially longer. I know that there are some issues with the state and some of the state regulations. By God, we need to fight it. There's people here that want to fight it. So please, let's do balanced governance. Let's not violate the community development plan that Baum has had for the last 20 years any further. One to five, I don't like it. I don't like the Baum Grove. It's caused all kinds of problems. We're having increasing number of people going on to other people's properties as a result of it. We don't have the, again, we don't have the first responders, we don't have the firehouses, and everywhere is getting exponentially longer. As the person in Apollo Beach had said, it's taking them 25 minutes plus just to get to the interstate. I live seven miles off the interstate. I have to plan at least 30 minutes, plus whatever traffic jam there is. I don't go anywhere during rush hour because it takes too doggone long. not to mention everybody is rushing because everybody is trying to get to their place to get their demands, whether it's to pick up kids from school or extra activities or just get gas, just get groceries, and they're rushing. And we're having more and more accidents. In addition to the planning of just the overloaded infrastructure, not to mention the lack of water that we have, many of the main thoroughfares, you're putting schools on. And it's slowing it down even further. And then on like 301 or Big Bend, areas you used to be able to cross over, you've blocked off. And now everybody has to do U-turns that generates lines, which causes more people to drive more reckless to get where they want to go and cut more people off and more accidents, again, without the first responders that we have in existence already. We're already behind. Thank you for my time.

Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition? No one responding. Staff, anything further? No, sir. The applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal.

Sure. Cami Corbett again. Just go back to one of my slides that shows on the right, you'll see there's an existing PD that allows for 200 units. And I have a copy of that I'm gonna place in the record. Doesn't all fit in one place, but okay, thank you. So that's existing approved development. And so we're just seeking, 220, so we're adding 20 additional units to what's already approved, and we're just spreading the density around the site. The issue of density and intensity as far as the BOM community plan, this subject site was previously RP2, which has been now changed by the Board of County Commissioners to be inside the Urban Service Foundry and RES4. And so what we're asking for is 2.75 units per acre. Under the old comprehensive plan, we would have had to have had a minimum density of 75%. The board modified that policy to allow us to be under, to have development that is actually under the maximum density that's permitted. And we are below that. So in terms of traffic in schools, those are this is a not a legislative decision. This is a quasi judicial rezoning decision. And there are certain rules that are applied and laws that need to be applied when analyzing the case. And that's what the professional planners for the county and the Planning Commission have done in this case. And they have found that the proposed request is consistent and respectfully request your approval.

Okay. Thank you, ma'am. With that, that concludes this application. And Ms. Heinrich, you're ready for the next case.

Our next application is item D5, PD26-0673. The applicant is requesting to resume property from RSC 9 to plan development. Tim Lamkin with Development Services has reviewed this and will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Good evening, my name is Catherine Coyle. I'm with Boggs Engineering, 607 South Alexander Street, Plant City, representing the CDC of Tampa Incorporated. Oh, it's up there, okay. The project is located at southeast corner of East 23rd Avenue and 65th Street. Next slide. The project location, as you can see, just to the north of this aerial is I-4. And there's a large wetland along that area. On the southern portion of this aerial, the reason I included it is that's Columbus Broadway. That is about 120 feet north of that roadway is the city of Tampa boundary, which is predominantly industrial commercial along that street. And you can see the development pattern within the area. Next slide. Future land use is residential 12. We are proposing 12 units per acre. There's no bonus density requested for this. This is within the urban service area and water and sewer service is actually provided by the city of Tampa in this particular location. Next slide. The zoning is RSC 9 currently we're requesting the PD for the units in question. You'll notice the pattern of zoning surrounding the area. RSC 9 is the bulk of the body in there with PDs surrounding from different years ranging all the way back to 84 up to 2024. There's a scattering of RDC 12 as well and a couple commercial properties. located in this particular district. Immediately to the north is RSC 9, RDC 12, and CG to the west, RDC 12 to the south, and RSC 9 to the east. Next slide. The surrounding uses, oh, next slide, sorry. Yeah, there you go. The surrounding uses, I put in there just to show you, it's a large, nope, previous slide, please. Thank you. It's a large block. East 23rd Avenue is on the north. East 21st is on the south. 65th is on the west side. The CG and the RDC-12 is on the west. And that is a small, it's listed as a store commercial. It's some type of vending company. And they have some outdoor storage of some equipment. Then there's a single family house as well to the north of that. There's four single family homes to the north side. The large parcel to the east is actually also owned by the county. And just to put this in reference, this property is owned by the county as well. And it's been transferred to the CDC for development. There are three multifamily buildings to the south. And then to the southeast, I'd highlight as well, there is a public school, an elementary school with parking. And you can see the parking lot there. Next slide. What's being proposed here, a single family residential duplex. These will be plotted as single family and sold fee simple. This is under agreement with Hillsborough County Affordable Housing Services to develop affordable housing for homes that are 80% AMI and under. Only, it's limited to that. 20 units total, which meets the 12 units per acre density. There are 10 fronting 23rd and 10 fronting 21st. The development, as I mentioned, will be subdivided and platted. There's a 20-foot front setback, 6 feet interior between the buildings, so it's 12 feet total. 20 foot side street to north 65th and 26 feet to the east side, which is lots 10 units 10 and 20. We did include an additional type B buffer, a 20 foot buffer on the east side as well, not knowing what that future development will be. So we enhanced that buffer on that side. And there's a large stormwater area in the center of the property, which will then convey to 65th. Next slide. This is the concept elevation as of today. It does resemble a single family home. However, those are two units. Each is approximately 14 to 1,450 square feet. There's two units per building. Each one will have three bedroom, two to two and a half bath and a one car garage. That's the front elevation and that's the rear elevation. So we're being careful to make sure that both sides actually have some ornamentation to them. And in summary, next slide. As I mentioned, they'll be developed as affordable housing under an active agreement with Hillsborough County Affordable Housing Services. The density is consistent with their R-12 land use category. It is located with an urban service boundary and will be serviced by City of Tampa Water and Sewer. It's compatible with a mix of existing residential, commercial, and institutional uses in the surrounding areas. It has been found consistent by the Hillsborough Planning Commission. We do agree with those findings. Specifically, I would like to note in the livable communities element under East Lake Orient Park, which is this particular community, it does note two points in particular. New residential developments that provide home ownership are preferred, which these are gonna be few simple. And the plan also speaks to support affordable housing opportunities to accommodate a diverse population and income levels that promote homeownership, which this does. This has also been recommended as approvable by development services staff with no objections from other county staff or external agencies. We respectfully request your approval.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, development services staff.

Good evening, Tim Lampkin, Development Services. The applicant did a really thorough overview, so I'm going to breeze through this. They're proposing development on approximately 1.71 acres located on the northeast corner of North 65th Street and 21st Avenue. They're proposing to permit the development of 20 affordable duplexes. The subject site has frontage along East 23rd, North 66th, and East 21st Street with, as the applicant stated, with the eastern property boundary adjacent to vacant Hillsborough County owned property The property is surrounded by a mix of existing residential, commercial, institutional. There's a school to the southeast. Duplex development is located to the south. The school is Kenley Elementary School. And commercial development is located to the west with a single family residential to the north and northwest. Overall, the proposed development provides an appropriate transition between the existing duplex development to the south, and the detached single-family residential to the north and northwest. The applicant has not proposed any variations, and based upon these considerations, staff finds the request approvable, unless you have any questions.

No questions, thank you. Planning Commission staff.

Lily Linehan, Planning Commission staff. The subject site is within the residential 12 future land use category within the urban service area and within the limits of the East Lake Orient Park community plan. FLU's policy 3.1.3 requires new development to be compatible with surrounding uses and FLU's objective 4.4 and FLU's policy 4.4.1 requires new development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The subject property currently consists of undeveloped vacant land. There is single family, two family, and two family residential development in the adjacent area with some existing public, quasi-public, institutional, and educational uses. And this mix of surrounding land uses establishes a development pattern that supports the proposed use of two family residential units. And Flues Objective 3.2 and Policy 3.2.4 require that community plans throughout the county be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. And the housing goal of the East Lake Orient Park Community Plan seeks to create more housing opportunities within the area by supporting affordable housing opportunities that are used to serve and accommodate a diverse population in different income levels and promote home ownership. It's also stated that new residential developments that provide home ownership are preferred. However, they are not required. The addition of duplex-style residential development, where it currently exists alongside single-family residential development, further promotes the diversity of the existing housing stock and provides additional affordable housing opportunities for community residents. And the request is for fee-simple housing, so that promotes the additional home ownership opportunities at an affordable rate, as explicitly encouraged by the housing goal of the community plan. So based upon the above considerations and following goals, objectives, and policies, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions proposed by Development Services.

Okay, thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application?

May I speak, please? Ma'am, I'm right across, I'm Patricia Blanton. I live right across the street from where they want to.

Ma'am, please. Yes, sir. Are you here in support or are you here in opposition?

I live on 23rd Avenue and what they want to do is right in front of my house. Okay. What they want to do is put a project there.

Ma'am, I need to hear from people. I can't hear, sir. All right, I'll do, Michelle, could you maybe get closer to her and ask her if she's in support or opposition?

I oppose.

Hold on.

You mean no one's here to oppose it? They're just going to push it through?

Well, which, you're here for the application that was just presented?

The one they just talked about.

OK. And are you here to talk in support or opposition?

I oppose it.

Okay. I think he's going to first call for support. Yes. And then call for opposition. So just stay close. Okay. Come on up when he calls for opposition.

Just give it a second. I'm sorry. I've been sitting here since you opened the door.

Understood. And my ticket's running. All right. There's probably not anybody here in support, but let me just ask. Is there anyone in the audience that's here? Ma'am. Is there anyone in the audience wish to speak in support of the application? No one responding? All right, ma'am. Now you wish to speak in opposition?

You can come in.

Ma'am, you can speak now.

Hi.

Good evening.

I've been in that area since I was first grade in Kennelly.

Ma'am.

Okay. I've seen so much destruction here, I can't even tell you how bad it is.

Yeah, hold on.

I'm sorry.

It's okay.

I wish I could hear better. That's fine.

Just state your name.

Patricia Blanton.

And your address?

Where is it you live, the home you're talking about?

I'm talking about the property on 23rd and 65th Street.

