[2:49] >> good evening, planning.

[2:50] >> ken hagan: good morning ask

[2:52] welcome to the SEPTEMBER 12th,

[2:53] 2023, regularly scheduled land

[2:54] use meeting of the hillsborough

[2:55] county board of county

[2:56] commissioners.

[2:56] Would everyone please rise for

[2:59] the pledge and invocation given

[3:01] by our chaplain commissioner

[3:03] cameron cepeda.

[3:04] >> donna cameron cepeda: [Pledge

[3:17] of allegiance]

[3:18] Heavenly father, we acknowledge

[3:20] you in all of our ways.

[3:21] We thank you for your great love

[3:22] for all of us.

[3:24] We thank you for your mercy that

[3:26] endures forever.

[3:27] And this morning we pray for

[3:30] special blessing for master

[3:32] deputy paul alsoundry.

[3:34] We just thank you that for his

[3:37] many years of 26 years of

[3:40] serving others, as he's about to

[3:41] retire, we thank you for these

[3:43] many years of protecting his

[3:45] life, and we ask you to continue

[3:47] protecting him and that he will

[3:50] have a long and healthy life.

[3:52] We pray for all the many others

[3:54] that are retiring here in

[3:55] hillsborough county this month.

[4:02] We pray for paula adkins, gloria

[4:06] steel, bethany smedly, connie

[4:10] casauny, roger peon, leslie

[4:17] hickland, marsha batista,

[4:18] joaquin, and howard nipper.

[4:20] We pray for a special blessing

[4:22] that they will have a long and

[4:24] healthy life full of joy, and we

[4:26] just ask you for this bless this

[4:29] meeting this morning and we

[4:31] thank you in your holy name.

[4:34] Amen.

[4:36] >> ken hagan: thank you,

[4:37] commissioner cameron cepeda.

[4:40] MR. Grady, do you want to review

[4:41] to the agenda?

[4:42] >> good morning, commissioners.

[4:44] brian grady, hillsborough county

[4:44] development services.

[4:48] First I will go over to changes

[4:49] and adependm to

[4:52] addendum to the

[4:52] agenda.

[4:54] The first addendum is on page 6

[4:58] of the agenda, b 4 rezoning pd

[4:59] 23-0193.

[5:00] Revised report has been added to

[5:03] the backup adding condition 1 to

[5:04] clarify the requested intent of

[5:06] the changes to add a

[5:07] clarification that is part of

[5:08] this community residential

[5:08] home.

[5:10] It shall utilize the existing

[5:11] structures indicated in the site

[5:12] plan.

[5:13] So that is change to condition 1

[5:15] to memorialize what was shown in

[5:16] the record as the intent for

[5:17] this project.

[5:19] Next change is on page 9 of the

[5:21] agenda, item b 11, patterson

[5:23] road residential pi number

[5:23] 5549.

[5:27] This has been removed by -- from

[5:28] consent by commissioner hagan

[5:30] and commissioner wostal.

[5:31] Item, third change is on page 13

[5:33] of the agenda item f 3 rezoning

[5:35] standard 23-0115.

[5:36] Revised report has been added to

[5:38] the backup correcting a

[5:39] scrivener's error in the

[5:40] application summary section of

[5:43] the staff report to correctly

[5:44] update the reference to the flu

[5:48] category, which is res 20.

[5:50] It incorrectly showed that as

[5:50] res 6.

[5:55] That has been corrected to show

[5:57] the res 6.

[6:01] G1, pd 23-1090.

[6:04] The applicant is requesting a

[6:06] continuance to the NOVEMBER 2023

[6:07] land use meeting.

[6:12] Next change is b, 23-0210.

[6:14] This applicant is requesting a

[6:16] continuance to the

[6:17] NOVEMBER 27th, 2023, board of

[6:17] county commissioners land use

[6:18] meeting.

[6:19] And the next change is on page

[6:24] 15, item g 3 c, dri 23-0195.

[6:25] The applicant is requesting a

[6:26] continuance to the

[6:27] NOVEMBER 7th, 2023, board of

[6:29] county commissioners land use

[6:30] meeting at 9:00 A.M.

[6:32] Now I'll go through the

[6:33] published withdrawals and

[6:34] continuances beginning on page 3

[6:35] of the agenda.

[6:38] First item is a 1 rezoning pd

[6:39] 18-0996.

[6:40] This is staff's requesting this

[6:43] item to be continued to the

[6:44] OCTOBER 10th, 2023, board of

[6:44] county commissioners land use

[6:45] meeting at 9:00 A.M.

[6:49] Item a 2, prs 23-0136.

[6:50] This application is being

[6:51] continued by the applicant as a

[6:53] matter of right to the

[6:53] NOVEMBER 7th, 2023, board of

[6:54] county commissioners land use

[6:55] meeting at 9:00 A.M.

[6:59] Item a 3, prs 23-299.

[7:01] This application is out of order

[7:02] to be heard and is being

[7:03] continued to the OCTOBER 10th,

[7:03] 2023, board of county

[7:04] commissioners land use meeting

[7:05] at 9:00 A.M.

[7:08] Item a 4, dri 23-0335.

[7:10] This application is being

[7:11] continued by the applicant as a

[7:14] matter of right to the

[7:15] NOVEMBER 27th, 2023, board of

[7:15] county commissioners land use

[7:16] meeting at 9:00 A.M.

[7:19] Item a 5, prs 23-0372.

[7:22] This application is being

[7:23] continued by the applicant as a

[7:25] matter of right to the

[7:26] NOVEMBER 7th, 2023, board of

[7:27] county commissioners land use

[7:28] meeting at 9:00 A.M.

[7:34] item a 6, this application is

[7:34] out of order to be heard and is

[7:35] being continued to the

[7:36] OCTOBER 10th, 2023, board of

[7:37] county commissioners land use

[7:38] meeting at 9:00 A.M.

[7:43] Item sarks avenue, special use

[7:45] le 23-0498, this application is

[7:46] being continued by the applicant

[7:48] as a matter of right to the

[7:49] OCTOBER 10th, 2023, board of

[7:49] county commissioners land use

[7:51] meeting at 9:00 A.M.

[7:54] Item a 8, prs 23-0744.

[7:55] This application is being

[7:56] continued by the applicant as a

[7:58] matter of right to the

[7:59] OCTOBER 10th, 2023, board of

[7:59] county commissioners land use

[8:02] meeting at 9:00 A.M.

[8:05] Item a 9, prs 23-0767.

[8:08] This application is being

[8:10] continued by the applicant as a

[8:12] matter of right to the

[8:13] OCTOBER 10th, 2023, board of

[8:14] county commissioners land use

[8:15] meeting at 9:00 A.M.

[8:18] -- item a 11, rezoning pd

[8:18] 22-0075.

[8:19] This application is out of order

[8:20] to be heard and is being

[8:20] continued to the OCTOBER 10th,

[8:21] 2023, board of county

[8:22] commissioners land use meeting

[8:23] alt 9:00 A.M.

[8:24] 9:00 A.M.

[8:28] And item a 12, vacation petition

[8:28] 22-0019.

[8:29] Staff is requesting this item be

[8:30] continued by the

[8:31] OCTOBER 10th, 2023, board of

[8:32] county commissioners land use

[8:35] meeting at 9:00 A.M.

[8:36] That concludes all changes to

[8:37] the agenda.

[8:37] >> ken hagan: can we have a

[8:40] motion to approve the changes?

[8:41] >> gwen myers: move for

[8:41] approval.

[8:42] >> ken hagan: motion,

[8:42] commissioner myers, second,

[8:43] commissioner kemp.

[8:49] Please record your vote.

[8:50] >> motion carried 7-0.

[8:51] >> ken hagan: can we have a

[8:51] motion to approve the consent

[8:53] with the exception of b 11,

[8:56] which was pulled.

[8:58] Motion by commissioner owen.

[9:01] >> gwen myers: second.

[9:02] >> ken hagan: second,

[9:04] commissioner myers, to approve

[9:05] the consent agenda.

[9:07] Please record your vote.

[9:08] >> motion carried 7-0.

[9:09] >> ken hagan: if you're here for

[9:10] a b item, your application has

[9:11] been approved.

[9:12] Before we hear b 11 I would like

[9:14] to ask the clerk to administer

[9:16] the oath, so if you're planning

[9:17] on testifying today, please

[9:18] stand and raise your right hand

[9:22] so the clerk can swear you in.

[9:26] [Swearing in]

[9:27] >> I do.

[9:29] >> thank you.

[9:30] >> ken hagan: MR. Grady, do you

[9:46] want to introduce b 11?

[9:47] >> commissions, the first item

[9:50] on the agenda is b 11, patterson

[9:54] residential pa number 5549.

[9:57] The applicant is to accept

[10:09] accept the plat for recording

[10:11] for patterson road

[10:12] residential,lectomied in section

[10:15] 29 township 27 and range 17 and

[10:16] grant permission to the

[10:17] development review division of

[10:17] development services department

[10:19] to administratively accept the

[10:22] improvement facilities for

[10:27] maintenance upon completion.

[10:28] >> ken hagan: is the applicant

[10:28] here.

[10:30] >> kami corbett on behalf of

[10:36] will hard henderson ooon behalf

[10:37] of --

[10:38] >> I think what I would say to

[10:39] the board, a plat is a

[10:40] minspherule item.

[10:41] Really what you're reviewing is

[10:42] whether or not it complies with

[10:44] the technical standards of these

[10:46] florida statutes and your land

[10:47] development code.

[10:48] And your staff has found that it

[10:49] does in fact comply with those

[10:51] items and so therefore it's

[10:53] really something that is

[10:53] approvable.

[10:54] We normally don't have a public

[10:56] hearing on it.

[10:56] I think the case law will

[10:58] support that it's a ministerial

[10:59] approval that you really don't

[11:04] have to discretion to deny.

[11:05] So that would be our position on

[11:06] it, so we would respectfully

[11:07] request that you approve it.

[11:08] >> ken hagan: okay.

[11:10] Thank you.

[11:12] Commissioner wostal, you pulled

[11:12] the item also.

[11:14] Do you want to make comments

[11:15] or?

[11:16] >> joshua wostal: yeah, I just

[11:17] wanted -- I want to learn more

[11:17] about it.

[11:22] I mean, to my understanding,

[11:26] MR. Gormly, is this the, I know

[11:27] that this is the plot of land

[11:28] that the water pipes were being

[11:30] ran through, right?

[11:32] On the easements there?

[11:35] >> this, this plat does have a

[11:36] wastewater service to it, yes,

[11:39] water and wastewater services.

[11:40] >> joshua wostal: when I had

[11:41] talked to you about this a

[11:44] couple months ago, is this the

[11:46] same issue where it seemed to

[11:48] have been done in a different

[11:52] way in the past where normally

[11:54] the developer will come to an

[11:59] agreement with the county and

[12:02] accept accountability for the

[12:04] costs of putting in this

[12:07] infrastructure, it protects

[12:08] them, but if not in this way,

[12:10] did they do it with some type

[12:12] of -- I'm just trying to

[12:13] understand.

[12:15] It seems this one was done in a

[12:16] different way than past ones and

[12:17] I want to be transparent about

[12:18] if it was done differently why

[12:20] it was done differently.

[12:22] That way there is no confusion.

[12:24] We have obviously been reached

[12:25] out by the public on this

[12:26] particular plot of lnd so if

[12:27] you could clarify that

[12:28] confusion, I would appreciate

[12:29] it.

[12:30] >> commissioner, you're

[12:31] referencing the oversizing a

[12:34] portion of the pipes?

[12:35] >> joshua wostal: correct.

[12:37] >> so there is a oversized

[12:40] portion of the pipe that is

[12:43] leading, I believe it's along

[12:45] race track road.

[12:47] That oversizing was done to

[12:49] accommodate a future county

[12:52] project with flows coming from a

[12:55] wastewater treatment plant in

[12:57] the north.

[13:00] The project was reviewed and

[13:02] approved for all the technical

[13:05] standards associated with those

[13:06] oversized pipes.

[13:07] In past instances where there's

[13:10] been an oversizing, the

[13:11] applicant has pursued an

[13:13] oversizing agreement with the

[13:15] board to be reimbursed for the

[13:16] additional cost of oversizing

[13:18] those pipes.

[13:20] The applicant has not pursued

[13:24] that oversizing agreement, has

[13:26] not pursued that oversizing

[13:26] agreement.

[13:28] Nonetheless, the pipes are being

[13:30] installed in accordance with the

[13:33] approved plans and are being

[13:34] inspected and my understanding

[13:36] that the applicant made the

[13:39] conscious decision to proceed

[13:40] with the development

[13:41] notwithstanding not having

[13:43] pursued a oversizing agreement.

[13:44] >> joshua wostal: so then this

[13:45] item doesn't have anything to do

[13:46] with the oversizing agreement.

[13:51] This is just --

[13:51] >> correct.

[13:54] This item would -- this item

[13:57] would approve the final plat

[13:58] which would create individual

[14:02] lots and tracts within the

[14:02] parcel.

[14:04] It will grant the county staff

[14:08] the authority to accept the

[14:09] improvement facilities which

[14:11] would include the water and

[14:13] wastewater pipes once they're

[14:15] completed provides a performance

[14:18] security for the completion of

[14:19] those improvements as well as a

[14:22] warranty security for two years

[14:24] to warrant -- to provide a

[14:26] warranty against defects in

[14:28] workmanship on the

[14:30] infrastructure that the county's

[14:31] accepting.

[14:32] >> joshua wostal: okay and the,

[14:34] my final, is the -- we have so

[14:35] many different water projects

[14:37] going on because of our growth,

[14:39] so is, what's the need for this

[14:40] wastewater facility?

[14:42] Because is it, is this the one

[14:43] that's outdated up in the

[14:45] northwest part of the county?

[14:48] >> I believe that yes, that the,

[14:51] that there is a capacity

[14:52] challenges, and I believe it's

[14:54] the van dyke plant, and so there

[14:57] is a longer-term plan to route

[14:58] some of the flows that are

[15:02] currently going to that plant to

[15:10] the plant that's by advantis

[15:10] ark.

[15:11] >> joshua wostal: so is this or

[15:14] is it not in layman's terms us

[15:16] dealing with the oversizing

[15:16] agreement?

[15:17] >> there is nothing in this item

[15:18] that deals with any

[15:19] reimbursement for any of the

[15:20] oversizing of the pipes.

[15:21] It would --

[15:22] >> joshua wostal: okay.

[15:25] Thank you very much for that

[15:25] clarification.

[15:26] >> ken hagan: all right, thank

[15:26] you.

[15:27] I also pulled this item, and I

[15:32] think the applicant is correct

[15:34] when thee stated it is a -- she

[15:36] stated it is a ministerial

[15:39] action and we typically rubber

[15:41] stamp plat approvals.

[15:42] However, if you have been on the

[15:42] board for a while you know this

[15:45] has been anything but a typical

[15:46] development.

[15:47] There have been many, many

[15:49] issues with this builder.

[15:51] In my opinion they're just a bad

[15:55] community partner, and I guess

[15:59] question and there is litigation

[16:01] between the neighbors and the

[16:02] builder going on right now that

[16:06] is set for mid-NOVEMBER.

[16:08] So I think theoretically us

[16:09] approving a plat today not

[16:11] suggesting we deny it, but

[16:13] approving it today would

[16:16] theoretically result in a

[16:19] reversal of some of the

[16:19] improvements.

[16:21] This could put unsuspecting home

[16:22] buyers in a bad situation, so I

[16:23] guess the question I got for

[16:25] you, adam, is there anything

[16:28] that prevents us from denying or

[16:29] from delaying the plat

[16:31] acceptance until the litigation

[16:33] is resolved or what are your

[16:34] thoughts on that?

[16:36] >> well, first of all, I'll say

[16:39] the applicant -- the plat is in

[16:42] order to be accepted.

[16:44] I would, I would agree with the

[16:46] statement from the applicant

[16:48] that there has not been any

[16:49] defects or flaws identified in

[16:55] the plat.

[17:02] the, if the -- the language --

[17:05] the approval is within the

[17:07] board's purview to make that

[17:08] motion.

[17:12] There MAY be, you know, it MAY

[17:17] potentially open up avenues that

[17:20] of re-dress that the applicant

[17:22] could seek, but the, you know,

[17:26] it is the board's, you know,

[17:26] prerogative.

[17:28] It does need to be accepted by

[17:31] the board prior to being

[17:35] recorded as a complete final

[17:36] plat.

[17:37] >> ken hagan: okay.

[17:38] Commissioner kemp.

[17:42] >> pat kemp: thank you.

[17:43] And I was thinking along the

[17:46] same lines as you, commissioner

[17:47] hagan.

[17:53] This is a lawsuit with the trial

[17:57] has been postponed twice, one I

[17:58] guess because our main staff was

[18:01] not able to, to intend at that

[18:03] time and then just recently

[18:05] postponed again because of the

[18:05] hurricane.

[18:08] So it won't be occurring until I

[18:10] think NOVEMBER 13th to 15th

[18:17] is what I read currently, and

[18:18] like you, commissioner hagan, I

[18:20] just don't feel comfortable even

[18:21] though it is ministerial and

[18:23] we -- I don't know of any other

[18:24] time where we've got moved

[18:28] something like this forward, but

[18:34] this has been a continual issue

[18:35] in particular with this

[18:38] developer and violations of, you

[18:40] know, repeatedly, and I just

[18:44] don't feel comfortable moving it

[18:45] ahead of the trial and a

[18:47] decision from that.

[18:50] I would rather continue it until

[18:54] after that occurs.

[18:55] >> ken hagan: okay.

[18:56] >> pat kemp: I'll make a motion

[18:57] to continue.

[18:58] >> joshua wostal: second.

[18:59] >> ken hagan: okay, commissioner

[18:59] cohen.

[19:00] >> harry cohen: I just really

[19:03] agree with this line of thinking

[19:03] that there

[19:05] there is so much

[19:06] unknown out there because this

[19:11] trial is pending that we don't,

[19:14] we don't have all the facts that

[19:15] we need at this point.

[19:17] So I agree with you.

[19:18] >> ken hagan: commissioner

[19:19] owen.

[19:20] >> michael owen: yes, thank you,

[19:20] MR. Chair.

[19:21] I just need to know are you

[19:23] supporting the motion, it's your

[19:24] district, correct?

[19:25] >> ken hagan: I'm wholeheartedly

[19:28] supporting the motion.

[19:28] >> michael owen: thank you.

[19:29] >> ken hagan: we have a motion

[19:30] to continue until after the

[19:31] court rules on this issue by

[19:33] commissioner kemp, second by

[19:36] commissioner wostal.

[19:37] >> commissioners, sorry,

[19:38] DECEMBER 12th is the next land

[19:40] use meeting following the

[19:42] scheduled trial.

[19:43] >> ken hagan: we'll continue to

[19:44] that date.

[19:44] All right, please record your

[19:49] vote.

[19:51] >> motion carried 7-0.

[19:52] >> ken hagan: all right, thank

[19:55] you.

[19:55] MR. Grady.

[19:56] Public hearing?

[19:58] >> next agenda item is c 1, a

[20:01] vacating petition by transit

[20:02] development, includes --

[20:03] homeowners association to vacate

[20:05] a portion of two 10-foot wide

[20:06] platted utility easements.

[20:10] This is vacation petition

[20:12] 22-0009.

[20:15] Carrie allen with real estate

[20:16] services will provide

[20:16] presentation.

[20:17] >> ken hagan: good morning.

[20:20] >> carrie allen, real estate

[20:22] services department.

[20:24] Vacate I.D. V-22-0009.

[20:26] This is a petition by transcend

[20:30] development corp and calusa

[20:32] creek of hillsborough homeowners

[20:34] association inc. To vacate two

[20:36] portions of two 10-foot wide

[20:38] platted public utility easements

[20:41] lined within lots 71 and 134.

[20:42] These are within the plat of

[20:45] calusa creek recorded in plat

[20:47] book 138 page 28.

[20:48] The petitioners have submitted

[20:49] this request to resolve the

[20:51] encroachment of townhomes

[20:52] constructed into portions of the

[20:54] utility easements.

[20:55] The proposed vacate area is

[20:59] generally located south of balm

[21:01] riverview road, north of boyette

[21:03] road and east of highway 301 in

[21:04] riverview.

[21:06] The vacate areas consists of

[21:07] approximately 17 square feet

[21:09] within lot 71 and approximately

[21:14] 11 square feet within lot 134.

[21:15] Reviewing departments, agencies,

[21:19] and utility providers have

[21:19] raised no objections to this

[21:19] request.

[21:20] Staff recommends approval of

[21:23] this petition request.

[21:24] >> ken hagan: all right, this is

[21:25] a public hearing.

[21:26] Would anyone like to speak to

[21:27] this item?

[21:32] Can we have a motion?

[21:32] >> joshua wostal: move for

[21:33] approval.

[21:34] >> ken hagan: motion to approve,

[21:35] commissioner wostal, second,

[21:36] commissioner cohen.

[21:37] No comments, please record your

[21:40] vote.

[21:41] >> motion carried 7-0.

[21:42] >> ken hagan: all right.

[21:44] Thank you.

[21:44] MR. Grady.

[21:46] >> the next item is agenda item

[21:49] e 1, it's prv application

[21:50] 23-0510.

[21:51] The applicant is wal-mart stores

[21:52] east, lp.

[21:53] This is a request for a minor

[21:54] modification to existing planned

[21:56] development located on the north

[21:58] side of brandon boulevard, just

[22:00] west of mount carmel road.

[22:03] The request is for a minor

[22:04] modification increase

[22:06] development entitlements by

[22:12] 7,689 square feet and also to

[22:18] amend the parking ratio 4.25

[22:20] spaces per thousand to 3.98.

[22:22] Staff is recommending aproval

[22:23] subject to revised conditions

[22:27] and we're available for any

[22:27] questions.

[22:28] >> ken hagan: thank you.

[22:34] Is the applicant here?

[22:35] Morning, sir.

[22:35] >> ken hagan: good morning.

[22:37] Yes, this is --

[22:40] >> good morning, yes, this is a

[22:41] project to decrease the --

[22:47] >> can you identify yourself,

[22:47] sir?

[22:49] >> albert lopez with cph.

[22:53] We're asking the pd modification

[22:56] to decrease the parking ratio to

[22:57] 3.78.

[23:02] We had an addition what's called

[23:06] in the modern retail world an

[23:07] ogp, online grocery pick-up.

[23:09] It's going to be new service

[23:11] that wal-mart, it's currently

[23:15] offering to their customers

[23:16] where they are storing

[23:18] everything inside the store

[23:18] now.

[23:19] They need additional space to

[23:25] store these groceries online

[23:26] while the customers come pick

[23:26] them up.

[23:30] So this is an area just limited

[23:31] to employees only.

[23:33] They will just store those goods

[23:35] for a little bit until the

[23:39] customers comes, park their

[23:40] cars, employees wil go directly

[23:47] to their cars and unload the

[23:47] goods.

[23:49] Nord to meet this demand we have

[23:52] designed 45 parking spaces for

[23:54] those pickup.

[23:55] We're just increasing the

[23:57] existing parking spaces from

[23:59] 9.5 feet to 12-foot wide which

[24:02] is then forcing the parking

[24:03] reduction.

[24:03] We

[24:04] we had provided a parking

[24:06] study to support the parking

[24:10] ratio works with the demand of

[24:13] the services and the demand of

[24:14] amount of customers coming to

[24:16] the stores still will be enough

[24:19] to supply for those additional

[24:20] customers not using the ogp

[24:23] parking spaces.

[24:24] There's also restriction on

[24:25] square footage in the building

[24:27] per the pd today.

[24:30] There is available square

[24:32] footage on other areas.

[24:33] We are requesting a change

[24:35] increase on the square footage

[24:37] for this building to cover for

[24:44] the additional building, and

[24:45] parking study has been provided

[24:51] just to support that.

[24:52] >> ken hagan: thank you, sir.

[24:52] This is a public hearing.

[24:54] Ed with anyone like to speak to

[24:55] this -- would anyone like to

[24:55] speak to this item?

[24:57] If not, can we have a motion?

[25:03] Commissioner owen, I'm sorry.

[25:04] >> michael owen: yes.

[25:05] And MR. Gormly, transportation

[25:06] doesn't have any issue with

[25:06] this?

[25:09] We run that by transportation?

[25:10] >> no issue.

[25:11] >> joshua wostal: commissioner

[25:12] myers, we have shoppers who go

[25:12] here in this district.

[25:14] The only thing I would ask you

[25:17] would add to it is more cash

[25:18] cashiers.

[25:19] I'm sick of self-check.

[25:20] >> michael owen: it's here to

[25:21] stay I think.

[25:22] >> ken hagan: commissioner kemp,

[25:22] do you want to make any

[25:23] comments?

[25:23] Okay.

[25:24] We got a motion to approve,

[25:26] commissioner owen, second,

[25:27] commissioner kemp.

[25:28] No more comments, please record

[25:39] your vote.

[25:41] >> motion carried 7-0.

