>> good evening, planning.
>> ken hagan: good morning ask
welcome to the SEPTEMBER 12th,
2023, regularly scheduled land
use meeting of the hillsborough
county board of county
commissioners.
Would everyone please rise for
the pledge and invocation given
by our chaplain commissioner
cameron cepeda.
>> donna cameron cepeda: [Pledge
of allegiance]
Heavenly father, we acknowledge
you in all of our ways.
We thank you for your great love
for all of us.
We thank you for your mercy that
endures forever.
And this morning we pray for
special blessing for master
deputy paul alsoundry.
We just thank you that for his
many years of 26 years of
serving others, as he's about to
retire, we thank you for these
many years of protecting his
life, and we ask you to continue
protecting him and that he will
have a long and healthy life.
We pray for all the many others
that are retiring here in
hillsborough county this month.
We pray for paula adkins, gloria
steel, bethany smedly, connie
casauny, roger peon, leslie
hickland, marsha batista,
joaquin, and howard nipper.
We pray for a special blessing
that they will have a long and
healthy life full of joy, and we
just ask you for this bless this
meeting this morning and we
thank you in your holy name.
Amen.
>> ken hagan: thank you,
commissioner cameron cepeda.
MR. Grady, do you want to review
to the agenda?
>> good morning, commissioners.
brian grady, hillsborough county
development services.
First I will go over to changes
and adependm to
addendum to the
agenda.
The first addendum is on page 6
of the agenda, b 4 rezoning pd
23-0193.
Revised report has been added to
the backup adding condition 1 to
clarify the requested intent of
the changes to add a
clarification that is part of
this community residential
home.
It shall utilize the existing
structures indicated in the site
plan.
So that is change to condition 1
to memorialize what was shown in
the record as the intent for
this project.
Next change is on page 9 of the
agenda, item b 11, patterson
road residential pi number
5549.
This has been removed by -- from
consent by commissioner hagan
and commissioner wostal.
Item, third change is on page 13
of the agenda item f 3 rezoning
standard 23-0115.
Revised report has been added to
the backup correcting a
scrivener's error in the
application summary section of
the staff report to correctly
update the reference to the flu
category, which is res 20.
It incorrectly showed that as
res 6.
That has been corrected to show
the res 6.
G1, pd 23-1090.
The applicant is requesting a
continuance to the NOVEMBER 2023
land use meeting.
Next change is b, 23-0210.
This applicant is requesting a
continuance to the
NOVEMBER 27th, 2023, board of
county commissioners land use
meeting.
And the next change is on page
15, item g 3 c, dri 23-0195.
The applicant is requesting a
continuance to the
NOVEMBER 7th, 2023, board of
county commissioners land use
meeting at 9:00 A.M.
Now I'll go through the
published withdrawals and
continuances beginning on page 3
of the agenda.
First item is a 1 rezoning pd
18-0996.
This is staff's requesting this
item to be continued to the
OCTOBER 10th, 2023, board of
county commissioners land use
meeting at 9:00 A.M.
Item a 2, prs 23-0136.
This application is being
continued by the applicant as a
matter of right to the
NOVEMBER 7th, 2023, board of
county commissioners land use
meeting at 9:00 A.M.
Item a 3, prs 23-299.
This application is out of order
to be heard and is being
continued to the OCTOBER 10th,
2023, board of county
commissioners land use meeting
at 9:00 A.M.
Item a 4, dri 23-0335.
This application is being
continued by the applicant as a
matter of right to the
NOVEMBER 27th, 2023, board of
county commissioners land use
meeting at 9:00 A.M.
Item a 5, prs 23-0372.
This application is being
continued by the applicant as a
matter of right to the
NOVEMBER 7th, 2023, board of
county commissioners land use
meeting at 9:00 A.M.
item a 6, this application is
out of order to be heard and is
being continued to the
OCTOBER 10th, 2023, board of
county commissioners land use
meeting at 9:00 A.M.
Item sarks avenue, special use
le 23-0498, this application is
being continued by the applicant
as a matter of right to the
OCTOBER 10th, 2023, board of
county commissioners land use
meeting at 9:00 A.M.
Item a 8, prs 23-0744.
This application is being
continued by the applicant as a
matter of right to the
OCTOBER 10th, 2023, board of
county commissioners land use
meeting at 9:00 A.M.
Item a 9, prs 23-0767.
This application is being
continued by the applicant as a
matter of right to the
OCTOBER 10th, 2023, board of
county commissioners land use
meeting at 9:00 A.M.
-- item a 11, rezoning pd
22-0075.
This application is out of order
to be heard and is being
continued to the OCTOBER 10th,
2023, board of county
commissioners land use meeting
alt 9:00 A.M.
9:00 A.M.
And item a 12, vacation petition
22-0019.
Staff is requesting this item be
continued by the
OCTOBER 10th, 2023, board of
county commissioners land use
meeting at 9:00 A.M.
That concludes all changes to
the agenda.
>> ken hagan: can we have a
motion to approve the changes?
>> gwen myers: move for
approval.
>> ken hagan: motion,
commissioner myers, second,
commissioner kemp.
Please record your vote.
>> motion carried 7-0.
>> ken hagan: can we have a
motion to approve the consent
with the exception of b 11,
which was pulled.
Motion by commissioner owen.
>> gwen myers: second.
>> ken hagan: second,
commissioner myers, to approve
the consent agenda.
Please record your vote.
>> motion carried 7-0.
>> ken hagan: if you're here for
a b item, your application has
been approved.
Before we hear b 11 I would like
to ask the clerk to administer
the oath, so if you're planning
on testifying today, please
stand and raise your right hand
so the clerk can swear you in.
[Swearing in]
>> I do.
>> thank you.
>> ken hagan: MR. Grady, do you
want to introduce b 11?
>> commissions, the first item
on the agenda is b 11, patterson
residential pa number 5549.
The applicant is to accept
accept the plat for recording
for patterson road
residential,lectomied in section
29 township 27 and range 17 and
grant permission to the
development review division of
development services department
to administratively accept the
improvement facilities for
maintenance upon completion.
>> ken hagan: is the applicant
here.
>> kami corbett on behalf of
will hard henderson ooon behalf
of --
>> I think what I would say to
the board, a plat is a
minspherule item.
Really what you're reviewing is
whether or not it complies with
the technical standards of these
florida statutes and your land
development code.
And your staff has found that it
does in fact comply with those
items and so therefore it's
really something that is
approvable.
We normally don't have a public
hearing on it.
I think the case law will
support that it's a ministerial
approval that you really don't
have to discretion to deny.
So that would be our position on
it, so we would respectfully
request that you approve it.
>> ken hagan: okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner wostal, you pulled
the item also.
Do you want to make comments
or?
>> joshua wostal: yeah, I just
wanted -- I want to learn more
about it.
I mean, to my understanding,
MR. Gormly, is this the, I know
that this is the plot of land
that the water pipes were being
ran through, right?
On the easements there?
>> this, this plat does have a
wastewater service to it, yes,
water and wastewater services.
>> joshua wostal: when I had
talked to you about this a
couple months ago, is this the
same issue where it seemed to
have been done in a different
way in the past where normally
the developer will come to an
agreement with the county and
accept accountability for the
costs of putting in this
infrastructure, it protects
them, but if not in this way,
did they do it with some type
of -- I'm just trying to
understand.
It seems this one was done in a
different way than past ones and
I want to be transparent about
if it was done differently why
it was done differently.
That way there is no confusion.
We have obviously been reached
out by the public on this
particular plot of lnd so if
you could clarify that
confusion, I would appreciate
it.
>> commissioner, you're
referencing the oversizing a
portion of the pipes?
>> joshua wostal: correct.
>> so there is a oversized
portion of the pipe that is
leading, I believe it's along
race track road.
That oversizing was done to
accommodate a future county
project with flows coming from a
wastewater treatment plant in
the north.
The project was reviewed and
approved for all the technical
standards associated with those
oversized pipes.
In past instances where there's
been an oversizing, the
applicant has pursued an
oversizing agreement with the
board to be reimbursed for the
additional cost of oversizing
those pipes.
The applicant has not pursued
that oversizing agreement, has
not pursued that oversizing
agreement.
Nonetheless, the pipes are being
installed in accordance with the
approved plans and are being
inspected and my understanding
that the applicant made the
conscious decision to proceed
with the development
notwithstanding not having
pursued a oversizing agreement.
>> joshua wostal: so then this
item doesn't have anything to do
with the oversizing agreement.
This is just --
>> correct.
This item would -- this item
would approve the final plat
which would create individual
lots and tracts within the
parcel.
It will grant the county staff
the authority to accept the
improvement facilities which
would include the water and
wastewater pipes once they're
completed provides a performance
security for the completion of
those improvements as well as a
warranty security for two years
to warrant -- to provide a
warranty against defects in
workmanship on the
infrastructure that the county's
accepting.
>> joshua wostal: okay and the,
my final, is the -- we have so
many different water projects
going on because of our growth,
so is, what's the need for this
wastewater facility?
Because is it, is this the one
that's outdated up in the
northwest part of the county?
>> I believe that yes, that the,
that there is a capacity
challenges, and I believe it's
the van dyke plant, and so there
is a longer-term plan to route
some of the flows that are
currently going to that plant to
the plant that's by advantis
ark.
>> joshua wostal: so is this or
is it not in layman's terms us
dealing with the oversizing
agreement?
>> there is nothing in this item
that deals with any
reimbursement for any of the
oversizing of the pipes.
It would --
>> joshua wostal: okay.
Thank you very much for that
clarification.
>> ken hagan: all right, thank
you.
I also pulled this item, and I
think the applicant is correct
when thee stated it is a -- she
stated it is a ministerial
action and we typically rubber
stamp plat approvals.
However, if you have been on the
board for a while you know this
has been anything but a typical
development.
There have been many, many
issues with this builder.
In my opinion they're just a bad
community partner, and I guess
question and there is litigation
between the neighbors and the
builder going on right now that
is set for mid-NOVEMBER.
So I think theoretically us
approving a plat today not
suggesting we deny it, but
approving it today would
theoretically result in a
reversal of some of the
improvements.
This could put unsuspecting home
buyers in a bad situation, so I
guess the question I got for
you, adam, is there anything
that prevents us from denying or
from delaying the plat
acceptance until the litigation
is resolved or what are your
thoughts on that?
>> well, first of all, I'll say
the applicant -- the plat is in
order to be accepted.
I would, I would agree with the
statement from the applicant
that there has not been any
defects or flaws identified in
the plat.
the, if the -- the language --
the approval is within the
board's purview to make that
motion.
There MAY be, you know, it MAY
potentially open up avenues that
of re-dress that the applicant
could seek, but the, you know,
it is the board's, you know,
prerogative.
It does need to be accepted by
the board prior to being
recorded as a complete final
plat.
>> ken hagan: okay.
Commissioner kemp.
>> pat kemp: thank you.
And I was thinking along the
same lines as you, commissioner
hagan.
This is a lawsuit with the trial
has been postponed twice, one I
guess because our main staff was
not able to, to intend at that
time and then just recently
postponed again because of the
hurricane.
So it won't be occurring until I
think NOVEMBER 13th to 15th
is what I read currently, and
like you, commissioner hagan, I
just don't feel comfortable even
though it is ministerial and
we -- I don't know of any other
time where we've got moved
something like this forward, but
this has been a continual issue
in particular with this
developer and violations of, you
know, repeatedly, and I just
don't feel comfortable moving it
ahead of the trial and a
decision from that.
I would rather continue it until
after that occurs.
>> ken hagan: okay.
>> pat kemp: I'll make a motion
to continue.
>> joshua wostal: second.
>> ken hagan: okay, commissioner
cohen.
>> harry cohen: I just really
agree with this line of thinking
that there
there is so much
unknown out there because this
trial is pending that we don't,
we don't have all the facts that
we need at this point.
So I agree with you.
>> ken hagan: commissioner
owen.
>> michael owen: yes, thank you,
MR. Chair.
I just need to know are you
supporting the motion, it's your
district, correct?
>> ken hagan: I'm wholeheartedly
supporting the motion.
>> michael owen: thank you.
>> ken hagan: we have a motion
to continue until after the
court rules on this issue by
commissioner kemp, second by
commissioner wostal.
>> commissioners, sorry,
DECEMBER 12th is the next land
use meeting following the
scheduled trial.
>> ken hagan: we'll continue to
that date.
All right, please record your
vote.
>> motion carried 7-0.
>> ken hagan: all right, thank
you.
MR. Grady.
Public hearing?
>> next agenda item is c 1, a
vacating petition by transit
development, includes --
homeowners association to vacate
a portion of two 10-foot wide
platted utility easements.
This is vacation petition
22-0009.
Carrie allen with real estate
services will provide
presentation.
>> ken hagan: good morning.
>> carrie allen, real estate
services department.
Vacate I.D. V-22-0009.
This is a petition by transcend
development corp and calusa
creek of hillsborough homeowners
association inc. To vacate two
portions of two 10-foot wide
platted public utility easements
lined within lots 71 and 134.
These are within the plat of
calusa creek recorded in plat
book 138 page 28.
The petitioners have submitted
this request to resolve the
encroachment of townhomes
constructed into portions of the
utility easements.
The proposed vacate area is
generally located south of balm
riverview road, north of boyette
road and east of highway 301 in
riverview.
The vacate areas consists of
approximately 17 square feet
within lot 71 and approximately
11 square feet within lot 134.
Reviewing departments, agencies,
and utility providers have
raised no objections to this
request.
Staff recommends approval of
this petition request.
>> ken hagan: all right, this is
a public hearing.
Would anyone like to speak to
this item?
Can we have a motion?
>> joshua wostal: move for
approval.
>> ken hagan: motion to approve,
commissioner wostal, second,
commissioner cohen.
No comments, please record your
vote.
>> motion carried 7-0.
>> ken hagan: all right.
Thank you.
MR. Grady.
>> the next item is agenda item
e 1, it's prv application
23-0510.
The applicant is wal-mart stores
east, lp.
This is a request for a minor
modification to existing planned
development located on the north
side of brandon boulevard, just
west of mount carmel road.