And what is your address?

Mine's 6502 23rd Avenue. Great, all right.

Go ahead, now you can speak.

Last week alone, last week alone, in 65th Street, they came in with bulldozers and just raped an area of trees that are like over 200 years old, you know? And one day, they're all gone. They put a sign on the fence over the weekend that the environmental people were approved of burning. Not only did they rape the trees, but then they wanted to burn them. I lost it. I called the environmental people. Oh, it's been approved already on the west side. Well, guess what? All the houses are on the east side. Flakes go up, my house is wood. I buy my home. Now they want to put a bunch of homes in front. They want to put projects in front of my house. That's what they really want to do. That whole area, it's just, the State Road Department was there. They killed the water there, and they moved down in the 70s, so that lot's been empty. Thank God. It used to be woods there. You could swim at the end of the straight natural spring water. Well, they filled it in. You know what they said? I was a little girl. And I said, my mother, why don't these people do something about this? I went as a little girl into the sky. What are you doing? We're swimming. Oil on top of the water, the fish were dead. Oh, he says, oh, mother of nature, I'll take care of itself. Well, guess what? They came in, filled it in with bricks. The land seeps like this. There's a natural spring under there. There's going to be a sinkhole there because when it rains, you can just see it where it used to be. Now they want to put... It hurts my heart to see what they're doing to my neighborhood. I'm so mad right now, I'm shaking. You know, they're so just, don't they wanna breathe? There's four recycling plants within a mile of my home. I have skin cancer. I have my own well. The water is poison. I have filters on the shower, in the kitchen. I buy a bottle of water. I can't even drink my well water. And they want to put more projects, what they didn't need, more city. They're moving down to my neighborhood. Nobody's speaking up. It's like you close your eyes, and guess what? The next day, the next week, they're all gone. All those trees are gone. I went to that man's face this morning. I was shaking. I was so mad. I said, don't you burn. Please don't burn. Recycle. Grind those trees up. Make them into mulch. Off of 41. could take it there. You know why they didn't want to do it that way? Because it's the quickest, cheapest way of doing it.

OK.

I don't know.

OK. My words, wasting my time being here, because nobody's going to stand up for my neighborhood. Hey, tell them to wait another 10 years, and I'll be gone, and I don't have to watch it. But you know what, my son and my family, that was my mother's house. I was in that neighborhood when I was five years old. OK, thank you. Last hurricane on 65th Street, the people that build a new house in the back, they build it on a spring. And guess what happened? Spring rose up. They were draining their lot for all two weeks down the thing and it hit the apartment halfway up. It's gonna happen again. I had to laugh because I used to swim there and they filled it in with cement and block and build a house on it. It's all about the money and the power in this town. I'm a poor rich gal. I don't owe anybody, but I don't. I own my property, my truck.

All right. Thank you, ma'am.

They don't need that many buildings in front of my house. Come on.

OK. Thank you, ma'am.

What's going to happen with all that? You go down Columbus Drive, on 65th Street, they turn it into Trucker Haven, where all the big rigs park. And I was afraid, that's why I was here today. I was afraid that they were gonna rezone it to where they could allow to do that, because that's what they'll do. And these truckers don't have any place to sleep or park their trucks, they're parking it on 65th Street.

All right, thank you, ma'am. I need to calm down. Ma'am, let me see if there's anyone else that wishes to speak. Ma'am, if I get you to sign in over here, sign your name over here. I'm sorry, what? Sign your name over there.

Sign it over there.

Okay, thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak in opposition to the application? No one responding. Staff, anything further?

No, sir.

Okay. The applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal.

Thank you. Catherine Coyle again for the record. As I mentioned previously, this is under an agreement with Hillsborough County Affordable Housing. This will not be projects, as mentioned. These are going to be fee-simple homes, so they will be owned individually each unit. There are 10 units facing 23rd, which is Ms. Blanton's street, and there are 10 facing south. All I can say is it is the intent of the affordable housing services department of the county to improve this neighborhood and establish homeownership in this area To better solidify the improvements in this area and not over build it does meet the density of the comprehensive plan There is no additional bonus sought there aren't a variance to sought We've added additional buffers to the east side and to the west as well 20 plus feet with additional plantings. And as you saw in the layout, I can use the overhead. This is, as mentioned, I cannot speak to the spring that used to be there or anything, but this is a volume-sensitive piece of property. So there is a stormwater issue out here, which is why there is a large stormwater pond, which is why there's a large stormwater pond planned for the center of the project that will convey to 65th. This will, again, as I mentioned, tap into public water and sewer with the city of Tampa. There are many properties in this area to the north and the surrounding area that don't actually tap into the public utilities, as mentioned by the neighbor with the well and the septic. So I cannot speak to the condition of her water. I can say that they will be serviced by the city of Tampa and not put any additional impediments to her water.

Have you done any preliminary engineering on the site yet?

We're working through that now, actually. And this pond is being sized accordingly.

Have you done any geotech out here?

It actually was just completed, but I haven't read the report. All right.

All right. Anything else?

That's it. We just respectfully request your recommendation. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. With that, that concludes this application. Senator, are you ready for the next item?

Our next application is item D6, major mod 26-0800. The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 97-0182. This is traveling with a comprehensive plan amendment and therefore both the comprehensive plan amendment and this rezoning will be heard at the October 8th BOCC CPA public hearing.

Okay, the applicant please.

Thank you, good evening. Isabelle Albert with Half 1000 North Ashley Drive. So this is a 24, a little bit over 24 acre site. It's located in the Thonisasa Community Plan. It's also in the Rural Service Area. And as Ms. Heinrich said, there is a pending Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Res 2. And the zoning currently is approved for 14 residential lots.

Could I ask, where are you in the process with the plan amendment?

We went through the first public hearing, planning commission, and now we're waiting for the board.

Okay, you went to the planning commission.

Yes, we went to the planning commission.

And it was heard that they voted on it?

It was heard and voted for denial.

Denial?

Yeah.

Okay.

And so if you look at the area, the surrounding area is mostly residential, and the lot size ranges from 0.2 acres to over 5 or 10 acres. The residential lots are located, the more intensive use is on the east side, while the west side is a bit more rural, and the south side is mostly agricultural land. So the request is for 30 units from the approved 14. The density is proposed at 1.2 dwelling units to the acre. And this is to mimic currently all the residential one, mostly surrounding the lake. And prior to the complaint amendment, the site is about 65% of the site is already residential one. while the rear portion is AR. And so the request was for R2 to allow development for less than an acre development. And as you can see also is with the new stormwater rules, it takes a lot portion of the properties. So therefore the development is kind of like being pushed in the back. And that's why we're requesting that half acre lots. However, it's still gonna be the density that's similar to the surrounding area. Development Services staff found it compatible with the surrounding area. Planning Commission, they found it inconsistent. Mostly when you read the report, they basically say that nothing in the rural area should be less than five acres, one unit to five acres, as shown on the land use map. However, our site, like I said, about 15 acres is already residential one. plus the nine acre was the AR, but the amendment is for a residential two, which is two units to the acre permitting over 40 units, but we're just limiting it to 30 units. They also found naming different policies, 3.1.3 and 4.4.1, they kept referencing that the density is not compatible with the area, and therefore they found it inconsistent They also, at the same time, found that the lots per policy 4.4.7, that the lots around the lake are mostly one unit to the acre. And therefore, the land fronting the lake should not have a density greater than one unit per the acre. And because we're doing 1.2, they found it inconsistent with that. And the report goes on and on and on about just the density is too intense for the area, yet you're supposed to review it as a residential two, which is two units to the acre. And so, if you go on page four, they keep talking about the proposed density is not compatible with the existing development pattern, even though there's lots of larger, smaller sites all along the lake. They talk about, again, the density, the developments proposed is not compatible with the area, and they talk about saying that, and I don't know how they came up to that, but the immediate surrounding area on average is density of one per 45 acres. Again, I don't exactly know how they calculated that, but so they go on and on about that. And then they go to the planning, to the community plan and naming, you know, the third goal is that we are not meeting the I, I, I was, I was just a bit baffled by the stuff report. And so when we, when we looked at it, we felt like we met all those, policies that even they had stated, we felt like they meet those policies under the rest too, which allows half acre lots, which allows, you know, two units to the acre and everything. And so it also, per the community plan, it provides a different housing style that meets the goal number four. It also, as you can see on our plan, IT WAS PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES OF THE SITE, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DOING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THONOSASA ROAD. AND SO WITH THAT, WE FELT LIKE LOOKING AT ALL THOSE POLICIES THAT WE DO FEEL LIKE THE REQUEST PD IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL TO FUTURE LAND USE. This kind of concludes my application or my presentation for now, but I'm here if you have any questions.

All right, thank you. Thank you. All right, development services staff.

Good evening, Tanya Chapella, Development Services. I'm presenting a revised report with changes to the CPA number that was incorrect in the first, it was a prior to condition, prior to certification condition, I'm sorry. PD 260800 is a major modification to increase the approved development from 14 to a maximum of 30 single-family detached dwelling units. The approximately 24 unit per acre density is below the maximum anticipated under the REST II future land use designation proposed through concurrent CPA 2610. The development would provide minimum half acre lots, 90 foot lot widths, a maximum building height of 35 feet, and residential setbacks intended to maintain the area's low density character. The site is within to notice as a community plan area and is surrounded by primarily by vacant agricultural and single-family residential properties that finds the proposed use and development standards comparable to the surrounding residential pattern. The wetland area north of to notice as a road would remain private common area with limited passive recreational use and no private pleasure craft access. Environmental permitting requirements would continue to apply. Based on these considerations, staff finds the request compatible with the surrounding area and recommends approval subject to the proposed conditions.

Okay, thank you. Planning Commission staff?