[25:42] >> ken hagan: MR. Gormly,

[25:46] regular agenda.

[25:46] >> next item, commissioners,

[25:47] agenda item f 1, rezoning pd

[25:49] 22-01577.

[25:51] This is a request for a parcel

[25:53] 1.41-acre parcel that is located

[25:57] on the east side of 78th

[26:00] street located between causeway

[26:00] boulevard to the north and

[26:01] progress boulevard to the

[26:01] south.

[26:03] The request is to rezone from

[26:05] asc-1 to a planned development.

[26:06] The planned development would

[26:07] allow for one single-family home

[26:12] and a contractor's office

[26:13] approximately 5,548 square

[26:13] feet.

[26:14] As you will see it was not

[26:18] recommended for approval by the

[26:20] zoning hearing master, found

[26:21] inconsistent by planning

[26:22] commission and our staff was not

[26:23] supportive.

[26:24] Our support was primarily

[26:26] related to a proposed reduction

[26:27] in the buffer width along the

[26:29] southern boundary which the code

[26:31] required 20 feet and three feet

[26:32] is being requested and a 10-foot

[26:33] reduction is also being

[26:35] requested on the northern

[26:37] boundary of the parcel.

[26:38] Staff's available for any

[26:39] questions, thank you.

[26:40] >> ken hagan: all right, thank

[26:40] you.

[26:46] Is the applicant here?

[27:04] Good morning, sir.

[27:09] >> MR. CHAIRMAN, commissioners,

[27:10] todd pressman.

[27:15] This is application 22-1577 for

[27:17] 247 ac and heat.

[27:17] These are the company employees

[27:19] here and the families that are

[27:21] involved with the company.

[27:23] It's in the greater palm river

[27:25] area near causeway boulevard.

[27:26] Property appraiser has it as

[27:29] this piece of or this parcel

[27:29] here.

[27:31] Issue is that this is a small

[27:32] business seeking to go to pd to

[27:35] allow one residential unit and a

[27:37] contractor's office with no

[27:38] outside storagement their

[27:40] operation is like a dispatch.

[27:42] They come to the office, get

[27:43] loaded up and they go for the

[27:44] day.

[27:46] This is a zoning plan where we

[27:48] have a residential unit in the

[27:50] front office in the back, about

[27:51] 20 parking spaces.

[27:56] A lot of conditions which only

[27:57] include interior storage for a

[27:58] contractor's office.

[27:59] The residential home remains

[28:00] residential.

[28:01] No freestanding or wall

[28:02] signage.

[28:05] Exterior of the structure in the

[28:06] front will remain residential.

[28:08] Opeg fence is required on all

[28:09] sides of the property, including

[28:11] the south.

[28:13] All activity is to be interior,

[28:16] and no active mechanical, ac or

[28:18] heat repairs are done obsite.

[28:20] They're done off site.

[28:21] The goal is to look and sound

[28:22] like a mixed professional

[28:22] office.

[28:24] You can see in the upper picture

[28:25] how the residential unit looked

[28:26] and the improvement that they've

[28:29] done along 78th at this

[28:29] point.

[28:31] The actual business is very well

[28:32] screened.

[28:32] The buffer as you can see, you

[28:34] can barely see it in two

[28:36] pictures from 78th so it's

[28:38] extremely well buffered.

[28:40] Comp plan is res 9 which

[28:43] includes commercial uses and

[28:43] offices.

[28:45] Under the zoning map, they're ci

[28:46] and office commercial to the

[28:49] north, to the south under pd is

[28:55] a 7-eleven and cn uses.

[28:57] 78th itself carries 15,092

[28:58] vehicles per day.

[28:59] It's a very busy roadway, and

[29:01] under the trip generation, it's

[29:04] a very low amount of traffic.

[29:06] The peak in the A.M. Is 9, peak

[29:07] in the P.M. Is 10.

[29:09] The site does have the test of

[29:10] time as this type of activity

[29:12] back in 1995 you can see the

[29:15] main larger structure is there.

[29:18] Has great buffering to the

[29:19] north, we tried to get a holdf

[29:20] that owner but he has been

[29:21] unreachable.

[29:23] It's a little bit of a property

[29:24] that's been left to its own

[29:25] devices, and critically,

[29:26] commissioners, what you probably

[29:28] didn't hear from your staff

[29:29] report, the owner to the south

[29:31] is in support and we have a

[29:33] written letter of support from

[29:34] him.

[29:35] Large water body to the rear, so

[29:36] you can see we're extremely

[29:39] buffered, extremely screened all

[29:39] the way around.

[29:40] And that's the letter of no

[29:42] opposition from owner next door

[29:44] who has been great to work

[29:44] with.

[29:45] This is the property to the

[29:46] north again we made efforts to

[29:49] try and get ahold of them.

[29:50] There is a variation supported

[29:53] toot north in regard to a type b

[29:55] screening, and to the south,

[29:58] which would provide fencing and

[30:00] some screening, I'm sorry, some

[30:01] landscaping, and a variation if

[30:03] the

[30:05] for the driveway again in

[30:06] concert with the property owner

[30:06] next door.

[30:08] Locational waiver has to do with

[30:09] everything I've told you

[30:13] already, which is the interior

[30:15] use conditions, residential

[30:16] character conditions, the great

[30:17] buffering and screening I've

[30:20] shown you already, and the

[30:21] dispatch-like operation, how

[30:22] they run this site.

[30:24] Now, importantly, under the

[30:25] greater river community plan,

[30:29] this site is located in a mixed

[30:32] use business professional office

[30:32] area.

[30:34] So specifically under the

[30:36] community plan, we are in an

[30:39] area that does support or does

[30:40] direct use for are what's

[30:43] proposed here.

[30:45] And under that basis of the

[30:47] 78th street overlay district

[30:48] specifically notes it's

[30:49] appropriate to plan for the

[30:50] transition of business and

[30:52] professional offices.

[30:54] Also under greater palm river

[30:57] community plan improvements to

[30:59] 78th street are looked for,

[31:00] which I've shown you they've

[31:01] done a beautiful job on that

[31:03] already, enhance the community

[31:04] appearance and beautification,

[31:05] and the vision of the greater

[31:07] palm river area concept plan

[31:08] illustrates the unique qualities

[31:10] and land uses related to the

[31:12] distinct areas of the

[31:13] community.

[31:15] See the future vision was

[31:18] clearly laid out which we feel

[31:19] that we meet.

[31:21] Waiver 2 locational criteria is

[31:22] based upon the elements I

[31:24] presented to you for improved

[31:25] compatibility and the overlay

[31:26] use of 78th and again success

[31:27] with the neighbor.

[31:29] What it really boils down to,

[31:31] commissioners, is that we feel

[31:33] that we've done a really good

[31:34] job on compatibility and not

[31:35] speaking for the staffs.

[31:37] They felt that perhaps we did

[31:39] not do as well with

[31:39] compatibility.

[31:41] But I would sum this up in that

[31:44] this started as a scwair peg in

[31:46] a round -- square peg in a round

[31:47] hole.

[31:48] We worked very hard to whittle

[31:50] that square peg into a really

[31:51] nice round circle that fits

[31:52] really nicely in the area.

[31:55] And commissioners, we have cept

[32:00] out, we've sent out five notices

[32:04] plus the big yellow signs.

[32:06] We have had zero, zero comments

[32:07] from anyone in the public.

[32:10] A total of 325 notice letters

[32:12] we've sent, and not a single

[32:12] complaint in fact we've had

[32:15] support from the immediate

[32:17] owner: and in regard to the

[32:20] variations, even the zmh agrees

[32:21] with some of the variations or

[32:23] some of the criteria of the

[32:23] variations.

[32:26] So in summary, the conditions

[32:28] were designed to make the site

[32:31] compatible a a compatible as a

[32:32] residential component is

[32:33] included, along with the

[32:35] buffering I've shown you, the

[32:36] interior use.

[32:37] The low trip generator we had

[32:39] the test of time over a number

[32:40] of decades.

[32:42] The zoning changes have been

[32:44] occurring in the area as I've

[32:45] shown you, and we meet in our

[32:47] opinion we meet the greater palm

[32:48] river community plan.

[32:50] With that, I would like to have

[32:52] a few of the folks here to speak

[32:53] in favor if I MAY,

[32:54] MR. CHAIRMAN.

[32:56] Thank you.

[32:57] >> ken hagan: are these folks

[32:59] part of the application or are

[33:01] they just proponent testimony?

[33:02] >> they're either applicant or

[33:03] spoke or have letters in the

[33:04] file.

[33:05] >> ken hagan: okay, we can have

[33:07] the applicant speak now and then

[33:07] afterward we'll go to proponent

[33:09] testimony.

[33:11] Good morning, sir.

[33:12] >> good morning, commissioners.

[33:17] My name is chris eubank, I'm the

[33:18] own fer

[33:22] er of air 27

[33:26] 24/7.

[33:27] One of the owners.

[33:29] We have a lot of staff and

[33:30] family part of the company and

[33:30] part of this location.

[33:32] We have been in business for

[33:33] five years in the tampa bay area

[33:34] serving many of customers for

[33:36] their heating and cooling

[33:37] needs.

[33:39] The property we have done a ton

[33:43] of work to the property to as

[33:45] MR. Pressman said to screen it

[33:46] and make it not look like any

[33:49] type of business activity

[33:50] happens there.

[33:53] We do use it only for a dispatch

[33:54] office.

[33:54] So basically what happens is our

[33:57] guys come in, basically get

[33:58] their stuff and take off out of

[33:58] there.

[34:00] We don't park any vehicles

[34:02] there, anything outside.

[34:04] I think the property looks

[34:09] fantastic as a whole: we are

[34:10] asking for your assistance to

[34:12] try to make this a possibility

[34:14] because it'll be detrimental to

[34:16] us if we don't get this type of

[34:20] approval for this property.

[34:21] Any questions you'd like to

[34:25] ask?

[34:25] >> ken hagan: no.

[34:26] >> thank you.

[34:27] >> no questions means you did

[34:27] good.

[34:28] Thank you.

[34:30] So MR. CHAIRMAN, commissioners,

[34:33] again, these are, this is the

[34:35] family, 24/7 air conditioning

[34:36] and heating.

[34:38] They all came down here today.

[34:40] I think probably it's a good

[34:41] alternative for residents

[34:43] slogging through the 120-degree

[34:44] heat in attics and outside.

[34:45] These are the guys on the

[34:47] frontlines every day making sure

[34:49] that everybody's staying cool

[34:50] and everybody's getting response

[34:51] in the hot summer.

[34:53] So with that we appreciate your

[34:53] consideration.

[34:54] Thank you.

[34:58] >> ken hagan: thank you.

[34:59] Proponent testimony?

[35:09] Anyone here in support of the

[35:09] application?

[35:11] >> hi, I'm sarah ford.

[35:13] I am one of the employees that

[35:16] works in the office for air

[35:16] 24/7.

[35:19] And we're just here asking for

[35:19] your help.

[35:21] We have lot of families that

[35:26] depend on us on the company for

[35:27] 11, and we do take care of lot

[35:28] of ocustomers.

[35:30] We've never had any complaints

[35:36] at the location we're at.

[35:37] Thank you.

[35:37] >> ken hagan: thank you,

[35:42] MS. Ford.

[35:43] >> hi, I'm rich.

[35:44] I actually lve on the

[35:45] property.

[35:46] i'm there 24 hours a day.

[35:48] I live in the front house, and

[35:50] like they've told you we've dup

[35:51] done everything we can do to be

[35:53] able to -- we have people who

[35:54] actually come to apply for a job

[35:56] and don't even know we're

[35:57] there.

[35:58] You can't see the building when

[35:59] you drive down the road.

[36:01] But we're again we're just here

[36:02] asking for help to see if there

[36:03] is any way that we can stay on

[36:05] the property when they're saying

[36:07] detrimental, we're, I don't even

[36:08] know how we could survive

[36:11] because we only pay like $1200 a

[36:12] month where we're at now to try

[36:14] to get into something like that

[36:19] is a million dollars a month.

[36:21] With the economy it is, it's a

[36:22] lot worse and we're asking for

[36:23] help any way possible.

[36:24] >> ken hagan: if you could state

[36:24] your name.

[36:28] >> don richard nevels.

[36:29] >> ken hagan: thank you, sir.

[36:29] >> thank you.

[36:31] >> I have one nervous nelly,

[36:32] no?

[36:33] Too nervous?

[36:34] Okay.

[36:36] You are intimidating her, she's

[36:38] too nervous so we will pass on

[36:38] her.

[36:39] Thank you, MR. CHAIRMAN.

[36:39] >> ken hagan: thank you.

[36:40] Anyone in opposition to the

[36:41] item?

[36:42] All right, planning commission?

[36:44] >> thank you, melissa lienhard,

[36:45] planning commission staff.

[36:46] The subject property is located

[36:48] within the residential 9 future

[36:49] land use category.

[36:51] It is in the urban service area

[36:53] and also located within the

[36:54] limits of the greater palm river

[36:55] community plan.

[36:58] Future land use element policy

[36:59] 1.4 requires that all new

[37:00] developments be compatible with

[37:02] the surrounding area, noting

[37:04] that compatibility does not mean

[37:06] the same as, rather refers to

[37:07] the sensitivity of development

[37:09] proposals in maintaining the

[37:10] character of existing

[37:11] development.

[37:13] The proposed development is not

[37:14] compatible neither in scale with

[37:16] the character of the area and

[37:17] therefore does not meet the

[37:19] intent of this policy.

[37:21] Future land use element

[37:23] objective 16 and its

[37:24] accompanying policies refer to

[37:25] the need to protect existing

[37:27] neighborhoods and communities as

[37:29] well as utilize gradual

[37:31] transitions between uses.

[37:32] To the north, east, and south is

[37:34] the residential 9 future land

[37:36] use category, and to the west is

[37:38] the suburban mixed use 6, and to

[37:40] the northwest and southwest is

[37:41] residential 6.

[37:43] The area is comprised mostly of

[37:45] single-family residential.

[37:46] The proposed contractor's office

[37:48] would increase intensity in the

[37:50] area and is not consider

[37:52] adgradual transmission and is

[37:53] therefore inconsistent with this

[37:55] policy direction.

[37:56] The property also does not meet

[37:58] commercial locational criteria.

[38:00] The closest qualifying

[38:01] intersection is causeway

[38:03] boulevard and 78th street,

[38:06] which is over 3,700 linear feet

[38:07] away from the subject property.

[38:09] The required distance for this

[38:13] future land use category is

[38:14] 1,000 feet.

[38:15] A waiver has been requested.

[38:17] However the applicant has failed

[38:18] to submit any supporting

[38:20] evidence on yiewk unique

[38:21] circumstances that would support

[38:22] a waiver to locational criteria

[38:23] at this location.

[38:24] Planning commission staff finds

[38:25] this proposed commercial general

[38:27] use too intensive for the area,

[38:29] and the proposed mitigation is

[38:30] not sufficient to mitigate the

[38:32] potential impacts.

[38:33] Therefore, planning commission

[38:34] staff does not recommend

[38:35] approval of the commercial

[38:37] locational criteria waiver.

[38:39] The greater palm river community

[38:40] plan has a strong desire to

[38:42] balance residential, commercial,

[38:43] and other land uses.

[38:45] The subject site is not located

[38:47] in an area identified for

[38:48] commercial uses.

[38:49] The area is completely

[38:50] surrounded by single-family

[38:51] residential uses.

[38:53] While the applicant proposes to

[38:55] limit the business activity by

[38:57] providing all operations indoors

[38:59] and primarily function as a

[39:00] dispatch office, this type of

[39:01] use is too intensive to be

[39:04] placed in a predominantly

[39:05] residential area, especially one

[39:06] not meeting commercial

[39:07] locational criteria.

[39:09] As such, the request is not

[39:10] consistent with the vision of

[39:12] the greater palm river community

[39:13] plan, and based upon those

[39:14] considerations, planning

[39:15] commission staff finds the

[39:17] proposed planned development

[39:19] inconsistent with the

[39:20] unincorporated hillsborough

[39:22] county comprehensive plan.

[39:24] Thank you.

[39:25] >> ken hagan: hearsing master?

[39:26] >> the hearing master considered

[39:27] the applicant's request for

[39:31] rezoning of the property to

[39:32] planned development to allow the

[39:33] existing single-family home and

[39:35] to allow use of the existing

[39:37] 5,000 square foot building as a

[39:39] contractor's office with an

[39:41] enclosed storage area.

[39:43] The applicant is requesting a pd

[39:45] variation to the land

[39:47] development code to reduce the

[39:49] required 20-foot wide buffer

[39:51] with type b screening along the

[39:53] subject property's north

[39:55] boundary to 10-foot wide buffer

[39:56] with type a screening.

[39:58] The applicant is also requesting

[40:03] a pd variation to reduce the

[40:04] required 20-foot buffer with

[40:07] type b screening along the

[40:09] subject property's south

[40:11] boundary two and three-foot wide

[40:13] buffer with type a screening.

[40:15] The zhm also noted that the

[40:15] applicant is requesting a

[40:17] reduction of parking spaces

[40:20] required from 30 parking spaces

[40:22] to 20 total of which one would

[40:26] be a handicap space.

[40:30] While the swreerk did not object

[40:32] to these requests for variations

[40:36] and waivers, the zoning hearing

[40:38] master did explain the

[40:39] nonsupport recommendations filed

[40:42] by planning commission staff and

[40:47] the development services staff.

[40:48] Ultimately the zoning hearing

[40:49] master's request was for denial

[40:53] of the application.

[40:54] >> ken hagan: all right, thank

[40:54] you.

[40:55] Commissioner myers?

[40:58] >> gwen myers: thank you,

[40:58] MR. Chair.

[41:00] First let me thank the employees

[41:03] for coming down because it is

[41:05] extremely hot right now, and I

[41:08] know you all could be servicing

[41:12] our residents with their ac unit

[41:12] now.

[41:13] One of the things I would like

[41:14] for us to make an exception to

[41:17] the rule when it comes to our

[41:18] small business, small

[41:19] businesses.

[41:23] i know our plans really don't

[41:25] address small businesses, and I

[41:27] know we have three denials but

[41:33] I'm going to make the motion for

[41:33] approval.

[41:34] >> second.

[41:34] >> gwen myers: I'll stop there.

[41:35] [Laughter]

[41:36] Got a motion to approve,

[41:37] commissioners myers,

[41:39] commissioner kemp and wostal.

[41:43] Commissioner cameron cepeda.

[41:44] >> donna cameron cepeda: I just

[41:44] seconded that one.

[41:46] I'm in agreement.

[41:49] Definitely in favor with the

[41:50] applicant, and j us

[41:52] are just

[41:53] second that one.

[41:54] >> ken hagan: thank you.

[41:54] Commissioner kemp.

[41:59] >> pat kemp: yes, I also fine

[42:00] this to be -- honestly it's more

[42:02] what I would like to see is the

[42:05] mixed use.

[42:07] It's a long, narrow lot.

[42:10] The back of it would not be

[42:11] being used for anything.

[42:13] So it's not the best use of it,

[42:16] but that it kind of grew organ

[42:16] clee

[42:18] organically here and I

[42:19] just -- I had a question.

[42:21] So right now I know the business

[42:23] exists right now.

[42:25] Is there 30 spaces now and

[42:29] they're reducing to 20?

[42:31] Can anyone answer that?

[42:34] I thought I just heard that.

[42:53] Was I --

[42:54] >> commissioner.

[42:54] >> pat kemp: maybe I heard it

[42:55] wrong.

[42:57] >> I'm sorry?

[42:58] >> pat kemp: maybe I heard it

[42:59] wrong.

[42:59] >> we are asking for reduction

[43:00] for parking.

[43:02] Currently there is no delineated

[43:05] spaces in the rear where 20

[43:06] spaces will be added.

[43:07] >> pat kemp: I see.

[43:08] So you were -- you wanted to

[43:10] have 30 spaces but you're

[43:11] willing to reduce it to 20.

[43:13] >> 20 in the back and 4 in the

[43:15] front so it's 24, chris, total,

[43:16] provided?

[43:23] Total provided.

[43:28] Yeah, 24 will be installed, yes,

[43:28] ma'am,.

[43:29] >> pat kemp: okay and I know

[43:30] there is -- and I respect the

[43:34] concern -- this isn't to do --

[43:36] the analysis and appreciate the

[43:38] analysis by staff and the

[43:42] planning commission staff, and

[43:44] the zoning hearing master in

[43:48] looking at this but I've long

[43:51] wondered and I know that staff

[43:54] knows this about the commercial

[43:56] criteria location and those

[43:57] limits.

[44:00] This does, you know, strike me

[44:05] as an office with the, with an

[44:08] intensity, and I know it we

[44:10] talked about intensity.

[44:13] But at that site on madison road

[44:17] I believe is an we're I

[44:18] this

[44:27] just really strikes me as

[44:27] appropriate.

[44:30] So with that, I'm going to

[44:30] approve.

[44:31] >> ken hagan: thank you.

[44:31] Commissioner wostal.

[44:32] >> joshua wostal: I just wanted

[44:33] to say when I got this briefing

[44:34] I responded to MR. Gormly saying

[44:36] oh, this is my dad, right?

[44:37] This is exactly how my dad

[44:38] works, and I appreciate

[44:39] commissioner myers' support for

[44:41] small businesses.

[44:42] >> ken hagan: all right,

[44:43] commissioner owen?

[44:45] >> michael owen: thank you,

[44:46] MR. CHAIRMAN.

[44:47] And MS. Leinhard just to get

[44:49] some perspective, the increase

[44:51] in intensity is basically what's

[44:52] already there, because it looks

[44:54] like what we have here, and this

[44:56] is partly for MR. Gormly too,

[44:58] the structure was already

[44:59] converted I guess in violation

[45:02] of code, correct?

[45:03] >> correct, understand the

[45:04] structure has been converted in

[45:10] use already, yes, sir.

[45:10] >> michael owen: so that

[45:12] increase in intensity I how the

[45:13] property is already being used s

[45:14] that safe to say.

[45:15] >> yes, the way we evaluate

[45:16] property is based on the

[45:17] existing zoning, not based on

[45:20] the existing use necessarily.

[45:23] So the rezoning itself to match

[45:24] what is already there is what's

[45:25] being evaluated.

[45:26] >> michael owen: understand,

[45:26] yeah.

[45:28] So we have a converted

[45:29] structure, doesn't meet

[45:33] locational criteria, and the

[45:34] buffering because you're

[45:35] supposed to have 20 feet on this

[45:36] particular property, right?

[45:38] So we'll be making an exception

[45:40] there?

[45:42] >> yes, the requirement is a

[45:44] 20-foot buffer on both the north

[45:45] and the south and they have

[45:46] asked for variance

[45:47] requestiations to those.

[45:48] >> michael owen: -- variations

[45:48] to those.

[45:50] >> michael owen: okay and I

[45:54] weigh the zhm, planning

[45:55] commission carefully.

[45:56] I get concerned.

[46:00] The one thing I weigh heavily is

[46:02] the district commissioner, she

[46:02] made the motion.

[46:04] I do think we need to be cog

[46:05] smiiant as a board on these type

[46:07] of properties whenever someone

[46:09] say jumps the gun and converts a

[46:10] structure without following the

[46:10] rules.

[46:11] But I certainly don't want to

[46:14] get in the way of small

[46:14] business.

[46:15] These folks -- there is no

[46:17] opposition as well, so I will be

[46:18] supporting the motion, thank

[46:18] you.

[46:19] >> ken hagan: all right.

[46:20] We have a motion and a second.

[46:23] Please record your vote.

[46:26] >> motion carried 7-0.

[46:30] >> ken hagan: thank you.

[46:31] >> ken hagan: next item.

[46:32] >> commissioners, the next item

[46:34] is agenda item f 2 rezoning pd

[46:36] 22-1688.

[46:38] The request is for a

[46:39] modification to existing

[46:40] zoning.

[46:41] The property is located on the

[46:44] east side of 23rd street

[46:45] southeast north of college

[46:47] avenue in the ruskin area.

[46:50] The parcel is 2.62 acres, and

[46:53] the request is to rezone from as

[46:55] 1 to a planned development to

[46:56] accommodate professional

[46:57] services and health

[46:59] practitioner's office of 28,531

[47:01] square feet.

[47:03] Staff is recommending approval.

[47:04] Planning commission found it

[47:05] consistent and the hearing

[47:06] officer is also recommending

[47:07] approval and we're available for

[47:07] any questions.

[47:08] Thank you.

[47:08] >> ken hagan: all right.

[47:24] Is the applicant here?

[47:25] >> thank you, commissioners.

[47:27] Todd pressman, 200 second avenue

[47:29] south number 451

[47:30] st. Petersburg.

[47:33] This is 22-1688.

[47:36] Located in the ruskin area.

[47:39] Right along college avenue.

[47:42] Or close to college avenue on

[47:45] 24th street southeast

[47:47] composessed of at least

[47:47] parcels.