The request is for a minor
modification increase
development entitlements by
7,689 square feet and also to
amend the parking ratio 4.25
spaces per thousand to 3.98.
Staff is recommending aproval
subject to revised conditions
and we're available for any
questions.
>> ken hagan: thank you.
Is the applicant here?
Morning, sir.
>> ken hagan: good morning.
Yes, this is --
>> good morning, yes, this is a
project to decrease the --
>> can you identify yourself,
sir?
>> albert lopez with cph.
We're asking the pd modification
to decrease the parking ratio to
3.78.
We had an addition what's called
in the modern retail world an
ogp, online grocery pick-up.
It's going to be new service
that wal-mart, it's currently
offering to their customers
where they are storing
everything inside the store
now.
They need additional space to
store these groceries online
while the customers come pick
them up.
So this is an area just limited
to employees only.
They will just store those goods
for a little bit until the
customers comes, park their
cars, employees wil go directly
to their cars and unload the
goods.
Nord to meet this demand we have
designed 45 parking spaces for
those pickup.
We're just increasing the
existing parking spaces from
9.5 feet to 12-foot wide which
is then forcing the parking
reduction.
We
we had provided a parking
study to support the parking
ratio works with the demand of
the services and the demand of
amount of customers coming to
the stores still will be enough
to supply for those additional
customers not using the ogp
parking spaces.
There's also restriction on
square footage in the building
per the pd today.
There is available square
footage on other areas.
We are requesting a change
increase on the square footage
for this building to cover for
the additional building, and
parking study has been provided
just to support that.
>> ken hagan: thank you, sir.
This is a public hearing.
Ed with anyone like to speak to
this -- would anyone like to
speak to this item?
If not, can we have a motion?
Commissioner owen, I'm sorry.
>> michael owen: yes.
And MR. Gormly, transportation
doesn't have any issue with
this?
We run that by transportation?
>> no issue.
>> joshua wostal: commissioner
myers, we have shoppers who go
here in this district.
The only thing I would ask you
would add to it is more cash
cashiers.
I'm sick of self-check.
>> michael owen: it's here to
stay I think.
>> ken hagan: commissioner kemp,
do you want to make any
comments?
Okay.
We got a motion to approve,
commissioner owen, second,
commissioner kemp.
No more comments, please record
your vote.
>> motion carried 7-0.
>> ken hagan: MR. Gormly,
regular agenda.
>> next item, commissioners,
agenda item f 1, rezoning pd
22-01577.
This is a request for a parcel
1.41-acre parcel that is located
on the east side of 78th
street located between causeway
boulevard to the north and
progress boulevard to the
south.
The request is to rezone from
asc-1 to a planned development.
The planned development would
allow for one single-family home
and a contractor's office
approximately 5,548 square
feet.
As you will see it was not
recommended for approval by the
zoning hearing master, found
inconsistent by planning
commission and our staff was not
supportive.
Our support was primarily
related to a proposed reduction
in the buffer width along the
southern boundary which the code
required 20 feet and three feet
is being requested and a 10-foot
reduction is also being
requested on the northern
boundary of the parcel.
Staff's available for any
questions, thank you.
>> ken hagan: all right, thank
you.
Is the applicant here?
Good morning, sir.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, commissioners,
todd pressman.
This is application 22-1577 for
247 ac and heat.
These are the company employees
here and the families that are
involved with the company.
It's in the greater palm river
area near causeway boulevard.
Property appraiser has it as
this piece of or this parcel
here.
Issue is that this is a small
business seeking to go to pd to
allow one residential unit and a
contractor's office with no
outside storagement their
operation is like a dispatch.
They come to the office, get
loaded up and they go for the
day.
This is a zoning plan where we
have a residential unit in the
front office in the back, about
20 parking spaces.
A lot of conditions which only
include interior storage for a
contractor's office.
The residential home remains
residential.
No freestanding or wall
signage.
Exterior of the structure in the
front will remain residential.
Opeg fence is required on all
sides of the property, including
the south.
All activity is to be interior,
and no active mechanical, ac or
heat repairs are done obsite.
They're done off site.
The goal is to look and sound
like a mixed professional
office.
You can see in the upper picture
how the residential unit looked
and the improvement that they've
done along 78th at this
point.
The actual business is very well
screened.
The buffer as you can see, you
can barely see it in two
pictures from 78th so it's
extremely well buffered.
Comp plan is res 9 which
includes commercial uses and
offices.
Under the zoning map, they're ci
and office commercial to the
north, to the south under pd is
a 7-eleven and cn uses.
78th itself carries 15,092
vehicles per day.
It's a very busy roadway, and
under the trip generation, it's
a very low amount of traffic.
The peak in the A.M. Is 9, peak
in the P.M. Is 10.
The site does have the test of
time as this type of activity
back in 1995 you can see the
main larger structure is there.
Has great buffering to the
north, we tried to get a holdf
that owner but he has been
unreachable.
It's a little bit of a property
that's been left to its own
devices, and critically,
commissioners, what you probably
didn't hear from your staff
report, the owner to the south
is in support and we have a
written letter of support from
him.
Large water body to the rear, so
you can see we're extremely
buffered, extremely screened all
the way around.
And that's the letter of no
opposition from owner next door
who has been great to work
with.
This is the property to the
north again we made efforts to
try and get ahold of them.
There is a variation supported
toot north in regard to a type b
screening, and to the south,
which would provide fencing and
some screening, I'm sorry, some
landscaping, and a variation if
the
for the driveway again in
concert with the property owner
next door.
Locational waiver has to do with
everything I've told you
already, which is the interior
use conditions, residential
character conditions, the great
buffering and screening I've
shown you already, and the
dispatch-like operation, how
they run this site.
Now, importantly, under the
greater river community plan,
this site is located in a mixed
use business professional office
area.
So specifically under the
community plan, we are in an
area that does support or does
direct use for are what's
proposed here.
And under that basis of the
78th street overlay district
specifically notes it's
appropriate to plan for the
transition of business and
professional offices.
Also under greater palm river
community plan improvements to
78th street are looked for,
which I've shown you they've
done a beautiful job on that
already, enhance the community
appearance and beautification,
and the vision of the greater
palm river area concept plan
illustrates the unique qualities
and land uses related to the
distinct areas of the
community.
See the future vision was
clearly laid out which we feel
that we meet.
Waiver 2 locational criteria is
based upon the elements I
presented to you for improved
compatibility and the overlay
use of 78th and again success
with the neighbor.
What it really boils down to,
commissioners, is that we feel
that we've done a really good
job on compatibility and not
speaking for the staffs.
They felt that perhaps we did
not do as well with
compatibility.
But I would sum this up in that
this started as a scwair peg in
a round -- square peg in a round
hole.
We worked very hard to whittle
that square peg into a really
nice round circle that fits
really nicely in the area.
And commissioners, we have cept
out, we've sent out five notices
plus the big yellow signs.
We have had zero, zero comments
from anyone in the public.
A total of 325 notice letters
we've sent, and not a single
complaint in fact we've had
support from the immediate
owner: and in regard to the
variations, even the zmh agrees
with some of the variations or
some of the criteria of the
variations.
So in summary, the conditions
were designed to make the site
compatible a a compatible as a
residential component is
included, along with the
buffering I've shown you, the
interior use.
The low trip generator we had
the test of time over a number
of decades.
The zoning changes have been
occurring in the area as I've
shown you, and we meet in our
opinion we meet the greater palm
river community plan.
With that, I would like to have
a few of the folks here to speak
in favor if I MAY,
MR. CHAIRMAN.
Thank you.
>> ken hagan: are these folks
part of the application or are
they just proponent testimony?
>> they're either applicant or
spoke or have letters in the
file.
>> ken hagan: okay, we can have
the applicant speak now and then
afterward we'll go to proponent
testimony.
Good morning, sir.
>> good morning, commissioners.
My name is chris eubank, I'm the
own fer
er of air 27
24/7.
One of the owners.
We have a lot of staff and
family part of the company and
part of this location.
We have been in business for
five years in the tampa bay area
serving many of customers for
their heating and cooling
needs.
The property we have done a ton
of work to the property to as
MR. Pressman said to screen it
and make it not look like any
type of business activity
happens there.
We do use it only for a dispatch
office.
So basically what happens is our
guys come in, basically get
their stuff and take off out of
there.
We don't park any vehicles
there, anything outside.
I think the property looks
fantastic as a whole: we are
asking for your assistance to
try to make this a possibility
because it'll be detrimental to
us if we don't get this type of
approval for this property.
Any questions you'd like to
ask?
>> ken hagan: no.
>> thank you.
>> no questions means you did
good.
Thank you.
So MR. CHAIRMAN, commissioners,
again, these are, this is the
family, 24/7 air conditioning
and heating.
They all came down here today.
I think probably it's a good
alternative for residents
slogging through the 120-degree
heat in attics and outside.
These are the guys on the
frontlines every day making sure
that everybody's staying cool
and everybody's getting response
in the hot summer.
So with that we appreciate your
consideration.
Thank you.
>> ken hagan: thank you.
Proponent testimony?
Anyone here in support of the
application?
>> hi, I'm sarah ford.
I am one of the employees that
works in the office for air
24/7.
And we're just here asking for
your help.
We have lot of families that
depend on us on the company for
11, and we do take care of lot
of ocustomers.
We've never had any complaints
at the location we're at.
Thank you.
>> ken hagan: thank you,
MS. Ford.
>> hi, I'm rich.
I actually lve on the
property.
i'm there 24 hours a day.
I live in the front house, and
like they've told you we've dup
done everything we can do to be
able to -- we have people who
actually come to apply for a job
and don't even know we're
there.
You can't see the building when
you drive down the road.
But we're again we're just here
asking for help to see if there
is any way that we can stay on
the property when they're saying
detrimental, we're, I don't even
know how we could survive
because we only pay like $1200 a
month where we're at now to try
to get into something like that
is a million dollars a month.
With the economy it is, it's a
lot worse and we're asking for
help any way possible.
>> ken hagan: if you could state
your name.
>> don richard nevels.
>> ken hagan: thank you, sir.
>> thank you.
>> I have one nervous nelly,
no?
Too nervous?
Okay.
You are intimidating her, she's
too nervous so we will pass on
her.
Thank you, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> ken hagan: thank you.
Anyone in opposition to the
item?
All right, planning commission?
>> thank you, melissa lienhard,
planning commission staff.
The subject property is located
within the residential 9 future
land use category.
It is in the urban service area
and also located within the
limits of the greater palm river
community plan.
Future land use element policy
1.4 requires that all new
developments be compatible with
the surrounding area, noting
that compatibility does not mean
the same as, rather refers to
the sensitivity of development
proposals in maintaining the
character of existing
development.
The proposed development is not
compatible neither in scale with
the character of the area and
therefore does not meet the
intent of this policy.
Future land use element
objective 16 and its
accompanying policies refer to
the need to protect existing
neighborhoods and communities as
well as utilize gradual
transitions between uses.
To the north, east, and south is
the residential 9 future land
use category, and to the west is
the suburban mixed use 6, and to
the northwest and southwest is
residential 6.
The area is comprised mostly of
single-family residential.
The proposed contractor's office
would increase intensity in the
area and is not consider
adgradual transmission and is
therefore inconsistent with this
policy direction.
The property also does not meet
commercial locational criteria.
The closest qualifying
intersection is causeway
boulevard and 78th street,
which is over 3,700 linear feet
away from the subject property.
The required distance for this
future land use category is
1,000 feet.
A waiver has been requested.
However the applicant has failed
to submit any supporting
evidence on yiewk unique
circumstances that would support
a waiver to locational criteria
at this location.
Planning commission staff finds
this proposed commercial general
use too intensive for the area,
and the proposed mitigation is
not sufficient to mitigate the
potential impacts.
Therefore, planning commission
staff does not recommend
approval of the commercial
locational criteria waiver.
The greater palm river community
plan has a strong desire to
balance residential, commercial,
and other land uses.
The subject site is not located
in an area identified for
commercial uses.
The area is completely
surrounded by single-family
residential uses.
While the applicant proposes to
limit the business activity by
providing all operations indoors
and primarily function as a
dispatch office, this type of
use is too intensive to be
placed in a predominantly
residential area, especially one
not meeting commercial
locational criteria.
As such, the request is not
consistent with the vision of
the greater palm river community
plan, and based upon those
considerations, planning
commission staff finds the
proposed planned development
inconsistent with the
unincorporated hillsborough
county comprehensive plan.
Thank you.
>> ken hagan: hearsing master?
>> the hearing master considered
the applicant's request for
rezoning of the property to
planned development to allow the
existing single-family home and
to allow use of the existing
5,000 square foot building as a
contractor's office with an
enclosed storage area.
The applicant is requesting a pd
variation to the land
development code to reduce the
required 20-foot wide buffer
with type b screening along the
subject property's north
boundary to 10-foot wide buffer
with type a screening.
The applicant is also requesting
a pd variation to reduce the
required 20-foot buffer with
type b screening along the
subject property's south
boundary two and three-foot wide
buffer with type a screening.
The zhm also noted that the
applicant is requesting a
reduction of parking spaces
required from 30 parking spaces
to 20 total of which one would
be a handicap space.
While the swreerk did not object
to these requests for variations
and waivers, the zoning hearing
master did explain the
nonsupport recommendations filed
by planning commission staff and
the development services staff.
Ultimately the zoning hearing
master's request was for denial
of the application.
>> ken hagan: all right, thank
you.
Commissioner myers?
>> gwen myers: thank you,
MR. Chair.
First let me thank the employees
for coming down because it is
extremely hot right now, and I
know you all could be servicing
our residents with their ac unit
now.
One of the things I would like
for us to make an exception to
the rule when it comes to our
small business, small
businesses.
i know our plans really don't
address small businesses, and I
know we have three denials but
I'm going to make the motion for
approval.
>> second.
>> gwen myers: I'll stop there.
[Laughter]
Got a motion to approve,
commissioners myers,
commissioner kemp and wostal.
Commissioner cameron cepeda.
>> donna cameron cepeda: I just
seconded that one.
I'm in agreement.
Definitely in favor with the
applicant, and j us
are just
second that one.