Lily Linehan, Planning Commission staff. This rezoning is concurrent with Comprehensive Plan Amendment HCCPA 2610, which is a request to change the Future Land Use category to Residential 2. Therefore, this rezoning has been reviewed as though the site currently holds the Residential 2 Future Land Use designation. The site is within the rural area and within the limits of the Tenota-Sasset Community Plan. Food Objective 1.2 and Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 defines a rural area as a place intended to provide for long-term agricultural uses, large lot rural residential uses, and undeveloped natural areas. The major modification is for 30 single family units on 24.22 acres based on the pending future land use change to residential two. While the single family residential use is compatible with the surrounding area's character, the density of which the development is proposed is not compatible with the existing rural character of the area. And based on initial staff calculations, the immediate surrounding area is on average at a density of one dwelling unit per 45 acres, with the majority of surrounding uses being large agricultural rural lots and low density residential. Additional analysis was done on the Stone Lake Ranch area and development, which is approximately 2,100 feet west of the subject site and located on the west side of Lake Tonotasassa. The density of the Stone Lake Ranch development equates to approximately one dwelling unit per four gross acres and is clustered, but is still at a much lower density than the proposed density on the subject property. Based on the analysis of the surrounding existing community, the proposed density is not compatible with the existing rural community character. Furthermore, FLU's policy 4.4.7 calls for lands fronting a water body to have density and or intensity comparable and compatible with other development parcels and lots fronting the water body outside of the urban service area. And based on the current existing future land use categories that surround Lake Tenuta-Sassa, the eastern portion of the lake has the agricultural rural 1 to 5 designation, and the western portion is surrounded by the residential 1 designation. There are no future land use categories along the lake that have a density greater than one dwelling unit per gross acre. And while there is a concurrent future land use amendment for the residential two designation, Flues Policy 4.4.7 calls for a comparable density along the water bodies outside of the urban service area. A portion of the planned development fronts along the south side of Lake Tenochtitlaca and based on the maximum allowable density per the surrounding future land use destinations, The land fronting the lake should not have a density that exceeds one unit per acre in order to be consistent with this policy direction. The subject site is located within the boundaries of the Tonino-Sasson Community Plan. Goal three of this plan emphasizes the importance of maintaining the area's rural residential character, open space, and agricultural. The proposed modification of 30 single family units on half acre lots is characterized as semi-rural development and does not maintain the current low density rural pattern found within the surrounding areas. Furthermore, the comprehensive plan strategies listed out in the Tenota-Sassa Community Plan lists out requiring minimum sizes of one acre for residential development within the residential one, agricultural state, and agricultural rural future land use categories. and to protect the area's rural character. And while the proposed rezoning is accompanied by a future land use amendment to the residential two category, which is not technically required to have a minimum lot size of one acre, according to the community plan, the site is still adjacent to and surrounded by residential one and agricultural rule one to five destinations on all sides and should remain sensitive to the lot size requirements of these designations. Based upon the above considerations and the following goals and objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, Planning Commission staff finds proposed major modification inconsistent.

Thank you. Thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? Good evening.

Good evening. My name is Lori Walker. My address is 13016 Country View Road, Dover, Florida. I live about two miles away from this area. I just saw the sign for the first time, signs, on Friday, which they were way away from the road. That's only two lanes that people are going down. I wouldn't have even seen them had the county not a mode. It's heartbreaking because we were just here a few months back, right down the street, less than a mile away. It's already been approved for 14 homes. I'm fine with that. Down the street, another 14 homes. You know, change is gonna change. People are gonna buy stuff. But we are ag. We are res one. We want to continue that. Our roads can't handle this. The roads are so potholed out, they barely fix them. Half of the road where they're on the other side of, on the known assassin side where they want to put two houses, that's very low lying. It's always flooded out. There's cypress over there. the road kind of crumbles on that side of the road all the time. The other one that has been approved, they're supposed to resurface the road. That doesn't help, it helps somewhat, but that's not gonna take care of the traffic problem. Had I have had more time, I would have brought video of traffic, more people would have came. We want to keep it where it is. We don't want rezoning. If they want to do the 14 houses, most everyone that I've talked to, we're okay with that. Don't rip out everything. Don't tear everything down. You go down King's way from the Nona Sasa. They're nice homes that are being built on big lots. They're not taking everything away. It's, we're just seeing it day by day getting torn down. And literally the infrastructure, it can't handle, it just can't handle it. So I oppose going forward with 30 more in that area. You're putting another, just say three, four people in a home, that's another 90 to 120 people using this little tiny dinky road that's gonna be resurfaced. Thank you for your time and your consideration. All right. Thank you, ma'am.

Let me backtrack. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? It's OK. I see no one responding. Is there anyone else in the audience that wants to speak in opposition to the application? Yes. Yes. Please come forward.

We also have two individuals online.

Okay.

Good evening. Good evening, Mr. Zoning Master. My name is Robert Alvis. I reside at 11907 Thonotosassa Road. I am also speaking for my daughter, Elizabeth, who resides at 11907 Thonotosassa Road. She cannot attend tonight. She's working second shift and can't be here. I'm not sure why we're even here. A couple of years ago, this property went up for a major modification, and it went before the County Commission, acting as a zoning board, and was denied. They tried for 24 homes, one to an acre. It does not fit the area. It should not exist. couple of years later that we come along and now they're trying for 48 to the back door at the planning commission. Well, that didn't work either. So now we're at 30. So 24 doesn't fit the area. The planning zoning board said so. So now we're at 30. I did go to school in Hillsborough County and we had excellent teachers. And math just doesn't work. If 24 is not viable, 30 certainly isn't. So, and of course, everybody harps on the roads. Don't know if you know it or not, but the notice as the plant city road is, I believe the oldest paved road in unincorporated Hillsborough County. It does not need to be modified to handle the increased traffic. Behaved? Yeah. Modified? No. That cannot be allowed. It's historical. Everybody else has said the same thing. The Planning Commission was correct. It doesn't fit. It shouldn't be there. And I urge you to report that to the commission.

Yeah.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir. Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience that wish to speak in opposition? I thought I heard somebody else say they wanted to speak, but maybe I'm mistaken. Okay. No one else wants to speak in opposition? So at this point in time, we have two people online.

There were two people online.

Okay. All right. Next speaker, please. Sue Ziele.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Hi. I'm Sue Ziele. I reside at 6411 Red Hawk Lane, and I am speaking in opposition of MM260800. First, this area simply cannot and should not have to sustain this type of development that's on the table. And additionally, it's not consistent with the area. It's incompatible with the comprehensive plan, and it was found to be inconsistent by staff. The road is substandard, which I know everybody's already gone over. But did you know that the Nota Sassa Road is designated as a rural scenic corridor? How can it be rural or scenic? It's full of traffic. It's just insane. For every house, concrete pad and additional pavement brought in the area, the consequences to the outlying area and the residents who've been here forever are awful. They flood. There's flooding where flooding has never occurred. When they built the Stone Lake Ranch, division that was referenced earlier. I have friends with horse farms who flooded that had never flooded before as a result of that development. So the consequences to the residents that have been here just, it's not fair. They pay with the flooding, they pay with the traffic, the congested roads, and their lifestyle, our rural lifestyle out here is totally disrupted. And I'm not even going to mention the wildlife that also suffers. So We're called to be caretakers, not destroyers of the land. I'm not against growth, but this growth is unparalleled in our county and it needs to be stopped, especially during the drought. Our roads and our environment can't sustain it. We will have no future for our children and grandchildren if we just continue at this pace. So please, I ask you, Do not let this move forward. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Okay. And I believe there's another person online that wishes to speak.

Yes. Can you hear me?

Yes.

My name is Tegan Zealy. I live at 6411 Red Hawk Lane. And I am here in opposition to MM26-0800. The half acre lot sizes and clustering of houses, it just doesn't fit the rural character of the Nota Sassa community. And I apologize for repeating everything that everybody else is already saying, but it needs to be heard. The Nota Sassa Road is designated as a rural scenic corridor, not a road full of clustered planned developments. It's not designed to carry the current traffic load it deals with, let alone intentionally adding more. Furthermore, even on the rezoning application summary, it states that the road is substandard. And the future improvements of the road are substandard. So, why would we add more. The property in question is surrounded on all four sides with AR designation and res one designation. That's not compatible with res two.

How do you get res two out of completely being surrounded with AR and res one?

the those rezoning application actually states in one spot that to the northeast of the property or the northwest excuse me to the northwest of the property there is houses on less than one acre lots i would encourage you to look at the map um there's a lake to the northwest of the property so i'm not sure how they came up with that one um pretty much everything else i wanted to say the staff has already said so i i completely concur with what the staff has said with it not being compatible um it just does not make sense i can repeat that if you wish but i won't waste your time unless you'd like me to um the so just going into it the proposed request does not further the vision of the tanota sasa community plan which requires one acre lot minimum for residential development, and it does not promote compatibility within an established rural community. So I respectfully request you to deny this application. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else in the audience or online that wishes to speak in opposition? I see no one responding. At this point in time, development services staff, anything further?

Michelle Heinrich, I did have one item to add to the record. It was noted by Ms. Albert, and we neglected to put in our report, that if the project is successful in changing to the Res 2 Future Land Use category, the scenic corridor will change from a rural to a suburban scenic corridor. So it would go down from 30 feet to 15 feet. Okay.

All right. At this point in time, the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal.

Mr. Lutz, William Malloy, 325 South Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. There are two distinct points I want to touch on, sir, based on the opposition testimony we heard. The first is the notice that's eroded. We are on the hook, and it's in the staff report, for making sure that the known accessible road is appropriately wide and resurfaced one mile to the west to Taylor Road. That is a pocket of R6 right there. So we're going from RR2, building a mile of road, to R6. I think that's compelling. The second point I want to make is I believe the planning commission has put a lot of merit in the idea that we're putting lakes or pardon me houses on the lake and we need to make some kind of adjustment with our lot size on the lake. We have no development planned north of the notice as a road. All our development is south, and if you see our site plan, sir, it's houses, it's two giant ponds, it's the road, it's a swamp, and then it's the lake. So the idea that these are lakefront houses, I appreciate that, but skip the right-of-way, and yes, our parcel front's the lake, but we're not developing on the lake. It's far from it. There's a point I'd like to make, too, that I think has to be addressed. This case should be heard and judged as though R2 were in place today. And I'm of the firm opinion that that staff report from the Planning Commission does not consider that. So thank you. All right. Thank you, sir.

Okay. With that, that concludes this application. And Mr. Molloy, please sign in. And Michelle, do you want to take a break now? Sure.

Sounds good.

Let's just take a 10-minute break. Say it's 840. We'll reconvene at 850.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. you Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, if we could be seated, reconvening tonight's August 24th, 2026, ZHM hearing. Folks, if we could have a seat, we need to get going. We have three more items on tonight's agenda. Senator Rick, we're ready for the next item.