[47:51] Issue is as-1 pd for 2.62 acres

[47:53] more or less for health

[47:55] practitioners offices.

[47:58] Planning commission is

[47:59] consistent.

[48:00] Surrounding uses to the north

[48:01] are tiny homes.

[48:03] There's a metro ready mix

[48:05] concrete plant on one side and a

[48:06] mini grocery store a little bit

[48:07] to the further south.

[48:09] Future land use category is

[48:11] smu-6 which provides for

[48:12] suburban commercial offices,

[48:14] research parks, light

[48:15] industrial.

[48:17] As you can see we have support

[48:19] from all three of your

[48:20] recommendations, so I'm going to

[48:22] do a little bit more of a brief

[48:22] presentation on this one.

[48:25] The pd plan is for professional

[48:27] services and health practitioner

[48:30] services with five footprint

[48:31] buildings.

[48:34] This is a pd plan.

[48:38] Along 24th is 12,540 vehicles

[48:41] per day, operates at a level of

[48:42] service c.

[48:43] We have good buffering and

[48:44] screening on the north and you

[48:45] can see the natural screening

[48:47] between the uses.

[48:49] And the site abuts on the right

[48:52] as what you see here.

[48:53] Abutting to the rear and the

[48:56] owner to the west is the cement

[48:58] plant as I've shown you on the

[48:58] aerial.

[48:59] Development services note which

[49:02] I think is important that the

[49:04] proposed.24 far is

[49:07] significantly under the.35

[49:09] maximum far.

[49:11] And notes the proposed uses are

[49:12] less intense than the allowed

[49:14] uses in the adjacent concrete

[49:15] distribution plant.

[49:17] Planning commission notes it's

[49:18] compatible.

[49:19] Proposed rezoning meets the

[49:21] intent of the objectives.

[49:22] It's a nice gradual transition

[49:24] and consistent with the ruskin

[49:25] community plan.

[49:27] So with that we appreciate your

[49:28] attention and consideration.

[49:30] Thank you.

[49:32] >> ken hagan: thank you.

[49:32] -

[49:33] anyone here in support of the

[49:35] item?

[49:38] Anyone in opposition?

[49:40] Planning commission?

[49:40] >> thank you.

[49:42] For the record, melissa

[49:42] lienhard, planning commission

[49:43] staff.

[49:45] The subject property is located

[49:46] in the suburban mixed use 6

[49:47] future land use category.

[49:50] The site is located within the

[49:51] urban service area and it is

[49:52] also within the limits of the

[49:55] ruskin community plan and the

[49:56] southshore area-wide systems

[49:56] plan.

[49:59] The intent of the smu-6 future

[50:00] land use category is to allow

[50:02] for uses that are urban and

[50:04] suburban in intensity and

[50:04] density.

[50:06] The applicant is requesting

[50:07] 28,000 square feet of

[50:09] professional services and health

[50:10] practitioner services.

[50:12] Office uses and smu-6 are

[50:16] limited to a.35 far and are

[50:17] also not subject to commercial

[50:20] locational criteria.

[50:22] With 2.62 acres, the site can be

[50:24] considered for up to 39,944

[50:26] square feet of office uses.

[50:29] The proposed 28,000 square feet

[50:31] which calculates to a.24 far is

[50:33] below the maximum that can be

[50:35] considered in this category for

[50:36] an area of this size.

[50:38] Therefore, the request is

[50:39] consistent with the type of

[50:41] development planned for and

[50:43] expected in the smu-6 future

[50:44] land use category.

[50:46] The proposed change, the

[50:47] proposed change for office uses

[50:48] is compatible with the existing

[50:51] character of development in the

[50:53] areas the current development

[50:54] area contains other

[50:55] nonresidential uses directly to

[50:59] the east of the subject

[51:00] property.

[51:01] In addition the applicant is

[51:02] meeting all buffering and

[51:02] screening requirements which

[51:04] will help mitigate the proposed

[51:05] use from the existing mobile

[51:07] home park to the north.

[51:09] Rather than one large 28,000

[51:10] square foot building the

[51:12] applicant is proposing to break

[51:13] up the square footinage to five

[51:14] smaller buildings and each

[51:16] building is limited to no more

[51:17] than 20 feet in height.

[51:18] This effort will help to keep

[51:19] the proposed development in

[51:19] scale with the surrounding

[51:20] development consistent with

[51:23] future land use element policy

[51:26] 1.4 relative to compatibility.

[51:27] The proposed rezoning meets the

[51:29] intent of the neighborhood

[51:30] protection policies that modify

[51:32] future land use element

[51:33] objective 16.

[51:35] The apapplicant is proposing a

[51:36] 20-foot buffer along the

[51:37] northern boundary adjacent to

[51:38] residential, which is consistent

[51:41] with future land use element

[51:42] policy 16.1.

[51:44] The applicant is also proposing

[51:46] complementary office uses with

[51:47] transportation and pedestrian

[51:49] connections to the south and

[51:51] north, which is consistent with

[51:52] policy 16.3.

[51:54] The site is located external to

[51:54] established and developing

[51:55] neighborhoods which is

[51:58] consistent with policy 16.5.

[51:59] The proposed planned development

[52:01] is also consistent with the

[52:02] ruskin community plan which

[52:04] seeks to provide opportunities

[52:05] for business growth and jobs in

[52:07] the ruskin community.

[52:11] Specifically the community plan

[52:11] envisions having appropriate

[52:13] land uses zoned for office and

[52:14] light industrial development.

[52:16] The proposed office uses are

[52:17] consistent with this vision.

[52:19] Based upon these considerations,

[52:20] planning commission staff finds

[52:22] the proposed planned development

[52:24] consistent with the

[52:24] unincorporated hillsborough

[52:26] county comprehensive plan

[52:27] subject to the conditions

[52:27] proposed by development

[52:28] services.

[52:30] Thank you.

[52:32] >> ken hagan: hearing master?

[52:33] >> the zoning hearing master

[52:34] considered the proposed rezoning

[52:36] of the subject property which

[52:40] consists of approximately

[52:42] 2.62 acres and is designated

[52:44] smu-6 on the future land use map

[52:49] currently zoned as-1.

[52:51] The general area surrounding the

[52:52] subject property consists of a

[52:54] mix of residential, commercial,

[52:57] and manufacturing uses.

[52:59] Adjacent properties include a

[53:01] parcel zoned pd, zc and

[53:02] developed as a tiny home

[53:04] community to the north.

[53:06] Property zoned m and developed

[53:08] as a cement manufacturing plant

[53:11] to the east and southeast.

[53:13] And undeveloped parcels zoned

[53:14] as-1 owned by the cement company

[53:16] to the south and two parcels

[53:18] zoned cg and developed as a

[53:20] neighborhood grocery store and

[53:22] barber shop further south.

[53:25] as well as property zoned ar and

[53:26] developed residential uses to

[53:30] the west across southeast 24th

[53:30] street.

[53:32] Again, the applicant's request

[53:34] is for rezoning of the property

[53:37] to pd which would allow for

[53:39] 28,000 square feet of

[53:40] professional service and health

[53:44] practitioner's offices.

[53:46] Development services department

[53:48] staff found the proposed pd

[53:49] rezoning to be compatible with

[53:50] the surrounding properties and

[53:52] in keeping with the general

[53:55] development pattern of the area

[53:57] and approvable subject to the

[53:58] conditions proposed as you've

[54:02] heard planning commission staff

[54:04] has also found the proposed

[54:04] rezoning would allow development

[54:08] that is compatible with the

[54:10] surrounding development pattern

[54:11] and with the comprehensive

[54:13] plan.

[54:14] The zoning hearing master

[54:16] therefore recommended approval.

[54:19] >> ken hagan: commissioner

[54:19] owen?

[54:20] >> thank

[54:21] >> michael owen: thank you,

[54:21] MR. CHAIRMAN.

[54:22] Yes, this is my district, and

[54:25] I'm glad to see this project,

[54:27] this is as south county

[54:28] continues to grow we need more

[54:30] health professionals in that

[54:30] area.

[54:32] My constituent that reached out,

[54:35] MR. Gormly, there was an issue I

[54:39] think on a drainage concern

[54:40] that, but we've assured that

[54:41] individual, right, that that's

[54:43] something that we have to remedy

[54:45] before we even get off the

[54:45] ground.

[54:48] So that has been, yeah.

[54:49] >> yes, commissioner.

[54:50] There is a drainage easement

[54:53] across the site once the site is

[54:53] developed.

[54:58] It will go through a stormwater

[55:05] review, and that the review will

[55:07] ensure the impact.

[55:07] >> michael owen: very good.

[55:10] Move for approval.

[55:10] >> joshua wostal: second.

[55:11] >> ken hagan: we have a motion

[55:12] to approve by commissioner owen,

[55:13] second by commissioner wostal.

[55:14] If there are no other comments,

[55:15] please record your vote.

[55:18] >> motion carried 7-0.

[55:18] >> ken hagan: f 3.

[55:19] >> thank you, MR. CHAIRMAN.

[55:20] Thank you, commissioners.

[55:21] >> next item is agenda item f

[55:21] 3.

[55:24] It's rezoning standard 23-0115.

[55:26] It's a request to rezone a

[55:28] .55-acre parcel on the east side

[55:30] of theresa street located in the

[55:32] town 'n' country area west of

[55:34] webb and north of hillsborough

[55:34] avenue.

[55:37] Again, the request is to rezone

[55:39] from rsc 6 to rm

[55:40] rmc 20 which is

[55:41] a multifamily zoning district.

[55:44] The comprehensive plan is res

[55:46] 20, and based on the surrounding

[55:46] development pattern which

[55:48] contains existing rmc 20 uses in

[55:51] the immediate area, staff is

[55:52] recommending approval, was found

[55:53] consistent with

[55:54] by the planning

[55:56] commission and also hearing

[55:57] officer is recommending approval

[55:58] and staff is available for any

[55:58] questions.

[55:59] Thank you.

[55:59] >> ken hagan: thank you.

[56:06] I believe the applicant is on

[56:06] virtual.

[56:08] >> yes, sir, good morning.

[56:11] I'm the principal for --

[56:11] investments corporation.

[56:16] I was the one who submitted this

[56:17] application if you look at the

[56:18] current zoning all around they

[56:20] are r 20, so this lot was never

[56:23] sold in the last 50, 60, or 70

[56:25] years, and I was just applying

[56:28] to rezone it from rsc-6 to r-20

[56:30] and we have all the necessary

[56:31] waivers from all the different

[56:32] departments and everyone has

[56:34] given the clearance to move

[56:45] forward with this rezoning.

[56:46] >> ken hagan: is anybody

[56:47] anyone

[56:48] here in support of the item?

[56:49] Anyone in opposition?

[56:50] Planning commission?

[56:51] >> thank you.

[56:51] Melissa lienhard, planning

[56:52] commission staff.

[56:53] The sng

[56:54] subject property is

[56:55] located within the residential

[56:56] 20 future land use category.

[56:58] It is in the urban service area

[57:00] and located within the limits of

[57:02] the town 'n' country community

[57:02] plan.

[57:04] The subject site is located in

[57:05] the urban service area where

[57:07] according to objective 1 of the

[57:10] future land use element, 80% of

[57:11] the county's growth is to be

[57:11] directed.

[57:13] The proposed request is

[57:14] consistent with this policy

[57:15] direction.

[57:16] In addition, future land use

[57:18] element policy 1.4 requires that

[57:20] all new developments be

[57:22] compatible with the surrounding

[57:22] area.

[57:25] The proposed change from rsc-6

[57:27] to rmc-20 zoning is compatible

[57:29] with the existing character of

[57:31] development in the area as the

[57:32] current development pattern

[57:34] contains extensive rmc-20 zoning

[57:37] to the south, east, and

[57:37] northeast.

[57:39] The proposed rezoning meets the

[57:40] intent of neighborhood

[57:41] protection policies of the

[57:42] future land use element.

[57:43] The development pattern of the

[57:45] surrounding area shows other

[57:46] residential uses with varying

[57:47] lot size.

[57:49] The proposed rezoning would also

[57:51] encourage an appropriate

[57:52] transition in intensity between

[57:53] the commercial zoning districts

[57:55] located south of the subject

[57:57] property and the single-family

[57:58] zoning districts located north

[57:59] of the subject property.

[58:01] A rezoning to rmc-20 would

[58:02] reflect a development pattern

[58:04] that is in keeping with the

[58:05] existing development pattern

[58:07] which is consistent with this

[58:08] policy direction.

[58:10] The town ncountry community

[58:11] plan's vision statement

[58:12] encourages development that

[58:16] increases the property values of

[58:16] homes.

[58:18] Allowing rmc-20 zoning on the

[58:19] subject site will encourage

[58:20] development and increase value

[58:22] to the area, especially

[58:23] considering that the site is

[58:24] currently vacant.

[58:25] The proposed rm

[58:26] rmc-20 zoning

[58:28] district is aligned with the

[58:29] community plan's language

[58:30] regarding a strong urban

[58:32] community and is therefore

[58:33] consistent with the overall

[58:34] vision of the community plan.

[58:36] Based upon those considerations,

[58:37] planning commission staff finds

[58:39] the proposed rezoning consistent

[58:42] with the unincorporated

[58:42] hillsborough county

[58:43] comprehensive plan.

[58:44] Thank you.

[58:47] >> ken hagan: zoning hearing

[58:48] master?

[58:49] >> the zoning hearing master

[58:50] reviewed the applicant's request

[58:54] for rezoning to the rmc 20

[58:58] zoning district and that request

[59:01] is for the development of

[59:02] townhomes on the site.

[59:04] The property is just over half

[59:07] an acre.55 acres in size,

[59:09] currently zoned rsc-6 and

[59:10] designated residential 20 by the

[59:14] comprehensive plan.

[59:17] Some testimony in opposition was

[59:20] provided at the zmh hearing

[59:23] from -- zhm hearing from a

[59:26] resident of the kingsport

[59:27] townhome community to the south

[59:28] but not adjacent to the

[59:28] property.

[59:32] That concern was regarding the

[59:35] sufficiency of the roadway and

[59:37] potential concern about traffic

[59:40] and the reduction of property

[59:41] values.

[59:41] However.

[59:44] The county's transportation

[59:45] review section stated thatt the

[59:48] subject property will be

[59:50] accessed from theresa road which

[59:52] is a two-lane undweeded roadway

[59:53] with -- undivided roadway with

[59:55] 52 feet of right-of-way.

[59:59] Transportation staff has no

[1:00:00] objection to the rezoning

[1:00:00] request.

[1:00:01] Furthermore, the applicant

[1:00:02] testified in rebuttal that the

[1:00:04] resident of the townhome

[1:00:06] community was referring to the

[1:00:08] internal access roads for that

[1:00:10] community, which can only

[1:00:12] accommodate one vehicle due to

[1:00:13] insufficient roadway width.

[1:00:15] The subject property will be

[1:00:16] accessed from theresa road which

[1:00:19] is a two-lane road.

[1:00:20] The zoning hearing master found

[1:00:21] that the rezoning for the

[1:00:22] development of townhomes on site

[1:00:24] is consistent with the

[1:00:25] development pattern in the area

[1:00:27] as well as with the

[1:00:28] comprehensive plan and is

[1:00:30] recommended approval.

[1:00:31] >> ken hagan: all right.

[1:00:32] What's the pleasure of the

[1:00:33] board.

[1:00:33] >> michael owen: move approval.

[1:00:34] >> ken hagan: got a motion to

[1:00:36] approve, commissioner cohen,

[1:00:39] second, commissioner myers.

[1:00:40] No other comments, please record

[1:00:44] your vote.

[1:00:49] >> motion carried 7-0.

[1:00:50] >> ken hagan: f 4.

[1:00:52] >> the next item is agenda item

[1:00:56] f 4 rezoning pd 23-0181.

[1:00:57] The applicant is hope

[1:00:58] international ministries.

[1:01:00] This is a request to rezone a

[1:01:03] 9.44-acre parcel that's loathed

[1:01:08] in the greater

[1:01:16] carrollwood-northdale area on

[1:01:16] mushinski road.

[1:01:18] They will be single-family homes

[1:01:21] but under common ownership of

[1:01:23] hope international.

[1:01:24] Technically it would still be

[1:01:24] considered multifamily.

[1:01:26] This will be an extension of the

[1:01:27] hope international ministries

[1:01:28] children's home to the west and

[1:01:29] it actually specifically

[1:01:32] conditioned to limit the use of

[1:01:36] the residence to employees of

[1:01:38] the facility to the west, so

[1:01:40] it's functioning as an extension

[1:01:41] of that.

[1:01:43] Based on that, staff, planning

[1:01:44] development services staff did

[1:01:46] find the request compatible.

[1:01:47] The hearing officer also

[1:01:48] recommended approval.

[1:01:49] I would note the planning

[1:01:52] commission did find this

[1:01:53] inconsistent based on

[1:01:54] noncompliance with minimum

[1:01:55] density policies which they'll

[1:01:57] speak to as part of their

[1:01:58] presentation.

[1:01:59] Staff is available for any

[1:01:59] questions.

[1:01:59] Thank you.

[1:02:00] >> ken hagan: all right.

[1:02:00] Thank you.

[1:02:04] Is the applicant here?

[1:02:06] Morning.

[1:02:08] >> good morning, kami corbett

[1:02:09] with the law firm of hill, ward,

[1:02:10] and henderson.

[1:02:12] 101 east kennedy boulevard,

[1:02:16] suite 3700.

[1:02:18] Find a place to put my stuff.

[1:02:18] There we go.

[1:02:19] Sorry.

[1:02:20] I do have a brief presentation

[1:02:22] for you this morning since we

[1:02:23] did hear that planning

[1:02:24] commission did find us

[1:02:25] inconsistent.

[1:02:26] I have the pleasure of

[1:02:27] representing hope children's

[1:02:28] home.

[1:02:30] They are a private not for

[1:02:31] profit school that is christ

[1:02:32] based and bible based.

[1:02:34] It's a children's home and a

[1:02:34] school.

[1:02:36] They do not accept any money

[1:02:37] from any federal, state, or

[1:02:38] local government.

[1:02:40] They're fully privately funded,

[1:02:42] commissioner wostal, and to

[1:02:45] further introduce you to hope, I

[1:02:47] would like to play a brief video

[1:02:49] or have upstairs play a brief

[1:02:52] video.

[1:02:53] >> cami, can you please confirm

[1:02:55] that video was shown at zhm.

[1:02:56] >> it was and it's noted in the

[1:02:58] clerk's record and it's the same

[1:02:59] video I sent to you yesterday.

[1:03:05] >> thank you.

[1:03:30] >> one second.

[1:03:31] >> we can't get it, I can

[1:03:32] continue.

[1:03:39] Okay.

[1:03:40] >> joshua wostal: they're just

[1:04:26] building suspense.

[1:05:48] >> [Off mic]

[1:07:17] [Inaudible]

[1:07:19] >> and so the reason I show you

[1:07:20] that video, and you might be

[1:07:21] wondering how is this relevant

[1:07:22] to land use.

[1:07:24] It's eextremely relevant to the

[1:07:25] question as to whether or not we

[1:07:27] satisfied an exception to the

[1:07:28] minimum density policy.

[1:07:29] I wanted you to see what's

[1:07:30] happening on the property, what

[1:07:33] the nature of this property is,

[1:07:34] and how developing the property

[1:07:36] to minimum density which would

[1:07:37] be 27 single-family homes would

[1:07:40] be very disruptive to what's

[1:07:41] happening.

[1:07:43] Just quickly, you see the

[1:07:45] vicinity, we're south of gunn

[1:07:47] highway and west of henderson

[1:07:47] road.

[1:07:49] This is the existing campus in

[1:07:50] aerial.

[1:07:52] The yellow is the existing hope

[1:07:54] children's home pd.

[1:07:55] The green is the proposed pd,

[1:07:57] and you can see in that aerial

[1:07:59] there is a swimming pool, an

[1:08:01] existing residence and some

[1:08:02] structures, some barns and some

[1:08:03] things that are already there,

[1:08:04] and it's already integrated as

[1:08:05] part of their campus.

[1:08:08] So this is mart of what they

[1:08:09] consider to be their -- part of

[1:08:10] what they consider to be their

[1:08:10] home.

[1:08:12] The request again we're asking

[1:08:13] for eight additional structures

[1:08:15] to maintain those accessory

[1:08:16] uses, and we are asking for a pd

[1:08:18] variation to maintain the

[1:08:19] existing buffers because I'm

[1:08:20] going to show you some photos

[1:08:22] and you're going to see that it

[1:08:24] looks really rural out here.

[1:08:25] Again, these are the images of

[1:08:28] the cottage interior and

[1:08:28] exterior.

[1:08:29] That's the library you saw.

[1:08:31] This is te playground that is

[1:08:33] on the existing pd.

[1:08:34] This is the swimming pool that's

[1:08:36] on this property that's subject

[1:08:37] to this pd request.

[1:08:38] You can see it's already in use

[1:08:42] by the children's home.

[1:08:43] Again, and just again very rural

[1:08:46] in nature and has a rural picket

[1:08:48] fence and that, that's a dead

[1:08:49] end.

[1:08:50] That's adjacent to them, and

[1:08:52] then you'll see on this aerial

[1:08:53] what's beyond the dead end.

[1:08:55] When we look to the west, we

[1:08:57] have a very significant rural

[1:08:59] development pattern of asc-1

[1:09:01] zoning.

[1:09:03] Now, I admit that when you look

[1:09:04] to the north, east, and south,

[1:09:05] there is a suburban development

[1:09:06] pattern, and I understand why

[1:09:08] the planning commission is

[1:09:09] looking at that from that

[1:09:10] perspective, but I think when

[1:09:11] you look at it as a whole, and

[1:09:13] you look at the compatibility

[1:09:14] with this children's home,

[1:09:16] there's no question that we've

[1:09:17] met the exception for minimum

[1:09:19] density and that that additional

[1:09:21] density would be completely

[1:09:23] incompatible and inconsistent.

[1:09:24] We're consistent with the

[1:09:26] greater carrollwood community

[1:09:27] plan, which recognizes the

[1:09:29] uniqueness of neighborhoods and

[1:09:31] recognizes each neighborhood's

[1:09:32] culture.

[1:09:34] And this is the concept map from

[1:09:35] carrollwood community plan.

[1:09:36] There is nothing inconsistent

[1:09:37] with this development with that

[1:09:40] community plan.

[1:09:42] And again, our point, we think

[1:09:43] that requiring us to meet

[1:09:46] minimum density would be wholly

[1:09:48] incompatible and would adversely

[1:09:49] impact the existing development

[1:09:50] we have, and we would

[1:09:53] respectfully request your

[1:09:53] approval.

[1:09:54] >> ken hagan: all right, thank

[1:09:54] you.

[1:09:55] Anyone here in support of the

[1:09:56] application?

[1:09:58] Anyone in opposition?

[1:10:01] Planning commission?

[1:10:02] >> thank you for the record,

[1:10:03] melissa lienhard, planning

[1:10:04] commission staff.

[1:10:05] The subject property is located

[1:10:06] within the residential 4 future

[1:10:11] land use category, in the urban

[1:10:12] service area, and it is also

[1:10:15] located within the greater

[1:10:15] carrollwood-northdale community

[1:10:16] plan limits.

[1:10:17] Objective 1 of the future land

[1:10:19] use element of the comprehensive

[1:10:20] plan asserts that hillsborough

[1:10:21] county shall proactively direct

[1:10:24] new growth into the urban

[1:10:24] service area with the goal that

[1:10:27] at least 80% of all population

[1:10:28] growth will occur within the

[1:10:29] urban service area during the

[1:10:31] planning horizon of the comp

[1:10:32] plan.

[1:10:34] Future land use element policy

[1:10:35] 1.2 requires that all new

[1:10:37] development or redevelopment

[1:10:40] shall occur at a density of at

[1:10:41] least 75% of the allowable

[1:10:43] density of the future land use

[1:10:45] category in order to optimize

[1:10:47] investment for services and

[1:10:47] infrastructure.

[1:10:49] The subject site's future land

[1:10:52] use category is residential 4

[1:10:53] which allows for consideration

[1:10:56] of up to 37 dwelling units on

[1:10:58] the 9.44-acre subject property.

[1:11:00] The proposed development seeks

[1:11:01] to add eight additional

[1:11:02] single-family dwelling units to

[1:11:06] an existing dwelling unit uniant

[1:11:08] of the site which would total

[1:11:09] nine units.

[1:11:10] These nine uits would fall

[1:11:12] significantly under the 75%

[1:11:13] density requirement which is 28

[1:11:14] dwelling units for new

[1:11:15] development within the urban

[1:11:18] service area by a considerable

[1:11:18] margin.

[1:11:20] Future land use element policy

[1:11:22] 1.3 seeks to restrict new zoning

[1:11:23] approvals for residential

[1:11:26] development within the urban

[1:11:26] service area, and future land

[1:11:29] use categories that permit four

[1:11:30] dwelling units per gross acre or

[1:11:33] greater than do not meet minimum

[1:11:34] density, unless certain

[1:11:36] circumstances are met.