>> ken hagan: thank you.
Commissioner kemp.
>> pat kemp: yes, I also fine
this to be -- honestly it's more
what I would like to see is the
mixed use.
It's a long, narrow lot.
The back of it would not be
being used for anything.
So it's not the best use of it,
but that it kind of grew organ
clee
organically here and I
just -- I had a question.
So right now I know the business
exists right now.
Is there 30 spaces now and
they're reducing to 20?
Can anyone answer that?
I thought I just heard that.
Was I --
>> commissioner.
>> pat kemp: maybe I heard it
wrong.
>> I'm sorry?
>> pat kemp: maybe I heard it
wrong.
>> we are asking for reduction
for parking.
Currently there is no delineated
spaces in the rear where 20
spaces will be added.
>> pat kemp: I see.
So you were -- you wanted to
have 30 spaces but you're
willing to reduce it to 20.
>> 20 in the back and 4 in the
front so it's 24, chris, total,
provided?
Total provided.
Yeah, 24 will be installed, yes,
ma'am,.
>> pat kemp: okay and I know
there is -- and I respect the
concern -- this isn't to do --
the analysis and appreciate the
analysis by staff and the
planning commission staff, and
the zoning hearing master in
looking at this but I've long
wondered and I know that staff
knows this about the commercial
criteria location and those
limits.
This does, you know, strike me
as an office with the, with an
intensity, and I know it we
talked about intensity.
But at that site on madison road
I believe is an we're I
this
just really strikes me as
appropriate.
So with that, I'm going to
approve.
>> ken hagan: thank you.
Commissioner wostal.
>> joshua wostal: I just wanted
to say when I got this briefing
I responded to MR. Gormly saying
oh, this is my dad, right?
This is exactly how my dad
works, and I appreciate
commissioner myers' support for
small businesses.
>> ken hagan: all right,
commissioner owen?
>> michael owen: thank you,
MR. CHAIRMAN.
And MS. Leinhard just to get
some perspective, the increase
in intensity is basically what's
already there, because it looks
like what we have here, and this
is partly for MR. Gormly too,
the structure was already
converted I guess in violation
of code, correct?
>> correct, understand the
structure has been converted in
use already, yes, sir.
>> michael owen: so that
increase in intensity I how the
property is already being used s
that safe to say.
>> yes, the way we evaluate
property is based on the
existing zoning, not based on
the existing use necessarily.
So the rezoning itself to match
what is already there is what's
being evaluated.
>> michael owen: understand,
yeah.
So we have a converted
structure, doesn't meet
locational criteria, and the
buffering because you're
supposed to have 20 feet on this
particular property, right?
So we'll be making an exception
there?
>> yes, the requirement is a
20-foot buffer on both the north
and the south and they have
asked for variance
requestiations to those.
>> michael owen: -- variations
to those.
>> michael owen: okay and I
weigh the zhm, planning
commission carefully.
I get concerned.
The one thing I weigh heavily is
the district commissioner, she
made the motion.
I do think we need to be cog
smiiant as a board on these type
of properties whenever someone
say jumps the gun and converts a
structure without following the
rules.
But I certainly don't want to
get in the way of small
business.
These folks -- there is no
opposition as well, so I will be
supporting the motion, thank
you.
>> ken hagan: all right.
We have a motion and a second.
Please record your vote.
>> motion carried 7-0.
>> ken hagan: thank you.
>> ken hagan: next item.
>> commissioners, the next item
is agenda item f 2 rezoning pd
22-1688.
The request is for a
modification to existing
zoning.
The property is located on the
east side of 23rd street
southeast north of college
avenue in the ruskin area.
The parcel is 2.62 acres, and
the request is to rezone from as
1 to a planned development to
accommodate professional
services and health
practitioner's office of 28,531
square feet.
Staff is recommending approval.
Planning commission found it
consistent and the hearing
officer is also recommending
approval and we're available for
any questions.
Thank you.
>> ken hagan: all right.
Is the applicant here?
>> thank you, commissioners.
Todd pressman, 200 second avenue
south number 451
st. Petersburg.
This is 22-1688.
Located in the ruskin area.
Right along college avenue.
Or close to college avenue on
24th street southeast
composessed of at least
parcels.
Issue is as-1 pd for 2.62 acres
more or less for health
practitioners offices.
Planning commission is
consistent.
Surrounding uses to the north
are tiny homes.
There's a metro ready mix
concrete plant on one side and a
mini grocery store a little bit
to the further south.
Future land use category is
smu-6 which provides for
suburban commercial offices,
research parks, light
industrial.
As you can see we have support
from all three of your
recommendations, so I'm going to
do a little bit more of a brief
presentation on this one.
The pd plan is for professional
services and health practitioner
services with five footprint
buildings.
This is a pd plan.
Along 24th is 12,540 vehicles
per day, operates at a level of
service c.
We have good buffering and
screening on the north and you
can see the natural screening
between the uses.
And the site abuts on the right
as what you see here.
Abutting to the rear and the
owner to the west is the cement
plant as I've shown you on the
aerial.
Development services note which
I think is important that the
proposed.24 far is
significantly under the.35
maximum far.
And notes the proposed uses are
less intense than the allowed
uses in the adjacent concrete
distribution plant.
Planning commission notes it's
compatible.
Proposed rezoning meets the
intent of the objectives.
It's a nice gradual transition
and consistent with the ruskin
community plan.
So with that we appreciate your
attention and consideration.
Thank you.
>> ken hagan: thank you.
-
anyone here in support of the
item?
Anyone in opposition?
Planning commission?
>> thank you.
For the record, melissa
lienhard, planning commission
staff.
The subject property is located
in the suburban mixed use 6
future land use category.
The site is located within the
urban service area and it is
also within the limits of the
ruskin community plan and the
southshore area-wide systems
plan.
The intent of the smu-6 future
land use category is to allow
for uses that are urban and
suburban in intensity and
density.
The applicant is requesting
28,000 square feet of
professional services and health
practitioner services.
Office uses and smu-6 are
limited to a.35 far and are
also not subject to commercial
locational criteria.
With 2.62 acres, the site can be
considered for up to 39,944
square feet of office uses.
The proposed 28,000 square feet
which calculates to a.24 far is
below the maximum that can be
considered in this category for
an area of this size.
Therefore, the request is
consistent with the type of
development planned for and
expected in the smu-6 future
land use category.
The proposed change, the
proposed change for office uses
is compatible with the existing
character of development in the
areas the current development
area contains other
nonresidential uses directly to
the east of the subject
property.
In addition the applicant is
meeting all buffering and
screening requirements which
will help mitigate the proposed
use from the existing mobile
home park to the north.
Rather than one large 28,000
square foot building the
applicant is proposing to break
up the square footinage to five
smaller buildings and each
building is limited to no more
than 20 feet in height.
This effort will help to keep
the proposed development in
scale with the surrounding
development consistent with
future land use element policy
1.4 relative to compatibility.
The proposed rezoning meets the
intent of the neighborhood
protection policies that modify
future land use element
objective 16.
The apapplicant is proposing a
20-foot buffer along the
northern boundary adjacent to
residential, which is consistent
with future land use element
policy 16.1.
The applicant is also proposing
complementary office uses with
transportation and pedestrian
connections to the south and
north, which is consistent with
policy 16.3.
The site is located external to
established and developing
neighborhoods which is
consistent with policy 16.5.
The proposed planned development
is also consistent with the
ruskin community plan which
seeks to provide opportunities
for business growth and jobs in
the ruskin community.
Specifically the community plan
envisions having appropriate
land uses zoned for office and
light industrial development.
The proposed office uses are
consistent with this vision.
Based upon these considerations,
planning commission staff finds
the proposed planned development
consistent with the
unincorporated hillsborough
county comprehensive plan
subject to the conditions
proposed by development
services.
Thank you.
>> ken hagan: hearing master?
>> the zoning hearing master
considered the proposed rezoning
of the subject property which
consists of approximately
2.62 acres and is designated
smu-6 on the future land use map
currently zoned as-1.
The general area surrounding the
subject property consists of a
mix of residential, commercial,
and manufacturing uses.
Adjacent properties include a
parcel zoned pd, zc and
developed as a tiny home
community to the north.
Property zoned m and developed
as a cement manufacturing plant
to the east and southeast.
And undeveloped parcels zoned
as-1 owned by the cement company
to the south and two parcels
zoned cg and developed as a
neighborhood grocery store and
barber shop further south.
as well as property zoned ar and
developed residential uses to
the west across southeast 24th
street.
Again, the applicant's request
is for rezoning of the property
to pd which would allow for
28,000 square feet of
professional service and health
practitioner's offices.
Development services department
staff found the proposed pd
rezoning to be compatible with
the surrounding properties and
in keeping with the general
development pattern of the area
and approvable subject to the
conditions proposed as you've
heard planning commission staff
has also found the proposed
rezoning would allow development
that is compatible with the
surrounding development pattern
and with the comprehensive
plan.
The zoning hearing master
therefore recommended approval.
>> ken hagan: commissioner
owen?
>> thank
>> michael owen: thank you,
MR. CHAIRMAN.
Yes, this is my district, and
I'm glad to see this project,
this is as south county
continues to grow we need more
health professionals in that
area.
My constituent that reached out,
MR. Gormly, there was an issue I
think on a drainage concern
that, but we've assured that
individual, right, that that's
something that we have to remedy
before we even get off the
ground.
So that has been, yeah.
>> yes, commissioner.
There is a drainage easement
across the site once the site is
developed.
It will go through a stormwater
review, and that the review will
ensure the impact.
>> michael owen: very good.
Move for approval.
>> joshua wostal: second.
>> ken hagan: we have a motion
to approve by commissioner owen,
second by commissioner wostal.
If there are no other comments,
please record your vote.
>> motion carried 7-0.
>> ken hagan: f 3.
>> thank you, MR. CHAIRMAN.
Thank you, commissioners.
>> next item is agenda item f
3.
It's rezoning standard 23-0115.
It's a request to rezone a
.55-acre parcel on the east side
of theresa street located in the
town 'n' country area west of
webb and north of hillsborough
avenue.
Again, the request is to rezone
from rsc 6 to rm
rmc 20 which is
a multifamily zoning district.
The comprehensive plan is res
20, and based on the surrounding
development pattern which
contains existing rmc 20 uses in
the immediate area, staff is
recommending approval, was found
consistent with
by the planning
commission and also hearing
officer is recommending approval
and staff is available for any
questions.
Thank you.
>> ken hagan: thank you.
I believe the applicant is on
virtual.
>> yes, sir, good morning.
I'm the principal for --
investments corporation.
I was the one who submitted this
application if you look at the
current zoning all around they
are r 20, so this lot was never
sold in the last 50, 60, or 70
years, and I was just applying
to rezone it from rsc-6 to r-20
and we have all the necessary
waivers from all the different
departments and everyone has
given the clearance to move
forward with this rezoning.
>> ken hagan: is anybody
anyone
here in support of the item?
Anyone in opposition?
Planning commission?
>> thank you.
Melissa lienhard, planning
commission staff.
The sng
subject property is
located within the residential
20 future land use category.
It is in the urban service area
and located within the limits of
the town 'n' country community
plan.
The subject site is located in
the urban service area where
according to objective 1 of the
future land use element, 80% of
the county's growth is to be
directed.
The proposed request is
consistent with this policy
direction.
In addition, future land use
element policy 1.4 requires that
all new developments be
compatible with the surrounding
area.
The proposed change from rsc-6
to rmc-20 zoning is compatible
with the existing character of
development in the area as the
current development pattern
contains extensive rmc-20 zoning
to the south, east, and
northeast.
The proposed rezoning meets the
intent of neighborhood
protection policies of the
future land use element.
The development pattern of the
surrounding area shows other
residential uses with varying
lot size.
The proposed rezoning would also
encourage an appropriate
transition in intensity between
the commercial zoning districts
located south of the subject
property and the single-family
zoning districts located north
of the subject property.
A rezoning to rmc-20 would
reflect a development pattern
that is in keeping with the
existing development pattern
which is consistent with this
policy direction.
The town ncountry community
plan's vision statement
encourages development that
increases the property values of
homes.
Allowing rmc-20 zoning on the
subject site will encourage
development and increase value
to the area, especially
considering that the site is
currently vacant.
The proposed rm
rmc-20 zoning
district is aligned with the
community plan's language
regarding a strong urban
community and is therefore
consistent with the overall
vision of the community plan.
Based upon those considerations,
planning commission staff finds
the proposed rezoning consistent
with the unincorporated
hillsborough county
comprehensive plan.
Thank you.
>> ken hagan: zoning hearing
master?
>> the zoning hearing master
reviewed the applicant's request
for rezoning to the rmc 20
zoning district and that request
is for the development of
townhomes on the site.
The property is just over half
an acre.55 acres in size,
currently zoned rsc-6 and
designated residential 20 by the
comprehensive plan.
Some testimony in opposition was
provided at the zmh hearing
from -- zhm hearing from a
resident of the kingsport
townhome community to the south
but not adjacent to the
property.
That concern was regarding the
sufficiency of the roadway and
potential concern about traffic
and the reduction of property
values.
However.
The county's transportation
review section stated thatt the
subject property will be
accessed from theresa road which
is a two-lane undweeded roadway
with -- undivided roadway with
52 feet of right-of-way.
Transportation staff has no
objection to the rezoning
request.
Furthermore, the applicant
testified in rebuttal that the
resident of the townhome
community was referring to the
internal access roads for that
community, which can only
accommodate one vehicle due to
insufficient roadway width.
The subject property will be
accessed from theresa road which
is a two-lane road.
The zoning hearing master found
that the rezoning for the
development of townhomes on site
is consistent with the
development pattern in the area
as well as with the
comprehensive plan and is
recommended approval.
>> ken hagan: all right.
What's the pleasure of the
board.
>> michael owen: move approval.
>> ken hagan: got a motion to
approve, commissioner cohen,
second, commissioner myers.
No other comments, please record
your vote.
>> motion carried 7-0.
>> ken hagan: f 4.
>> the next item is agenda item
f 4 rezoning pd 23-0181.
The applicant is hope
international ministries.