Our next application is item D7 PD26-0803. The applicant is requesting to rezone property that's currently zoned PD850286 and SPI UC2 to Plain Development. Tim Lampkin with Development Services will provide staff findings and also this is associated with a comprehensive plan amendment and both the comprehensive plan amendment and this rezoning will be heard at the October 8th BOCC CPA public hearing.

Okay, applicant please.

Good evening, Cami Corbett, 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 1100, Tampa, Florida, 33602. So this site is located in the University Mall area. It's directly north of the University Area Mall. And this is the plan amendment that Michelle is referring to. It's currently R20. We're having a plan amendment only to the west side of the PD parcel, and I'll explain that in a minute, to R35. And the Planning Commission has found that request consistent, both staff and the Planning Commission. The existing use was really for, so what you have is on the east side of 22nd Street, there's an existing ALF. On the west side of 22nd Street, there's an existing, what was referred to as a retirement home. And then there's a parcel, and we'll number the parcels in a little bit, there's another parcel to the east that was not a part of the original PD. So this is like a major modification, but it's a new PD because we're adding property. And this spells it out a little bit better. So the original PD had different parcels. You have parcel one, which is the ALF. Parcel four is basically like a drainage and stormwater area that, again, is owned and controlled by the property owner that owns the east side of 22nd Street. My client purchased both parcel two and the parcel in blue SPI UC two zone parcel. Both of those are existing retirement home type communities. And the purpose of this request primarily was to allow for traditional multifamily to be located on parcel two and in the SPI UC2 rather than limit them to retirement. And the reason why we had to bring the whole PD in is there was a blended density at one point between all the parcels. And the ALF density is calculated differently. And since we don't own and control that parcel, we needed to do the future land use amendment on our side to get the additional density that's allowed. and then to leave them whole. I think they only built about 110 beds, but they have entitlement for more than that, and we can't take that away from them. And again, this is the new parcel configuration. So in the old PD zoning, they had different labels, parcels, but we've now, in the staff report, refer to the east side as parcel B, and the west side as parcel A. And what we're asking for is two development options. The first development option is to allow Parcel A to be used as multifamily in the existing buildings. No redevelopment of the site, just be able to convert what's already there to regular multifamily, no age restriction. And then the second development option was just to allow for a redevelopment option of Parcel A and set some parameters for that in the future. But the immediate plan is to utilize what's existing there at Parcel A. And then this further goes, this is just additional explanation to what I just said regarding the up to 480 multifamily, three multifamily units on parcel A, that that's part of the comp plan request. You're asking for some PD variations related to the buffering and screening. You could see that there's really adequate buffering there. And again, the idea is we're gonna utilize these existing buildings. Staff has found the request consistent and compatible with the comprehensive plan, and there are no objections from any reviewing agencies, and I'm here to answer any questions should you have any.

No, no questions. Thank you. All right, development services staff.

Good evening, Tim Lampkin, development services. The applicant's proposing to rezone approximately 22 acres. It's located just over 200 feet north of the intersection of North 22nd Street and University Square Mall Club Drive, which is the ring road surrounding University Mall north of Fowler. The overall project includes five folders that are currently zoned, a combination, as the applicant stated, PD and SPI-UC-2. The applicant requests to modify the permitted uses density and development standards applicable to parcel A, which is on the east side of the parcel. Parcel A consists of approximately 13.8 acres and they're allowed to have a maximum of 483 dwelling units. The staff report does say, and there will be a revised staff report submitted later, the staff report says 484 and it should be 483 units. There also, the remaining acreage 8.4 acres of parcel b is within the existing pd and is currently developed with an assisted living facility and associated open space as the applicant states parcel b is approved for 260 adult congregate living facility aclf beds although parcel b is proposed to remain within the expanded pd there are no changes whatsoever to parcel b The applicant's requesting relief from the 241 compatibility setback, LDC section 6.01.01 and note 8, which requires structures with a permitted height over 20 feet to provide an additional two feet of setback for every one foot over the building height. Staff notes under Option 1, Parcel A's existing building has a maximum allowable height of 98 feet with a one-to-one setback based upon additional setback requirements. A setback of 98 would be required. Option 1 recognizes existing building heights and setbacks. Option 2, the applicant proposes to allow demolition of THE DEVELOPMENT IN PARCEL B AND TO DEVELOP IT AS A MULTIFAMILY. OPTION A WOULD BE EITHER KEEP IT AS IS WITH THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY OR HAVE MULTIFAMILY UNAGE RESTRICTED WITHIN THE EXISTING CONFIGURATION. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED RELIEF WHICH STAFF HAS REVIEWED AND HAS NO OBJECTIONS. also reviewed, and you'll make a determination, they've submitted a variance to allow no buffer in lieu of the required 20-foot type B along the parcel A's eastern boundary. So more specifically, the applicant's intent for requesting the variation is not to place a buffer on the eastern property boundary, and they've stated because it's mitigated through existing site conditions, including the large wetland areas, to configure the amount of mature trees. It's currently preserved and will continue to be preserved by the new PD. Staff has reviewed the justification and finds that they meet the criteria. Based upon the above consideration, staff finds the request approvable subject to conditions.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Planning Commission staff.

Lily Linehan, Planning Commission staff. The subject site is located within the Residential 20 Future Land Use Designation within the Urban Service Area and within the boundaries of the University Area Community Plan. There's a pending comprehensive plan map amendment, HCCPA 2616, to change the future land use to residential 35 on folio 36298-0000. The analysis provided is based on this pending future land use amendment. Objective 3.1 requires that new development be designed with due consideration of the existing community context and be compatible with the established character of the surrounding development. The subject site is currently developed with the villas at Unison Senior Living Facility and is situated within an area that is characterized by a diverse mix of residential, institutional, commercial, and senior living uses. Based on the site's location, the surrounding land use pattern, the location within the urban service area, and the existing urban character of the area, staff finds that the proposed amendment is compatible with the existing and plan development in the vicinity, as it would allow for additional residential density in a manner that could be integrated with the surrounding uses while maintaining compatibility and protecting community character. With 13.8 acres and residential 35, that portion of the subject site can consider up to 483 dwelling units. And since the proposed request does not modify the approved entitlements associated with parcel B, The existing development program remains within the range of uses and development intensities contemplated by the applicable future land use designations. The proposed plan development is also consistent with goal two of the University Area Community Plan as it facilitates residential uses in an area targeted for redevelopment and reinvestment along North 22nd Street. The plan development supports the plan's vision of promoting more efficient land use patterns, expanding housing opportunities, and encouraging redevelopment of underutilized properties. The proposed plan development preserves onsite wetlands and avoids adverse impacts, making the request consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan objectives and policies that govern growth in environmentally sensitive areas. Based on the above considerations and the following goals, objectives, and policies, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions proposed by the Development Services Department.

Hello, Tim Lampkin again, and I just realized I had a couple other minor items that will be part of a revised staff report, and I wanted to put those into the record. So on the cover page, it says 6.8 acre modified parcel. It should be 13.8 acre parcel A located. And on the third bullet point, add requirement on parcel A just to specify for more clarity that it's only parcel A. And then on the next bullet point, cross out the modified parcel and just specify parcel A. And then on the last paragraph regarding the concurrent comprehensive plan amendment, again, cross out modified and put parcel A. And then on the first bullet point, cross out the property after six acres and the folio number, which is 36298.0000. And then correct the acreage in all instances. It's the density for the requirement. It was rounded up to 14. The actual is 13.8. And then to add 260 beds on parcel B for more clarity. And then on the East Setback, on page 2, add Porcel A 250 feet, Porcel B 50 feet. For West, add Porcel B 35 feet. And that concludes. Thank you.

Okay. When do you think those changes will be in optics? Tomorrow morning. All right. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? There's no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? There's no one responding. Staff, anything further?

Yes, and of course Ms. Corbett can address this when she comes up for her rebuttal. We did receive an email from her today in regards to some revised conditions, and I didn't know if she was still proposing those or not.

Okay. We'll let her address that on rebuttal. Any applicant and opportunity for rebuttal?

Kami Corbett. In reviewing them, I think that I think I've decided not to pursue that this evening. I think that some of them are nice to have and clarifications and they're not necessarily anything that needs to be introduced this evening.

Okay. All right, there's, I listened to the changes. I just sounded like typos.

Correct. They were all clarifying. Everything, most of the conditions and the changes that we submitted were like clarifying and making them better, more clear. And that's why I just didn't go into all of that this evening. All right. I got it. It was important.

All right. Anything else?

No, thank you.

All right. Very good. With that, that concludes this application. And Ms. Heinrich, you're ready for the next case.

Our next application is item D8, major mod 26-0822. The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 92-0135. Tim Lamkin with Development Services has reviewed this and will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay, applicant please.