[1:11:38] In their narrative the applicant

[1:11:39] stated the proposed development

[1:11:40] would adversely impact the

[1:11:41] existing development pattern in

[1:11:43] the area if it was required to

[1:11:46] meet the 75% minimum density

[1:11:47] requirement.

[1:11:48] This however is not a true

[1:11:49] representation of the dense

[1:11:51] residential nature of the

[1:11:52] surrounding areas adjacent to

[1:11:53] the subject site directly to the

[1:11:55] north, east, and south.

[1:11:56] The eight new dwelling units

[1:11:58] plus the existing residential

[1:11:59] structure would vastly reduce

[1:12:01] the density of the subject

[1:12:03] property to a mere one unit per

[1:12:04] gross acre which is

[1:12:06] significantly below the 75%

[1:12:08] minimum that is required for new

[1:12:08] development within the urban

[1:12:10] service area.

[1:12:11] And based upon those

[1:12:12] considerations, planning

[1:12:13] commission staff finds the

[1:12:14] proposed planned development

[1:12:16] inconsistent with the

[1:12:17] comprehensive plan.

[1:12:17] Thank you.

[1:12:18] >> ken hagan: all right, thank

[1:12:18] you.

[1:12:22] Zoning hearing master?

[1:12:23] >> the zoning hearing master

[1:12:25] reviewed the applicant's request

[1:12:26] for rezoning of the subject

[1:12:28] property to planned development

[1:12:30] to allow a total of nine

[1:12:33] single-family homes to serve as

[1:12:34] employee housing for staff of

[1:12:37] the hope children's home on the

[1:12:38] adjacent parcel to the west of

[1:12:42] the subject property.

[1:12:44] The applicant has requested pd

[1:12:45] variations regarding the

[1:12:48] buffering and screening

[1:12:49] requirements of the land

[1:12:56] development code.

[1:12:59] First is five-foot wide buffer

[1:13:00] on the north and east boundaries

[1:13:02] to allow a zero buffer and to

[1:13:04] maintain the existing fencing

[1:13:05] and mature vegetation, tree

[1:13:11] canopy, and open space.

[1:13:12] Additionally the applicant is

[1:13:13] requesting a pd variation to the

[1:13:13] land development code's

[1:13:14] buffering and screening

[1:13:17] requirements for a 10-foot

[1:13:19] reduction and the 10-foot wide

[1:13:20] buffer and type a screening on

[1:13:22] the subject property's west

[1:13:24] boundary to allow a zero buffer

[1:13:28] and maintain the existing mature

[1:13:30] tree canopy, mature vegetation,

[1:13:32] tree canopy, and ownen space.

[1:13:33] The zoning hearing master --

[1:13:35] open space.

[1:13:38] The zoning hearing master

[1:13:39] reviewed the development

[1:13:44] services staff finding that

[1:13:44] although the proposed

[1:13:45] development of nine dwelling

[1:13:46] units does not meet the

[1:13:48] comprehensive plan's minimum

[1:13:50] density policy, the proposed

[1:13:51] detached single-family home

[1:13:53] development is in harmony with

[1:13:55] the surrounding land uses and

[1:13:56] maintains the existing height,

[1:14:03] scale, and bulk of development

[1:14:04] pattern.

[1:14:05] Staff, the development services

[1:14:06] department found the planned

[1:14:07] development is intended to

[1:14:08] exclusively serve the

[1:14:09] institutional use to the west of

[1:14:12] the subject property, which

[1:14:14] results in the continuity of the

[1:14:16] existing land use and visual

[1:14:18] character of the area and does

[1:14:21] not create additional

[1:14:23] landscaping, lining, waste, odor

[1:14:25] or architectural impacts.

[1:14:26] The zoning hearing master noted

[1:14:27] that development services has

[1:14:29] found the rezoning compatible

[1:14:31] with the surrounding properties

[1:14:34] and in keeping with the general

[1:14:37] pattern of development in the

[1:14:39] area, and ha recommended

[1:14:42] approval subject to conditions.

[1:14:43] The zoning hearing master

[1:14:44] concluded with the

[1:14:45] recommendation for approval of

[1:14:48] the pd rezoning request subject

[1:14:49] to the conditions set out in the

[1:14:51] development services department

[1:14:54] staff report.

[1:14:54] >> ken hagan: all right, thank

[1:14:55] you.

[1:14:59] Commissioner wostal?

[1:14:59] >> joshua wostal: poor

[1:15:01] MS. Leinhard probably hat

[1:15:02] has

[1:15:03] that section memorized.

[1:15:05] I've only been here 9 1/2

[1:15:06] months, I mean, I almost can't

[1:15:07] go a land use meeting without

[1:15:09] you having to repeat this

[1:15:09] density.

[1:15:12] So I just, I hope that when

[1:15:15] we're going through all of these

[1:15:16] rework of things we're looking

[1:15:17] at this density section and

[1:15:19] objectives, and it seems like

[1:15:22] it's becoming a bureaucratic

[1:15:24] nightmare in a certain regard,

[1:15:27] and they had to hire I'm sure an

[1:15:29] extremely fairly priced land use

[1:15:30] attorney to come here for

[1:15:32] something I don't even see as

[1:15:32] necessary, and it's probably

[1:15:35] something we need to review, so

[1:15:35] thank you.

[1:15:36] >> ken hagan: thank you.

[1:15:37] Commissioner owen.

[1:15:39] >> michael owen: thank you,

[1:15:39] MR. CHAIRMAN.

[1:15:41] And thank you, cami, fo

[1:15:41] representing them.

[1:15:42] I know it's probably not one

[1:15:44] where you're making a windfall

[1:15:44] of money.

[1:15:47] This organization is wonderful.

[1:15:49] I just wish, and you know, they

[1:15:50] would expand to east or south

[1:15:51] county.

[1:15:52] I would love to have an

[1:15:54] organization like that out

[1:15:55] there, especially for what they

[1:15:57] stand for and, you know,

[1:15:59] obviously this isn't my

[1:16:00] district.

[1:16:03] Commissioner hagan, but I really

[1:16:04] think that this is a great

[1:16:05] expansion.

[1:16:06] Now the only thing I saw on

[1:16:12] here, cami, you said eight

[1:16:14] additional properties but I have

[1:16:14] nine on my notes.

[1:16:22] I want to make sure my record's

[1:16:23] right.

[1:16:23] >> there is an existing home on

[1:16:27] the site so it's on top of the

[1:16:29] one there.

[1:16:30] >> michael owen: got it.

[1:16:32] This is a dead end road here.

[1:16:34] These are folks working for

[1:16:35] hope, this is why they are

[1:16:36] creating this, it's an extension

[1:16:37] of their facility in essence.

[1:16:38] Very good.

[1:16:38] Thank you.

[1:16:39] >> ken hagan: thank you.

[1:16:40] Commissioner cameron cepeda.

[1:16:41] >> donna cameron cepeda: yes I

[1:16:43] would just like to say I'm so

[1:16:44] thankful that we have an

[1:16:45] organization like this in our

[1:16:46] community that are really

[1:16:47] helping, you know, the hurting

[1:16:50] hearts of these little

[1:16:51] children.

[1:16:51] I'm so thankful for this.

[1:16:52] It's just amazing.

[1:16:53] I didn't even know about that

[1:16:54] organization.

[1:16:55] It's just wonderful.

[1:16:57] And I would like to make a

[1:16:59] motion for approval.

[1:16:59] >> ken hagan: okay.

[1:17:00] We got a motion to approve,

[1:17:02] commissioner cameron cepeda.

[1:17:04] Second, commissioner wostal.

[1:17:05] Commissioner cohen.

[1:17:06] >> harry cohen: thank you very

[1:17:06] much.

[1:17:10] And you know, it is, I think, in

[1:17:14] most cases not appropriate to

[1:17:16] consider the mission of an

[1:17:17] organization when you're making

[1:17:20] a land use decision, but unthis

[1:17:23] case, I think the counsel for

[1:17:26] the applicant did do a good job

[1:17:30] of explaining why this type of

[1:17:32] structure makes sense on this

[1:17:32] property.

[1:17:36] And I guess that gets me to the

[1:17:38] larger point.

[1:17:41] You know, I respect the fact

[1:17:43] that the staff has to, and the

[1:17:45] planning commission have to make

[1:17:47] narrow judgments within the

[1:17:49] confines of the direction that

[1:17:50] our policy gives them.

[1:17:52] But what makes our system I

[1:17:55] think work so well is that we as

[1:17:57] a board have the ability to be a

[1:17:59] little more creative and a

[1:18:01] little bit more open-minded when

[1:18:03] we look at these applications.

[1:18:04] So when we look at something

[1:18:07] like this, we can understand

[1:18:09] when I,

[1:18:12] -- why and we can apply

[1:18:13] the judgment we have been given

[1:18:17] to look at why it makes sense to

[1:18:19] allow something under the

[1:18:20] density, just like the one

[1:18:22] before us where we looked at the

[1:18:24] totality of it and we looked at

[1:18:25] what the use was going to be and

[1:18:26] we were able to see it was

[1:18:27] appropriate.

[1:18:27] So I'm also going to support th

[1:18:28] motion.

[1:18:31] i just want to say to the staff

[1:18:33] that it doesn't mean that we

[1:18:34] don't have confidence in your

[1:18:34] judgment.

[1:18:38] It means that we're simply using

[1:18:40] the judgment that we are given

[1:18:46] to come to a different result.

[1:18:47] >> ken hagan: commissioner

[1:18:48] kemp.

[1:18:48] >> pat kemp: yes, and thank you

[1:18:50] for saying that, commissioner

[1:18:52] cohen, because I think it's

[1:18:53] important and important for

[1:18:56] staff as well as even I

[1:18:59] mentioned earlier piece.

[1:19:02] I appreciate the analysis, and

[1:19:07] it gives me a thoughtful look at

[1:19:09] what the policies are and a

[1:19:13] little bit of extra thought

[1:19:15] about why they were put in place

[1:19:17] and what they do and how they

[1:19:19] use our resources.

[1:19:21] I talked about the urban service

[1:19:25] area a lot, and density in terms

[1:19:27] of that because what we're doing

[1:19:28] is being able to use

[1:19:29] infrastructure that's in place

[1:19:30] and it's a massive problem for

[1:19:33] the county that we don't have

[1:19:35] infrastructure in place for a

[1:19:38] ot of it and even in the urban

[1:19:39] service area appropriate

[1:19:41] infrastructure in place and

[1:19:42] extending beyond it.

[1:19:44] So I think the density is an

[1:19:46] important point, and I of course

[1:19:47] will be supporting this.

[1:19:54] I mean, but I appreciate

[1:19:55] commissioner cohen, you pointing

[1:19:57] that out because I just think

[1:20:00] it's, there is a lot of

[1:20:00] thought.

[1:20:01] It's made me think more when I

[1:20:04] look at something about how we

[1:20:07] do it and consider about what it

[1:20:08] will be for the future.

[1:20:09] So I

[1:20:11] I think that's important,

[1:20:14] and appreciate the staff

[1:20:15] analysis.

[1:20:15] >> ken hagan: I just want to

[1:20:17] thank all the board members for

[1:20:18] all of your comments,

[1:20:20] particularly commissioner

[1:20:22] cameron cepeda's remarks.

[1:20:23] I've toured this campus a number

[1:20:27] of times through the years, and

[1:20:29] I got to tell you, I heard many

[1:20:30] of the stories, and they bring

[1:20:32] tears to your eyes.

[1:20:34] I mean, they really do, and they

[1:20:35] are doing remarkable things

[1:20:35] there.

[1:20:40] This is a beautiful rural

[1:20:41] campus.

[1:20:41] In addition troo

[1:20:43] to some of the

[1:20:44] amenities they showed they've

[1:20:45] got an unbelieve

[1:20:46] believable

[1:20:48] indoor basketball court, I'm

[1:20:49] surprised they didn't show that

[1:20:50] as well.

[1:20:51] But I'm very proud we're going

[1:20:54] to approve this unanimously and

[1:20:57] again in all my time on this

[1:20:59] board I have gotten not one

[1:21:00] complaint to this organization,

[1:21:00] not one.

[1:21:01] So I think that is a great

[1:21:02] testament to the work they are

[1:21:03] doing.

[1:21:04] So very pleased to support the

[1:21:04] motion.

[1:21:05] Please regard

[1:21:08] record your vote.

[1:21:10] >> motion carried 7-0.

[1:21:11] >> ken hagan: all right, thank

[1:21:11] you.

[1:21:13] Next item.

[1:21:13] >> commissioners, the next item

[1:21:16] is agenda item f 5.

[1:21:19] This is rezoning pd 23-0257.

[1:21:22] This is a request to rezone a

[1:21:23] 2.5-acre parcel that's on the

[1:21:25] north side of bloomingdale

[1:21:26] avenue just west of the

[1:21:27] intersection of bloomingdale and

[1:21:28] providence road.

[1:21:31] The request is to rezone from

[1:21:34] asc-1 to a planned development

[1:21:35] for 100-bed community

[1:21:36] residential home which would be

[1:21:41] an assisted living facility.

[1:21:45] Per the site plan, again, this

[1:21:46] is a proposed site plan.

[1:21:49] I would note that per the

[1:21:50] requirements for community

[1:21:50] residential home there is a

[1:21:52] requirement for 500-foot

[1:21:56] separation from a residential

[1:21:57] single-family zoning district

[1:21:59] which would be to the north of

[1:21:59] that.

[1:22:01] Staff is supportive of that

[1:22:03] waiver given the fact that the

[1:22:04] parcel to the immediate west is

[1:22:07] a planned development that's res

[1:22:09] 20 and the plan is permitted and

[1:22:12] being instructed with multi --

[1:22:14] constructed with multifamily

[1:22:15] multistory.

[1:22:17] An increased setback and buffer

[1:22:19] are being proposed along the

[1:22:19] property.

[1:22:20] They are providing compliant

[1:22:21] buffering to the east and west

[1:22:23] but they have also asked for

[1:22:24] relief from requirements for

[1:22:26] additional two to one setback

[1:22:27] for additional structure height

[1:22:29] for the two-story structure.

[1:22:31] Staff is supportive of that

[1:22:32] given the surrounding

[1:22:33] development pattern and given

[1:22:34] the proposed site plan.

[1:22:35] Therefore, staff is recommending

[1:22:36] approval.

[1:22:37] It was also found consistent

[1:22:38] bite planning commission and the

[1:22:39] hearing officer is also

[1:22:40] recommending approval.

[1:22:41] Staff's available for any

[1:22:42] questions.

[1:22:42] Thank you.

[1:22:43] >> ken hagan: all right, thank

[1:22:44] you.

[1:22:48] Is the applicant here?

[1:22:49] Good morning again.

[1:22:51] >> good morning, commissioners.

[1:22:53] todd pressman, 200 second avenue

[1:22:56] south, number 451 in

[1:22:57] st. Petersburg.

[1:23:00] Powerpoint for you.

[1:23:02] We're located in the brandon

[1:23:03] area.

[1:23:05] Property appraiser has it shown

[1:23:08] in the red lines here.

[1:23:10] We are located just north of

[1:23:13] state road 60.

[1:23:15] Seeking a type c community

[1:23:17] residential home with a 100-bed

[1:23:17] maximum.

[1:23:19] This would be an assisted living

[1:23:22] for senior citizens and disabled

[1:23:24] folks needing assisted daily

[1:23:26] care.

[1:23:27] 2.49 acres.

[1:23:28] So it's the type of use that

[1:23:29] would have a common dining room

[1:23:31] that ld residents would use --

[1:23:32] all the residents would use.

[1:23:33] Transportation provided and

[1:23:37] daily living support is

[1:23:38] provided.

[1:23:39] Nurse provides some care through

[1:23:43] license through ahca.

[1:23:43] In harmony with the ldc planning

[1:23:47] commission also finds it

[1:23:48] consistent.

[1:23:48] You can see the project site

[1:23:49] here in red.

[1:23:51] The applicant owns the property

[1:23:53] in front as you can see which is

[1:23:55] highlighted unyellow.

[1:23:58] Next to an auto repair and

[1:24:00] walgreens, and to the east is

[1:24:02] the somerville apartments being

[1:24:03] constructed at the moment.

[1:24:04] So access would be through the

[1:24:06] applicant's ownership of the

[1:24:08] property, I'm sorry, it says

[1:24:08] state road 60.

[1:24:11] It's bloomingdale avenue.

[1:24:15] And the side street is

[1:24:16] providence.

[1:24:17] DR. Nurani is one of the best

[1:24:18] primary care doctors in

[1:24:21] riverview area.

[1:24:22] She has been in practice for 20

[1:24:24] years, has had a lot of training

[1:24:25] in hospice care.

[1:24:27] She's predominantly been

[1:24:29] servicing over 65-year-old

[1:24:32] persons which would now include

[1:24:32] myself.

[1:24:34] And accomplish a lot of nursing

[1:24:35] home assisted living work

[1:24:37] throughout her career.

[1:24:39] She's a primary care physician,

[1:24:42] received her medical degree, and

[1:24:43] completed her residency in

[1:24:46] family medicine in

[1:24:46] pennsylvania.

[1:24:48] So we're in the smu-6 future

[1:24:50] land use category, which

[1:24:51] includes suburban commercial

[1:24:54] offices, light industrial.

[1:24:55] It supports this use and many

[1:24:57] more uses.

[1:24:58] We're seeking a flex a little

[1:24:59] bit from the east side which

[1:25:00] will allow us to increase the

[1:25:01] density a little bit.

[1:25:04] That's just part of the zoning.

[1:25:05] And zoning as you can see is

[1:25:08] mostly pd but as I've shown you

[1:25:12] it's commercial intensive and

[1:25:14] also multifamily density coming

[1:25:17] in by the project to the east.

[1:25:18] Approved for four-story

[1:25:20] apartments which is higher than

[1:25:20] what we will be, and

[1:25:25] single-family homes to the

[1:25:26] rear.

[1:25:26] According to our peak hour it

[1:25:29] would be 26 additional trips,

[1:25:30] and a detailed traffic analysis

[1:25:32] was actually not required

[1:25:34] because the trip analysis or the

[1:25:36] trip amount would be, is too low

[1:25:38] for the alf.

[1:25:41] So one of the nice facets of the

[1:25:43] ALFs is a very low trip rate.

[1:25:44] In fact as I work with them,

[1:25:46] they wish there was a higher

[1:25:47] trip rate that more people would

[1:25:48] come and family would come and

[1:25:49] visit them during the week.

[1:25:51] So this is the proposed pd

[1:25:51] plan.

[1:25:54] It comes in a number of parts.

[1:25:56] In the rear is the 35-foot

[1:25:56] buffer.

[1:25:58] Screening is 10-foot type b or

[1:25:59] the natural growth that's left

[1:26:00] which is much larger and denser

[1:26:02] I'll show you in a minute.

[1:26:05] And then we're providing a

[1:26:06] 108-foot building setback that

[1:26:08] we call a passive activity

[1:26:08] area.

[1:26:10] That's done specifically for the

[1:26:11] single-family that's on the

[1:26:13] other hand.

[1:26:14] In the middle is the building

[1:26:16] area which would be the assisted

[1:26:17] living facility and in front of

[1:26:19] that would be the vehicular area

[1:26:21] of circulation and dropoffs.

[1:26:24] And then again, their existing

[1:26:26] offices for medical is located

[1:26:28] directly in the front.

[1:26:29] There are a long list of

[1:26:32] conditions in terms of how the

[1:26:34] building will look.

[1:26:36] And these are very specific laid

[1:26:37] out by your staff to be sure

[1:26:41] that it remains and it tails

[1:26:43] itself to be residential

[1:26:43] character.

[1:26:45] Abutting approving on the west,

[1:26:49] so to the west is a four-story

[1:26:50] multifamily 210420 they have

[1:26:51] begun construction on that.

[1:26:57] We will be lowering than that.

[1:26:58] , and they're providing a

[1:27:00] 60-foot rear setback, while

[1:27:02] we're providing a number of

[1:27:04] times more greater setback than

[1:27:05] what's being placed in next door

[1:27:06] on the west.

[1:27:08] On the east side is two

[1:27:15] residential structures with very

[1:27:19] significant setbacks.

[1:27:20] 128 feet.

[1:27:21] 174 feet to the residential

[1:27:22] structure, and there is a small

[1:27:25] accessory unit that's a little

[1:27:25] closer.

[1:27:27] so this is the rear existing

[1:27:29] buffer as I've indicated in the

[1:27:30] conditions it's either what the

[1:27:31] county provides which is many,

[1:27:33] many, many times less than that,

[1:27:34] so we have the option to either

[1:27:35] leave this which of course we

[1:27:37] want to leave so it's a nice,

[1:27:39] dense, thick, high buffer, much

[1:27:42] more than what's required by the

[1:27:43] county.

[1:27:45] This is another shot of the or

[1:27:48] the side of the rear buffer.

[1:27:50] MR. Grady went through the

[1:27:51] buffers which are all supported

[1:27:53] by the staff, and the height

[1:27:55] requires two additional setback

[1:27:57] for a foot over 20 and supports

[1:27:59] on the west side that we're

[1:28:00] closer because it's the

[1:28:02] multifamily four-story, it's an

[1:28:09] easy element to support.

[1:28:09] MR. Grady went through

[1:28:11] variations on the buffer as

[1:28:12] well, which is supported by the

[1:28:17] staff.

[1:28:18] The buffer is 68 feet away and

[1:28:21] they're installing significant

[1:28:23] screening and to the north we

[1:28:24] provided substantial distancing

[1:28:25] and landscaping as I've shown

[1:28:26] you.

[1:28:29] Planning commission notes we're

[1:28:31] compatible and that it's a good

[1:28:32] transition between the uses

[1:28:34] located in the south and the

[1:28:36] residential uses.

[1:28:37] Request also meets the intent of

[1:28:39] the brandon community plan which

[1:28:40] seeks to concentrate density in

[1:28:43] the urban area.

[1:28:46] We did host a community

[1:28:47] meeting.

[1:28:49] We had five residents show up.

[1:28:52] We noticed 32 residents rvetle

[1:28:54] I'm

[1:28:58] , 59 residents were noticed

[1:29:00] within the 500-foot radius.

[1:29:02] That was a very good meeting.

[1:29:03] We have had no opposition from

[1:29:07] that meeting and when I last

[1:29:08] checked the record we have had

[1:29:10] no calls or concerns from

[1:29:11] neighbors.

[1:29:13] So with that this is a use that

[1:29:14] generates low trips needed in

[1:29:14] the area.

[1:29:15] This is the kind of place that

[1:29:17] we want to have our mothers,

[1:29:18] fathers, grandmothers, and

[1:29:19] grandfathers, this is where we

[1:29:24] would like them to be and new

[1:29:26] residential-like settings in a

[1:29:27] residential area not sterile

[1:29:31] commercial areas.

[1:29:36] And uses support for assisted

[1:29:37] living for meals and assistance

[1:29:38] and transportation, things of

[1:29:39] that nature.

[1:29:41] So with that we appreciate your

[1:29:42] consideration and review.

[1:29:45] Thank you.

[1:29:47] >> ken hagan: is anyone here in

[1:29:48] support of the application?

[1:29:50] Anyone in opposition?

[1:29:52] Planning commission?

[1:29:53] >> thank you, melissa lienhard,

[1:29:54] planning commission staff.

[1:29:55] The subject property is located

[1:29:57] in the suburban mixed use 6

[1:30:00] future land use category.

[1:30:01] It is in the urban service area

[1:30:02] and also within the limits of

[1:30:04] the brandon community plan.

[1:30:06] The proposed rezoning meets the

[1:30:07] intent of future land use

[1:30:10] element policy 1.4 relative to

[1:30:11] compatibility of the request

[1:30:13] with the surrounding area.

[1:30:14] The subject site is adjacent to

[1:30:16] single-family uses to the north,

[1:30:18] west, and east.

[1:30:19] Heavy commercial uses are

[1:30:20] adjacent to the southwest, and

[1:30:21] light commercial uses are

[1:30:24] adjacent to the south and

[1:30:25] southeast.

[1:30:25] The proposed rezoning is

[1:30:26] compatible with the existing

[1:30:27] development pattern as it

[1:30:29] provides for an adequate

[1:30:31] transition between the intensive

[1:30:33] uses located south and the

[1:30:35] residential uses located to the

[1:30:36] north.

[1:30:37] The provided buffering and

[1:30:38] building placement will also

[1:30:40] help ensure compatibility within

[1:30:47] nearby single-family residential

[1:30:47] uses.

[1:30:49] It will require a flex of

[1:30:50] residential 6 located to the

[1:30:51] west on approximately 1 quarter

[1:30:53] of the subject property.

[1:30:55] Future land use element policy

[1:30:56] 7.3 allows for the consideration

[1:30:57] of flex requests.