This is a request to rezone a
9.44-acre parcel that's loathed
in the greater
carrollwood-northdale area on
mushinski road.
They will be single-family homes
but under common ownership of
hope international.
Technically it would still be
considered multifamily.
This will be an extension of the
hope international ministries
children's home to the west and
it actually specifically
conditioned to limit the use of
the residence to employees of
the facility to the west, so
it's functioning as an extension
of that.
Based on that, staff, planning
development services staff did
find the request compatible.
The hearing officer also
recommended approval.
I would note the planning
commission did find this
inconsistent based on
noncompliance with minimum
density policies which they'll
speak to as part of their
presentation.
Staff is available for any
questions.
Thank you.
>> ken hagan: all right.
Thank you.
Is the applicant here?
Morning.
>> good morning, kami corbett
with the law firm of hill, ward,
and henderson.
101 east kennedy boulevard,
suite 3700.
Find a place to put my stuff.
There we go.
Sorry.
I do have a brief presentation
for you this morning since we
did hear that planning
commission did find us
inconsistent.
I have the pleasure of
representing hope children's
home.
They are a private not for
profit school that is christ
based and bible based.
It's a children's home and a
school.
They do not accept any money
from any federal, state, or
local government.
They're fully privately funded,
commissioner wostal, and to
further introduce you to hope, I
would like to play a brief video
or have upstairs play a brief
video.
>> cami, can you please confirm
that video was shown at zhm.
>> it was and it's noted in the
clerk's record and it's the same
video I sent to you yesterday.
>> thank you.
>> one second.
>> we can't get it, I can
continue.
Okay.
>> joshua wostal: they're just
building suspense.
>> [Off mic]
[Inaudible]
>> and so the reason I show you
that video, and you might be
wondering how is this relevant
to land use.
It's eextremely relevant to the
question as to whether or not we
satisfied an exception to the
minimum density policy.
I wanted you to see what's
happening on the property, what
the nature of this property is,
and how developing the property
to minimum density which would
be 27 single-family homes would
be very disruptive to what's
happening.
Just quickly, you see the
vicinity, we're south of gunn
highway and west of henderson
road.
This is the existing campus in
aerial.
The yellow is the existing hope
children's home pd.
The green is the proposed pd,
and you can see in that aerial
there is a swimming pool, an
existing residence and some
structures, some barns and some
things that are already there,
and it's already integrated as
part of their campus.
So this is mart of what they
consider to be their -- part of
what they consider to be their
home.
The request again we're asking
for eight additional structures
to maintain those accessory
uses, and we are asking for a pd
variation to maintain the
existing buffers because I'm
going to show you some photos
and you're going to see that it
looks really rural out here.
Again, these are the images of
the cottage interior and
exterior.
That's the library you saw.
This is te playground that is
on the existing pd.
This is the swimming pool that's
on this property that's subject
to this pd request.
You can see it's already in use
by the children's home.
Again, and just again very rural
in nature and has a rural picket
fence and that, that's a dead
end.
That's adjacent to them, and
then you'll see on this aerial
what's beyond the dead end.
When we look to the west, we
have a very significant rural
development pattern of asc-1
zoning.
Now, I admit that when you look
to the north, east, and south,
there is a suburban development
pattern, and I understand why
the planning commission is
looking at that from that
perspective, but I think when
you look at it as a whole, and
you look at the compatibility
with this children's home,
there's no question that we've
met the exception for minimum
density and that that additional
density would be completely
incompatible and inconsistent.
We're consistent with the
greater carrollwood community
plan, which recognizes the
uniqueness of neighborhoods and
recognizes each neighborhood's
culture.
And this is the concept map from
carrollwood community plan.
There is nothing inconsistent
with this development with that
community plan.
And again, our point, we think
that requiring us to meet
minimum density would be wholly
incompatible and would adversely
impact the existing development
we have, and we would
respectfully request your
approval.
>> ken hagan: all right, thank
you.
Anyone here in support of the
application?
Anyone in opposition?
Planning commission?
>> thank you for the record,
melissa lienhard, planning
commission staff.
The subject property is located
within the residential 4 future
land use category, in the urban
service area, and it is also
located within the greater
carrollwood-northdale community
plan limits.
Objective 1 of the future land
use element of the comprehensive
plan asserts that hillsborough
county shall proactively direct
new growth into the urban
service area with the goal that
at least 80% of all population
growth will occur within the
urban service area during the
planning horizon of the comp
plan.
Future land use element policy
1.2 requires that all new
development or redevelopment
shall occur at a density of at
least 75% of the allowable
density of the future land use
category in order to optimize
investment for services and
infrastructure.
The subject site's future land
use category is residential 4
which allows for consideration
of up to 37 dwelling units on
the 9.44-acre subject property.
The proposed development seeks
to add eight additional
single-family dwelling units to
an existing dwelling unit uniant
of the site which would total
nine units.
These nine uits would fall
significantly under the 75%
density requirement which is 28
dwelling units for new
development within the urban
service area by a considerable
margin.
Future land use element policy
1.3 seeks to restrict new zoning
approvals for residential
development within the urban
service area, and future land
use categories that permit four
dwelling units per gross acre or
greater than do not meet minimum
density, unless certain
circumstances are met.
In their narrative the applicant
stated the proposed development
would adversely impact the
existing development pattern in
the area if it was required to
meet the 75% minimum density
requirement.
This however is not a true
representation of the dense
residential nature of the
surrounding areas adjacent to
the subject site directly to the
north, east, and south.
The eight new dwelling units
plus the existing residential
structure would vastly reduce
the density of the subject
property to a mere one unit per
gross acre which is
significantly below the 75%
minimum that is required for new
development within the urban
service area.
And based upon those
considerations, planning
commission staff finds the
proposed planned development
inconsistent with the
comprehensive plan.
Thank you.
>> ken hagan: all right, thank
you.
Zoning hearing master?
>> the zoning hearing master
reviewed the applicant's request
for rezoning of the subject
property to planned development
to allow a total of nine
single-family homes to serve as
employee housing for staff of
the hope children's home on the
adjacent parcel to the west of
the subject property.
The applicant has requested pd
variations regarding the
buffering and screening
requirements of the land
development code.
First is five-foot wide buffer
on the north and east boundaries
to allow a zero buffer and to
maintain the existing fencing
and mature vegetation, tree
canopy, and open space.
Additionally the applicant is
requesting a pd variation to the
land development code's
buffering and screening
requirements for a 10-foot
reduction and the 10-foot wide
buffer and type a screening on
the subject property's west
boundary to allow a zero buffer
and maintain the existing mature
tree canopy, mature vegetation,
tree canopy, and ownen space.
The zoning hearing master --
open space.
The zoning hearing master
reviewed the development
services staff finding that
although the proposed
development of nine dwelling
units does not meet the
comprehensive plan's minimum
density policy, the proposed
detached single-family home
development is in harmony with
the surrounding land uses and
maintains the existing height,
scale, and bulk of development
pattern.
Staff, the development services
department found the planned
development is intended to
exclusively serve the
institutional use to the west of
the subject property, which
results in the continuity of the
existing land use and visual
character of the area and does
not create additional
landscaping, lining, waste, odor
or architectural impacts.
The zoning hearing master noted
that development services has
found the rezoning compatible
with the surrounding properties
and in keeping with the general
pattern of development in the
area, and ha recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The zoning hearing master
concluded with the
recommendation for approval of
the pd rezoning request subject
to the conditions set out in the
development services department
staff report.
>> ken hagan: all right, thank
you.
Commissioner wostal?
>> joshua wostal: poor
MS. Leinhard probably hat
has
that section memorized.
I've only been here 9 1/2
months, I mean, I almost can't
go a land use meeting without
you having to repeat this
density.
So I just, I hope that when
we're going through all of these
rework of things we're looking
at this density section and
objectives, and it seems like
it's becoming a bureaucratic
nightmare in a certain regard,
and they had to hire I'm sure an
extremely fairly priced land use
attorney to come here for
something I don't even see as
necessary, and it's probably
something we need to review, so
thank you.
>> ken hagan: thank you.
Commissioner owen.
>> michael owen: thank you,
MR. CHAIRMAN.
And thank you, cami, fo
representing them.
I know it's probably not one
where you're making a windfall
of money.
This organization is wonderful.
I just wish, and you know, they
would expand to east or south
county.
I would love to have an
organization like that out
there, especially for what they
stand for and, you know,
obviously this isn't my
district.
Commissioner hagan, but I really
think that this is a great
expansion.
Now the only thing I saw on
here, cami, you said eight
additional properties but I have
nine on my notes.
I want to make sure my record's
right.
>> there is an existing home on
the site so it's on top of the
one there.
>> michael owen: got it.
This is a dead end road here.
These are folks working for
hope, this is why they are
creating this, it's an extension
of their facility in essence.
Very good.
Thank you.
>> ken hagan: thank you.
Commissioner cameron cepeda.
>> donna cameron cepeda: yes I
would just like to say I'm so
thankful that we have an
organization like this in our
community that are really
helping, you know, the hurting
hearts of these little
children.
I'm so thankful for this.
It's just amazing.
I didn't even know about that
organization.
It's just wonderful.
And I would like to make a
motion for approval.
>> ken hagan: okay.
We got a motion to approve,
commissioner cameron cepeda.
Second, commissioner wostal.
Commissioner cohen.
>> harry cohen: thank you very
much.
And you know, it is, I think, in
most cases not appropriate to
consider the mission of an
organization when you're making
a land use decision, but unthis
case, I think the counsel for
the applicant did do a good job
of explaining why this type of
structure makes sense on this
property.
And I guess that gets me to the
larger point.
You know, I respect the fact
that the staff has to, and the
planning commission have to make
narrow judgments within the
confines of the direction that
our policy gives them.
But what makes our system I
think work so well is that we as
a board have the ability to be a
little more creative and a
little bit more open-minded when
we look at these applications.
So when we look at something
like this, we can understand
when I,
-- why and we can apply
the judgment we have been given
to look at why it makes sense to
allow something under the
density, just like the one
before us where we looked at the
totality of it and we looked at
what the use was going to be and
we were able to see it was
appropriate.
So I'm also going to support th
motion.
i just want to say to the staff
that it doesn't mean that we
don't have confidence in your
judgment.
It means that we're simply using
the judgment that we are given
to come to a different result.
>> ken hagan: commissioner
kemp.
>> pat kemp: yes, and thank you
for saying that, commissioner
cohen, because I think it's
important and important for
staff as well as even I
mentioned earlier piece.
I appreciate the analysis, and
it gives me a thoughtful look at
what the policies are and a
little bit of extra thought
about why they were put in place
and what they do and how they
use our resources.
I talked about the urban service
area a lot, and density in terms
of that because what we're doing
is being able to use
infrastructure that's in place
and it's a massive problem for
the county that we don't have
infrastructure in place for a
ot of it and even in the urban
service area appropriate
infrastructure in place and
extending beyond it.
So I think the density is an
important point, and I of course
will be supporting this.
I mean, but I appreciate
commissioner cohen, you pointing
that out because I just think
it's, there is a lot of
thought.
It's made me think more when I
look at something about how we
do it and consider about what it
will be for the future.
So I
I think that's important,
and appreciate the staff
analysis.
>> ken hagan: I just want to
thank all the board members for
all of your comments,
particularly commissioner
cameron cepeda's remarks.
I've toured this campus a number
of times through the years, and
I got to tell you, I heard many
of the stories, and they bring
tears to your eyes.
I mean, they really do, and they
are doing remarkable things
there.
This is a beautiful rural
campus.
In addition troo
to some of the
amenities they showed they've
got an unbelieve
believable
indoor basketball court, I'm
surprised they didn't show that
as well.
But I'm very proud we're going
to approve this unanimously and
again in all my time on this
board I have gotten not one
complaint to this organization,
not one.
So I think that is a great
testament to the work they are
doing.
So very pleased to support the
motion.
Please regard
record your vote.
>> motion carried 7-0.
>> ken hagan: all right, thank
you.
Next item.
>> commissioners, the next item
is agenda item f 5.
This is rezoning pd 23-0257.
This is a request to rezone a
2.5-acre parcel that's on the
north side of bloomingdale
avenue just west of the
intersection of bloomingdale and
providence road.
The request is to rezone from
asc-1 to a planned development
for 100-bed community
residential home which would be
an assisted living facility.
Per the site plan, again, this
is a proposed site plan.
I would note that per the
requirements for community
residential home there is a
requirement for 500-foot
separation from a residential
single-family zoning district
which would be to the north of
that.
Staff is supportive of that
waiver given the fact that the
parcel to the immediate west is
a planned development that's res
20 and the plan is permitted and
being instructed with multi --
constructed with multifamily
multistory.
An increased setback and buffer
are being proposed along the
property.
They are providing compliant
buffering to the east and west
but they have also asked for
relief from requirements for
additional two to one setback
for additional structure height
for the two-story structure.
Staff is supportive of that
given the surrounding
development pattern and given
the proposed site plan.
Therefore, staff is recommending
approval.
It was also found consistent
bite planning commission and the
hearing officer is also
recommending approval.
Staff's available for any
questions.
Thank you.
>> ken hagan: all right, thank
you.
Is the applicant here?
Good morning again.
>> good morning, commissioners.
todd pressman, 200 second avenue
south, number 451 in
st. Petersburg.
Powerpoint for you.
We're located in the brandon
area.
Property appraiser has it shown
in the red lines here.
We are located just north of
state road 60.
Seeking a type c community
residential home with a 100-bed
maximum.
This would be an assisted living
for senior citizens and disabled
folks needing assisted daily
care.
2.49 acres.
So it's the type of use that
would have a common dining room
that ld residents would use --
all the residents would use.
Transportation provided and
daily living support is
provided.
Nurse provides some care through
license through ahca.
In harmony with the ldc planning
commission also finds it
consistent.
You can see the project site
here in red.
The applicant owns the property
in front as you can see which is
highlighted unyellow.
Next to an auto repair and
walgreens, and to the east is
the somerville apartments being
constructed at the moment.
So access would be through the
applicant's ownership of the
property, I'm sorry, it says
state road 60.
It's bloomingdale avenue.
And the side street is
providence.