Good evening, hearing officer staff. Todd Pressman, 200 2nd Avenue South, number 451 in St. Petersburg, Florida. This is 260822. Planning Commission finds consistent DSD supports, no agency objections. And as of this morning, there were no emails or letters in the record. We're in the Brandon area, 1.78 acres, located just immediately south of State Route 60. Per the property appraiser were two parcels on Morningside Drive, again, just south of State Route 60, right behind that commercial structure, as you see there. Issue is a major modification from multifamily duplex to multifamily. I guess I should say from duplex to multifamily. Proposed 16 units in two structures. So the current PD is 18 duplexes, two common buildings, and one single family. And we're proposing 16 townhome units. So again, two parcels with a commercial building to the north. Looking at the budding uses is the commercial building. You have commercial to the west. You have a small residential that's also zoned CG to the rears commercial. and to the east are two single-family residentials. Planning Commission notes the surrounding development pattern consists of a mixture of commercial and residential uses. Development Services notes the same thing. It's characterized as a mixture of commercial, shopping centers, retail establishments, restaurants, offices, and automotive oriented businesses running on Brandon Boulevard with residential subdivision generally located behind the commercial frontage, which is what this area is. And I think both those findings are important because it characterizes this vicinity very well in terms of the compatibility or the existence of the commercial, the residential next to each other throughout that corridor. So when you look at the zoning, you'll see there's CG and the RSC-6, which again is similar to the corridor. And future land uses OC-20, which of course is a more intensive category. And that again is reflective along the corridor as the zoning is. So the east abutting, in terms of the abutting uses, and what I'm showing you here is the townhome structure that is the eastern townhome structure. There's two. So looking specifically at the buffer, we show on the plan a 20-foot building setback and a 10-foot type A with ornamental trees. As we went through a lot of discussions, both with natural resources and the staff, on the certified plan, we're gonna show that as a 15-foot buffer. So we were able to expand that additional five feet primarily Sarah Rose in transportation found us a few extra feet. So that'll be five feet extra on this site. So I wanna highlight that to you so there's no confusion when you look at the PD plan. But importantly on that east side is I have it as 125 feet from building to building. The two residential or the residentials are located pretty far from this site. They're located fronting on the the access street, which is Morningside. So there is a lot of, so there is a lot of physical separation between the two on the east side. And just to give you an idea, you can see the forestation behind the site. These are the residentials, the two residentials. You see that again, the front on Morningside. On the west, I'm showing you the single townhome structure as well on the west. The plan shows a 10 foot building setback, five foot type A with ornamentals. We'll be able to expand that another five feet. So on the certified plan, or when I'm communicating on the certified plan, we'll show a five foot, excuse me, we'll show a 10 foot wide buffer versus the five foot. So again, we were to eke out another five feet. It's also important to note that that residential structure is only half of the distance. The other distance is commercial activity and commercial zoning where notes come. and there's substantial forestation and screening that would be above and beyond what code calls for on the west as well. I have it as about 35 feet more or less from building to building, but again, with some good screening between the two. So development services note with the additional proposed buffering screening, they find the proposed impacts mitigated and the use is compatible and supportable with additional proposed landscaping and buffering. Planning Commission notes that detached homes would provide a residential use that is compatible with the existing residential. They note allowing residential development is consistent with the OC20, compatible with the existing development patterns surrounding area. PLANNING COMMISSION NOTES PROPOSED DENSITY IS THEREFORE SUBSTANTIALLY BELOW THE MAXIMUM THAT COULD BE ALLOWED. THEY ALSO NOTE THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE VAL RICO COMMUNITY PLAN, GOAL ONE. STRATEGY TWO, SUPPORTS THE VAL RICO COMMUNITY PLAN. ALSO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTICE THAT THIS WOULD BE A REDUCTION OF TRIPS, NOT A LOT, BUT WOULD BE SOME 23 IN THE 24-HOUR TWO-WAY VOLUME AND JUST A LITTLE BIT IN THE AM AND PEAK HOUR. WITH THAT, WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

You went through how you added five feet additional buffer on each side.

Yep.

And now the staff met with you and discussed that. And are they supporting the variance to the landscaping offering?

Yeah, they're supporting it along with the change that I'm indicating to you, yes, both on the east and west.

All right, got it. Thank you.

Yep.

All right. At this point, are you done? Yes, thank you. All right, very good. Thank you. Development services staff.

Good evening. And to clarify, the applicant is not requesting any variance of the buffer, but I'll go through it and make certain that that portion is really clear and why he is staff so a revised report has been submitted basically staff had compatibility concerns due to the proximity of the proposed structure to the existing single-family home to the east and to the southwest and due to that reached out to the applicant and as the applicant stated our transportation planner was able to determine that there was a the road didn't need to be as wide as the applicant had initially thought, and so there was an additional 10 feet. Then the applicant provided to increase the buffer on the west, well, I'm sorry, yeah, on the west side from five feet to 10, or, hold on, yeah, from five feet to 10 feet, type A with ornamental trees, were before they were proposing a 10 foot, I'm sorry, a five foot with, I need to look at the site plan. Bear with me here one second, please. essentially they increased the buffer five feet on each side and then they also concurrently it increases the setback five feet on each side and so due to that staff was able to find it supportable the applicant and his request is to develop 16 townhomes in two different structures replacing the existing entitlements and And let's see, and as the applicant stated, there is a substantial distance from the single family home, but however, if someone sells, then they could be a lot closer than they are right now. So the applicant's requesting relief though, he's not requesting any variations. He's exceeding the land development code requirements. He's requesting relief from the additional two for one, which is one additional foot for every foot over 20 feet. So he's going 35, that's 30 feet. And he's not meeting that. And he's provided justification within his narrative for the relief of the additional 30 foot setback per the proposed 35 foot townhome height and adjacent single family homes. The applicant normally he'd be required now to provide a five foot wide buffer with type A screening. In lieu of not meeting the additional compatibility standard for the height over 20, he's enhancing the buffer. Staff does note that the current approval limits development on the subject property to 18 one story duplex structures and a single family home with the maximum density of 11 units per acre. as established by PD 92-0135. And the applicant also has provided further justification with their narrative request for relief per the proposed 30-foot townhome height. Staff acknowledges the existing single-family residence on the adjacent property situated towards the front portion of the parcel and is currently separated from the proposed development by a considerable distance. However, the zoning of the parcel would allow redevelopment at a setback of 25 feet. Therefore, staff evaluated it the way we did based upon what could be built there. With the additional proposed buffering and screening, staff finds that the proposed mitigated AND THE USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SUPPORT, THE ADDITIONAL PROPOSED LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING. AND BASED UPON ALL THAT, STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST APPROVABLE. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

LILLY LENAHAN, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE SITE IS DESIGNATED AS OFFICE COMMERCIAL 20 ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND THE SITE IS WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE VAL RICO COMMUNITY PLAN. It is located in the urban service area at the transition between established commercial and residential development. There are commercial uses located to the north and the west of the site, and residential development is located to the south and the east. The proposed residential development is compatible with the existing residential uses and provides an appropriate transition from the commercial uses to the surrounding residential neighborhood. And under FLU's Objective 2.2 and Policy 2.2.1, OC20 future land use category allows for the consideration of compatible residential development at a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per gross acre. With the site's 107.8 acres, up to 35 dwelling units may be considered. The applicant is only proposing 16 attached dwelling units or approximately nine dwelling units per gross acre, which is substantially below the maximum density permitted. THIS PROPOSED MAJOR MODIFICATION ALSO MEETS THE INTENT OF FLU'S OBJECTIVE 1.1 POLICY 3.1.3 OBJECTIVE 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 by providing a compatible development pattern and appropriate transition between the commercial and residential uses that are existing. The proposed density is significantly below the maximum permitted and the residential use is consistent with the existing residential development to the south and the east. The applicant is also proposing to preserve the existing natural forestation along the eastern portion of the site and providing additional separation from adjacent residential properties. The applicant has also acknowledged that Morningside Drive is identified as a substandard roadway and has committed to addressing any required roadway improvements, right-of-way dedication, or proportionate mitigation through the site development review process. And these commitments are consistent with the infrastructure and mobility goals of the Valrico Community Plan. Based upon these considerations, Planning Commission staff finds proposed major modification consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions proposed by the Development Services Department.

Okay, thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application? I see no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? I see no one responding. Staff, anything further?

No, sir.

Any applicant opportunity for rebuttal?

Just to put in the record that we did notice 24 people. I believe we noticed twice, and again, we've had no feedback or response. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, sir. With that, that concludes this application. Ms. Heinrich, we're ready for the next case.

Our next application is item D9 PD26-0974. The applicant is requesting to rezone property from AS1 to Planned Development. Chris Grain-Lenard with Development Services has reviewed this and will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Yeah, the applicant please.

Good evening, Brian Dion. JOHNSON POBE 400, NORTH ASHLEY DRIVE, TAMPA, FLORIDA. HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, LEADERS COMPANIES LLC REGARDING PD 260974. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS OF A SINGLE STORY CONVENIENCE STORE OF APPROXIMATELY 4,852 SQUARE FEET WITH A MAXIMUM OF 12 FUELING STATIONS. The request is to change the use category from AS1 to PD. The future land use category will remain unchanged. Staff has identified some issues today that I wish to address Which really fall into two separate categories? The first is the fundamental land use question of is this a neighborhood serving commercial development? Appropriate at this location and the record demonstrates that it is the second question involves several technical matters concerning wetlands and really two separate issues, wetlands and also transportation issues that remain to be finalized. And we're asking to condition our development on addressing those two matters, which I will get into more detail with. While we understand that there's legitimate issues that need to be addressed through subsequent approvals, this is a PD rezoning application. So our request today is rather straightforward. We ask that we approve the land use subject to the conditions that we are going to request and ask the county to consider with this PD application. The site... It would be used for a convenience store with gas stations. There would be a maximum of 12 pumps and a canopy serving those pumps. We meet ISR and FAR requirements, building coverage requirements, and parking space requirements. The building would be one story. We have implemented front, rear, inside setbacks that match the setbacks that are consistent with the surrounding area. This is the general location of the property. Surrounding this area, first and foremost, we have Veterans Highway, which is 0.3 miles from the site. And there's also additional storefronts. There's Walmart that's 1.3 miles away. There are restaurants that are about two miles away as well, such as Olive Garden. This is the plan, which I am going to provide a little bit more zoomed in version of it. In the red shows the general location of the building. As mentioned, it is within the wetland setback, which we are asking to condition the PD approval on a variance for the wetland setback itself. And then you can see the buffers that we have set up around the property. The wetland, just to show you visually, is in the northwest corner of the property. And we would also be developing sidewalks and pedestrian access points that are 10 feet wide that would provide not only a sidewalk itself, but also allow for bikes to traverse in the immediate area. The properties Yeah, and I do have my engineer here who can address the drives in and out as well as the sidewalks.

Good evening. Jeremy Anderson here, Common Oak Engineering, 4020 Edgewater Drive, Orlando. Thank you for the opportunity to be here before you tonight. I'll just talk a little bit about the proposed driveway access points that are proposed. We have a right-in, right-out driveway proposed to Bellamy Road, which is the drive on the East End side of the project there. It is proposed to be restricted. with a raised median. The driveway access includes right-of-way expansion. This driveway is going to be, of course, designed in conformance with the traffic study that has been prepared. And again, it's gonna include a raised median as well. And it will include like a right-of-way expansion on both sides of the road. We will be working with the county on that expansion on the east-hand side. For the driveway connection on Ehrlich, it's another ride-in, ride-out driveway. It includes a left turn lane extension for the eastbound driver and of course a new right turn lane into the property for that westbound driver. Once again, that right turn lane is going to require an expansion of the right-of-way not only for the right turn lane, but also for the multi-use trail that's depicted there in like a cross-hatch manner. Utilities services available. There is a force main available for connection in the right-of-way. There's a 20-inch water main located as well. So again, public utility services are available to the property. On-site stormwater management, of course, once the trips are captured on site, all the maneuvers will be confined into the property itself. So I want to just run through that, and I thank you again for the opportunity to do so. Thank you.