[1:31:00] A flex must demonstrate how it

[1:31:01] furthers other goals,

[1:31:03] objectives, and policies of the

[1:31:04] comprehensive plan, and in this

[1:31:05] case, the flex would encourage a

[1:31:09] higher level of density within

[1:31:11] the urban service area while

[1:31:12] also providing adequate

[1:31:14] opportunities for connectivity

[1:31:16] through the use of stub-outs to

[1:31:17] the south end of the site.

[1:31:18] The flex request and the nature

[1:31:21] of the proposed assisted living

[1:31:22] facility are compatible with the

[1:31:23] surrounding development pattern

[1:31:24] and contribute to the use of

[1:31:26] ranges allowed within the smu-6

[1:31:27] future land use category.

[1:31:29] The request also meets the

[1:31:31] intent of the brandon community

[1:31:33] plan, which seeks to concentrate

[1:31:35] density in the urban general

[1:31:36] character district while also

[1:31:39] ensuring that all changes be

[1:31:40] compatible to the, to preserve

[1:31:41] existing neighborhoods.

[1:31:43] The proposed use provides an

[1:31:44] adequate transition of intensity

[1:31:47] between the commercial uses

[1:31:48] located south and the

[1:31:50] residential uses located north

[1:31:51] and is therefore consistent with

[1:31:53] this goal.

[1:31:54] based upon this information,

[1:31:55] planning commission staff

[1:31:58] recommends approval o the flex

[1:31:59] request.

[1:32:00] Future land use element

[1:32:01] objective 17 allows for the

[1:32:02] consideration of residential

[1:32:04] support uses within

[1:32:05] neighborhoods, so long as they

[1:32:07] are compatible with the surp

[1:32:09] surrounding development

[1:32:10] pattern.

[1:32:11] Assisted living facilities are

[1:32:12] considered residential support

[1:32:13] uses under this policy, and the

[1:32:15] proposed request will allow for

[1:32:15] development that is appropriate

[1:32:17] in scale and intensity for the

[1:32:21] surrounding land uses, and is

[1:32:22] therefore consistent with the

[1:32:23] neighborhood and community

[1:32:24] serving uses policy direction.

[1:32:26] Based upon those considerations,

[1:32:27] planning commission staff finds

[1:32:29] the proposed planned development

[1:32:31] consistent with the

[1:32:31] unincorporated hillsborough

[1:32:33] county comprehensive plan

[1:32:35] subject to the conditions

[1:32:36] proposed by development

[1:32:36] services.

[1:32:37] Thank you.

[1:32:37] >> ken hagan: zoning hearing

[1:32:42] master?

[1:32:43] >> the zoning hearing master

[1:32:44] considered the applicant's

[1:32:45] request to rezone the subject

[1:32:46] property to a planned

[1:32:47] development to allow development

[1:32:48] of a community residential home

[1:32:50] type c with a maximum of 100

[1:32:54] placed residents.

[1:32:56] The applicant's site plan shows

[1:32:57] the proposed residential home

[1:32:58] will consist of two stories with

[1:33:03] a total of 27,265 square feet

[1:33:06] and will be a maximum of 35 feet

[1:33:07] tall.

[1:33:09] The zoning hearing master

[1:33:10] summarized the waivers from the

[1:33:11] land development code that have

[1:33:14] been requested by the applicant

[1:33:18] associated with this planned

[1:33:19] development.

[1:33:20] The first is a waiver of the

[1:33:21] requirement that a type a

[1:33:23] community residential home not

[1:33:25] be located within the radius of

[1:33:28] 500 feet of an area of

[1:33:29] nonagricultural single-family

[1:33:30] zoning.

[1:33:32] Additionally, the applicant has

[1:33:39] requested a pd variation to ldc

[1:33:40] part 6.06.00 regarding buffering

[1:33:45] and screening.

[1:33:46] Additionally there has been a

[1:33:50] request for waiver of section

[1:33:51] 6.01.01 which provides for

[1:33:52] structures with a permitted

[1:33:55] height greater than 20 feet.

[1:33:57] Must be setback an additional

[1:33:58] two feet for every one foot of

[1:34:03] structure height over 20 feet.

[1:34:04] The zoning hearing master

[1:34:05] reviewed the waiver and

[1:34:06] variation request and found them

[1:34:09] to be supportable.

[1:34:11] Furthermore, the zoning hearing

[1:34:14] master summarized the

[1:34:14] recommendations of the

[1:34:17] development services department

[1:34:19] staff which found the proposed

[1:34:21] pd rezoning to be supportable

[1:34:23] based on the conditions proposed

[1:34:26] by the applicant.

[1:34:28] The planning commission staff as

[1:34:29] you heard is also supportive of

[1:34:32] this proposed rezoning.

[1:34:34] The zoning hearing master

[1:34:37] concluded that the request for

[1:34:40] pd rezoning is supportable,

[1:34:44] recommended approval, and

[1:34:46] concluded that the request was

[1:34:48] supportable in connection with

[1:34:49] the comprehensive plan and land

[1:34:53] development code.

[1:34:55] >> ken hagan: commissioner

[1:34:56] owen.

[1:34:57] >> michael owen: thank you,

[1:34:59] MR. CHAIRMAN.

[1:35:00] mr. Pressman, on this, so the,

[1:35:02] and I just want to clarify, this

[1:35:04] is a highly unimproved road

[1:35:05] bloomingdale just to let

[1:35:06] everybody know.

[1:35:08] We got to be very careful on

[1:35:10] approving high reses on this

[1:35:10] road.

[1:35:12] I know it's your, this is your

[1:35:13] district, but I still get the

[1:35:15] phone calls I think because it's

[1:35:18] new in your district.

[1:35:20] So the ingress and egress as to

[1:35:21] this, so will providence have

[1:35:22] access to this as well

[1:35:25] bloomingdale, or how -- I know

[1:35:27] hancock tires is next to it and

[1:35:29] then we got a walgreens and then

[1:35:31] a townhome community behind that

[1:35:33] and then winthrop up front.

[1:35:35] I want to make sure I have that

[1:35:53] right on the inress and egress

[1:35:53] here.

[1:35:59] >> excuse me, I'm sorry.

[1:36:03] Access is on bloomingdale.

[1:36:04] >> michael owen: access just on

[1:36:07] bloomingdale and not off

[1:36:07] providence?

[1:36:08] >> right.

[1:36:09] >> I'm.

[1:36:10] >> michael owen: I'm not

[1:36:12] concerned about this because

[1:36:13] it's assisted living.

[1:36:14] I don't think we're going to

[1:36:15] have rush hour traffic or

[1:36:15] anything like that.

[1:36:17] I didn't know this was nurani's

[1:36:18] property, nurani medical is one

[1:36:20] of the largest primary care

[1:36:22] folks for our district.

[1:36:24] They do a great job, wonderful

[1:36:24] people.

[1:36:25] Is this some type of an

[1:36:27] extension of their -- I mean

[1:36:29] of -- does this has nothing to

[1:36:30] do with their medical facility

[1:36:32] though, correct?

[1:36:33] >> well, that's one nice thing

[1:36:37] is she will act as of course a

[1:36:41] physician basically on site

[1:36:42] which would help to reduce

[1:36:44] further trips because a lot of

[1:36:45] older folks are going to docs,

[1:36:46] so yes, that is part of it.

[1:36:48] Her training is in older care

[1:36:50] and in nursing home care, so

[1:36:51] this is a natural extension of

[1:36:52] her practice.

[1:36:53] >> michael owen: good, good.

[1:36:53] And I

[1:36:56] I think I'm going to be

[1:36:56] supportive.

[1:36:57] I'm going to sit back and listen

[1:36:58] to commissioner myers and some

[1:36:59] other commissioners.

[1:37:00] Thanks.

[1:37:01] >> ken hagan: commissioner

[1:37:02] myers.

[1:37:03] >> gwen myers: mine is to

[1:37:06] approve the item.

[1:37:06] >> ken hagan: okay.

[1:37:08] Got a motion to approve

[1:37:10] commissioner myers, second,

[1:37:11] commissioner wostal.

[1:37:12] If there are no other comments,

[1:37:18] please record your vote.

[1:37:21] >> motion carried 7-0.

[1:37:22] >> MR. CHAIRMAN, if I MAY, I had

[1:37:23] a number of applications today

[1:37:25] and some of these applications

[1:37:26] go through a lot of hoops and

[1:37:28] humps and I just want you to

[1:37:30] know, MR. Gradely and michelle

[1:37:31] heinrich are, and their staff

[1:37:32] are just doing a great job.

[1:37:33] >> ken hagan: thank you, sir.

[1:37:34] >> it takes a lot to go through,

[1:37:35] but I definitely wanted to

[1:37:36] mention that, particularly in

[1:37:37] these.

[1:37:38] We worked very hard on them, and

[1:37:40] they keep our feet to the fire.

[1:37:41] >> ken hagan: okay.

[1:37:41] >> they're good to work with.

[1:37:42] Thank you.

[1:37:45] >> ken hagan: next item.

[1:37:47] >> the next item is agenda item

[1:37:48] f 6.

[1:37:49] This is a initial consideration

[1:37:56] of hc/cpa 23-15, a privately

[1:37:56] initiated comprehensive plan

[1:37:58] text amendment of the energy

[1:37:59] industrial park 2nds of the

[1:38:01] future land use element.

[1:38:02] Melissa lienhard will introduce

[1:38:07] this item.

[1:38:08] >> hello, everyone.

[1:38:09] I will start out by saying this

[1:38:11] is the first time the board is

[1:38:12] seeing this process, which is

[1:38:14] based on a recent procedures

[1:38:16] manual change earlier this

[1:38:16] year.

[1:38:18] So the initial consideration

[1:38:20] process pertains to privately

[1:38:22] initiated text amendments to the

[1:38:23] comprehensive plan.

[1:38:24] So this is our first time all of

[1:38:27] us navigating this together.

[1:38:30] So we're here today, would you

[1:38:31] mind fast forwarding to the

[1:38:32] aerial.

[1:38:32] I think it might be slide --

[1:38:33] there we go.

[1:38:34] This is perfect.

[1:38:35] Just to orient everyone.

[1:38:38] So we're here today because a

[1:38:39] privately initiated text

[1:38:40] amendment was submitted for text

[1:38:42] in the future land use element

[1:38:43] in the comprehensive plan

[1:38:46] related to the energy industrial

[1:38:47] park area.

[1:38:48] That's generally located on the

[1:38:50] south side of state road 60

[1:38:51] between dover road and turkey

[1:38:54] creek road: if any of you have

[1:38:56] ever been to midard park, it is

[1:38:57] directly to the west across

[1:39:00] turkey creek.

[1:39:02] The applicant is requesting to

[1:39:04] modify the text of the existing

[1:39:05] energy park language within the

[1:39:07] plan with regard to when certain

[1:39:09] uses MAY occur on the site.

[1:39:11] The way the language is adopted

[1:39:13] today reads that renewable

[1:39:14] energy producing facilities need

[1:39:16] to be ready to operate prior to

[1:39:18] other uses being allowed on the

[1:39:19] site.

[1:39:20] The applicant is proposing to

[1:39:24] modify the language to allow for

[1:39:27] up to 30% of the allowable uses

[1:39:29] for industrial, warehousing,

[1:39:30] distribution, commercial, and

[1:39:32] office uses that those were all

[1:39:34] approved as part of the 2010

[1:39:36] planned development rezoning

[1:39:38] that accompanied this language

[1:39:38] being introduced into the

[1:39:41] comprehensive plan.

[1:39:44] So the rezoning was approved in

[1:39:45] 2010 and the language was

[1:39:47] introduced into it

[1:39:48] the

[1:39:51] comprehensive plan via a text

[1:39:52] amendment at that time.

[1:39:52] As well.

[1:39:54] So pursuant to the procedural

[1:39:55] manual changes, once a privately

[1:39:56] initiated text amendment to the

[1:39:58] comprehensive plan is applied

[1:39:59] for, planning commission staff

[1:40:01] is required to schedule the item

[1:40:02] for initial consideration which

[1:40:04] is why we're here today at the

[1:40:06] meeting of the board of county

[1:40:07] commissioners, and then the

[1:40:09] procedures manual further states

[1:40:10] that the planning commission

[1:40:12] will prepare a report to

[1:40:14] accompany the application that

[1:40:16] needs to include at minimum a

[1:40:18] determination of resources that

[1:40:22] are needed for adequate review,

[1:40:22] a recommendation of a time frame

[1:40:24] to review the application, and

[1:40:25] then a recommendation of

[1:40:27] additional public outreach to be

[1:40:29] conducted by the applicant

[1:40:33] beyond what is already required

[1:40:33] as part of the procedures

[1:40:33] manual.

[1:40:35] So in your backup today, I did

[1:40:37] prepare a memo that was provided

[1:40:39] to you all outlining those

[1:40:40] items.

[1:40:41] I'm here for any questions.

[1:40:42] I didn't want to go through

[1:40:44] every single thing line item

[1:40:45] because I know we have lot to

[1:40:46] talk about, but I did want to

[1:40:47] particularly highlight some

[1:40:49] items under the public outreach

[1:40:51] requirements.

[1:40:52] Our -- or recommendations.

[1:40:53] We have had a lot of citizen

[1:40:54] interest in this site over the

[1:40:55] years.

[1:40:56] We really wanted to make sure

[1:40:57] that we got it

[1:40:58] the information

[1:40:59] out and that we kind of went

[1:41:00] that extra step beyond what's

[1:41:02] required in the procedures

[1:41:03] manual.

[1:41:05] So one extra thing that we put

[1:41:06] in the memo suggesting to the

[1:41:08] board to approve today would be

[1:41:10] an additional neighborhood

[1:41:11] meeting, and that would be in

[1:41:13] addition to the one neighborhood

[1:41:14] meeting that's outlined in the

[1:41:16] procedures manual today, and

[1:41:18] that first meeting that is

[1:41:22] required for every map amendment

[1:41:23] that and again, I think I should

[1:41:25] preface this by saying while

[1:41:26] this is a text amendment, this

[1:41:28] does only apply to one

[1:41:30] geographical area in

[1:41:31] unincorporated hillsborough

[1:41:32] county, so it kind of acts a

[1:41:34] little bit like a map amendment

[1:41:36] in that way even though it is

[1:41:37] texnically a text amendment.

[1:41:39] So woo asked for an extra

[1:41:40] neighborhood meeting beyond the

[1:41:42] one that's already listed in the

[1:41:43] procedures manual for map

[1:41:44] amendments, and that first

[1:41:47] meeting that all map amendment

[1:41:48] applicants have to go through

[1:41:50] the process for today is it's

[1:41:52] either an applicant initiated

[1:41:55] meeting, or if they choose to

[1:41:56] wait, it can also be a citizen

[1:41:58] initiated meeting.

[1:42:00] So they will go through that

[1:42:02] process if this is approved

[1:42:04] today per the planning

[1:42:05] commission staff's

[1:42:06] recommendations but we would ask

[1:42:07] for one additional neighborhood

[1:42:10] meeting beyond that requirement

[1:42:11] that the applicant would be

[1:42:13] required for mailed notice of

[1:42:14] the neighborhood meetings

[1:42:16] meetings which is typical, but

[1:42:18] in addition melissa zornitta the

[1:42:19] executive director of the

[1:42:20] planning commission attended a

[1:42:22] couple of the valrico community

[1:42:24] plan meetings, and she had

[1:42:26] talked to people even though

[1:42:27] this is not part of the valrico

[1:42:29] community plan proposed area, a

[1:42:32] lot of people are interested in

[1:42:35] this site, so melissa zornitta

[1:42:36] had made the commitment that we

[1:42:37] had a communication list from

[1:42:38] these meetings that includes

[1:42:40] several people in the area, and

[1:42:42] that we would send an e-mail

[1:42:44] blast to that list, planning

[1:42:45] commission staff would, once the

[1:42:46] details of that extra meeting

[1:42:47] were noted.

[1:42:49] So we have that noted in the

[1:42:50] memo as well trying to go above

[1:42:51] and beyond and really let people

[1:42:53] know what's happening.

[1:42:55] The applicant will provide

[1:42:58] planning commission staff with a

[1:42:59] sign-in sheet for that meeting

[1:43:00] as well as a summary of the

[1:43:02] topics that were covered, and

[1:43:03] then the comments that were made

[1:43:06] by members of the public.

[1:43:07] And then again because this is

[1:43:09] even though this is a text

[1:43:10] amendment, it kind of smells and

[1:43:12] acts like a map amendment, we

[1:43:13] wanted to make sure that we had

[1:43:15] signs on this site as well

[1:43:16] because typically a text

[1:43:18] amendment would not require

[1:43:19] signage on the site.

[1:43:23] So we have asked them to be

[1:43:23] posted as part of this memo

[1:43:25] request today at each of the

[1:43:29] intersections, you know, so a

[1:43:29] dover and state road 60, at

[1:43:31] turkey creek and state road 60,

[1:43:33] and near the subject limits on

[1:43:34] dover and on turkey creek road

[1:43:35] as well.

[1:43:39] And then just to close out here,

[1:43:40] the procedures manual outlines

[1:43:43] what should happen at this

[1:43:44] initial consideration meeting

[1:43:46] that we're having right now.

[1:43:47] The applicant will be afforded

[1:43:49] time to make a presentation and

[1:43:51] public testimony will also be

[1:43:53] permitted, and then the board of

[1:43:53] county commissioners shall tke

[1:43:56] one of the following actions

[1:43:57] after review of the report and

[1:44:00] the testimony by the applicant

[1:44:00] and citizens.

[1:44:02] One would be a motion to take no

[1:44:03] further action on the

[1:44:05] application, and then a refund

[1:44:07] of 80% of the amount of the

[1:44:08] application fee would be

[1:44:09] provided to the applicant should

[1:44:10] this occur.

[1:44:12] And the other option is to allow

[1:44:14] the application to proceed for

[1:44:15] review and public hearing in

[1:44:18] accordance with the procedures

[1:44:21] manual and then the motion shall

[1:44:22] address ay of the planning

[1:44:24] commission's recommendations on

[1:44:26] the review time frames, the

[1:44:29] public outreach component and

[1:44:30] any provision of additional

[1:44:31] resources for

[1:44:31] sources

[1:44:32] source if

[1:44:32] applicable.

[1:44:33] So that is what I have to

[1:44:34] present to you today unless you

[1:44:35] have any questions.

[1:44:36] I know chris Mcneal is

[1:44:36] representing the applicant.

[1:44:38] He is here today.

[1:44:39] And is then of course as I said

[1:44:41] there is also public testimony

[1:44:43] permitted today as well.

[1:44:44] >> ken hagan: all right, thank

[1:44:44] you.

[1:44:44] >> thank you.

[1:44:47] >> ken hagan: the applicant like

[1:44:49] to speak?

[1:44:50] Good morning, sir.

[1:44:52] You have three minutes.

[1:44:54] >> good morning, commissioners.

[1:44:58] Chris Mcneal, 15957 north

[1:45:00] florida avenue lutz florida on

[1:45:01] behalf of the applicant.

[1:45:03] I appreciate your time.

[1:45:05] MS. Leinhard did a fantastic job

[1:45:05] outlining the request.

[1:45:06] I just wanted to say thank you

[1:45:09] for that and also just to make

[1:45:12] sure that it was clear that the

[1:45:14] request is really generated

[1:45:18] around a requirement of the as I

[1:45:19] think we all know this is the

[1:45:22] only piece of land that ends in

[1:45:26] eip land use and because of that

[1:45:28] the conditions are outlined,

[1:45:30] they are site specific, there is

[1:45:31] a site specific section in the

[1:45:32] land use requirements for this

[1:45:32] also generated throughout the

[1:45:36] document as well.

[1:45:37] We're planning to work with what

[1:45:38] is already there and just make a

[1:45:40] more specific request about the

[1:45:43] timing of the construction, so

[1:45:44] increase in density, no increase

[1:45:46] enwhat is already allowed from a

[1:45:47] land use standpoint.

[1:45:49] It's just simply aloing some of

[1:45:51] that allowed density -- before

[1:45:52] the energy component is in

[1:45:53] play.

[1:45:54] That'll allow the owners of the

[1:45:57] property to be able to get some,

[1:45:57] generate some traction, some

[1:45:59] momentum and some revenues that

[1:46:00] would otherwise be able to help

[1:46:03] support that; so that in summary

[1:46:04] is the request.

[1:46:05] I'm available for questions

[1:46:06] should you have any.

[1:46:11] >> ken hagan: thank you, sir.

[1:46:12] It's a public hearing.

[1:46:13] Would anyone like to speak to

[1:46:13] this item?

[1:46:16] Commissioner owen?

[1:46:17] >> michael owen: thank you,

[1:46:18] MR. CHAIRMAN.

[1:46:19] And I probably get more

[1:46:22] questions about this red herring

[1:46:24] in my district than any other

[1:46:25] property I would say.

[1:46:28] More than rp 2 and wvr 2 and

[1:46:29] I've attended every valrico

[1:46:33] community plan meeting, and

[1:46:34] people just like me scratch

[1:46:38] their heads on why this even

[1:46:39] exists.

[1:46:40] If you'll notice where it is

[1:46:43] it's right ot near our

[1:46:44] agricultural community and the

[1:46:45] parks.

[1:46:48] MR. Gormly, would your clarify

[1:46:50] why this is an energy park.

[1:46:51] It's 3,000 acres, a very large

[1:46:54] parcel of property, could you

[1:46:55] clarify for the public why it is

[1:46:57] an energy park?

[1:46:57] >> yes, sir.

[1:47:00] So this area is designated an

[1:47:01] energy park due to the energy

[1:47:03] industrial park future land use

[1:47:04] category and the associated

[1:47:12] zoning that implements those

[1:47:13] requirements.

[1:47:15] The project was an extension of

[1:47:17] this energy producing use

[1:47:19] options, and the expapgz of

[1:47:21] expansion of the urban service

[1:47:21] area was solely if

[1:47:24] solely for

[1:47:25] the purpose of accommodating

[1:47:27] that energy production use.

[1:47:27] >> michael owen: it's extremely

[1:47:28] slow moving and probably will

[1:47:29] continue to be, right?

[1:47:32] I mean, this is going to be a

[1:47:33] 50-year project the way it looks

[1:47:34] to me on how slow that we're

[1:47:37] moving with any type of

[1:47:38] development on this property.

[1:47:39] is that safe to say?

[1:47:40] >> it is safe to say.

[1:47:43] There was initial user, it was

[1:47:44] identified at the time of the

[1:47:46] privately initiated amendment.

[1:47:50] That user did not materialize as

[1:47:52] envisioned, so there has been

[1:47:53] some inquiries about the

[1:47:56] property, but have not had that

[1:47:58] I'm aware of a bona fide user

[1:48:00] for the energy production use.

[1:48:01] >> michael owen: and what the

[1:48:02] applicant is trying to do here

[1:48:05] from my understanding is there

[1:48:08] is timing mechanisms in order to

[1:48:10] develop that do not comply with

[1:48:12] that energy efficient, the

[1:48:14] energy efficient requirements.

[1:48:14] Is that fair to say?

[1:48:16] Is that --

[1:48:18] >> yes, the energy use was, is

[1:48:19] currently required to be the

[1:48:22] primary use, and other approved

[1:48:25] and ancillary uses need

[1:48:27] currently need to farlo

[1:48:28] follow

[1:48:29] the establishment of the energy

[1:48:30] use, and that is what the

[1:48:32] applicant is seeking to change

[1:48:33] with this amendment.

[1:48:34] >> ken hagan: yeah, and

[1:48:40] MS. Leinhard, I was going to

[1:48:42] move the privately initiated

[1:48:44] text amendment, so technically

[1:48:45] I'm in a spot where I want to

[1:48:48] make a motion to approve what

[1:48:50] the applicant is requesting, but

[1:48:52] now you've mentioned about

[1:48:55] requiring the applicant or

[1:48:57] citizen initiated meeting where

[1:48:58] you're saying that needs to be

[1:49:04] part of the motion?

[1:49:06] Could you clarify that for me?

[1:49:07] >> no problem.

[1:49:08] Today there are one of two

[1:49:09] motions available.

[1:49:10] One, to take no further action

[1:49:12] and the application will be

[1:49:13] essentially withdrawn, and the

[1:49:14] applicant will receive a

[1:49:15] refund.

[1:49:16] If you all choose to move the

[1:49:18] application forward, that is the

[1:49:19] other option, and then I would

[1:49:22] ask that you opine on the memo

[1:49:25] and the three, you know, the

[1:49:29] extra public outreach and the

[1:49:31] timeline and then see if that is

[1:49:32] what everybody is thinking is a

[1:49:34] great idea or if there is any

[1:49:35] modifications proposed changes

[1:49:36] then you could let us know

[1:49:37] today, give us that direction,

[1:49:39] and then that would be your

[1:49:40] motion.

[1:49:42] For today for to move forward

[1:49:43] with the traditional public

[1:49:45] hearing process and procedures,

[1:49:47] it would not remain as part of

[1:49:50] the JULY cycle of plan

[1:49:51] amendments just because this is

[1:49:52] going to follow its own path as

[1:50:05] far as time frame is concerned.