DR. Nurani is one of the best
primary care doctors in
riverview area.
She has been in practice for 20
years, has had a lot of training
in hospice care.
She's predominantly been
servicing over 65-year-old
persons which would now include
myself.
And accomplish a lot of nursing
home assisted living work
throughout her career.
She's a primary care physician,
received her medical degree, and
completed her residency in
family medicine in
pennsylvania.
So we're in the smu-6 future
land use category, which
includes suburban commercial
offices, light industrial.
It supports this use and many
more uses.
We're seeking a flex a little
bit from the east side which
will allow us to increase the
density a little bit.
That's just part of the zoning.
And zoning as you can see is
mostly pd but as I've shown you
it's commercial intensive and
also multifamily density coming
in by the project to the east.
Approved for four-story
apartments which is higher than
what we will be, and
single-family homes to the
rear.
According to our peak hour it
would be 26 additional trips,
and a detailed traffic analysis
was actually not required
because the trip analysis or the
trip amount would be, is too low
for the alf.
So one of the nice facets of the
ALFs is a very low trip rate.
In fact as I work with them,
they wish there was a higher
trip rate that more people would
come and family would come and
visit them during the week.
So this is the proposed pd
plan.
It comes in a number of parts.
In the rear is the 35-foot
buffer.
Screening is 10-foot type b or
the natural growth that's left
which is much larger and denser
I'll show you in a minute.
And then we're providing a
108-foot building setback that
we call a passive activity
area.
That's done specifically for the
single-family that's on the
other hand.
In the middle is the building
area which would be the assisted
living facility and in front of
that would be the vehicular area
of circulation and dropoffs.
And then again, their existing
offices for medical is located
directly in the front.
There are a long list of
conditions in terms of how the
building will look.
And these are very specific laid
out by your staff to be sure
that it remains and it tails
itself to be residential
character.
Abutting approving on the west,
so to the west is a four-story
multifamily 210420 they have
begun construction on that.
We will be lowering than that.
, and they're providing a
60-foot rear setback, while
we're providing a number of
times more greater setback than
what's being placed in next door
on the west.
On the east side is two
residential structures with very
significant setbacks.
128 feet.
174 feet to the residential
structure, and there is a small
accessory unit that's a little
closer.
so this is the rear existing
buffer as I've indicated in the
conditions it's either what the
county provides which is many,
many, many times less than that,
so we have the option to either
leave this which of course we
want to leave so it's a nice,
dense, thick, high buffer, much
more than what's required by the
county.
This is another shot of the or
the side of the rear buffer.
MR. Grady went through the
buffers which are all supported
by the staff, and the height
requires two additional setback
for a foot over 20 and supports
on the west side that we're
closer because it's the
multifamily four-story, it's an
easy element to support.
MR. Grady went through
variations on the buffer as
well, which is supported by the
staff.
The buffer is 68 feet away and
they're installing significant
screening and to the north we
provided substantial distancing
and landscaping as I've shown
you.
Planning commission notes we're
compatible and that it's a good
transition between the uses
located in the south and the
residential uses.
Request also meets the intent of
the brandon community plan which
seeks to concentrate density in
the urban area.
We did host a community
meeting.
We had five residents show up.
We noticed 32 residents rvetle
I'm
, 59 residents were noticed
within the 500-foot radius.
That was a very good meeting.
We have had no opposition from
that meeting and when I last
checked the record we have had
no calls or concerns from
neighbors.
So with that this is a use that
generates low trips needed in
the area.
This is the kind of place that
we want to have our mothers,
fathers, grandmothers, and
grandfathers, this is where we
would like them to be and new
residential-like settings in a
residential area not sterile
commercial areas.
And uses support for assisted
living for meals and assistance
and transportation, things of
that nature.
So with that we appreciate your
consideration and review.
Thank you.
>> ken hagan: is anyone here in
support of the application?
Anyone in opposition?
Planning commission?
>> thank you, melissa lienhard,
planning commission staff.
The subject property is located
in the suburban mixed use 6
future land use category.
It is in the urban service area
and also within the limits of
the brandon community plan.
The proposed rezoning meets the
intent of future land use
element policy 1.4 relative to
compatibility of the request
with the surrounding area.
The subject site is adjacent to
single-family uses to the north,
west, and east.
Heavy commercial uses are
adjacent to the southwest, and
light commercial uses are
adjacent to the south and
southeast.
The proposed rezoning is
compatible with the existing
development pattern as it
provides for an adequate
transition between the intensive
uses located south and the
residential uses located to the
north.
The provided buffering and
building placement will also
help ensure compatibility within
nearby single-family residential
uses.
It will require a flex of
residential 6 located to the
west on approximately 1 quarter
of the subject property.
Future land use element policy
7.3 allows for the consideration
of flex requests.
A flex must demonstrate how it
furthers other goals,
objectives, and policies of the
comprehensive plan, and in this
case, the flex would encourage a
higher level of density within
the urban service area while
also providing adequate
opportunities for connectivity
through the use of stub-outs to
the south end of the site.
The flex request and the nature
of the proposed assisted living
facility are compatible with the
surrounding development pattern
and contribute to the use of
ranges allowed within the smu-6
future land use category.
The request also meets the
intent of the brandon community
plan, which seeks to concentrate
density in the urban general
character district while also
ensuring that all changes be
compatible to the, to preserve
existing neighborhoods.
The proposed use provides an
adequate transition of intensity
between the commercial uses
located south and the
residential uses located north
and is therefore consistent with
this goal.
based upon this information,
planning commission staff
recommends approval o the flex
request.
Future land use element
objective 17 allows for the
consideration of residential
support uses within
neighborhoods, so long as they
are compatible with the surp
surrounding development
pattern.
Assisted living facilities are
considered residential support
uses under this policy, and the
proposed request will allow for
development that is appropriate
in scale and intensity for the
surrounding land uses, and is
therefore consistent with the
neighborhood and community
serving uses policy direction.
Based upon those considerations,
planning commission staff finds
the proposed planned development
consistent with the
unincorporated hillsborough
county comprehensive plan
subject to the conditions
proposed by development
services.
Thank you.
>> ken hagan: zoning hearing
master?
>> the zoning hearing master
considered the applicant's
request to rezone the subject
property to a planned
development to allow development
of a community residential home
type c with a maximum of 100
placed residents.
The applicant's site plan shows
the proposed residential home
will consist of two stories with
a total of 27,265 square feet
and will be a maximum of 35 feet
tall.
The zoning hearing master
summarized the waivers from the
land development code that have
been requested by the applicant
associated with this planned
development.
The first is a waiver of the
requirement that a type a
community residential home not
be located within the radius of
500 feet of an area of
nonagricultural single-family
zoning.
Additionally, the applicant has
requested a pd variation to ldc
part 6.06.00 regarding buffering
and screening.
Additionally there has been a
request for waiver of section
6.01.01 which provides for
structures with a permitted
height greater than 20 feet.
Must be setback an additional
two feet for every one foot of
structure height over 20 feet.
The zoning hearing master
reviewed the waiver and
variation request and found them
to be supportable.
Furthermore, the zoning hearing
master summarized the
recommendations of the
development services department
staff which found the proposed
pd rezoning to be supportable
based on the conditions proposed
by the applicant.
The planning commission staff as
you heard is also supportive of
this proposed rezoning.
The zoning hearing master
concluded that the request for
pd rezoning is supportable,
recommended approval, and
concluded that the request was
supportable in connection with
the comprehensive plan and land
development code.
>> ken hagan: commissioner
owen.
>> michael owen: thank you,
MR. CHAIRMAN.
mr. Pressman, on this, so the,
and I just want to clarify, this
is a highly unimproved road
bloomingdale just to let
everybody know.
We got to be very careful on
approving high reses on this
road.
I know it's your, this is your
district, but I still get the
phone calls I think because it's
new in your district.
So the ingress and egress as to
this, so will providence have
access to this as well
bloomingdale, or how -- I know
hancock tires is next to it and
then we got a walgreens and then
a townhome community behind that
and then winthrop up front.
I want to make sure I have that
right on the inress and egress
here.
>> excuse me, I'm sorry.
Access is on bloomingdale.
>> michael owen: access just on
bloomingdale and not off
providence?
>> right.
>> I'm.
>> michael owen: I'm not
concerned about this because
it's assisted living.
I don't think we're going to
have rush hour traffic or
anything like that.
I didn't know this was nurani's
property, nurani medical is one
of the largest primary care
folks for our district.
They do a great job, wonderful
people.
Is this some type of an
extension of their -- I mean
of -- does this has nothing to
do with their medical facility
though, correct?
>> well, that's one nice thing
is she will act as of course a
physician basically on site
which would help to reduce
further trips because a lot of
older folks are going to docs,
so yes, that is part of it.
Her training is in older care
and in nursing home care, so
this is a natural extension of
her practice.
>> michael owen: good, good.
And I
I think I'm going to be
supportive.
I'm going to sit back and listen
to commissioner myers and some
other commissioners.
Thanks.
>> ken hagan: commissioner
myers.
>> gwen myers: mine is to
approve the item.
>> ken hagan: okay.
Got a motion to approve
commissioner myers, second,
commissioner wostal.
If there are no other comments,
please record your vote.
>> motion carried 7-0.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, if I MAY, I had
a number of applications today
and some of these applications
go through a lot of hoops and
humps and I just want you to
know, MR. Gradely and michelle
heinrich are, and their staff
are just doing a great job.
>> ken hagan: thank you, sir.
>> it takes a lot to go through,
but I definitely wanted to
mention that, particularly in
these.
We worked very hard on them, and
they keep our feet to the fire.
>> ken hagan: okay.
>> they're good to work with.
Thank you.
>> ken hagan: next item.
>> the next item is agenda item
f 6.
This is a initial consideration
of hc/cpa 23-15, a privately
initiated comprehensive plan
text amendment of the energy
industrial park 2nds of the
future land use element.
Melissa lienhard will introduce
this item.
>> hello, everyone.
I will start out by saying this
is the first time the board is
seeing this process, which is
based on a recent procedures
manual change earlier this
year.
So the initial consideration
process pertains to privately
initiated text amendments to the
comprehensive plan.
So this is our first time all of
us navigating this together.
So we're here today, would you
mind fast forwarding to the
aerial.
I think it might be slide --
there we go.
This is perfect.
Just to orient everyone.
So we're here today because a
privately initiated text
amendment was submitted for text
in the future land use element
in the comprehensive plan
related to the energy industrial
park area.
That's generally located on the
south side of state road 60
between dover road and turkey
creek road: if any of you have
ever been to midard park, it is
directly to the west across
turkey creek.
The applicant is requesting to
modify the text of the existing
energy park language within the
plan with regard to when certain
uses MAY occur on the site.
The way the language is adopted
today reads that renewable
energy producing facilities need
to be ready to operate prior to
other uses being allowed on the
site.
The applicant is proposing to
modify the language to allow for
up to 30% of the allowable uses
for industrial, warehousing,
distribution, commercial, and
office uses that those were all
approved as part of the 2010
planned development rezoning
that accompanied this language
being introduced into the
comprehensive plan.
So the rezoning was approved in
2010 and the language was
introduced into it
the
comprehensive plan via a text
amendment at that time.
As well.
So pursuant to the procedural
manual changes, once a privately
initiated text amendment to the
comprehensive plan is applied
for, planning commission staff
is required to schedule the item
for initial consideration which
is why we're here today at the
meeting of the board of county
commissioners, and then the
procedures manual further states
that the planning commission
will prepare a report to
accompany the application that
needs to include at minimum a
determination of resources that
are needed for adequate review,
a recommendation of a time frame
to review the application, and
then a recommendation of
additional public outreach to be
conducted by the applicant
beyond what is already required
as part of the procedures
manual.
So in your backup today, I did
prepare a memo that was provided
to you all outlining those
items.
I'm here for any questions.
I didn't want to go through
every single thing line item
because I know we have lot to
talk about, but I did want to
particularly highlight some
items under the public outreach
requirements.
Our -- or recommendations.
We have had a lot of citizen
interest in this site over the
years.
We really wanted to make sure
that we got it
the information
out and that we kind of went
that extra step beyond what's
required in the procedures
manual.
So one extra thing that we put
in the memo suggesting to the
board to approve today would be
an additional neighborhood
meeting, and that would be in
addition to the one neighborhood
meeting that's outlined in the
procedures manual today, and
that first meeting that is
required for every map amendment
that and again, I think I should
preface this by saying while
this is a text amendment, this
does only apply to one
geographical area in
unincorporated hillsborough
county, so it kind of acts a
little bit like a map amendment
in that way even though it is
texnically a text amendment.
So woo asked for an extra
neighborhood meeting beyond the
one that's already listed in the
procedures manual for map
amendments, and that first
meeting that all map amendment
applicants have to go through
the process for today is it's
either an applicant initiated
meeting, or if they choose to
wait, it can also be a citizen
initiated meeting.
So they will go through that
process if this is approved
today per the planning
commission staff's
recommendations but we would ask
for one additional neighborhood
meeting beyond that requirement
that the applicant would be
required for mailed notice of
the neighborhood meetings
meetings which is typical, but
in addition melissa zornitta the
executive director of the
planning commission attended a
couple of the valrico community
plan meetings, and she had
talked to people even though
this is not part of the valrico
community plan proposed area, a
lot of people are interested in
this site, so melissa zornitta
had made the commitment that we
had a communication list from
these meetings that includes
several people in the area, and
that we would send an e-mail
blast to that list, planning
commission staff would, once the
details of that extra meeting
were noted.
So we have that noted in the
memo as well trying to go above
and beyond and really let people
know what's happening.
The applicant will provide
planning commission staff with a
sign-in sheet for that meeting
as well as a summary of the
topics that were covered, and
then the comments that were made
by members of the public.
And then again because this is
even though this is a text
amendment, it kind of smells and
acts like a map amendment, we
wanted to make sure that we had
signs on this site as well
because typically a text
amendment would not require
signage on the site.
So we have asked them to be
posted as part of this memo
request today at each of the
intersections, you know, so a
dover and state road 60, at
turkey creek and state road 60,
and near the subject limits on
dover and on turkey creek road
as well.