As Jeremy mentioned, the property is located within the urban service area. The comprehensive plan contemplates the growth within the community. And this is a prime spot for that type of growth. The county's commercial locational criteria is met by this location and the proposed use. Those criteria exist for a reason. They identify locations where neighborhood commercial uses can appropriately serve surrounding residential developments without allowing commercial development to simply migrate indiscriminately to residential areas. This area is along Ehrlich Road, which is a large corridor within the area. The principal land use concern that was raised by Development Services is compatibility. Compatibility does not mean that every adjoining property must be categorized within the same use. The question is whether the proposed development can coexist with the surrounding development pattern without creating unreasonable impacts. There's several reasons why this matches this. First, this is a planned development. A planned development, we are allowed to work with county staff and the local area to develop what that plan means. We're not asking for a broad commercial rezoning of this district. and the county has the ability through this PD process to control the use, the intensity, the layout, the buffering, the lighting, and other characteristics of the development itself. Through time, We have submitted several proposals to county staff regarding the development. Through time, we've also reduced the size of the building. We revised the circulation pattern. We adjusted the fuel canopy to better match the surrounding area as the code dictates. We've modified the stormwater configuration. We've eliminated the pavement behind the building, which would better serve the wetlands that are adjacent to the property. and we've developed additional wetland protection measures, such as moving the building completely out of the wetland itself. These are meaningful changes. The physical context of the property provides additional separation. To the east is the county-owned property containing a retention pond, which we would use to extend Ehrlich. And we've been in discussions with Public Works. We've reached out to PUBLIC WORKS TO ADDRESS THAT EXTENSION INTO BELLAMY ROAD. WE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING SUBSTANTIAL SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AROUND THE PROPERTY. PLANNING COMMISSION'S OWN ANALYSIS RECOGNIZES THE UNDERLYING COMPATIBILITY OF THE USE. As Planning Commission stated, compatibility does not mean the same as. So again, compatibility asks is this viable with the surrounding community, not is it exactly the same as the surrounding community. There's recognizable commercial uses along Ehrlich that extend miles each way that are listed as commercial. There's gas stations about two miles east of this property, for example. Hold on. Please, folks. Planning Commission's report. Quiet, please. Planning Commission's report states, given the current development pattern that consists mainly of residential uses with heavy distance from commercial uses, but close proximity to a major highway entrance and exit near the Veterans Expressway, the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and neighborhood character and would work to serve the existing neighborhood. The request is consistent with all of future land use objectives and policies that relate to the compatibility of the neighborhood protection. Planning Commission's only change to make it incompatible was the fact that the building would be within the wetland setback. All other commercial locational criteria was considered consistent by the county. Bellamy Road design exception for substandard roads. There are several improvements we're willing to do and implement into Bellamy Road, which includes right-of-way dedication to the county, restricted right-in, right-out access, as Jeremy has mentioned, the sidewalk and multipurpose path construction, administrative variances for spacing standards, which we have requested, which would be 130-foot spacing variance along Bellamy Road. We also are willing to implement a four-foot concrete separator. and add in landscape buffers that are 15 feet around the property. Along Ehrlich, we again would have a right in, right out drive connection. It would introduce a mountable curb and westbound and northbound site access. This is our trip generation report. We do have our traffic engineer here if there's any questions about the trip generation. The property is surrounded by residential properties, which are mostly to the south, including some single-family homes directly to the north, the county retention pond to the east, and the church that is located to the west of the developable area. consistency with the Greater Carrowwood Northdale Community Planning Area. It promotes pedestrian-friendly growth, support to the local community, and identifies community needs. Our client also has similar values. Community support that they're willing to implement would be partnering with local law enforcement. We would have a locally owned franchisee who is a community member that would be on site. We have implemented or we can implement steps that would discourage loitering. We have advanced security measures. And we have community outreach programs that we are willing to implement. There's also concerns about possible lighting and noise pollutions from the property. But the client is able to implement hoods over lighting that would make it localized to just the property itself. And they introduce soft music in the outside area, which, again, would reduce loitering, and also would be supportive of community growth. Comprehensive plan compliance. I just wanted to briefly touch on the comprehensive plan and what objectives that it introduces, such as urban service areas and urban expansion areas, which are ADDRESSED ALREADY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE USA. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IDENTIFIES LAND USE CATEGORIES THAT SUMMARIZE AND ESTABLISH PERMANENT LAND USES AND MAXIMUM DENSITIES AND INTENSITIES WHICH WE DO NOT COME CLOSE TO REACHING. THE MITIGATION, THERE'S TWO conditions that we're requesting with this application. One is surrounding the wetland area, which we would request a variance to the site development of the property. And then we're also requesting the Bellamy Road extension, which again, we have already discussed with or started implementing the discussions with Public Works. We have a growth pattern analysis that was done by RVI that shows consistent growth in the media area and multiple studies have been done by not only RVI but also the Planned Hills Borough which shows that since 2008 there has been substantial growth in this area. Each PC's review was consistent with our request, and they did not have any other requirements for proposed rezoning for the property.

Okay, how much more time do you need? I have like two more minutes. Okay, let the record reflect. I'll give him two more minutes, and those people who want to speak can either support or opposition with an equal amount of additional time. Two more minutes for the record.

Thank you, hearing officer. There are several examples of gas stations in close proximity of churches. This is just several examples of that, which are all located within Hillsborough County and close to the immediate area. Again, we're asking for conditions that would be placed on the property, which would include the variance for the wetland setback, and then also for the all administrative requirements for the access, the right and right axis points surrounding the property. We would also, of course, obtain the required public works and transportation approvals Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, sir. At this point in time, development services staff.

Good evening. Chris Graumanar, planner with Development Services. This is a request to rezone approximately 3.4 acres from AS1 to PD to allow a convenience store with fuel sales. The proposal includes a one-story commercial building a fuel canopy and up to 12 fueling stations with access proposed from both Bellamy Road and Ehrlich Road. The surrounding area consists of single family residential neighborhoods to the north and south. A vacant parcel used as a county stormwater pond to the east and a church with associated school and childcare facilities to the west. These uses reflect a predominantly residential and institutional development pattern along the portion of the corridor. Approximately 38% of the site consists of wetlands in the northwest portion of the property. the limits this limits the available upland area for development and affects building placement circulation and storm water management while the applicant has made adjustments to the site design the current layout still requires encroachment into the wetland buffer which would require a separate variance that has not been obtained natural resources objects to this request They noted that the site contains wetlands and other surface waters that require conservation and preservation setbacks. These areas prohibit filling, excavation, permanent structure, and impervious surfaces, and the current layout encroaches into those required setbacks. A key consideration in staff's review is the intensity of the proposed use. A convenience store with fuel sales typically introduces higher levels of traffic, lighting, delivery activity, nighttime operations. These operational characteristics represent a substantial increase compared to the existing conditions and to the surrounding residential uses. The combination of these activities levels with the limited upland area makes it challenging to fully mitigate transitions between the proposed development and the adjacent homes and church, particularly where natural buffers are currently provided by wetland areas. Also, transportation staff identified several outstanding issues, including the need for additional detail on proposed access, roadway improvements and right-of-way dedication. Some submitted materials were either incomplete or inconsistent. Also, public works indicated that they could not adequately evaluate potential use of county property with the information provided. As a result, transportation staff recommended a denial. I would recommend speaking to transportation after this regarding their concerns. Considering the intensity of the proposed commercial activity, the environmental constraints on the site, and the unresolved transportation-related issues, staff finds the request not supportable. I'm available for any questions you might have. Oh, I also have a revised staff report, I'm sorry.

All right, folks, please. I'd like to ask transportation staff to provide any comments regarding the application. Thank you.

Yes, Sarah Rose from the transportation section is online virtually and will speak to the objections on record. Okay.

Good afternoon. Sarah Rose from transportation review. AS NOTATED IN TRANSPORTATION'S RATIONALE FOR OBJECTION, AS OUTLINED IN OUR REPORT, THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT SEVERAL VARIETES REQUESTS FOR THEIR ACCESS ON TO BELLAMY, NAMELY AN ADMINISTRATIVE SPACING VARIETES WHICH WAS FOUND TO CONTAIN INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION FOR REVIEW BY THE MANAGER OF TRANSPORTATION REVIEW. In addition to that, an administrative design exception was submitted for the substandard roadway conditions of Bellamy. That too was found insufficient for review by the manager of transportation review. For both of those variances, one of the outstanding insufficiencies for both of those requests was the lack of information regarding the right-of-way expansion for Bellamy. Neither on the variance request or the site plan does the applicant outline exactly how far or how much width will be required for that expansion. As stated by the applicant in their presentation, the applicant did inquire whether staff could condition the project to be able to continue without the Bellamy access if the expansion for Bellamy was not in the additional right-of-way to be taken from county land, from county property, which resides east of the subject area, could not be supported by Public Works. Uh, as at the time of zoning review, uh, public works, no coordination with public works, uh, between the applicant and public works had been completed, uh, and it at the time of site construction if public works were not able to support county land to be taken for that right-of-way expansion on bellamy if the project could be conditioned in such a way to proceed without that bellamy access staff notified the applicant that In fact, this would require a substantive change to the application, uh, meeting that a revision to the site access analysis and the site plan would be required. Uh, and that as the revised plan deadline had already passed, such position could not be considered at that late stage in the review. And there would be insufficient time for both staff and the public to fairly and adequately review and provide comments on justification that the proposed use of density could be adequately supported by a single right in right out access connection on Ehrlich Road.

DIRECTOR DEWOLF. Anything else. DIRECTOR MACK.

Not at this time.

Yeah, thank you. At this point in time, Planning Commission staff.