[1:50:06] >> michael owen: MR. Mcneal

[1:50:07] can you tell me what you're

[1:50:07] asking for today then?

[1:50:09] >> yes, sir, commissioner.

[1:50:10] To address that and the ask, I

[1:50:12] think the ask is really just if

[1:50:14] it's to move the case forward to

[1:50:16] allow the text amendment to be

[1:50:19] able to be heard at a publicly

[1:50:20] initiated request.

[1:50:24] But to speak to additional

[1:50:25] public outreach meeting and

[1:50:26] posting of the signs, I think

[1:50:28] given the uniqueness of the

[1:50:29] property and we've talked about

[1:50:31] the schedule prior to this, I

[1:50:32] don't, we don't have any

[1:50:35] objection to that.

[1:50:36] I think it's good due

[1:50:36] diligence.

[1:50:38] So as far as those requests and

[1:50:40] the timeline, I would, I think

[1:50:41] that obviously everybody would

[1:50:44] need to speak to, but from her

[1:50:45] additional request of that,

[1:50:48] that's not a problem for the

[1:50:48] applicant.

[1:50:49] >> michael owen: okay so if I

[1:50:50] made a motion to move the

[1:50:51] application forward with the

[1:50:54] condition of having a, the

[1:50:55] applicant -- having a publicly

[1:50:56] initiated meeting, thatt would

[1:50:58] be fine?

[1:50:59] >> yes, I would ask if there is

[1:51:01] anything else within the memo,

[1:51:02] because there are three subjects

[1:51:04] that we addressed, the

[1:51:06] determination of the resources

[1:51:07] needed for adequate review.

[1:51:09] We asked for a few items under

[1:51:10] that.

[1:51:12] ; but we did say that we can do

[1:51:14] that with adequate staff time so

[1:51:15] no consultant needed.

[1:51:16] And then the time frame would be

[1:51:17] just when we receive those

[1:51:19] items, evaluating those and then

[1:51:20] looking at the next available

[1:51:22] public hearing schedule, and

[1:51:23] this is a text amendment, so it

[1:51:24] would need a transmittal hearing

[1:51:27] and an adoption hearing as well

[1:51:28] as of course we would come back

[1:51:30] to you again with a workshop

[1:51:31] like you're doing on wednesday

[1:51:33] for the other items in the JULY

[1:51:34] cycle, so it would follow the

[1:51:35] traditional schedule.

[1:51:37] And then the other thing is the

[1:51:38] extra outreach items that we

[1:51:40] listed, if everyone's

[1:51:41] comfortable with those things,

[1:51:42] then we can move forward as

[1:51:43] everything listed sovment eif

[1:51:44] there

[1:51:44] .

[1:51:45] So if there is anything you want

[1:51:48] to modify, let me know.

[1:51:48] >> michael owen: you're making

[1:51:49] this hard for me.

[1:51:50] >> I'm sorry.

[1:51:51] You can move forward with

[1:51:53] anything in the memo as is or

[1:51:54] you can suggest any changes.

[1:51:55] If someone thinks there should

[1:51:56] be an additional sign somewhere,

[1:51:56] let me know.

[1:51:57] Something like that.

[1:51:59] >> michael owen: okay.

[1:52:01] Well, I'll move forward with the

[1:52:03] application with the additional

[1:52:05] outreach and to follow the

[1:52:06] requirements consistent with

[1:52:10] what's in the memo.

[1:52:11] >> ken hagan: okay we got a

[1:52:12] motion by commissioner owen,

[1:52:13] second by commissioner wostal.

[1:52:16] Commissioner kemp.

[1:52:20] >> pat kemp: thank you.

[1:52:27] This is a huge project.

[1:52:30] I think it's important to first

[1:52:31] look at a little bit just to

[1:52:34] know a little bit of the history

[1:52:35] here which if you could just,

[1:52:37] can we put up a map of the urban

[1:52:39] service area which actually

[1:52:41] shows how this piece is out

[1:52:44] there at 60, this huge piece

[1:52:47] over all that the current text

[1:52:49] amendment covers that's

[1:52:50] 3,000 acres, correct?

[1:52:52] >> I do have an aerial that was

[1:52:53] provided by the applicant on

[1:52:56] this powerpoint, which I had up

[1:52:57] previously, and then I also have

[1:52:59] a copy of the certified site

[1:53:00] plan, but those do not show the

[1:53:01] urban service area boundary.

[1:53:02] >> pat kemp: I would like to

[1:53:03] show it with the bigger urban

[1:53:06] service area and how this is a

[1:53:11] huge chunk out of 3,000 acres I

[1:53:13] think to the east out of 60

[1:53:18] where we have just heard very,

[1:53:22] you know, and this board was

[1:53:24] sympathetic to hearing it, about

[1:53:25] how they were talking about

[1:53:26] their massive traffic issues

[1:53:29] there on 60 right there where it

[1:53:31] is two lanes by the way.

[1:53:32] And this directs out into it,

[1:53:34] this is like open territory

[1:53:37] here, but can we, not this

[1:53:40] picture, I want the picture of

[1:53:42] the -- just give me the urban

[1:53:43] service line picture, do we have

[1:53:43] that somewhere?

[1:53:45] I just think that that is really

[1:53:47] relevant and important for us to

[1:53:48] understand here.

[1:53:48] >> I appreciate that.

[1:53:50] I do not have a map that shows

[1:53:51] that particularly, but I will

[1:53:53] certainly take that direction if

[1:53:55] this moves forward for the

[1:53:55] workshop.

[1:53:57] I can certainly bring a larger

[1:53:59] zoomed out aerial of this site

[1:54:01] in relation to where the urban

[1:54:02] service area boundary is, and is

[1:54:04] then also something more zoomed

[1:54:05] in that shows the site itself.

[1:54:06] >> ken hagan: so the, and I've

[1:54:08] talked about this before.

[1:54:09] So, and I uctad about it when we

[1:54:11] were talking -- talked about it

[1:54:13] when we were talking about 60

[1:54:13] and the traffic out there and

[1:54:14] everything.

[1:54:19] And when we're all these

[1:54:20] discussions about the urban

[1:54:21] service area and moving it

[1:54:22] making the bigger.

[1:54:24] This is a massive, massive piece

[1:54:26] of property that sits out to the

[1:54:29] edge of east county.

[1:54:31] It just kind of chunks outlet.

[1:54:31] It

[1:54:33] out -- out.

[1:54:38] It was passed in 2010 at the

[1:54:40] time under what I thought was a

[1:54:41] ridiculous premise that was

[1:54:43] pushed forward to have this

[1:54:44] 3,000-acre place be this massive

[1:54:46] energy park, that's what the

[1:54:47] text amendment says.

[1:54:50] It had to have two energy pieces

[1:54:54] to it at the time we didn't have

[1:54:56] things like solar panel farms or

[1:54:58] things like that.

[1:55:01] It had, it already has massive,

[1:55:02] massive implications in

[1:55:04] development in this totally

[1:55:06] pretty much pristine area

[1:55:06] there.

[1:55:08] I had asked before because part

[1:55:12] of it is phosphate mined and

[1:55:14] supposedly that area can't be

[1:55:14] built on.

[1:55:17] I'd like to know what part of

[1:55:20] that area can't be developed.

[1:55:22] I don't think we have that

[1:55:22] answer yet.

[1:55:23] I'd like to know that.

[1:55:25] I'd like to know this in the

[1:55:27] context of the entire

[1:55:28] 3,000 acres.

[1:55:30] I don't even, how many acres is

[1:55:31] this that they have marked out

[1:55:37] in this text amendment?

[1:55:38] >> MR. Mcneal, would you mind

[1:55:40] answering that question?

[1:55:41] Because it doesn't pertain to

[1:55:44] the full 3,000, so the portions,

[1:55:47] the a, b, c, g, and h that you

[1:55:48] had indicated on the site plan

[1:55:50] that's part of the backup.

[1:55:51] Do you have an indication of how

[1:55:57] many roughly acres that would

[1:55:58] be?

[1:55:59] >> okay, so I don't, ma'am, to

[1:56:01] be honest with you, know the

[1:56:02] exact number of acres.

[1:56:02] I could look at that.

[1:56:04] It was really more focused on

[1:56:04] the text amendment.

[1:56:07] The text amendment is, you know,

[1:56:08] there is a certain amount that

[1:56:10] ties to the plan, and the plan

[1:56:12] would be part of this process

[1:56:15] ultimately if should it be the

[1:56:17] commissioners' desire to move it

[1:56:18] forward.

[1:56:19] So north of that, there's kind

[1:56:21] of a demarcation line through

[1:56:23] that eip area and north of that

[1:56:27] is where the development is

[1:56:27] allowed.

[1:56:30] There are conditions all through

[1:56:31] there.

[1:56:32] >> pat kemp: all right.

[1:56:33] Well, I think this is certainly

[1:56:37] not ready for primetime at this

[1:56:37] time.

[1:56:40] I think this is a huge step

[1:56:41] without very much knowledge at

[1:56:42] all.

[1:56:44] The other thing is it really

[1:56:45] bothers me to hear about the

[1:56:49] energy park was the reason two

[1:56:54] types of energy in this crazy

[1:56:55] crapgz that

[1:56:57] crapgz that was

[1:57:00] mysterious passed in 2010 to

[1:57:01] open up this massive area of the

[1:57:02] urban service area.

[1:57:03] So this is in the urban service

[1:57:03] area.

[1:57:04] The line went around it.

[1:57:07] We will be paying for all the

[1:57:08] infrastructure that we might

[1:57:09] need here by the way.

[1:57:12] This is just a massive burden

[1:57:14] that we're putting on us now

[1:57:15] when we don't even have the

[1:57:16] infrastructure in place for what

[1:57:18] we have.

[1:57:21] But secondly, the, I don't see

[1:57:25] any reason why there can't be a

[1:57:26] renewable energy for the

[1:57:29] 300 acres or so that is promised

[1:57:31] already first because I know

[1:57:33] that there is lots of places

[1:57:36] that are very interested in at

[1:57:39] least 300 acres of solar

[1:57:39] panels.

[1:57:40] In fact I think they have said

[1:57:42] that they have, you know, that a

[1:57:44] minimum of 100 acres, so I can't

[1:57:48] see why that can't be part of

[1:57:50] the promise was made as part of

[1:57:51] this, it was originally

[1:57:54] developed totally for that

[1:57:57] supposedly, and it's always been

[1:58:02] a, you know, camel's nose under

[1:58:02] the tent.

[1:58:04] I never expected to have the

[1:58:05] original park developed.

[1:58:07] It was just breaking open

[1:58:09] 3,000 acres of the urban service

[1:58:09] area.

[1:58:12] Then secondly, we have -- we

[1:58:14] passed last year, because the

[1:58:17] first proposal never made any

[1:58:18] sense anyway, but I couldn't see

[1:58:22] a reason.

[1:58:24] we were asked to change the text

[1:58:26] amendment to not make it be two

[1:58:27] types of energy because that

[1:58:28] didn't make any sense.

[1:58:31] It never really made any sense,

[1:58:32] but we did that because it

[1:58:35] didn't make any sense.

[1:58:36] But I was hoping at least that

[1:58:39] out of this we could first get

[1:58:40] like I couldn't imagine anything

[1:58:43] else that it could be besides

[1:58:46] several hundred acres of, you

[1:58:47] know, solar panels.

[1:58:49] And I don't see any reason why

[1:58:51] that can't as the text amendment

[1:58:52] stated, and as we were asked to

[1:58:55] do last year, why that can't at

[1:58:57] least initially define this

[1:59:00] because that would make a good

[1:59:01] use for this community.

[1:59:06] Make a good use for whoever has

[1:59:09] the land and would require less

[1:59:11] infrastructure out there at this

[1:59:14] time than so much else would.

[1:59:20] So I, you know, I think this is

[1:59:22] just a huge chunk without very,

[1:59:24] understanding this at all, I

[1:59:26] obviously won't be supporting it

[1:59:28] now, and I just think we have to

[1:59:30] be so much more careful about

[1:59:31] this, and if these areas want to

[1:59:33] be developed, I just think -- it

[1:59:37] should probably be done in

[1:59:39] tandem with a zoning arrangement

[1:59:39] of some sort.

[1:59:40] So we understand what's going

[1:59:44] out there, what impacts are, on

[1:59:45] what infrastructure we ned.

[1:59:49] It just, I mean, this is huge

[1:59:52] with so little information.

[1:59:56] I'm kind of, you know, stunned.

[1:59:57] I always wondered how this was

[2:00:01] going to come, but, I obviously

[2:00:02] am not supporting this, and I

[2:00:04] think we have many, many more

[2:00:05] questions, and this should be

[2:00:07] pushed down the road at this

[2:00:09] time because I just think, and

[2:00:12] I'd like to see that energy

[2:00:16] park, whatever it be, finally,

[2:00:17] put in first, and I don't see

[2:00:20] where that is a, a burden to

[2:00:22] this because I think there's a

[2:00:27] lot of interest in that, you

[2:00:29] know, by several large interests

[2:00:31] in the area.

[2:00:32] >> ken hagan: commissioner

[2:00:33] cohen.

[2:00:34] >> harry cohen: yeah, I just

[2:00:35] want to get some clarification

[2:00:36] from the staff.

[2:00:39] I was under the impression that

[2:00:41] this motion would result in a

[2:00:43] workshop taking place to have a

[2:00:44] discussion of all this.

[2:00:47] And if, is that correct?

[2:00:48] >> yes, if I MAY.

[2:00:51] This is an extra step before all

[2:00:52] of that gets started.

[2:00:54] Before the typical process of a

[2:01:01] workshop to public hearings.

[2:01:03] >> harry cohen: so wouldn't the

[2:01:04] moment to talk about this be in

[2:01:05] a workshop setting where we have

[2:01:12] opportunity to be briefed by the

[2:01:12] staff?

[2:01:13] You have clearly raise adton of

[2:01:14] issues here but it seems to me

[2:01:16] that the motion was to lay it on

[2:01:23] the table and talk about it.

[2:01:24] I'm trying to see if that is

[2:01:25] maybe where it takes us.

[2:01:27] >> if I MAY, the motion would be

[2:01:27] to proceed or not to proceed

[2:01:28] today.

[2:01:33] That is the motion.

[2:01:35] >> ken hagan: any of the board

[2:01:35] comments?

[2:01:36] If not, we have a motion to

[2:01:38] approve by commissioner owen,

[2:01:39] second commissioner wostal.

[2:01:41] Commissioner myers.

[2:01:42] >> gwen myers: a point of

[2:01:43] clarification because I was

[2:01:45] under the impression that the

[2:01:48] vote would lead to the

[2:01:48] workshop.

[2:01:50] We vote yes and we move into the

[2:01:51] workshop.

[2:01:52] Is that --

[2:01:53] >> ken hagan: yes.

[2:01:54] >> gwen myers: okay, thank you.

[2:01:54] >> ken hagan: okay.

[2:01:55] No other comments, please record

[2:02:01] your vote.

[2:02:09] >> motion carried 6-1,

[2:02:10] commissioner kemp voted no.

[2:02:12] >> ken hagan: last item?

[2:02:14] >> item I-1.

[2:02:16] A report on the comprehensive

[2:02:17] plan and land development code

[2:02:18] of the community requirements

[2:02:19] for wimauma.

[2:02:20] Adam gormly will speak to this

[2:02:21] item.

[2:02:24] >> commissioners, item I-1 is a

[2:02:25] report requested by the board at

[2:02:27] the JULY land use meeting.

[2:02:30] This was in the context of

[2:02:31] considering council grower's

[2:02:33] rezoning application, which was

[2:02:35] approved by this board.

[2:02:37] That was the first rezoning that

[2:02:41] the board has heard under the

[2:02:43] new wimauma village residential

[2:02:43] rules.

[2:02:45] Just brief background, the area

[2:02:47] of wimauma is covered by a

[2:02:48] community plan.

[2:02:50] And within that community plan

[2:02:54] there are some future land use

[2:02:56] categories that are wimauma,

[2:02:59] residential village 2, sorry,

[2:03:00] wimauma village residential two,

[2:03:01] wvr-2.

[2:03:03] These are areas that were

[2:03:06] previously designated as rp-2,

[2:03:07] residential plan-2.

[2:03:09] But during the 2007

[2:03:13] establishment of the wimauma

[2:03:14] community plan, they were

[2:03:15] changed to the wvr-2 future land

[2:03:18] use category.

[2:03:19] That category previously

[2:03:26] required that certain job and

[2:03:29] shopping square footage be in

[2:03:30] place to support residential

[2:03:32] development within the village.

[2:03:34] That was the subject of several

[2:03:35] rezonings, and also several

[2:03:40] challenges.

[2:03:42] In response to some feedback the

[2:03:45] board received, there was

[2:03:46] direction to review the wimauma

[2:03:49] community plan.

[2:03:53] As part of that, there was a set

[2:03:57] of regulations developed for

[2:03:59] wvr-2 land use categories, and

[2:04:00] those established criteria

[2:04:01] needed to be met in order to

[2:04:06] develop the category at greater

[2:04:09] than the base one uit per five

[2:04:10] jakers, up to the two units per

[2:04:17] one acre maximum.

[2:04:19] The regulations have

[2:04:19] requirements that include open

[2:04:26] space and designing the project

[2:04:28] in blocks, and this report is a

[2:04:29] requirement that community

[2:04:31] benefits be required.

[2:04:36] So the community benefits are

[2:04:36] either on-site or off-site

[2:04:40] elements that are required of

[2:04:40] developments depending on the

[2:04:44] project size.

[2:04:48] The community benefits are

[2:04:50] projects that are less than 25

[2:04:50] acres.

[2:04:52] There's one community benefit

[2:04:54] required, up to a total of six

[2:04:54] for projects that are greater

[2:04:58] than 320 acres.

[2:05:00] The community benefits are

[2:05:01] listed in the report.

[2:05:04] There are eight options to

[2:05:06] choose from.

[2:05:08] Those options are construction

[2:05:11] of a trail or connection to a

[2:05:11] trail, land dedication to the

[2:05:17] county for use by recreational,

[2:05:19] public or civic uses;

[2:05:20] construction of new

[2:05:22] non-residential uses in the

[2:05:24] wimauma downtown; providing a

[2:05:25] benefit that indirectly

[2:05:29] contributes to furthering a

[2:05:30] defined goal within the wimauma

[2:05:31] community plan.

[2:05:32] And those are the first tier 1

[2:05:35] benefits.

[2:05:37] Each project is required to have

[2:05:40] at least one tier 1 benefit.

[2:05:41] There's four more in tier 2 and

[2:05:42] those through transfer of

[2:05:46] development rights at a minimum

[2:05:48] of 10% from the development

[2:05:50] parcel to the wimauma downtown;

[2:05:53] next is land dedication for

[2:05:56] elapp; and the next one is

[2:05:58] increase in internal or

[2:06:01] recreation open space; and the

[2:06:04] last is construction of on-site

[2:06:05] non-residential uses within the

[2:06:08] required neighborhood center.

[2:06:13] This is a fairly new concept for

[2:06:13] the county.

[2:06:14] It does exist in wimauma

[2:06:16] village.

[2:06:18] The concept of community

[2:06:19] benefits, although they're a

[2:06:25] little bit different, are also

[2:06:28] present in the new rp-2

[2:06:28] regulations.

[2:06:29] However those are not effective

[2:06:30] due to a challenge to the

[2:06:30] comprehensive plan amendment.

[2:06:34] That is the sort of structure

[2:06:39] base of the community benefits.

[2:06:39] I'll also note that the land

[2:06:44] development code requires that

[2:06:46] there be public meetings held

[2:06:47] for before an application is

[2:06:50] filed and post-filing.

[2:06:54] And those are to be notified to

[2:06:55] registered civic associations,

[2:06:57] and neighborhood organizations,

[2:06:59] and the purpose of those

[2:07:00] meetings is to discuss the

[2:07:03] provision of community benefits.

[2:07:06] So, again, this topic did come

[2:07:08] up in discussion with the

[2:07:10] council grower's rezoning, and

[2:07:11] the board directed this report

[2:07:13] for a separate discussion today.

[2:07:15] It would be not intertwined with

[2:07:17] that ten pending application.

[2:07:20] I'm available for any questions

[2:07:20] the board MAY have, or

[2:07:21] additional information that is

[2:07:24] needed.

[2:07:25] >> ken hagan: all right.

[2:07:25] Thank you.

[2:07:26] Commissioner wostal?

[2:07:27] >> joshua wostal: thank you,

[2:07:28] MR. Chair.

[2:07:31] And thank you, MR. Gormly,

[2:07:34] for -- and MISS Zornitta, who is

[2:07:35] not here, we had a lot of

[2:07:36] meetings about this.

[2:07:39] And we uncovered a lot of

[2:07:41] information, a lot of

[2:07:41] potentially concerning

[2:07:42] information.

[2:07:43] I'm not going to rehash all of

[2:07:44] that today.

[2:07:46] I think that community benefits

[2:07:46] is a good idea that went

[2:07:50] severely awry.

[2:07:52] And for right now, it was

[2:07:54] relegated to only one small area

[2:07:56] of the county, and it's looking

[2:07:57] to creep into a second one right

[2:07:57] now.

[2:07:59] But I see in the notes here that

[2:08:01] we have a challenge going on.

[2:08:04] And that's the only reason that

[2:08:05] it hasn't progressed further

[2:08:06] than wvr-2.

[2:08:07] Correct?

[2:08:07] Because there's some type of

[2:08:08] pending litigation about the

[2:08:13] community benefits?

[2:08:15] I mean, fellow board members,

[2:08:20] we -- I've uncovered things down

[2:08:23] from private, nondisclosed,

[2:08:24] nonrecorded negotiations of

[2:08:28] people's private property

[2:08:29] rights, to these community

[2:08:33] development benefits creating an

[2:08:34] unsafe environment for those

[2:08:36] that were involved in the

[2:08:37] application process, being

[2:08:39] warned that the temperature of

[2:08:41] things that were happening in

[2:08:43] wimauma could produce an unsafe

[2:08:44] environment for individuals

[2:08:45] entering that area.

[2:08:47] I believe that this is not the

[2:08:48] intent of government.

[2:08:52] i believe that this is not the

[2:08:53] intent of what a community

[2:08:55] benefit plan is supposed to

[2:08:56] establish.

[2:08:58] I believe that a community

[2:09:01] benefit plan giving citizens

[2:09:02] power to say what they believe

[2:09:04] would be a benefit to their

[2:09:04] community is good.

[2:09:06] But most of the time, when you

[2:09:08] hear what the benefits are, that

[2:09:09] residents want to be able to

[2:09:11] override and say, well we know

[2:09:12] you don't think that a stop

[2:09:14] light might go there, but we

[2:09:15] drive there, and we want a stop

[2:09:18] light at that intersection,

[2:09:18] before you put 500 homes or 500

[2:09:21] apartments there.

[2:09:23] And we want maybe a community

[2:09:25] benefit is that we want that

[2:09:28] stop light to be done before the

[2:09:29] development goes into effect,

[2:09:31] instead of aftrwards.

[2:09:33] And, those can be established

[2:09:34] through maybe allowing the

[2:09:36] community benefits to reach an

[2:09:37] agreement with developers about

[2:09:40] the use of their mobility fees.

[2:09:42] And making sure that those

[2:09:43] mobility fees stay directly in

[2:09:46] their neighborhood pip know that

[2:09:47] we have been reached out to

[2:09:49] about some things that are going

[2:09:51] down there in progress village.

[2:09:51] So, I look forward to hearing

[2:09:54] what everyone's thoughts are.

[2:09:55] I don't feel the need to rehash

[2:09:56] everything that was discussed

[2:10:01] during the -- on my birthday

[2:10:02] during the JULY 18th land use

[2:10:03] meeting.

[2:10:06] But I am going to make,

[2:10:08] MR. Chair, I'm going to make one

[2:10:09] motion, in that motion prevails

[2:10:10] I'm going to make a secondary

[2:10:13] motion.

[2:10:16] I motion to direct county staff

[2:10:20] to work with the planning

[2:10:23] commission to present options

[2:10:26] that develop a uniform community

[2:10:29] benefit code for all of

[2:10:30] hillsborough county.

[2:10:33] And the intent of that is to

[2:10:34] reduce this -- this community

[2:10:37] plan has one set of rules, this

[2:10:39] community plan has no set of

[2:10:40] rules.

[2:10:41] And how many community plans do

[2:10:42] we have in hillsborough county?

[2:10:43] It's 22.

[2:10:44] Okay, I thought it was 23.

[2:10:47] And that could create, also an

[2:10:50] unknown safry and untenable

[2:10:51] regulatory process.

[2:10:53] Just if we're going to continue

[2:10:55] this for the community benefits,

[2:10:56] that the we create one uniform

[2:10:58] plan, bring those options back,

[2:10:59] please include some of those

[2:11:01] things I've said, about

[2:11:08] empowering those areas to

[2:11:08] neighbor reappropriate the

[2:11:10] mobility feet fee if that's what

[2:11:11] we're looking for.