And then just to close out here,
the procedures manual outlines
what should happen at this
initial consideration meeting
that we're having right now.
The applicant will be afforded
time to make a presentation and
public testimony will also be
permitted, and then the board of
county commissioners shall tke
one of the following actions
after review of the report and
the testimony by the applicant
and citizens.
One would be a motion to take no
further action on the
application, and then a refund
of 80% of the amount of the
application fee would be
provided to the applicant should
this occur.
And the other option is to allow
the application to proceed for
review and public hearing in
accordance with the procedures
manual and then the motion shall
address ay of the planning
commission's recommendations on
the review time frames, the
public outreach component and
any provision of additional
resources for
sources
source if
applicable.
So that is what I have to
present to you today unless you
have any questions.
I know chris Mcneal is
representing the applicant.
He is here today.
And is then of course as I said
there is also public testimony
permitted today as well.
>> ken hagan: all right, thank
you.
>> thank you.
>> ken hagan: the applicant like
to speak?
Good morning, sir.
You have three minutes.
>> good morning, commissioners.
Chris Mcneal, 15957 north
florida avenue lutz florida on
behalf of the applicant.
I appreciate your time.
MS. Leinhard did a fantastic job
outlining the request.
I just wanted to say thank you
for that and also just to make
sure that it was clear that the
request is really generated
around a requirement of the as I
think we all know this is the
only piece of land that ends in
eip land use and because of that
the conditions are outlined,
they are site specific, there is
a site specific section in the
land use requirements for this
also generated throughout the
document as well.
We're planning to work with what
is already there and just make a
more specific request about the
timing of the construction, so
increase in density, no increase
enwhat is already allowed from a
land use standpoint.
It's just simply aloing some of
that allowed density -- before
the energy component is in
play.
That'll allow the owners of the
property to be able to get some,
generate some traction, some
momentum and some revenues that
would otherwise be able to help
support that; so that in summary
is the request.
I'm available for questions
should you have any.
>> ken hagan: thank you, sir.
It's a public hearing.
Would anyone like to speak to
this item?
Commissioner owen?
>> michael owen: thank you,
MR. CHAIRMAN.
And I probably get more
questions about this red herring
in my district than any other
property I would say.
More than rp 2 and wvr 2 and
I've attended every valrico
community plan meeting, and
people just like me scratch
their heads on why this even
exists.
If you'll notice where it is
it's right ot near our
agricultural community and the
parks.
MR. Gormly, would your clarify
why this is an energy park.
It's 3,000 acres, a very large
parcel of property, could you
clarify for the public why it is
an energy park?
>> yes, sir.
So this area is designated an
energy park due to the energy
industrial park future land use
category and the associated
zoning that implements those
requirements.
The project was an extension of
this energy producing use
options, and the expapgz of
expansion of the urban service
area was solely if
solely for
the purpose of accommodating
that energy production use.
>> michael owen: it's extremely
slow moving and probably will
continue to be, right?
I mean, this is going to be a
50-year project the way it looks
to me on how slow that we're
moving with any type of
development on this property.
is that safe to say?
>> it is safe to say.
There was initial user, it was
identified at the time of the
privately initiated amendment.
That user did not materialize as
envisioned, so there has been
some inquiries about the
property, but have not had that
I'm aware of a bona fide user
for the energy production use.
>> michael owen: and what the
applicant is trying to do here
from my understanding is there
is timing mechanisms in order to
develop that do not comply with
that energy efficient, the
energy efficient requirements.
Is that fair to say?
Is that --
>> yes, the energy use was, is
currently required to be the
primary use, and other approved
and ancillary uses need
currently need to farlo
follow
the establishment of the energy
use, and that is what the
applicant is seeking to change
with this amendment.
>> ken hagan: yeah, and
MS. Leinhard, I was going to
move the privately initiated
text amendment, so technically
I'm in a spot where I want to
make a motion to approve what
the applicant is requesting, but
now you've mentioned about
requiring the applicant or
citizen initiated meeting where
you're saying that needs to be
part of the motion?
Could you clarify that for me?
>> no problem.
Today there are one of two
motions available.
One, to take no further action
and the application will be
essentially withdrawn, and the
applicant will receive a
refund.
If you all choose to move the
application forward, that is the
other option, and then I would
ask that you opine on the memo
and the three, you know, the
extra public outreach and the
timeline and then see if that is
what everybody is thinking is a
great idea or if there is any
modifications proposed changes
then you could let us know
today, give us that direction,
and then that would be your
motion.
For today for to move forward
with the traditional public
hearing process and procedures,
it would not remain as part of
the JULY cycle of plan
amendments just because this is
going to follow its own path as
far as time frame is concerned.
>> michael owen: MR. Mcneal
can you tell me what you're
asking for today then?
>> yes, sir, commissioner.
To address that and the ask, I
think the ask is really just if
it's to move the case forward to
allow the text amendment to be
able to be heard at a publicly
initiated request.
But to speak to additional
public outreach meeting and
posting of the signs, I think
given the uniqueness of the
property and we've talked about
the schedule prior to this, I
don't, we don't have any
objection to that.
I think it's good due
diligence.
So as far as those requests and
the timeline, I would, I think
that obviously everybody would
need to speak to, but from her
additional request of that,
that's not a problem for the
applicant.
>> michael owen: okay so if I
made a motion to move the
application forward with the
condition of having a, the
applicant -- having a publicly
initiated meeting, thatt would
be fine?
>> yes, I would ask if there is
anything else within the memo,
because there are three subjects
that we addressed, the
determination of the resources
needed for adequate review.
We asked for a few items under
that.
; but we did say that we can do
that with adequate staff time so
no consultant needed.
And then the time frame would be
just when we receive those
items, evaluating those and then
looking at the next available
public hearing schedule, and
this is a text amendment, so it
would need a transmittal hearing
and an adoption hearing as well
as of course we would come back
to you again with a workshop
like you're doing on wednesday
for the other items in the JULY
cycle, so it would follow the
traditional schedule.
And then the other thing is the
extra outreach items that we
listed, if everyone's
comfortable with those things,
then we can move forward as
everything listed sovment eif
there
.
So if there is anything you want
to modify, let me know.
>> michael owen: you're making
this hard for me.
>> I'm sorry.
You can move forward with
anything in the memo as is or
you can suggest any changes.
If someone thinks there should
be an additional sign somewhere,
let me know.
Something like that.
>> michael owen: okay.
Well, I'll move forward with the
application with the additional
outreach and to follow the
requirements consistent with
what's in the memo.
>> ken hagan: okay we got a
motion by commissioner owen,
second by commissioner wostal.
Commissioner kemp.
>> pat kemp: thank you.
This is a huge project.
I think it's important to first
look at a little bit just to
know a little bit of the history
here which if you could just,
can we put up a map of the urban
service area which actually
shows how this piece is out
there at 60, this huge piece
over all that the current text
amendment covers that's
3,000 acres, correct?
>> I do have an aerial that was
provided by the applicant on
this powerpoint, which I had up
previously, and then I also have
a copy of the certified site
plan, but those do not show the
urban service area boundary.
>> pat kemp: I would like to
show it with the bigger urban
service area and how this is a
huge chunk out of 3,000 acres I
think to the east out of 60
where we have just heard very,
you know, and this board was
sympathetic to hearing it, about
how they were talking about
their massive traffic issues
there on 60 right there where it
is two lanes by the way.
And this directs out into it,
this is like open territory
here, but can we, not this
picture, I want the picture of
the -- just give me the urban
service line picture, do we have
that somewhere?
I just think that that is really
relevant and important for us to
understand here.
>> I appreciate that.
I do not have a map that shows
that particularly, but I will
certainly take that direction if
this moves forward for the
workshop.
I can certainly bring a larger
zoomed out aerial of this site
in relation to where the urban
service area boundary is, and is
then also something more zoomed
in that shows the site itself.
>> ken hagan: so the, and I've
talked about this before.
So, and I uctad about it when we
were talking -- talked about it
when we were talking about 60
and the traffic out there and
everything.
And when we're all these
discussions about the urban
service area and moving it
making the bigger.
This is a massive, massive piece
of property that sits out to the
edge of east county.
It just kind of chunks outlet.
It
out -- out.
It was passed in 2010 at the
time under what I thought was a
ridiculous premise that was
pushed forward to have this
3,000-acre place be this massive
energy park, that's what the
text amendment says.
It had to have two energy pieces
to it at the time we didn't have
things like solar panel farms or
things like that.
It had, it already has massive,
massive implications in
development in this totally
pretty much pristine area
there.
I had asked before because part
of it is phosphate mined and
supposedly that area can't be
built on.
I'd like to know what part of
that area can't be developed.
I don't think we have that
answer yet.
I'd like to know that.
I'd like to know this in the
context of the entire
3,000 acres.
I don't even, how many acres is
this that they have marked out
in this text amendment?
>> MR. Mcneal, would you mind
answering that question?
Because it doesn't pertain to
the full 3,000, so the portions,
the a, b, c, g, and h that you
had indicated on the site plan
that's part of the backup.
Do you have an indication of how
many roughly acres that would
be?
>> okay, so I don't, ma'am, to
be honest with you, know the
exact number of acres.
I could look at that.
It was really more focused on
the text amendment.
The text amendment is, you know,
there is a certain amount that
ties to the plan, and the plan
would be part of this process
ultimately if should it be the
commissioners' desire to move it
forward.
So north of that, there's kind
of a demarcation line through
that eip area and north of that
is where the development is
allowed.
There are conditions all through
there.
>> pat kemp: all right.
Well, I think this is certainly
not ready for primetime at this
time.
I think this is a huge step
without very much knowledge at
all.
The other thing is it really
bothers me to hear about the
energy park was the reason two
types of energy in this crazy
crapgz that
crapgz that was
mysterious passed in 2010 to
open up this massive area of the
urban service area.
So this is in the urban service
area.
The line went around it.
We will be paying for all the
infrastructure that we might
need here by the way.
This is just a massive burden
that we're putting on us now
when we don't even have the
infrastructure in place for what
we have.
But secondly, the, I don't see
any reason why there can't be a
renewable energy for the
300 acres or so that is promised
already first because I know
that there is lots of places
that are very interested in at
least 300 acres of solar
panels.
In fact I think they have said
that they have, you know, that a
minimum of 100 acres, so I can't
see why that can't be part of
the promise was made as part of
this, it was originally
developed totally for that
supposedly, and it's always been
a, you know, camel's nose under
the tent.
I never expected to have the
original park developed.
It was just breaking open
3,000 acres of the urban service
area.
Then secondly, we have -- we
passed last year, because the
first proposal never made any
sense anyway, but I couldn't see
a reason.
we were asked to change the text
amendment to not make it be two
types of energy because that
didn't make any sense.
It never really made any sense,
but we did that because it
didn't make any sense.
But I was hoping at least that
out of this we could first get
like I couldn't imagine anything
else that it could be besides
several hundred acres of, you
know, solar panels.
And I don't see any reason why
that can't as the text amendment
stated, and as we were asked to
do last year, why that can't at
least initially define this
because that would make a good
use for this community.
Make a good use for whoever has
the land and would require less
infrastructure out there at this
time than so much else would.
So I, you know, I think this is
just a huge chunk without very,
understanding this at all, I
obviously won't be supporting it
now, and I just think we have to
be so much more careful about
this, and if these areas want to
be developed, I just think -- it
should probably be done in
tandem with a zoning arrangement
of some sort.
So we understand what's going
out there, what impacts are, on
what infrastructure we ned.
It just, I mean, this is huge
with so little information.
I'm kind of, you know, stunned.
I always wondered how this was
going to come, but, I obviously
am not supporting this, and I
think we have many, many more
questions, and this should be
pushed down the road at this
time because I just think, and
I'd like to see that energy
park, whatever it be, finally,
put in first, and I don't see
where that is a, a burden to
this because I think there's a
lot of interest in that, you
know, by several large interests
in the area.
>> ken hagan: commissioner
cohen.
>> harry cohen: yeah, I just
want to get some clarification
from the staff.
I was under the impression that
this motion would result in a
workshop taking place to have a
discussion of all this.
And if, is that correct?
>> yes, if I MAY.
This is an extra step before all
of that gets started.
Before the typical process of a
workshop to public hearings.
>> harry cohen: so wouldn't the
moment to talk about this be in
a workshop setting where we have
opportunity to be briefed by the
staff?
You have clearly raise adton of
issues here but it seems to me
that the motion was to lay it on
the table and talk about it.
I'm trying to see if that is
maybe where it takes us.
>> if I MAY, the motion would be
to proceed or not to proceed
today.
That is the motion.
>> ken hagan: any of the board
comments?
If not, we have a motion to
approve by commissioner owen,
second commissioner wostal.
Commissioner myers.
>> gwen myers: a point of
clarification because I was
under the impression that the
vote would lead to the
workshop.
We vote yes and we move into the
workshop.
Is that --
>> ken hagan: yes.
>> gwen myers: okay, thank you.
>> ken hagan: okay.
No other comments, please record
your vote.
>> motion carried 6-1,
commissioner kemp voted no.
>> ken hagan: last item?
>> item I-1.
A report on the comprehensive
plan and land development code
of the community requirements
for wimauma.
Adam gormly will speak to this
item.
>> commissioners, item I-1 is a
report requested by the board at
the JULY land use meeting.
This was in the context of
considering council grower's
rezoning application, which was
approved by this board.
That was the first rezoning that
the board has heard under the
new wimauma village residential
rules.
Just brief background, the area
of wimauma is covered by a
community plan.
And within that community plan
there are some future land use
categories that are wimauma,
residential village 2, sorry,
wimauma village residential two,
wvr-2.
These are areas that were
previously designated as rp-2,
residential plan-2.
But during the 2007
establishment of the wimauma
community plan, they were
changed to the wvr-2 future land
use category.
That category previously
required that certain job and
shopping square footage be in
place to support residential
development within the village.
That was the subject of several
rezonings, and also several
challenges.
In response to some feedback the
board received, there was
direction to review the wimauma
community plan.
As part of that, there was a set
of regulations developed for
wvr-2 land use categories, and
those established criteria
needed to be met in order to
develop the category at greater
than the base one uit per five
jakers, up to the two units per
one acre maximum.