Lily Linehan, Planning Commission staff. The subject property is located within the Residential 4 Future Land Use category in the Urban Service Area and within the limits of the Greater Carewood Northdale Community Plan. Given the current development pattern that consists of mainly residential uses with heavy distance from commercial uses, but the close proximity to a major highway entrance and exit near the Veterans Expressway, The proposal is compatible with the surrounding area neighborhood character and would work to serve the existing neighborhood and therefore meets the intent of objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1. The proposed neighborhood serving commercial use meets the commercial locational criteria which is established in FLU's objective 4.7 and policy 4.7.2. The subject site is located within the required 1,000 foot distance of the qualifying intersection at Ehrlich Road and Bellamy Road and the applicable site area satisfies the required locational criteria. The revised site plans uploaded to Optics on July 13th, 2026 and August 4th, 2026 depict the proposed building encroaching into the required 30 foot wetland setback. And the current proposal does not establish compliance with the applicable wetland protection requirements or adequately demonstrate that the potential impacts to the environmentally sensitive resources have been resolved. Accordingly, the proposed plan development has not demonstrated consistency with the environmental protection intent of FLU's objective 6.1 and 6.2, FLU's policy 6.1.1, the environmental sustainability objective 3.5, and additionally policy 3.5.1. And as development services communicated to planning commission staff, Hillsborough County Land Development Code Section 4.01.07B. The proposal has not adequately demonstrated consistency with the applicable provisions of the Greater Carolwood Northdale Community Plan, particularly those that address compatibility, transitions, buffers, and the integration of new development with the established character of the surrounding community. So based upon the above considerations and the following goals, objectives, and policies, Planning Commission staff finds proposed plan development inconsistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

Thank you. At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in support of the application? See no one responding. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application? So quite a few hands raised. I don't know if you have a spokesperson for the group or not, but otherwise, we'll try. I'm sorry. The gentleman in the front row, I don't know if you're the spokesperson or not.

I'm an attorney for the church, which is a major portion of the people that are here today.

Okay.

My name is Jonathan Bailey. I'm with the National Center for Life and Liberty. We represent Hillsdale Baptist Church and Hillsdale Christian School, which is one of the neighbors here. What you have heard today is that they want to put an almost 5,000 square foot convenience store building, fueling canopy with 12 fueling stations, and a 20,000 gallon regular, 8,000 gallon premium, and 12,000 gallon diesel tank, 32 parking spaces, right in the middle of a residential community and right next to a church and school. And everything that they said around it about being community friendly, the impact to these homes, the impact to the people living there, and the impact of this school is not just the traffic. It's a severe danger to the community that's going to be there. The type of people that are going to hang out at the 7-Eleven at night, the type of people that are going to be coming in and out of this community that are not a part of this community, this is not a community-centric development plan at all. The staff and agency recommendations and the development service recommendations not supportable, planning commission inconsistent, transportation staff objects and recommends denial. Everyone that has looked at this says this is a bad idea. And it is a bad idea. The 7-Eleven came and talked to the church and school and said, well, what if we just sell alcohol after 5 o'clock? That doesn't solve the problem. What's going to happen is we're going to wake up in the morning while kids are being dropped off at school and you're going to have somebody passed out right in front of the school entrance. Serving after 5 o'clock doesn't solve the problem. And to think that this is not a wedge principle where they're just going to come in here and try to get this in the door, and then all of a sudden we're going to be serving beer at 11 a.m., that's going to happen. And it's not just going to impact this community. It's going to potentially create a safety problem at this Christian school that's going to be newsworthy, and it just cannot be allowed to happen in this community. The trip generation increases from 28 existing trips to 2,800 proposed trips. That's fundamentally changing this entire area. This area coming off this road of veterans is not a highly used area. The Walmart's not anywhere close. It's way, way further than what he was saying. These restaurants are nowhere near where the school is at. This is not the picture that he presented of this little area. This is a cozy little residential area. with a church and school area.

Please stop clapping and please stop making noises.

This is a church and school area that doesn't have this type of traffic now. The environmental concerns are not to be anywhere overlooked. You've got 38% of the site consists of wetlands and approximately 8,700 square foot of wetland impact and approximately 13,000 square feet of wetland buffer impact. And so you're going to put 20,000 gallon regular, 8,000 gallon premium, and 12,000 gallon diesel tanks right next to a wetland issue. And you're asking for buffers that do not meet the LDC criteria. And they need variances that they have not applied for. This impact is going to be severe. It's going to place the children at the school at risk. It's going to increase traffic. It's going to increase safety risk for the area. Trying to get in and out of the school in the mornings with the traffic is going to be impossible. This is not something that is even doable from a site traffic perspective. And the way that they propose their traffic plan is laughable at best. The neighborhood that's behind it with many people here today, they are very upset, not because they don't want a 7-Eleven. It's because it's going to destroy their ability to get out of their neighborhood. It's going to destroy the way of life that they have established in this area. And as was said, this is not consistent to the area and to the way that this community has been built and where it is today. We'd ask that Hillsdale Baptist Church and Hillsdale Christian School respectively request the zoning hearing master recommend denial of PD 260974 in its entirety. IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INCOMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL USES, UNSUPPORTED BY NECESSARY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, AND POSES UNACCEPTABLE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY RISK TO THE ADJACENT CHURCH, SURROUNDING COMMUNITY, AND THE SCHOOL. WE APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH.

HI, SIR. CAN YOU PLEASE SAY YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD?

JONATHAN BAILEY, AND IT IS 13790 ROSEVILLE BOULEVARD. THANK YOU.

IF YOU COULD SIGN IN, PLEASE, SIR.

NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. Good evening.

Hi, I'm Michael Kruzemarkey. I live at 6535 Steeplechase Drive, Tampa, 33625. It's in one of the neighborhoods that are off Bellamy Road. I want to give some quick background here that I don't think I've heard here yet tonight is that 17 years ago, the same parcel was proposed, two parcels, I guess, was proposed for a racetrack gas station. The conclusion A base at that time was based on testimony, evidence, various planning departments, and a review of the comprehensive plan has concluded that the rezoning is not compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning and is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Recommendation denial, signed by Steven Luce. You're still looking good 17 years later. And we're very appreciative that the significant analysis that the county staff has done on this because this is a project that I guess, to put it as succinct as possible, Bellamy Road is the only way in and out. It's the major artery for some 2,500 homes. And if you put this gas station there with all the traffic, extra traffic they're talking about, that would significantly lead to congestion. It would lead to safety issues, not only for the cars, but a lot of people walk and ride their bicycles past that intersection because there's a very, I can't think of the name of it, there's a trail north-south that's to the west of there that a lot of people ride their bikes on. And so I can't even imagine people coming off the Veterans doing U-turns at that intersection. And another thing that's not mentioned here, and I guess I would say that's a flaw in how the county evaluates traffic, there are a lot of speeding cars on Ehrlich. They fly through that red light. I don't know if they're trying to beat the light or trying to get to the Veterans or for whatever reason. And I think the county could do a better job, and it's just not a matter of traffic counts, which will certainly go way up if the station is put in there, but there has to be some way with current technology to measure of the cars that go by that intersection on a daily basis, how many are exceeding the speed limit by 10 miles or more. And that's, you know, I can only say that especially if the plan is redrawn and Bellamy is eliminated, the only ingress, egress is on Ehrlich, that would create a hazard of unforgivable epic proportions because people would pull out, people were speeding, you're asking for a lot of mayhem and I think it would be not good. So I wish the county would evaluate its traffic count process to also include some measure using lasers or whatever's available with the current tech to denote the speeders on a given road, in this case it's Ehrlich. I also, I guess I can finish up by saying that, and the county map is kind of wrong because there's not just the wetlands, that are behind the proposed station. And there's a retention pond across Bellamy. But there's also another pond that's not indicated even on the maps that shows another small pond behind a home that's directly off the intersection there. So that's another pond that's potentially impacted by the spillage from gas and oil, whatever you can buy to put in your car that's toxic. So we... Again, to summarize, this is the only main road in Brown. This is how we, in Bellamy Road, see the real world. And if you put all that extra traffic there, it creates a safety hazard, a traffic hazard, congestion hazard, and it could endanger children and bikers and pedestrians who use that intersection all the time. I've lived there for 25 years, and I can't give you a precise count, but just about every time I drive there, there's someone trying to cross that street. So I thank you for listening. All right. Thank you, sir.

The next speaker, please.

If you could please sign in, sir.

We do also have two people online that wish to speak.

Yes, good evening. Richard Alexander, 6516 Spring Oak Court. I live in that residence. And I want to be quick because there's a lot of passion here tonight on this particular issue. We've been here since 6 o'clock, and this has got the most response from anybody. It's very simple. This is a very simple battle. This is a battle of unquenchable, insatiable greed versus families. That's what this is about. This is about a corporation that couldn't care less about husbands and wives and fathers and mothers and elementary and middle school and high school kids. Because within the stone's throw of Bellamy and Ehrlich is not only a church, Hillsdale Church, but there's also a pre-K, there's an elementary school, and there's a middle school. And then not to mention the wetlands, of course. But there is one south Bellamy, there is one north Bellamy. It is not practical to snake through residences to try and find some egress so you can get to Ehrlich. That is a very busy intersection. There is also residences to the east of that location. What's west of the location is the church, the preschool, the middle school, and the elementary school. This is going to be a disaster. This is a stick of dynamite with a very short fuse, because you have buses, you have people, you have couples, young and old, walking hand in hand on that sidewalk, which is going to go away if 7-Eleven, which is open 24 hours, seven days a week, selling alcohol, beer, wine, gambling products, vaping products, tobacco, and cigarettes. And that's not going to be limited to inside of that store, guaranteed. This is not an isolated event. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir.

All right, next speaker, please. Good evening.

Hi, I am Penelope Jacobs. I live at 6303 Neston Court. Okay, I just want to add on to a few points that I heard. And with the Hillsdale Baptist Church, on the side there, there's a field where kids play all sorts of games. And my concern would be that the only thing protecting from this lot to that church is a bunch of trees. And I'd imagine those would be torn down. So it would leave the children there exposed to alcohol products and smoking, gambling, all that kind of stuff. And on top of that, the intersection is already overcrowded, and I live back there. I go to a school down Ehrlich Road, and I wake up at 6.45 to get to a school I live five minutes away from. which I feel like is too much. And that proves that the traffic can back up pretty bad. And squeezing massive gas tanker trucks into a tight opening could cause a lot of traffic. Yeah, that's all. Yeah.