[2:11:12] Certainly that those to be

[2:11:15] included in there would be that

[2:11:17] there's only one required

[2:11:21] meeting, and that at the same

[2:11:26] time, MR. Gormly, how many

[2:11:27] neighborhood associations were

[2:11:31] in this area?

[2:11:37] >> at the time, at the time of

[2:11:38] the council grower's zoning

[2:11:40] there was one registered.

[2:11:41] >> joshua wostal: how many are

[2:11:42] getting denied because of our

[2:11:45] outdayed 20-year-old process?

[2:11:46] >> I'm -- there was one other

[2:11:48] that was applying that was not

[2:11:50] able to qualify at that time.

[2:11:53] I believe they have now resolved

[2:11:53] that.

[2:11:56] At the time there was only one.

[2:11:57] >> joshua wostal: so in this

[2:11:58] overhaul then, we need to, if

[2:12:02] we're going to be including and

[2:12:04] requiring that properly

[2:12:04] registered neighborhood

[2:12:05] associations are the ones that

[2:12:08] are notified, that we have to

[2:12:09] make it ease of access for

[2:12:10] citizens that are just -- if

[2:12:12] it's one person in a community,

[2:12:13] and I don't know if that needs

[2:12:15] to be a separate motion, but

[2:12:17] it's all tied in to this one

[2:12:19] community benefits kind of

[2:12:20] language, that we require these

[2:12:21] neighborhood associations to be

[2:12:23] noticed, that if it's one

[2:12:24] person, that doesn't like the

[2:12:25] other 99 people in their

[2:12:27] neighborhood, and they want to

[2:12:28] be an association of one, then

[2:12:30] by golly, they need to have --

[2:12:31] if we're going to require them

[2:12:32] to be a part of one of these to

[2:12:33] have access to notice, then

[2:12:36] that's what we must do.

[2:12:39] So, my motion is very simply to

[2:12:41] overhaul the community benefits

[2:12:42] neighborhood association

[2:12:44] registration process to make it

[2:12:45] unified, uniform code throughout

[2:12:49] hillsborough county.

[2:12:49] >> ken hagan: okay we have a

[2:12:50] motion by commissioner wostal.

[2:12:54] Do we have a second?

[2:12:55] >> michael owen: well, I think I

[2:12:57] MAY ask first, MR. CHAIRMAN,

[2:12:58] just ask some questions?

[2:12:59] >> ken hagan: technically we

[2:13:00] really need to have a second on

[2:13:01] the floor.

[2:13:02] >> michael owen: I'll second.

[2:13:08] >> ken hagan: okay.

[2:13:08] Commissioner owen?

[2:13:09] >> michael owen: and just some

[2:13:10] questions.

[2:13:11] So uniform community benefits.

[2:13:13] You know, because, you know, we

[2:13:14] have community plans, and then

[2:13:15] you add this other layer of

[2:13:18] community benefits, and, you

[2:13:22] know, seffner is different than

[2:13:23] carrollwood and carrollwood is

[2:13:25] different -- so I want to make

[2:13:28] sure when we're talking about a

[2:13:29] uniform community benefits are

[2:13:32] those just going to be basic

[2:13:35] requirements, rather than --

[2:13:38] rather than hey, you must donate

[2:13:39] property to elapp or you must

[2:13:41] negotiate away your brokerage

[2:13:44] rights to resell whatever amount

[2:13:45] of affordable housing any of

[2:13:47] these many issues that arose.

[2:13:47] That they're well defined and

[2:13:48] restricted and controlled.

[2:13:51] >> michael owen: okay.

[2:13:52] Yeah, because I think these

[2:13:53] community plans, one of the

[2:13:55] reasons I pushed to do a valrico

[2:13:56] community plan is, you know,

[2:13:58] these communities are different.

[2:13:59] And valrico wants something

[2:14:01] different than brandon, and

[2:14:01] brandon wants something

[2:14:02] different than carrollwood.

[2:14:03] So if that's the case, I

[2:14:08] understand the motion.

[2:14:11] The question I have, and this is

[2:14:11] unique.

[2:14:14] This is my district the rp-2 and

[2:14:15] the wvr-2 and it's obviously

[2:14:16] very contentious.

[2:14:17] And I really commend people in

[2:14:19] the community for wanting to

[2:14:21] have a say in how their

[2:14:22] community's developed.

[2:14:23] I've learned firsthand, I grew

[2:14:26] up in brandon, and river view,

[2:14:28] and I learned firsthand what

[2:14:29] it's like whenever the community

[2:14:30] does not really engage and we

[2:14:31] just start throwing up

[2:14:32] commercial property and then

[2:14:34] residential property.

[2:14:36] But I also think, you know,

[2:14:37] having a process that's a little

[2:14:39] more uniform throughout the

[2:14:41] county makes sense, because in

[2:14:47] this case, you know, MR. Gormly,

[2:14:48] just to clarify, there's a task

[2:14:51] force to this attached to the

[2:14:51] wvr-2, as well.

[2:14:55] I wanted to make sure that for

[2:14:55] the public, because I've got a

[2:14:56] lot of questions on this, when

[2:14:59] developers are negotiating, or

[2:15:01] however you want to put it, the

[2:15:03] community benefits plan, in

[2:15:07] wvr-2, and maybe soon to be one

[2:15:10] day rp-2, what authority does

[2:15:11] the task force have?

[2:15:14] Are they created by us, with

[2:15:16] authority to be -- to negotiate

[2:15:19] on behalf of, let's say, the

[2:15:20] people of wimauma with a

[2:15:20] developer?

[2:15:22] Could you touch on that?

[2:15:24] >> yeah, so, commissioner thank

[2:15:25] you for asking that.

[2:15:26] A question did come up during

[2:15:29] the amendment process.

[2:15:34] So, there is a reference to a

[2:15:34] wimauma community task force,

[2:15:39] the unadopted portion of the

[2:15:41] community plan document.

[2:15:42] So it is not -- that reference

[2:15:44] is not a regulatory document,

[2:15:44] and it does not have any force

[2:15:49] of law.

[2:15:50] I believe the reference was made

[2:15:56] to try to have a voice that was

[2:15:57] represented in the community's

[2:15:58] interest.

[2:16:00] But the group has no special

[2:16:03] power, or standing above any

[2:16:05] other participant in the

[2:16:05] rezoning process.

[2:16:08] They're not acting on behalf of

[2:16:09] the board or the board's

[2:16:11] interests or doesn't have -- and

[2:16:14] there's no regulatory power or

[2:16:17] status given to that -- to that

[2:16:17] group.

[2:16:19] I understand that there have

[2:16:20] been a formation of that, and

[2:16:21] there's some information

[2:16:27] provided in the record of the

[2:16:28] councillor growers' rezoning

[2:16:29] about that.

[2:16:30] But those were all private

[2:16:30] actions taken with basically

[2:16:33] private initiatives.

[2:16:35] >> michael owen: okay.

[2:16:37] Yeah, and believe me, this is no

[2:16:37] knock on the task force, it's

[2:16:42] just the concept of the few

[2:16:43] making decisions for the many

[2:16:52] that concerns me.

[2:16:54] I'll sit back, and listen to

[2:16:55] some other commissioners.

[2:16:56] I MAY get back in the queue on

[2:16:56] this one.

[2:16:58] But I'd like to hear some more

[2:16:59] commissioners' input.

[2:17:00] I know that this was voted on by

[2:17:01] the prior board.

[2:17:03] I don't know how I feel about

[2:17:04] just the community benefits plan

[2:17:05] at all.

[2:17:06] I know we had a jobs requirement

[2:17:08] that was an issue, right?

[2:17:12] So then we created --

[2:17:13] >> yes, sir.

[2:17:18] So the prior wvr-2 had a -- a

[2:17:22] requirement that certain number

[2:17:25] of jobs, service opportunities

[2:17:27] be created before residential

[2:17:28] development could occur.

[2:17:30] And there was a ratio of demand,

[2:17:34] of different type of uses, and

[2:17:36] so that created to an analysis

[2:17:38] of existing square footage

[2:17:39] within the wimauma downtown.

[2:17:43] It needed to be present in order

[2:17:43] to support residential

[2:17:47] development taking place.

[2:17:48] And there were two rezonings

[2:17:50] that utilized that, and then one

[2:17:55] of them was fully utilized, the

[2:17:57] square footage to support the

[2:17:58] residential that they were

[2:18:00] seeking.

[2:18:02] The other partially -- partially

[2:18:03] supported by that square

[2:18:05] footage, and the rest has come

[2:18:06] as projects have developed in

[2:18:06] the area.

[2:18:07] There were several others that

[2:18:14] were denied for not meeting that

[2:18:14] requirement.

[2:18:15] Through the update of the

[2:18:17] wimauma community plan we saw

[2:18:20] that this was a well-meaning

[2:18:22] initiative, found the reality

[2:18:25] wasn't working, that the jobs

[2:18:28] would come first and withdraw on

[2:18:30] residential development in that

[2:18:33] area was not working.

[2:18:34] >> michael owen: that's what

[2:18:34] kind of concerns me when I look

[2:18:36] at the community benefits and I

[2:18:39] look at looks like it's based on

[2:18:40] acreage, how many of those

[2:18:41] community benefits you would

[2:18:42] choose, correct?

[2:18:44] >> thaekt.

[2:18:44] >> michael owen: I see thngs

[2:18:45] like affordable housing

[2:18:47] components where there's not

[2:18:48] jobs, where there's not public

[2:18:48] transportation.

[2:18:49] And to me that is definitely

[2:18:51] putting a cart before the horse.

[2:18:54] And we talk about a bustling

[2:18:55] downtown, wimauma, which I hope

[2:18:56] to get one day.

[2:18:59] You know, maybe one day this

[2:19:03] whole county will be one big

[2:19:03] grid and one big metropolis.

[2:19:03] I'll be gone from this earth.

[2:19:04] But that's probably where we're

[2:19:05] going.

[2:19:06] But I have a real good

[2:19:07] understanding of things in south

[2:19:07] county.

[2:19:08] I was raised there.

[2:19:10] I look at these two areas, and I

[2:19:13] look at places like lithia, and,

[2:19:14] you know, our commercial in

[2:19:16] lithia has not really taken off.

[2:19:17] But if you list your house for

[2:19:19] sale, commissioner myers, today,

[2:19:22] you live in fishhawk, it's sold

[2:19:23] tomorrow.

[2:19:25] So, the commercial tends to

[2:19:27] still concentrate on those urban

[2:19:27] cores.

[2:19:30] And I consider brandon riverview

[2:19:31] in your district, commissioner

[2:19:32] myers, urban core.

[2:19:33] But it's going to take awhile

[2:19:34] for places like wimauma and balm

[2:19:39] to have anything but, you know,

[2:19:41] a dentist's office, an insurance

[2:19:42] company, and things like that.

[2:19:42] i've seen the commercial on the

[2:19:46] outskirts of east county and

[2:19:46] south county.

[2:19:49] And what I worry about is some

[2:19:51] of these requirements in here,

[2:19:51] MAY hold the community actually

[2:19:54] back.

[2:19:56] So that's all I have for now.

[2:19:57] I'm going to support the motion.

[2:19:57] I'll sit back and listen.

[2:19:58] Thank you.

[2:19:58] >> ken hagan: all right.

[2:20:02] Thank you.

[2:20:05] I've just got one question.

[2:20:06] Procedurally I'm assuming this

[2:20:07] would require a comp plan

[2:20:07] amendment?

[2:20:08] >> yes, sir.

[2:20:09] >> ken hagan: would it replace

[2:20:10] the wimauma one?

[2:20:12] Or would we have to rescind that

[2:20:13] or how would that --

[2:20:14] >> well, a couple things.

[2:20:17] Thank you for that question.

[2:20:18] So, the wimauma community

[2:20:19] benefit requirements are

[2:20:26] grounded in the -- in the

[2:20:27] comprehensive plan.

[2:20:28] It's a comprehensive plan

[2:20:29] initiated to change that.

[2:20:30] Thaz also in the land

[2:20:32] development code so any change

[2:20:33] that is made in the

[2:20:33] comprehensive plan would also be

[2:20:34] reflected in the land

[2:20:34] development code.

[2:20:39] In terms of changes or new

[2:20:40] regulations, one of the things

[2:20:44] that we will need to put through

[2:20:49] the filter of is, a new law this

[2:20:51] past session, senate bill 250,

[2:20:51] and that prohibits us from

[2:20:57] proposing or enacting more

[2:20:59] restrictive or burdensome

[2:20:59] comprehensive plan or land

[2:21:00] development code regulations.

[2:21:06] So in terms of the an areawide

[2:21:07] expansion we would need to

[2:21:09] filter that to make sure if this

[2:21:11] was the direction, that did not

[2:21:12] result in anything more

[2:21:13] burdensome or restrictive, at

[2:21:15] least until OCTOBER 1st of 2024,

[2:21:17] which is when that is set to

[2:21:18] expire.

[2:21:20] Sorry, long answer but yes, it

[2:21:22] would require change to the

[2:21:26] comprehensive plan, and the land

[2:21:28] development code, and what I'm

[2:21:29] understanding is this -- what I

[2:21:30] understand the motion to be

[2:21:34] replacement of what is there.

[2:21:35] >> joshua wostal: I'm looking

[2:21:35] for options right now.

[2:21:35] >> okay.

[2:21:36] >> ken hagan: thank you.

[2:21:42] Commissioner kemp?

[2:21:43] >> pat kemp: that -- and I'm

[2:21:46] still -- I'm still not quite

[2:21:46] understanding that motion.

[2:21:51] But let me just speak a little

[2:21:52] bit to wimauma and balm.

[2:21:54] They're the only places that

[2:21:55] have community benefits in place

[2:21:56] at this time, correct?

[2:21:57] >> yes.

[2:22:00] >> pat kemp: and one of the

[2:22:02] reasons that that happened is

[2:22:04] it's happening more all over the

[2:22:06] country, a recognition of this

[2:22:09] kind of community engagement,

[2:22:10] and it's been, you know, being

[2:22:16] used in other areas.

[2:22:19] But, wimauma and balm have one

[2:22:20] long, long litigious history.

[2:22:22] It started I think in the '80s

[2:22:26] or '90s, a major lawsuit was

[2:22:27] done there, and part of the

[2:22:30] condition of the lawsuit that

[2:22:32] was between state and the

[2:22:34] county, that's correct, at the

[2:22:34] time?

[2:22:37] >> I believe there was a

[2:22:40] challenge by the state

[2:22:41] allocations in the comprehensive

[2:22:43] plan.

[2:22:44] >> pat kemp: right, so there was

[2:22:45] a settlement made at that time.

[2:22:46] This was a long, long time ago.

[2:22:49] And they required that in order

[2:22:50] to develop out there, that you

[2:22:53] were going to have to develop

[2:22:58] town centers, villages, like

[2:22:59] little country towns like I

[2:23:00] guess was the idea.

[2:23:01] Which I kind of think is a good

[2:23:01] thing.

[2:23:04] I think they were trying to do a

[2:23:07] better development pattern than

[2:23:10] the monoculture sprawl that

[2:23:15] fills our roads, and causes our

[2:23:17] infrastructure issues by

[2:23:18] congregating development, and

[2:23:19] that was the idea behind the

[2:23:23] wimauma town center, too.

[2:23:24] Congregating development, denser

[2:23:26] in a small area, so that you

[2:23:30] could go to it, and have the

[2:23:31] amenities of that area, you

[2:23:32] know, presumably maybe if it was

[2:23:34] a rural area, some of the

[2:23:39] businesses that would sort of

[2:23:43] farms and rule needs, if it

[2:23:46] was -- became a -- a more like a

[2:23:49] small town, maybe some of the

[2:23:50] neighborhood commercial there,

[2:23:53] for jobs, and for trip capture,

[2:23:55] which we unfortunately that's

[2:23:59] the reason our roads are -- are

[2:24:03] packed, you know, when people

[2:24:03] don't have a, even a small

[2:24:06] grocery store, or, you know, a

[2:24:09] child care center, or a barber

[2:24:10] shop or place to have their hair

[2:24:15] cut in those areas, that, you

[2:24:21] know, that we just develop this

[2:24:22] monoculture of, you know,

[2:24:23] single-family homes on however

[2:24:26] many acres and have none of the

[2:24:27] neighborhood commercial

[2:24:28] integrity, the jobs, just what

[2:24:31] we actually approved today, a

[2:24:32] business right there, in, in

[2:24:34] that kind of area.

[2:24:38] So that, I think, was a wise

[2:24:39] thought about how you move

[2:24:40] forward to do it.

[2:24:41] And I have to say I'm from

[2:24:43] the -- I grew up in the D.C.

[2:24:44] Area, and as I go back there

[2:24:49] now, they're developing those

[2:24:53] all over the place, and they're

[2:24:54] very, very well done in terms of

[2:24:58] congregating density in areas of

[2:25:01] leaving surrounding areas open.

[2:25:02] You know, how they're doing it.

[2:25:03] But at any rate, this is what

[2:25:08] the state required.

[2:25:11] Over years that has been

[2:25:12] repeatedly fine.

[2:25:14] We had one -- one residence per

[2:25:15] every five acres, it's still in

[2:25:17] effect.

[2:25:20] In a lot of those places.

[2:25:25] And what the request has been is

[2:25:29] to really do ten times that

[2:25:32] density, two per acre, over, you

[2:25:34] know, over that, that five acre

[2:25:36] parcel, to put in ten, instead

[2:25:37] of one.

[2:25:39] So, you know, we looked at that,

[2:25:41] and how, how we can deal with

[2:25:43] that, again, if it's in the

[2:25:43] urban service area, we're going

[2:25:44] to have to pay for that

[2:25:51] infrastructure.

[2:25:52] And, two, how we, you know,

[2:25:56] how -- what we can do to make

[2:25:58] that -- to be able to use those

[2:26:00] roads to have trip capture in

[2:26:03] those areas.

[2:26:05] To -- to make a place

[2:26:06] sustainable, to be able to

[2:26:07] provide infrastructure.

[2:26:08] We never have the money to do

[2:26:11] that.

[2:26:16] But, we also looked, we had the

[2:26:17] evolution from our villages with

[2:26:18] the lawsuit.

[2:26:20] Then there was repeated,

[2:26:22] repeated, repeated challenges.

[2:26:24] What the villages turned into

[2:26:25] was the jobs requirement.

[2:26:26] That's after some other

[2:26:26] challenges.

[2:26:29] That's what was established

[2:26:32] after long periods of meetings.

[2:26:33] And compromises.

[2:26:35] And more.

[2:26:37] They do things like, you know,

[2:26:41] reduce the number of acres for

[2:26:41] things.

[2:26:43] They, you know, there was all

[2:26:44] kinds of piece by piece by

[2:26:45] piece, there was litigation.

[2:26:51] There was contention.

[2:26:52] There wer, you know, huge

[2:26:54] groups of neighborhoods

[2:26:54] interested.

[2:26:56] And after all that, and after

[2:27:02] repeated, repeated, repeated

[2:27:06] work, we had our moratorium put,

[2:27:08] it was before covid, and we

[2:27:09] really tried to tackle the

[2:27:10] problem in a way that would

[2:27:12] serve all interests well and do

[2:27:14] what developers wanted to have,

[2:27:14] which was an opportunity to

[2:27:17] develop this.

[2:27:19] And put these heavy, heavy

[2:27:20] densities on it.

[2:27:22] We tried to do it in a way that

[2:27:23] would make sense for the

[2:27:24] community and benefit the

[2:27:27] community, as well.

[2:27:29] And that's -- and this is what

[2:27:33] this has come up to, with huge

[2:27:36] amounts of community engagement,

[2:27:38] a thoughtful consideration.

[2:27:42] And so, I'll just emphasize a

[2:27:42] few things.

[2:27:44] Commissioner owen, you said, and

[2:27:45] I don't know if anyone else

[2:27:48] said, but it is true, what

[2:27:50] carrollwood wants is not

[2:27:53] necessarily what wimauma wants,

[2:27:53] what balm wants, what other

[2:27:58] places want.

[2:28:00] And, balm and wimauma are, yeah,

[2:28:02] ground zero for, as we know, for

[2:28:03] how we're throwing out

[2:28:04] development now.

[2:28:08] And I think it's really

[2:28:09] important for us to be thinking

[2:28:11] about how that's well done.

[2:28:14] And I thought the -- it was a

[2:28:20] very hard worked list, and, you

[2:28:21] know, consideration done with

[2:28:22] that.

[2:28:24] If there is problems with

[2:28:25] access, I don't know about, but

[2:28:26] maybe we could hear that in

[2:28:30] terms of who's at the meetings,

[2:28:31] or how that works.

[2:28:34] But I thought it was really

[2:28:36] great to engage the community to

[2:28:40] have benefits and to have some

[2:28:41] guidelines for how we do that.

[2:28:45] And I think it's really helping

[2:28:46] to develop a better community

[2:28:46] there.

[2:28:51] In terms of, you know,

[2:28:52] commissioner wostal, you said

[2:28:55] something about reappropriating

[2:28:57] mobility fees, it --

[2:28:57] reapportioning.

[2:28:58] I would not want to necessarily

[2:29:00] put that in the community

[2:29:01] benefits.

[2:29:02] Because, I usually understand it

[2:29:03] here, when we ask about it, it

[2:29:07] is something that if the -- that

[2:29:11] we have in the requirements, in

[2:29:12] the conditions for development

[2:29:12] already.

[2:29:16] And the mobility fees are used

[2:29:17] in those areas.

[2:29:21] We have, you know, a map, and

[2:29:22] districts, so that mobility fees

[2:29:24] generated in areas are used in

[2:29:26] areas, and the biggest problem

[2:29:27] we have with stop lights, which

[2:29:29] I would love more stop lights

[2:29:30] and crosswalks and, you know,

[2:29:30] this is the biggest problem we

[2:29:35] have usually is all the warrant

[2:29:36] requirements, that I understand

[2:29:39] have to go through the state

[2:29:39] and, you know, all these issues

[2:29:40] which we've already dealt with

[2:29:43] here a couple times.

[2:29:45] But those are things that

[2:29:47] shouldn't be a -- I don't think

[2:29:48] that community, you know, one of

[2:29:52] the benefits.

[2:29:57] But just be there as a condition

[2:29:58] and requirement if necessary and

[2:30:00] it's important to the community.

[2:30:02] And that's also something that

[2:30:06] is done.

[2:30:08] so, you know, I -- I-i would

[2:30:10] really be wary of opening this

[2:30:11] up now, especially since the

[2:30:12] suggestion is that we really

[2:30:13] can't do it for the entire

[2:30:16] county anyway.

[2:30:20] And I'd like to understand more

[2:30:22] about any issues there were with

[2:30:26] access to being part of that.

[2:30:30] And I don't think a uniform, you

[2:30:32] know, list of benefits

[2:30:34] throughout the area makes

[2:30:36] particular sense.

[2:30:38] I just think that, you know,

[2:30:40] within communities, that those

[2:30:41] benefits could be what the

[2:30:42] community generates.

[2:30:47] Which in this case, they did.

[2:30:48] And, you know, and be what is

[2:30:49] particular what MAY be

[2:30:50] beneficial to them.

[2:30:52] But I think it's really

[2:30:53] important, especially with the

[2:30:54] development pressures that

[2:31:00] wimauma and balm are under, that

[2:31:04] they have those very, you know,

[2:31:05] engaged, and strongly

[2:31:06] distinguished benefits.

[2:31:08] And if there's problems with the

[2:31:11] process for the tak force, I

[2:31:13] think that that is something, or

[2:31:15] the neighborhood meetings, that

[2:31:16] that's something that maybe

[2:31:17] staff could work on.

[2:31:21] I'm not even sure if that's in

[2:31:23] the ldc itself, I'm not sure,

[2:31:24] but maybe that could be

[2:31:29] something that is particularly,

[2:31:35] you know, given attention to.

[2:31:36] >> ken hagan: commissioner

[2:31:37] cameron cepeda?

[2:31:37] >> donna cameron cepeda: yes,

[2:31:38] thank you, commissioner wostal.

[2:31:40] Yes, I understand what you're

[2:31:42] trying to say.

[2:31:44] My concern is well benefits by

[2:31:45] itself, the name, the title

[2:31:46] sounds wonderful.

[2:31:48] But the fact is, it does put a

[2:31:52] lot of restrictions on the

[2:31:54] people here in hillsborough

[2:31:55] county and my concern is, you

[2:31:57] know, putting these

[2:31:59] restrictions, keeping these

[2:32:01] restrictions, or even worse

[2:32:03] restrictions, which already I

[2:32:05] don't agree with, with the

[2:32:06] restrictions as they are.

[2:32:07] The benefits plan.

[2:32:09] Again the title sounds

[2:32:09] wonderful.

[2:32:12] But, really, it's -- there's

[2:32:16] just too many restrictions.

[2:32:17] And I just don't think we should

[2:32:20] have that -- forced to have

[2:32:20] those benefits plans on the

[2:32:23] people at all.