The regulations have
requirements that include open
space and designing the project
in blocks, and this report is a
requirement that community
benefits be required.
So the community benefits are
either on-site or off-site
elements that are required of
developments depending on the
project size.
The community benefits are
projects that are less than 25
acres.
There's one community benefit
required, up to a total of six
for projects that are greater
than 320 acres.
The community benefits are
listed in the report.
There are eight options to
choose from.
Those options are construction
of a trail or connection to a
trail, land dedication to the
county for use by recreational,
public or civic uses;
construction of new
non-residential uses in the
wimauma downtown; providing a
benefit that indirectly
contributes to furthering a
defined goal within the wimauma
community plan.
And those are the first tier 1
benefits.
Each project is required to have
at least one tier 1 benefit.
There's four more in tier 2 and
those through transfer of
development rights at a minimum
of 10% from the development
parcel to the wimauma downtown;
next is land dedication for
elapp; and the next one is
increase in internal or
recreation open space; and the
last is construction of on-site
non-residential uses within the
required neighborhood center.
This is a fairly new concept for
the county.
It does exist in wimauma
village.
The concept of community
benefits, although they're a
little bit different, are also
present in the new rp-2
regulations.
However those are not effective
due to a challenge to the
comprehensive plan amendment.
That is the sort of structure
base of the community benefits.
I'll also note that the land
development code requires that
there be public meetings held
for before an application is
filed and post-filing.
And those are to be notified to
registered civic associations,
and neighborhood organizations,
and the purpose of those
meetings is to discuss the
provision of community benefits.
So, again, this topic did come
up in discussion with the
council grower's rezoning, and
the board directed this report
for a separate discussion today.
It would be not intertwined with
that ten pending application.
I'm available for any questions
the board MAY have, or
additional information that is
needed.
>> ken hagan: all right.
Thank you.
Commissioner wostal?
>> joshua wostal: thank you,
MR. Chair.
And thank you, MR. Gormly,
for -- and MISS Zornitta, who is
not here, we had a lot of
meetings about this.
And we uncovered a lot of
information, a lot of
potentially concerning
information.
I'm not going to rehash all of
that today.
I think that community benefits
is a good idea that went
severely awry.
And for right now, it was
relegated to only one small area
of the county, and it's looking
to creep into a second one right
now.
But I see in the notes here that
we have a challenge going on.
And that's the only reason that
it hasn't progressed further
than wvr-2.
Correct?
Because there's some type of
pending litigation about the
community benefits?
I mean, fellow board members,
we -- I've uncovered things down
from private, nondisclosed,
nonrecorded negotiations of
people's private property
rights, to these community
development benefits creating an
unsafe environment for those
that were involved in the
application process, being
warned that the temperature of
things that were happening in
wimauma could produce an unsafe
environment for individuals
entering that area.
I believe that this is not the
intent of government.
i believe that this is not the
intent of what a community
benefit plan is supposed to
establish.
I believe that a community
benefit plan giving citizens
power to say what they believe
would be a benefit to their
community is good.
But most of the time, when you
hear what the benefits are, that
residents want to be able to
override and say, well we know
you don't think that a stop
light might go there, but we
drive there, and we want a stop
light at that intersection,
before you put 500 homes or 500
apartments there.
And we want maybe a community
benefit is that we want that
stop light to be done before the
development goes into effect,
instead of aftrwards.
And, those can be established
through maybe allowing the
community benefits to reach an
agreement with developers about
the use of their mobility fees.
And making sure that those
mobility fees stay directly in
their neighborhood pip know that
we have been reached out to
about some things that are going
down there in progress village.
So, I look forward to hearing
what everyone's thoughts are.
I don't feel the need to rehash
everything that was discussed
during the -- on my birthday
during the JULY 18th land use
meeting.
But I am going to make,
MR. Chair, I'm going to make one
motion, in that motion prevails
I'm going to make a secondary
motion.
I motion to direct county staff
to work with the planning
commission to present options
that develop a uniform community
benefit code for all of
hillsborough county.
And the intent of that is to
reduce this -- this community
plan has one set of rules, this
community plan has no set of
rules.
And how many community plans do
we have in hillsborough county?
It's 22.
Okay, I thought it was 23.
And that could create, also an
unknown safry and untenable
regulatory process.
Just if we're going to continue
this for the community benefits,
that the we create one uniform
plan, bring those options back,
please include some of those
things I've said, about
empowering those areas to
neighbor reappropriate the
mobility feet fee if that's what
we're looking for.
Certainly that those to be
included in there would be that
there's only one required
meeting, and that at the same
time, MR. Gormly, how many
neighborhood associations were
in this area?
>> at the time, at the time of
the council grower's zoning
there was one registered.
>> joshua wostal: how many are
getting denied because of our
outdayed 20-year-old process?
>> I'm -- there was one other
that was applying that was not
able to qualify at that time.
I believe they have now resolved
that.
At the time there was only one.
>> joshua wostal: so in this
overhaul then, we need to, if
we're going to be including and
requiring that properly
registered neighborhood
associations are the ones that
are notified, that we have to
make it ease of access for
citizens that are just -- if
it's one person in a community,
and I don't know if that needs
to be a separate motion, but
it's all tied in to this one
community benefits kind of
language, that we require these
neighborhood associations to be
noticed, that if it's one
person, that doesn't like the
other 99 people in their
neighborhood, and they want to
be an association of one, then
by golly, they need to have --
if we're going to require them
to be a part of one of these to
have access to notice, then
that's what we must do.
So, my motion is very simply to
overhaul the community benefits
neighborhood association
registration process to make it
unified, uniform code throughout
hillsborough county.
>> ken hagan: okay we have a
motion by commissioner wostal.
Do we have a second?
>> michael owen: well, I think I
MAY ask first, MR. CHAIRMAN,
just ask some questions?
>> ken hagan: technically we
really need to have a second on
the floor.
>> michael owen: I'll second.
>> ken hagan: okay.
Commissioner owen?
>> michael owen: and just some
questions.
So uniform community benefits.
You know, because, you know, we
have community plans, and then
you add this other layer of
community benefits, and, you
know, seffner is different than
carrollwood and carrollwood is
different -- so I want to make
sure when we're talking about a
uniform community benefits are
those just going to be basic
requirements, rather than --
rather than hey, you must donate
property to elapp or you must
negotiate away your brokerage
rights to resell whatever amount
of affordable housing any of
these many issues that arose.
That they're well defined and
restricted and controlled.
>> michael owen: okay.
Yeah, because I think these
community plans, one of the
reasons I pushed to do a valrico
community plan is, you know,
these communities are different.
And valrico wants something
different than brandon, and
brandon wants something
different than carrollwood.
So if that's the case, I
understand the motion.
The question I have, and this is
unique.
This is my district the rp-2 and
the wvr-2 and it's obviously
very contentious.
And I really commend people in
the community for wanting to
have a say in how their
community's developed.
I've learned firsthand, I grew
up in brandon, and river view,
and I learned firsthand what
it's like whenever the community
does not really engage and we
just start throwing up
commercial property and then
residential property.
But I also think, you know,
having a process that's a little
more uniform throughout the
county makes sense, because in
this case, you know, MR. Gormly,
just to clarify, there's a task
force to this attached to the
wvr-2, as well.
I wanted to make sure that for
the public, because I've got a
lot of questions on this, when
developers are negotiating, or
however you want to put it, the
community benefits plan, in
wvr-2, and maybe soon to be one
day rp-2, what authority does
the task force have?
Are they created by us, with
authority to be -- to negotiate
on behalf of, let's say, the
people of wimauma with a
developer?
Could you touch on that?
>> yeah, so, commissioner thank
you for asking that.
A question did come up during
the amendment process.
So, there is a reference to a
wimauma community task force,
the unadopted portion of the
community plan document.
So it is not -- that reference
is not a regulatory document,
and it does not have any force
of law.
I believe the reference was made
to try to have a voice that was
represented in the community's
interest.
But the group has no special
power, or standing above any
other participant in the
rezoning process.
They're not acting on behalf of
the board or the board's
interests or doesn't have -- and
there's no regulatory power or
status given to that -- to that
group.
I understand that there have
been a formation of that, and
there's some information
provided in the record of the
councillor growers' rezoning
about that.
But those were all private
actions taken with basically
private initiatives.
>> michael owen: okay.
Yeah, and believe me, this is no
knock on the task force, it's
just the concept of the few
making decisions for the many
that concerns me.
I'll sit back, and listen to
some other commissioners.
I MAY get back in the queue on
this one.
But I'd like to hear some more
commissioners' input.
I know that this was voted on by
the prior board.
I don't know how I feel about
just the community benefits plan
at all.
I know we had a jobs requirement
that was an issue, right?
So then we created --
>> yes, sir.
So the prior wvr-2 had a -- a
requirement that certain number
of jobs, service opportunities
be created before residential
development could occur.
And there was a ratio of demand,
of different type of uses, and
so that created to an analysis
of existing square footage
within the wimauma downtown.
It needed to be present in order
to support residential
development taking place.
And there were two rezonings
that utilized that, and then one
of them was fully utilized, the
square footage to support the
residential that they were
seeking.
The other partially -- partially
supported by that square
footage, and the rest has come
as projects have developed in
the area.
There were several others that
were denied for not meeting that
requirement.
Through the update of the
wimauma community plan we saw
that this was a well-meaning
initiative, found the reality
wasn't working, that the jobs
would come first and withdraw on
residential development in that
area was not working.
>> michael owen: that's what
kind of concerns me when I look
at the community benefits and I
look at looks like it's based on
acreage, how many of those
community benefits you would
choose, correct?
>> thaekt.
>> michael owen: I see thngs
like affordable housing
components where there's not
jobs, where there's not public
transportation.
And to me that is definitely
putting a cart before the horse.
And we talk about a bustling
downtown, wimauma, which I hope
to get one day.
You know, maybe one day this
whole county will be one big
grid and one big metropolis.
I'll be gone from this earth.
But that's probably where we're
going.
But I have a real good
understanding of things in south
county.
I was raised there.
I look at these two areas, and I
look at places like lithia, and,
you know, our commercial in
lithia has not really taken off.
But if you list your house for
sale, commissioner myers, today,
you live in fishhawk, it's sold
tomorrow.
So, the commercial tends to
still concentrate on those urban
cores.
And I consider brandon riverview
in your district, commissioner
myers, urban core.
But it's going to take awhile
for places like wimauma and balm
to have anything but, you know,
a dentist's office, an insurance
company, and things like that.
i've seen the commercial on the
outskirts of east county and
south county.
And what I worry about is some
of these requirements in here,
MAY hold the community actually
back.
So that's all I have for now.
I'm going to support the motion.
I'll sit back and listen.
Thank you.
>> ken hagan: all right.
Thank you.
I've just got one question.
Procedurally I'm assuming this
would require a comp plan
amendment?
>> yes, sir.
>> ken hagan: would it replace
the wimauma one?
Or would we have to rescind that
or how would that --
>> well, a couple things.
Thank you for that question.
So, the wimauma community
benefit requirements are
grounded in the -- in the
comprehensive plan.
It's a comprehensive plan
initiated to change that.
Thaz also in the land
development code so any change
that is made in the
comprehensive plan would also be
reflected in the land
development code.
In terms of changes or new
regulations, one of the things
that we will need to put through
the filter of is, a new law this
past session, senate bill 250,
and that prohibits us from
proposing or enacting more
restrictive or burdensome
comprehensive plan or land
development code regulations.
So in terms of the an areawide
expansion we would need to
filter that to make sure if this
was the direction, that did not
result in anything more
burdensome or restrictive, at
least until OCTOBER 1st of 2024,
which is when that is set to
expire.
Sorry, long answer but yes, it
would require change to the
comprehensive plan, and the land
development code, and what I'm
understanding is this -- what I
understand the motion to be
replacement of what is there.
>> joshua wostal: I'm looking
for options right now.
>> okay.
>> ken hagan: thank you.
Commissioner kemp?
>> pat kemp: that -- and I'm
still -- I'm still not quite
understanding that motion.
But let me just speak a little
bit to wimauma and balm.
They're the only places that
have community benefits in place
at this time, correct?
>> yes.
>> pat kemp: and one of the
reasons that that happened is
it's happening more all over the
country, a recognition of this
kind of community engagement,
and it's been, you know, being
used in other areas.
But, wimauma and balm have one
long, long litigious history.
It started I think in the '80s
or '90s, a major lawsuit was
done there, and part of the
condition of the lawsuit that
was between state and the
county, that's correct, at the
time?
>> I believe there was a
challenge by the state
allocations in the comprehensive
plan.
>> pat kemp: right, so there was
a settlement made at that time.
This was a long, long time ago.
And they required that in order
to develop out there, that you
were going to have to develop
town centers, villages, like
little country towns like I
guess was the idea.
Which I kind of think is a good
thing.
I think they were trying to do a
better development pattern than
the monoculture sprawl that
fills our roads, and causes our
infrastructure issues by
congregating development, and
that was the idea behind the
wimauma town center, too.
Congregating development, denser
in a small area, so that you
could go to it, and have the
amenities of that area, you
know, presumably maybe if it was
a rural area, some of the
businesses that would sort of
farms and rule needs, if it
was -- became a -- a more like a
small town, maybe some of the
neighborhood commercial there,
for jobs, and for trip capture,
which we unfortunately that's
the reason our roads are -- are
packed, you know, when people
don't have a, even a small
grocery store, or, you know, a
child care center, or a barber
shop or place to have their hair
cut in those areas, that, you
know, that we just develop this
monoculture of, you know,
single-family homes on however
many acres and have none of the
neighborhood commercial
integrity, the jobs, just what
we actually approved today, a
business right there, in, in
that kind of area.
So that, I think, was a wise
thought about how you move
forward to do it.
And I have to say I'm from
the -- I grew up in the D.C.
Area, and as I go back there
now, they're developing those
all over the place, and they're
very, very well done in terms of
congregating density in areas of
leaving surrounding areas open.
You know, how they're doing it.
But at any rate, this is what
the state required.
Over years that has been
repeatedly fine.