Very good. Thank you. And please sign in. Next person. There was somebody on the left who was trying to come forward. Good evening.

Hello, Ginger Wilson, 15105 Craggy Cliff Street, 33625. I live off of Bellamy Road for about 27 years. I moved on the outskirts of town when I moved here, relocated with my company. I did not move downtown into the city because I wanted to live on the outskirts of town because I enjoy the wildlife in Florida. It's amazing. And we have a nice little quiet community where there's tons of animals, egrets, uh, Rose bills. Everything are all in that big retention pond next to us. They're all around. Sandhill cranes are back behind the church and the wetlands behind the church. They deserve to have their space to live. The development has continued to move things. The traffic, as other people, I'm going to shorten up what I had written, but the traffic situation is dire. And whoever did that traffic study did not do it well. Because if you live there, you know I've seen a person on a bike killed at that intersection, hit by a car. I have seen numerous wrecks. Every day you pull out, there's more garbage in the street where there's been another collision the way it is already. Cars back up all the way past Mr. John's house, which is beyond the Palaio property, every morning trying to make a right turn out or to try to make a left turn out to go east on Early. There's gas stations all the way around us. In 27 years, I've never run out of gas, even in Milton. because there's plenty of gas stations around me. Every direction I can go when I leave my home has a gas station. There's just simply not a gas station needed there, much less ground tanks underground that I know do have contamination. And there's water all around there where animals and wildlife are living out their lives that they deserve to live. It's just wrong. We don't need it in our neighborhood. We don't want it. I can't see of any benefit that we're going to have by putting a 7-Eleven on the corner. But the biggest thing is where the church is, there's a crossover. People are trying to come out of that church turning left or turning right. Carol Wood Meadows is coming across through the same crossover. Every morning, they're trying to turn left out of Carol Wood Meadows, turning right. Then on Tom Fuller, they built an apartment complex, and now people are turning out of Tom Fuller to come down there and either cut through and make a U-turn at the church or come down to Bellamy and Ehrlich and make a U-turn there. That traffic's already terrible. And I have seen cars bunkered up in that crossover at the church, four thick, in the morning with half of their vehicles sticking out on Ehrlich Road, where I'm trying to come, and have to stop to wait until they can pull out. So you put a 7-Eleven there and try to make that another crossover, you have created another huge traffic jam. and blocking us from leaving our neighborhood every morning. It's wrong. We don't want it. I'm sorry that the people that live in the corner have been unable to sell their house because it's been for sale for pretty much the 27 years I've lived there. They haven't been able to sell it. I'm sorry. What we sell it, figure it out. There was a house across the street from them that was vacant for many, many years. Somebody's finally there. And a gas station is not consistent with that neighborhood right there. It just isn't.

All right. Thank you, man. All right. Evening.

Evening. Thank you. I'm Claudia Capiello. I live in 14919 Barbie Avenue. I'm in the community right off of Bellamy. I'll be super quick. I know there's lots of other people that want to talk. I just... Okay.

Hold on. Just for the record. I know there's a few more people that want to speak. I gave the applicant two extra minutes. And I believe we'll give two extra minutes for the folks that are speaking now.

Okay. Like I said, I'll be super quick here. So as part of this, I organized a community petition in opposition to this development. And as of this evening, they have 870 signatures to this petition. Back in March, when they were trying to do a standard rezoning, it had over 700 people sign that petition. So the changes that these people have put forth with this new application, obviously Dean addressed the concerns of the community, and they're definitely not in support of having this development.

Okay, thank you, ma'am. All right, there's a couple of people online that wanted to speak. Let's hear from them. Go ahead.

Jennifer?

Hi, good evening. My name is Jennifer Anderson, and I have resided at 14725 Redcliffe Drive, in Tampa 33625 for 16 years. Off of Bellamy Road, we have thousands of homes in addition to those nine HOA communities. Living in our residential area, we have access to large lots, property to house farm animals, and reside in close proximity to the Veterans Expressway. Our rural neighborhood is quiet, safe, and relatively low traffic when it comes to just automobiles and our residents that travel to and from work. We don't have any commercial traffic that comes on Bellamy as we don't have those outlets to turn around in. At rush hour, traffic increases on Ehrlich Road, exiting from the Veterans Expressway. When school is in session, traffic can be backed up from Farmington Boulevard to Lynn Turner Road, sometimes taking an additional 15 minutes to travel just one mile. On a daily basis, you will find students riding their bikes to and from school, Publix employees commuting to and from work, residents walking between a mile to one and a half miles to one of our two public stores and their shopping plazas, the cyclists, and even the occasional Shetland pony and buggy. Adding a 7-Eleven is not welcome in our community. The proposed location is dangerous to the potential customers conducting illegal traffic maneuvers, such as you turning at the traffic light near the proposed entrance to the convenience store. Traffic entering and exiting the Veterans Expressway will also increase.

Ma'am, I need you to wrap up your comments, please.

the proposed site should not be approved there are many environmental concerns with the proposed lot across the street of 14702 bellamy roads it's a traffic sign that states wildlife entering highway by a county pond this two acre lot currently has a single family home of over 1400 square feet and would be better used as a residential home it's already been mentioned the 38 percent area that is wetland and so we have many of the animals that have already been discussed that are at risk of dying or being displaced um wrap up your comments please it's wrapped thank you all right thank you i think there's one more gentleman online let him speak and that'll conclude uh the opposition testimony go ahead sir nope

Hello, hello. Can you hear me? Yes.

Okay, great. Thank you. Yes. My name is John. John. Uh, I, uh, reside at 14720 Bellamy road. For over 40 years. I came with the comments to make tonight. However, I can certainly cut them short after listening to the comments of Mr. Bailey, Mr. Jonathan Bailey from the Hillsdale Baptist Church. He properly, in both a broad-based and specific nature, detailed quite a number of objections very very viable objections to this to this reapplication or rezoning I would however like to make a couple of points specific to my own property relative to uh potential changes at 14702 Bellamy Road and they pertain to wetlands water and flooding all right uh The water in the wetlands resides on 14702 Bellamy. It doesn't sit on my property at all. The only occasion where it does in fact come onto my property now is during a confluence of storms, tropical storms, hurricanes, thunderstorms, and my back property now will flood. Historically, excess water from the wetlands moved to the west. That all changed, however, when the church came in and the western edge of the wetlands was fortified. Now, any excess water from the wetlands escaping there comes north onto my property directly. As a consequence, you cannot allow for any setbacks, any variances, any reduction in the capacity of the wetlands to hold water. You can't do it. You will flood my property without question with greater frequency. This is a lived experience. This is not conjecture. Am I out of time?

Yes. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Now, there's a couple of people. Thank you, sir. There are a couple of people that stood up, and time's expired. If you'd like to put your name and address on the record so you can speak at a later hearing, if that's your desire, you can come forward and do that. Otherwise, I'll close the opposition testimony at this point in time. So anyone wants to put their name and address on the record? Okay. All right, with that, that concludes the opposition. And Development Services, any further comments?

No, sir.

Okay, the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal. I'll grant you, you have five minutes for rebuttal. I'll grant you two extra minutes, given the time given to the opposition. Thank you, I'll keep it in my five.

We understand that there are several technical approvals that still need to occur on this property. This includes the design exceptions that we mentioned regarding the wetland and then also the Bellamy Road extensions. This is not the time or place for those to be the forefront of the discussion. We have opportunities to develop the site through the site development process itself. rezoning to the plan development while has these discussions as part of what we're trying to improve. We have talked to staff. Staff has reviewed the rezoning application and the site plan that we submitted for the rezoning, which we have here. which does not consider all development standards for a final site plan approval. And we understand that. There has been comments regarding the sidewalk going away. We are extending the sidewalk. We are making it a 10 foot sidewalk on the property, which would be supportive of pedestrian pathways and bike movement and pedestrian movement on the property. across the property, through the property and along the property. There was inconsistent statements regarding Bellamy being a main road or an arterial road or a small road that can't support any sort of movement. But our traffic study has shown that one, there's a pass-by rate of 75% along Ehrlich. And also through our study that there were adequate trips that would be supported by Bellamy and Ehrlich. Again, there's an important distinction between approving a land use and approving the construction and development of the property. Approval of the PD does not give the applicant a building permit. It does not grant a wetland variance itself. It does not approve the Bellamy Road design exception. And we understand that those things still need to be discussed with the county. And we're willing to implement any sort of conditions that the county is willing to put on this property.

Good evening, Michael Razor for the record, 19046 Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. I'm the traffic consultant for the project. As... I'll just continue. Yes. This is the very rudest hearing I've ever attended, and I've been doing this for 30 plus years. The great majority of traffic generated by this site is passed by. It's already on the road. It turns into the site. It turns back out of the site. That's the way these convenience stores with gas function. It's not a destination. It's a convenience store. We have two right in right out driveways proposed. The major discussion regarding right away on the east side of Bellamy is due to us proposing to put in a four foot concrete separator to prevent left turns at that Bellamy driveway. that will improve not only the safety of Bellamy in this particular area by separating opposing lanes of traffic, but part of that separator will extend the southbound left turn lane, which is currently deficient. That's why we hear issues with this particular intersection. The turn lanes are not long enough in the existing state. So if this gets approved, there will be material improvements to the operating condition that will not only cure existing deficiencies, but will also accommodate the particular site. AT THE INTERSECTION NOW DURING PEAK HOURS IS IDENTIFIED DURING THE MORNING TO BE AT LEVEL SERVICE C, LEVEL SERVICE B IN THE AFTERNOON, AND THAT'S WITH OR WITHOUT THIS STATION BEING DEVELOPED. THE ONLY LEVEL OF SERVICE INFORMATION IN THE COUNTY STAFF REPORT IS FOR ERLICH, WHICH IDENTIFIES LEVEL SERVICE C, AGAIN, COMPARED TO A D STANDARD. And I will conclude by saying that U-turns are not illegal movements. They are permissible as long as there's not a sign restricting those. And I'd be happy to answer any specific traffic questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you.

Does that conclude your presentation? It does. Thank you for your time. All right. Very good. With that, that concludes this application. And that concludes tonight's zoning hearing, master hearing. We are adjourned.