[2:32:26] So, I would like to just get rid

[2:32:27] of, you know, all of those

[2:32:30] completely.

[2:32:31] >> ken hagan: commissioner

[2:32:32] wostal?

[2:32:32] >> joshua wostal: yeah, that

[2:32:34] could certainly be one of the

[2:32:34] options.

[2:32:35] It's important all we're doing

[2:32:38] is talking about options.

[2:32:40] I'm 100% with you.

[2:32:41] But, whether or not that would

[2:32:42] pass or not, I don't know.

[2:32:45] And again, a lot of what was

[2:32:47] just said previously has

[2:32:48] absolutely nothing to do with my

[2:32:49] motion or what we're talking

[2:32:50] about.

[2:32:52] We're not talking about

[2:32:53] increasing density.

[2:32:55] It was pretty much irrelevant

[2:32:55] information.

[2:32:58] We're simply talking about a

[2:32:59] clean-up, if they are going

[2:33:00] to -- if they are going to

[2:33:05] continue, or not, I'll go with

[2:33:06] you on that.

[2:33:07] If they do continue or not,

[2:33:08] we're going to clean them up,

[2:33:09] and we're going to have control

[2:33:13] over them.

[2:33:14] It's not going to be heavy

[2:33:15] handed.

[2:33:16] i have it on good authority that

[2:33:17] the state would likely consider

[2:33:19] what happened, if they ever got

[2:33:20] involved, a violation of folks'

[2:33:21] private property rights and

[2:33:22] they'd be happy to step in and

[2:33:23] I'm looking to help us avoid

[2:33:23] that.

[2:33:26] So, that's all we're talking

[2:33:27] about.

[2:33:29] Is a clean-up of some options.

[2:33:30] We can make it uniform, but not

[2:33:32] required.

[2:33:35] It could be a good thing, and as

[2:33:37] far as the mobility fee map

[2:33:39] that's absolutely inaccurate.

[2:33:41] The mobility fee maps are

[2:33:41] gigantic.

[2:33:43] And if it allowed for money

[2:33:45] that's in that mobility fee area

[2:33:47] to be spent in that mobility fee

[2:33:48] map but far away from the

[2:33:49] affected intersection of where

[2:33:51] the new development is going in.

[2:33:53] So, I want to look at just some

[2:33:55] creative ideas that would be

[2:33:57] really more empowering to the

[2:33:57] voters of hillsborough county.

[2:33:59] So.

[2:34:04] >> ken hagan: all right.

[2:34:06] Thank you, commissioner cohen?

[2:34:07] >> harry cohen: now I'm -- I'm a

[2:34:10] little bit confused.

[2:34:12] But, let me just go to what I

[2:34:15] believe was the original motion,

[2:34:20] and that was to open up the

[2:34:22] discussion of tying community

[2:34:22] benefits countywide.

[2:34:23] I don't support that.

[2:34:24] I don't really think that that's

[2:34:30] what the county needs.

[2:34:34] If there are questions about how

[2:34:34] the community benefits

[2:34:35] provisions affect the two -- one

[2:34:37] or two, depending on how the

[2:34:39] litigation goes, the one or two

[2:34:40] discreet areas where they've

[2:34:43] been applied, I think that we

[2:34:44] could look at those much more

[2:34:44] narrowly.

[2:34:50] but for the moment, given what I

[2:34:52] hear about the state law, at

[2:34:56] least through OCTOBER of 2024,

[2:34:57] and just taking what

[2:34:59] commissioner cameron cepeda

[2:35:01] said, I don't think it is in our

[2:35:04] best interest to do anything

[2:35:04] while that moratorium is going

[2:35:07] on.

[2:35:09] Because anything that we would

[2:35:10] pass would be interpreted as

[2:35:12] being more restrictive.

[2:35:14] Wouldn't it, MR. Gormly?

[2:35:16] >> we would -- if there was the

[2:35:19] direction, we would bring back

[2:35:20] options that would, you know, be

[2:35:22] something that would be less

[2:35:23] restrictive, or less burdensome.

[2:35:25] It could be clarifications.

[2:35:26] But, you know, certainly we

[2:35:31] would be challenged to have new

[2:35:33] substantive requirements,

[2:35:33] generally.

[2:35:34] >> harry cohen: well, you know,

[2:35:36] I would be happy to have this

[2:35:36] discussion in maybe some type of

[2:35:40] a workshop setting.

[2:35:41] But I would just remind

[2:35:42] everybody that it's going to

[2:35:45] take five votes, I believe, in

[2:35:45] order to actually change what's

[2:35:50] already been done.

[2:35:53] So before we start considering

[2:35:54] language, and determining that

[2:35:56] we're going to do something

[2:35:57] countywide, I would just want us

[2:35:59] to have a discussion among us

[2:36:00] about the benefits that are

[2:36:01] there now, and whether they're

[2:36:03] working or not.

[2:36:06] Quite frankly, we spent a

[2:36:07] tremendous amount of time.

[2:36:07] Commissioner myers and I were

[2:36:10] elected in the middle of this.

[2:36:14] And, we ended up having to sort

[2:36:16] of learn about this on the fly,

[2:36:19] because covid had so delayed the

[2:36:22] board's ability to consider this

[2:36:23] while the moratorium clock was

[2:36:24] ticking.

[2:36:25] and it's only been in place now

[2:36:27] for a very short period of time.

[2:36:32] I believe we've only had one

[2:36:33] application that's actually been

[2:36:34] subject to it.

[2:36:36] And, I just think if there are

[2:36:37] problems, or if there are

[2:36:40] concerns about it, it's totally

[2:36:42] appropriate for us to have some

[2:36:43] type of discreet workshop about

[2:36:45] that, and talk about it, but I'm

[2:36:47] really not -- I don't really

[2:36:50] have an appetite for opening up

[2:36:54] this entire discussion,

[2:36:55] countywide, or any larger than

[2:36:58] just a sort of a status of where

[2:36:59] we are with it.

[2:37:04] So that's where I am.

[2:37:05] >> ken hagan: all right, a

[2:37:05] question.

[2:37:07] It's my understanding the motion

[2:37:08] there would be options brought

[2:37:10] back for us to consider, then it

[2:37:12] would go through the normal cpa

[2:37:13] process as far as a workshop,

[2:37:17] public hearings, all that?

[2:37:19] >> what I suggest is we bring it

[2:37:19] back.

[2:37:20] We could bring it back in a

[2:37:22] workshop format, or I think a

[2:37:25] workshop format would be the

[2:37:28] appropriate way to -- to

[2:37:29] evaluate the options, and get

[2:37:30] any kind of direction from the

[2:37:31] board.

[2:37:33] It could be a stand-alone, or it

[2:37:35] could be associated with --

[2:37:36] >> ken hagan: and then

[2:37:37] commissioner cohen is correct

[2:37:39] ultimately it would require a

[2:37:40] super majority, is that right?

[2:37:41] >> yes.

[2:37:43] >> ken hagan: and then what

[2:37:44] realistically, going through

[2:37:45] that entire process, what's the

[2:37:46] earliest you think this would

[2:37:53] come back in front of us?

[2:38:00] >> I would say, what is it now,

[2:38:01] NOVEMBER, perhaps, it could come

[2:38:02] back with something that would

[2:38:04] be kind of a holistic --

[2:38:05] >> ken hagan: okay.

[2:38:07] >> -- review of the issues that

[2:38:08] the board has --

[2:38:09] >> joshua wostal: and,

[2:38:10] MR. Chair, if I could provide

[2:38:11] some clarification?

[2:38:12] >> ken hagan: sure.

[2:38:13] >> joshua wostal: the motion is

[2:38:14] not suggesting that we enact

[2:38:17] this countywide.

[2:38:19] The motion is simply saying

[2:38:22] options that we're going to well

[2:38:24] define the community benefits,

[2:38:25] and then anyone who currently

[2:38:26] has them, this is what they're

[2:38:28] defined as now.

[2:38:29] We're not saying that we would

[2:38:31] impose it on the entire county.

[2:38:35] And that if a community plan did

[2:38:36] enact community benefits, this

[2:38:36] is how hillsborough county

[2:38:37] defines them, there's no longer

[2:38:39] any questions.

[2:38:41] So, we're not -- the motion in

[2:38:43] no way suggested that we impose

[2:38:44] this countywide and be more

[2:38:45] restrictive.

[2:38:46] And th clean-up would actually

[2:38:49] be less of a burden to address

[2:38:50] commissioner cohen's concerns,

[2:38:51] in what I'm projecting would be

[2:38:53] some of the options.

[2:38:53] So.

[2:38:54] >> ken hagan: okay, thank you.

[2:38:55] Commissioner myers?

[2:38:56] >> gwen myers: oh, what a

[2:38:57] conversation.

[2:39:01] Okay.

[2:39:04] You clarified one of the points,

[2:39:06] because you said this just is an

[2:39:06] option.

[2:39:10] Could the option come back to

[2:39:11] us, in 2024, when everything is

[2:39:12] done?

[2:39:13] I mean, to give staff, I think

[2:39:16] we are rushing to judgment to

[2:39:21] bring this back in NOVEMBER.

[2:39:22] Okay?

[2:39:23] Is this something that --

[2:39:25] >> joshua wostal: well the

[2:39:27] timing mechanic mission --

[2:39:28] >> gwen myers: I do have

[2:39:29] concerns to make this

[2:39:29] countywide.

[2:39:30] Because every community is

[2:39:31] different.

[2:39:32] Going to be up front.

[2:39:33] Every community is different.

[2:39:35] When you look at wimauma, you

[2:39:37] look at palm river, you look at

[2:39:41] dover, they're not the same.

[2:39:42] When you look at benefits,

[2:39:45] they're not the same.

[2:39:47] And it's not kidding us to say

[2:39:49] oh, we can come up with

[2:39:50] something that will be the same.

[2:39:51] I don't think so.

[2:39:53] Based on the communities.

[2:39:55] Based on what we have done now.

[2:39:56] What have all these communities

[2:39:58] to get to community benefits.

[2:40:00] So that -- I'll stop there.

[2:40:02] But that's how I see this.

[2:40:03] >> ken hagan: commissioner owen?

[2:40:03] >> michael owen: thank you,

[2:40:04] MR. CHAIRMAN.

[2:40:05] I think to clarify that, and I

[2:40:06] don't want to put words in your

[2:40:09] mouth, wooer not saying that

[2:40:11] there's not community plans that

[2:40:11] are in place.

[2:40:13] Those community plans that are

[2:40:14] unique, and again I'm not trying

[2:40:18] to put words in your mouth, but,

[2:40:18] I dn't think commissioner

[2:40:20] wostal is saying we're going to

[2:40:20] make a uniform community plan

[2:40:24] throughout the county.

[2:40:27] The community plans still exist.

[2:40:28] We're just addressing community

[2:40:30] benefits, if they should be in

[2:40:30] there.

[2:40:31] Or exst at all.

[2:40:32] So I think that's the discussion

[2:40:34] that we would have.

[2:40:35] But, commissioner wostal, if you

[2:40:37] wanted to clarify that.

[2:40:38] >> joshua wostal: yeah, this is

[2:40:39] not talking about the community

[2:40:41] plans and their restrictions on

[2:40:42] densities, et cetera.

[2:40:43] This is specifically about these

[2:40:44] seven bullet points that

[2:40:49] currently exist.

[2:40:50] >> ken hagan: I'm going to call

[2:40:50] the question.

[2:40:51] I'm going to support the motion.

[2:40:53] I don't see any harm in getting

[2:40:54] additional information, having a

[2:40:55] workshop, seeing how we can

[2:40:55] clean it up and improve the

[2:40:57] process.

[2:40:59] We might not make any changes.

[2:41:00] We'll see what transpires.

[2:41:00] Okay.

[2:41:01] So we have a motion by

[2:41:02] commissioner wostal, second by

[2:41:03] commissioner owen.

[2:41:12] Please record your vote.

[2:41:14] >> motion carried 5-2.

[2:41:15] Commissioners kemp and myers

[2:41:16] voted no.

[2:41:17] >> ken hagan: commissioner

[2:41:19] wostal did you want to make

[2:41:19] another motion?

[2:41:20] >> joshua wostal: I do have just

[2:41:29] a quick motion, and on some

[2:41:31] information if she needs but in

[2:41:32] light of the prevailing motion

[2:41:34] that's just occurred and our

[2:41:36] potential to overhaul the

[2:41:38] existing community benefits as

[2:41:40] we see them, I would like to

[2:41:42] make a motion to place a

[2:41:47] temporary stay in any ongoing

[2:41:50] litigation that revolves around

[2:41:51] the community benefits in

[2:41:51] hillsborough county.

[2:41:54] >> ken hagan: motion by

[2:41:55] commissioner wostal, second by

[2:41:56] commissioner cameron cepeda.

[2:41:57] Does staff want to opine on

[2:41:58] that?

[2:42:02] >> yes, sir.

[2:42:03] Good morning, commissioners,

[2:42:04] cameron clark, assistant county

[2:42:05] attorney.

[2:42:08] There is oral argument next week

[2:42:11] on a case which is the rp-2

[2:42:11] litigation, I believe that

[2:42:13] you're discussing.

[2:42:14] I actually just got a really

[2:42:16] quick status update in case

[2:42:18] there were any questions on

[2:42:18] this.

[2:42:22] But the counties at this stage

[2:42:24] have prevailed before a law

[2:42:25] judge and the state department

[2:42:26] of economic opportunity.

[2:42:29] It's before the second dca right

[2:42:29] now.

[2:42:32] Is a stay on litigation that

[2:42:34] you -- it's your desire to

[2:42:35] continue this process at this

[2:42:38] time?

[2:42:40] In order to see what happens

[2:42:43] with this exploration of the

[2:42:44] community benefits?

[2:42:44] Okay.

[2:42:46] Just so you're aware.

[2:42:48] The challenge for this rp-2

[2:42:50] provision is not limited to just

[2:42:50] the community benefits.

[2:42:52] It's actually challenging the

[2:42:54] entire comp amendment.

[2:42:55] Obviously those benefits are a

[2:42:55] part of it.

[2:42:58] But there are other issues that

[2:43:00] remain unresolved, as well.

[2:43:02] And also bear in mind that if

[2:43:04] the board was to take action to

[2:43:07] make changes to the community

[2:43:09] benefits within rp-2, some of

[2:43:11] the issues are going to be

[2:43:12] mooted, and other issues

[2:43:14] ultimately the board is changing

[2:43:15] course, not saying the board

[2:43:17] can't ask for this direction,

[2:43:18] but it MAY not be necessary

[2:43:20] because in the end the board can

[2:43:21] always change course with what

[2:43:24] is passed with a comp plan and

[2:43:24] ldc.

[2:43:25] >> ken hagan: commissioner

[2:43:25] cohen?

[2:43:26] >> harry cohen: I'm not sure

[2:43:27] that I understand what's being

[2:43:28] asked for here.

[2:43:29] when you say you want to stay

[2:43:30] the litigation.

[2:43:33] Are you suggesting you want the

[2:43:35] county not to continue to defend

[2:43:36] its position?

[2:43:37] >> joshua wostal: no.

[2:43:38] I think he used the word

[2:43:38] continue, which is more lawyer

[2:43:42] jargon.

[2:43:42] >> harry cohen: I don't

[2:43:45] understand.

[2:43:49] MR. Clark, there's a case

[2:43:52] pending right now.

[2:43:52] >> there is.

[2:43:55] >> harry cohen: so, what is the

[2:43:58] effect on that case if this

[2:43:59] motion were to pass?

[2:44:02] >> well, I would take this as

[2:44:03] the board asking for -- asking

[2:44:04] us to try to continue the oral

[2:44:05] argument that's scheduled for

[2:44:07] next week.

[2:44:09] The other side has continued

[2:44:10] this numerous times up to this

[2:44:10] point.

[2:44:11] It's actually been delayed

[2:44:15] getting to where it is now.

[2:44:18] But, I guess my point is, just

[2:44:19] the action can still proceed

[2:44:20] as-is, it's not going to change

[2:44:22] the board's ability to make

[2:44:25] changes to what is proposed to

[2:44:26] potentially change.

[2:44:28] So you could ask for this to

[2:44:29] potentially be continued.

[2:44:30] But in the end, the outcome is

[2:44:31] going to be whatever changes the

[2:44:33] board makes are going to be what

[2:44:37] changes take place in the rp-2.

[2:44:38] >> joshua wostal: at the expense

[2:44:39] of the attorney fees, it we do

[2:44:41] take changes, then it becomes

[2:44:44] moot, then the citizen is just

[2:44:45] at a loss?

[2:44:46] >> the applicant in this case,

[2:44:47] yes, they would still be paying

[2:44:50] for their attorneys, yes.

[2:44:53] >> harry cohen: well, I'm not in

[2:44:55] favor of doing anything that --

[2:44:58] I mean, we're having a very,

[2:44:59] very prospective discussion here

[2:45:01] about making some changes and

[2:45:02] tweaks in the future.

[2:45:04] I don't think that it's

[2:45:05] appropriate to insert ourselves

[2:45:08] into this case that's going on.

[2:45:09] >> ken hagan: commissioner owen?

[2:45:09] >> michael owen: thank you,

[2:45:15] MR. CHAIRMAN.

[2:45:17] So we have sunshine, so we don't

[2:45:18] have the benefit of we haven't

[2:45:19] discussed it out here and don't

[2:45:21] have the benefit of knowing

[2:45:22] what's coming.

[2:45:23] Do we have the authority to do

[2:45:24] that?

[2:45:26] I'm just thinking from a rules

[2:45:29] of procedure standpoint, that

[2:45:30] if -- because now I'm seeing

[2:45:32] what's going on.

[2:45:35] If we agree that we will somehow

[2:45:38] reduce the restrictions of

[2:45:39] community benefits that would

[2:45:40] affect the rp-2, which we

[2:45:41] haven't talked about rp-2 here

[2:45:43] much toay, so that wuld affect

[2:45:46] an ongoing litigation case,

[2:45:47] which is -- which the motion

[2:45:47] that's -- what is the motion

[2:45:50] that's up?

[2:45:52] >> it's oral arguments, they're

[2:45:54] appealing the lower ruling.

[2:45:54] >> michael owen: okay.

[2:45:56] >> it was in the county's favor.

[2:45:57] >> michael owen: all right,

[2:45:57] gotcha.

[2:45:58] So it's oral arguments.

[2:46:01] I guess I don't know if we were

[2:46:02] to vote as a board, because I

[2:46:04] think it might be appropriate to

[2:46:05] stay that.

[2:46:06] It's a motion -- it would be

[2:46:09] a -- it would move to stay

[2:46:11] unless opposing counsel agreed

[2:46:12] to a stay, but then still the

[2:46:16] judge -- the -- the judicial

[2:46:17] body has to agree to that,s

[2:46:17] well.

[2:46:19] >> so I would take what the

[2:46:21] board, if this motion were to

[2:46:22] pass, I would take it as the

[2:46:24] board's direction ease sectionly

[2:46:26] to defer this, essentially cease

[2:46:28] what's going on with litigation,

[2:46:30] awaiting the outcome of what the

[2:46:31] board wants to do here.

[2:46:33] We have actually outside counsel

[2:46:34] handling this litigation at this

[2:46:34] stage.

[2:46:35] I can confer with them.

[2:46:37] But I understand what the

[2:46:38] board's potential direction here

[2:46:39] is essentially just to stop

[2:46:41] what's going on for now, to see

[2:46:42] what action the board wants to

[2:46:43] take.

[2:46:45] >> michael owen: yeah, because,

[2:46:48] because, sorry to cut you off,

[2:46:50] my -- I disagree with

[2:46:51] commissioner cohen.

[2:46:52] I think if we come up with

[2:46:54] different requirements, or

[2:46:55] remove requirements, and we're

[2:46:58] in the middle of litigation,

[2:47:02] that could be new evidence,

[2:47:02] which could bring us back in

[2:47:03] court.

[2:47:04] Is that a possibility?

[2:47:06] >> I would think that any parts

[2:47:09] of the rp-2 that the board

[2:47:12] subsequently changed, that --

[2:47:13] those issues would effectively

[2:47:14] be mooted in litigation.

[2:47:15] But there are other parts of

[2:47:16] this outside of community

[2:47:17] benefits that are presently at

[2:47:17] issue.

[2:47:17] >> michael owen: okay.

[2:47:21] All right.

[2:47:21] I'll second it.

[2:47:24] Thanks for that clarification.

[2:47:26] >> ken hagan: just so I

[2:47:26] understand.

[2:47:27] We're essentially requesting

[2:47:29] continuance of oral argument,

[2:47:30] which is the same thing the

[2:47:32] other side's done a few times?

[2:47:32] >> yes.

[2:47:34] This has been continued before

[2:47:37] by the other side.

[2:47:37] and, for what it's worth in

[2:47:38] terms of staying it versus

[2:47:43] continuing, neither side is

[2:47:44] really incurring much in terms

[2:47:45] of fees and costs when it's

[2:47:46] being continued.

[2:47:48] So no other action is being

[2:47:48] taken.

[2:47:48] The board is asking for

[2:47:49] essentially things to be paused

[2:47:51] for the moment.

[2:47:53] >> ken hagan: and at the end of

[2:47:56] the day we still remain the

[2:47:57] ultimate arbiter?

[2:47:58] >> well the court, like I said,

[2:48:00] the lower court judge has ruled

[2:48:02] that the county's actions were

[2:48:03] proper and legal at the time the

[2:48:04] comp plan was adopted.

[2:48:06] That's being appealed to the

[2:48:07] second dca.

[2:48:08] If the second dca was to find

[2:48:10] that wasn't the case we would be

[2:48:11] back before you regarding the

[2:48:12] comp plan.

[2:48:14] Otherwise if the second dca

[2:48:17] upholds the lower ruling,

[2:48:20] then -- well, it MAY be appealed

[2:48:22] further, the comp plan

[2:48:23] amendments would take effect.

[2:48:25] As of this time they are still

[2:48:26] not in effect.

[2:48:27] >> ken hagan: okay, thank you.

[2:48:28] Commissioner myers?

[2:48:30] >> gwen myers: okay, thank you.

[2:48:31] I know we're responsible for

[2:48:32] setting policy and now today

[2:48:38] we're becoming lawyers, trying

[2:48:39] to see what the legal is going

[2:48:40] to say.

[2:48:41] Why can't we wait until the case

[2:48:43] was over and then if we wanted

[2:48:45] to bring this up at that time,

[2:48:45] then we could?

[2:48:46] Because I think there's ample

[2:48:47] enough time to do so.

[2:48:50] Thank you.

[2:48:51] >> joshua wostal: just to get, I

[2:48:52] mean we just found there's no

[2:48:54] harm and actually it would be a

[2:48:56] punishment if we are going to

[2:48:57] ultimately make changes.

[2:48:59] We would be causing one of our

[2:49:02] constituents to unnecessarily

[2:49:04] expand legal fees, they would

[2:49:06] not if we put a stay or

[2:49:07] continuance, whichever they

[2:49:08] decide, I don't know the legal

[2:49:10] language, but if we continue to

[2:49:11] proceed, and they continue with

[2:49:13] oral arguments and appeals, and

[2:49:14] they change then our constituent

[2:49:16] is just out of a lot of money

[2:49:17] that was completely unnecessary.

[2:49:21] And ultimately, we're -- we are

[2:49:21] the -- these, us seven, this

[2:49:28] body, we are the legal body.

[2:49:29] The attorney is our client.

[2:49:30] Not the other way around.

[2:49:33] So, we are the ones who make the

[2:49:36] decisions on 100% of their

[2:49:37] instructions.

[2:49:38] So that's -- that's why it would

[2:49:39] make sense at this time to

[2:49:40] protect our constituents.

[2:49:41] >> ken hagan: thank you.

[2:49:46] Commissioner kemp?

[2:49:47] >> pat kemp: the work, the

[2:49:48] preparation for all of this has

[2:49:49] already been done.

[2:49:51] It's already been pursued to

[2:49:51] this point.

[2:49:53] I agree totally with

[2:49:53] commissioner myers, we should

[2:49:55] just get the result we can do

[2:49:57] what we MAY, but we have an

[2:50:01] answer, one way or the other

[2:50:03] there, and, you know, we should

[2:50:05] just stay the course on this.

[2:50:06] This is next week.

[2:50:07] >> ken hagan: okay.

[2:50:08] Motion by commissioner owen,

[2:50:09] second by commissioner cameron

[2:50:10] cepeda.

[2:50:10] No other comments.

[2:50:17] Please record your vote.

[2:50:19] >> motion carried 4-3.

[2:50:20] Commissioners cohen, kemp and

[2:50:20] myers voted no.

[2:50:21] >> ken hagan: all right.

[2:50:25] anything else today?

[2:50:26] >> no, sir, that concludes our

[2:50:26] agenda.

[2:50:27] >> ken hagan: we're adjourned.

BOCC Land Use on 2023-09-12 9:00 AM

Agenda

Transcript