We had one -- one residence per
every five acres, it's still in
effect.
In a lot of those places.
And what the request has been is
to really do ten times that
density, two per acre, over, you
know, over that, that five acre
parcel, to put in ten, instead
of one.
So, you know, we looked at that,
and how, how we can deal with
that, again, if it's in the
urban service area, we're going
to have to pay for that
infrastructure.
And, two, how we, you know,
how -- what we can do to make
that -- to be able to use those
roads to have trip capture in
those areas.
To -- to make a place
sustainable, to be able to
provide infrastructure.
We never have the money to do
that.
But, we also looked, we had the
evolution from our villages with
the lawsuit.
Then there was repeated,
repeated, repeated challenges.
What the villages turned into
was the jobs requirement.
That's after some other
challenges.
That's what was established
after long periods of meetings.
And compromises.
And more.
They do things like, you know,
reduce the number of acres for
things.
They, you know, there was all
kinds of piece by piece by
piece, there was litigation.
There was contention.
There wer, you know, huge
groups of neighborhoods
interested.
And after all that, and after
repeated, repeated, repeated
work, we had our moratorium put,
it was before covid, and we
really tried to tackle the
problem in a way that would
serve all interests well and do
what developers wanted to have,
which was an opportunity to
develop this.
And put these heavy, heavy
densities on it.
We tried to do it in a way that
would make sense for the
community and benefit the
community, as well.
And that's -- and this is what
this has come up to, with huge
amounts of community engagement,
a thoughtful consideration.
And so, I'll just emphasize a
few things.
Commissioner owen, you said, and
I don't know if anyone else
said, but it is true, what
carrollwood wants is not
necessarily what wimauma wants,
what balm wants, what other
places want.
And, balm and wimauma are, yeah,
ground zero for, as we know, for
how we're throwing out
development now.
And I think it's really
important for us to be thinking
about how that's well done.
And I thought the -- it was a
very hard worked list, and, you
know, consideration done with
that.
If there is problems with
access, I don't know about, but
maybe we could hear that in
terms of who's at the meetings,
or how that works.
But I thought it was really
great to engage the community to
have benefits and to have some
guidelines for how we do that.
And I think it's really helping
to develop a better community
there.
In terms of, you know,
commissioner wostal, you said
something about reappropriating
mobility fees, it --
reapportioning.
I would not want to necessarily
put that in the community
benefits.
Because, I usually understand it
here, when we ask about it, it
is something that if the -- that
we have in the requirements, in
the conditions for development
already.
And the mobility fees are used
in those areas.
We have, you know, a map, and
districts, so that mobility fees
generated in areas are used in
areas, and the biggest problem
we have with stop lights, which
I would love more stop lights
and crosswalks and, you know,
this is the biggest problem we
have usually is all the warrant
requirements, that I understand
have to go through the state
and, you know, all these issues
which we've already dealt with
here a couple times.
But those are things that
shouldn't be a -- I don't think
that community, you know, one of
the benefits.
But just be there as a condition
and requirement if necessary and
it's important to the community.
And that's also something that
is done.
so, you know, I -- I-i would
really be wary of opening this
up now, especially since the
suggestion is that we really
can't do it for the entire
county anyway.
And I'd like to understand more
about any issues there were with
access to being part of that.
And I don't think a uniform, you
know, list of benefits
throughout the area makes
particular sense.
I just think that, you know,
within communities, that those
benefits could be what the
community generates.
Which in this case, they did.
And, you know, and be what is
particular what MAY be
beneficial to them.
But I think it's really
important, especially with the
development pressures that
wimauma and balm are under, that
they have those very, you know,
engaged, and strongly
distinguished benefits.
And if there's problems with the
process for the tak force, I
think that that is something, or
the neighborhood meetings, that
that's something that maybe
staff could work on.
I'm not even sure if that's in
the ldc itself, I'm not sure,
but maybe that could be
something that is particularly,
you know, given attention to.
>> ken hagan: commissioner
cameron cepeda?
>> donna cameron cepeda: yes,
thank you, commissioner wostal.
Yes, I understand what you're
trying to say.
My concern is well benefits by
itself, the name, the title
sounds wonderful.
But the fact is, it does put a
lot of restrictions on the
people here in hillsborough
county and my concern is, you
know, putting these
restrictions, keeping these
restrictions, or even worse
restrictions, which already I
don't agree with, with the
restrictions as they are.
The benefits plan.
Again the title sounds
wonderful.
But, really, it's -- there's
just too many restrictions.
And I just don't think we should
have that -- forced to have
those benefits plans on the
people at all.
So, I would like to just get rid
of, you know, all of those
completely.
>> ken hagan: commissioner
wostal?
>> joshua wostal: yeah, that
could certainly be one of the
options.
It's important all we're doing
is talking about options.
I'm 100% with you.
But, whether or not that would
pass or not, I don't know.
And again, a lot of what was
just said previously has
absolutely nothing to do with my
motion or what we're talking
about.
We're not talking about
increasing density.
It was pretty much irrelevant
information.
We're simply talking about a
clean-up, if they are going
to -- if they are going to
continue, or not, I'll go with
you on that.
If they do continue or not,
we're going to clean them up,
and we're going to have control
over them.
It's not going to be heavy
handed.
i have it on good authority that
the state would likely consider
what happened, if they ever got
involved, a violation of folks'
private property rights and
they'd be happy to step in and
I'm looking to help us avoid
that.
So, that's all we're talking
about.
Is a clean-up of some options.
We can make it uniform, but not
required.
It could be a good thing, and as
far as the mobility fee map
that's absolutely inaccurate.
The mobility fee maps are
gigantic.
And if it allowed for money
that's in that mobility fee area
to be spent in that mobility fee
map but far away from the
affected intersection of where
the new development is going in.
So, I want to look at just some
creative ideas that would be
really more empowering to the
voters of hillsborough county.
So.
>> ken hagan: all right.
Thank you, commissioner cohen?
>> harry cohen: now I'm -- I'm a
little bit confused.
But, let me just go to what I
believe was the original motion,
and that was to open up the
discussion of tying community
benefits countywide.
I don't support that.
I don't really think that that's
what the county needs.
If there are questions about how
the community benefits
provisions affect the two -- one
or two, depending on how the
litigation goes, the one or two
discreet areas where they've
been applied, I think that we
could look at those much more
narrowly.
but for the moment, given what I
hear about the state law, at
least through OCTOBER of 2024,
and just taking what
commissioner cameron cepeda
said, I don't think it is in our
best interest to do anything
while that moratorium is going
on.
Because anything that we would
pass would be interpreted as
being more restrictive.
Wouldn't it, MR. Gormly?
>> we would -- if there was the
direction, we would bring back
options that would, you know, be
something that would be less
restrictive, or less burdensome.
It could be clarifications.
But, you know, certainly we
would be challenged to have new
substantive requirements,
generally.
>> harry cohen: well, you know,
I would be happy to have this
discussion in maybe some type of
a workshop setting.
But I would just remind
everybody that it's going to
take five votes, I believe, in
order to actually change what's
already been done.
So before we start considering
language, and determining that
we're going to do something
countywide, I would just want us
to have a discussion among us
about the benefits that are
there now, and whether they're
working or not.
Quite frankly, we spent a
tremendous amount of time.
Commissioner myers and I were
elected in the middle of this.
And, we ended up having to sort
of learn about this on the fly,
because covid had so delayed the
board's ability to consider this
while the moratorium clock was
ticking.
and it's only been in place now
for a very short period of time.
I believe we've only had one
application that's actually been
subject to it.
And, I just think if there are
problems, or if there are
concerns about it, it's totally
appropriate for us to have some
type of discreet workshop about
that, and talk about it, but I'm
really not -- I don't really
have an appetite for opening up
this entire discussion,
countywide, or any larger than
just a sort of a status of where
we are with it.
So that's where I am.
>> ken hagan: all right, a
question.
It's my understanding the motion
there would be options brought
back for us to consider, then it
would go through the normal cpa
process as far as a workshop,
public hearings, all that?
>> what I suggest is we bring it
back.
We could bring it back in a
workshop format, or I think a
workshop format would be the
appropriate way to -- to
evaluate the options, and get
any kind of direction from the
board.
It could be a stand-alone, or it
could be associated with --
>> ken hagan: and then
commissioner cohen is correct
ultimately it would require a
super majority, is that right?
>> yes.
>> ken hagan: and then what
realistically, going through
that entire process, what's the
earliest you think this would
come back in front of us?
>> I would say, what is it now,
NOVEMBER, perhaps, it could come
back with something that would
be kind of a holistic --
>> ken hagan: okay.
>> -- review of the issues that
the board has --
>> joshua wostal: and,
MR. Chair, if I could provide
some clarification?
>> ken hagan: sure.
>> joshua wostal: the motion is
not suggesting that we enact
this countywide.
The motion is simply saying
options that we're going to well
define the community benefits,
and then anyone who currently
has them, this is what they're
defined as now.
We're not saying that we would
impose it on the entire county.
And that if a community plan did
enact community benefits, this
is how hillsborough county
defines them, there's no longer
any questions.
So, we're not -- the motion in
no way suggested that we impose
this countywide and be more
restrictive.
And th clean-up would actually
be less of a burden to address
commissioner cohen's concerns,
in what I'm projecting would be
some of the options.
So.
>> ken hagan: okay, thank you.
Commissioner myers?
>> gwen myers: oh, what a
conversation.
Okay.
You clarified one of the points,
because you said this just is an
option.
Could the option come back to
us, in 2024, when everything is
done?
I mean, to give staff, I think
we are rushing to judgment to
bring this back in NOVEMBER.
Okay?
Is this something that --
>> joshua wostal: well the
timing mechanic mission --
>> gwen myers: I do have
concerns to make this
countywide.
Because every community is
different.
Going to be up front.
Every community is different.
When you look at wimauma, you
look at palm river, you look at
dover, they're not the same.
When you look at benefits,
they're not the same.
And it's not kidding us to say
oh, we can come up with
something that will be the same.
I don't think so.
Based on the communities.
Based on what we have done now.
What have all these communities
to get to community benefits.
So that -- I'll stop there.
But that's how I see this.
>> ken hagan: commissioner owen?
>> michael owen: thank you,
MR. CHAIRMAN.
I think to clarify that, and I
don't want to put words in your
mouth, wooer not saying that
there's not community plans that
are in place.
Those community plans that are
unique, and again I'm not trying
to put words in your mouth, but,
I dn't think commissioner
wostal is saying we're going to
make a uniform community plan
throughout the county.
The community plans still exist.
We're just addressing community
benefits, if they should be in
there.
Or exst at all.
So I think that's the discussion
that we would have.
But, commissioner wostal, if you
wanted to clarify that.
>> joshua wostal: yeah, this is
not talking about the community
plans and their restrictions on
densities, et cetera.
This is specifically about these
seven bullet points that
currently exist.
>> ken hagan: I'm going to call
the question.
I'm going to support the motion.
I don't see any harm in getting
additional information, having a
workshop, seeing how we can
clean it up and improve the
process.
We might not make any changes.
We'll see what transpires.
Okay.
So we have a motion by
commissioner wostal, second by
commissioner owen.
Please record your vote.
>> motion carried 5-2.
Commissioners kemp and myers
voted no.
>> ken hagan: commissioner
wostal did you want to make
another motion?
>> joshua wostal: I do have just
a quick motion, and on some
information if she needs but in
light of the prevailing motion
that's just occurred and our
potential to overhaul the
existing community benefits as
we see them, I would like to
make a motion to place a
temporary stay in any ongoing
litigation that revolves around
the community benefits in
hillsborough county.
>> ken hagan: motion by
commissioner wostal, second by
commissioner cameron cepeda.
Does staff want to opine on
that?
>> yes, sir.
Good morning, commissioners,
cameron clark, assistant county
attorney.
There is oral argument next week
on a case which is the rp-2
litigation, I believe that
you're discussing.
I actually just got a really
quick status update in case
there were any questions on
this.
But the counties at this stage
have prevailed before a law
judge and the state department
of economic opportunity.
It's before the second dca right
now.
Is a stay on litigation that
you -- it's your desire to
continue this process at this
time?
In order to see what happens
with this exploration of the
community benefits?
Okay.
Just so you're aware.
The challenge for this rp-2
provision is not limited to just
the community benefits.
It's actually challenging the
entire comp amendment.
Obviously those benefits are a
part of it.
But there are other issues that
remain unresolved, as well.
And also bear in mind that if
the board was to take action to
make changes to the community
benefits within rp-2, some of
the issues are going to be
mooted, and other issues
ultimately the board is changing
course, not saying the board
can't ask for this direction,
but it MAY not be necessary
because in the end the board can
always change course with what
is passed with a comp plan and
ldc.
>> ken hagan: commissioner
cohen?
>> harry cohen: I'm not sure
that I understand what's being
asked for here.
when you say you want to stay
the litigation.
Are you suggesting you want the
county not to continue to defend
its position?
>> joshua wostal: no.
I think he used the word
continue, which is more lawyer
jargon.
>> harry cohen: I don't
understand.
MR. Clark, there's a case
pending right now.
>> there is.
>> harry cohen: so, what is the
effect on that case if this
motion were to pass?
>> well, I would take this as
the board asking for -- asking
us to try to continue the oral
argument that's scheduled for
next week.
The other side has continued
this numerous times up to this
point.
It's actually been delayed
getting to where it is now.
But, I guess my point is, just
the action can still proceed
as-is, it's not going to change
the board's ability to make
changes to what is proposed to
potentially change.
So you could ask for this to
potentially be continued.
But in the end, the outcome is
going to be whatever changes the
board makes are going to be what
changes take place in the rp-2.
>> joshua wostal: at the expense
of the attorney fees, it we do
take changes, then it becomes
moot, then the citizen is just
at a loss?
>> the applicant in this case,
yes, they would still be paying
for their attorneys, yes.
>> harry cohen: well, I'm not in
favor of doing anything that --
I mean, we're having a very,
very prospective discussion here
about making some changes and
tweaks in the future.
I don't think that it's
appropriate to insert ourselves
into this case that's going on.
>> ken hagan: commissioner owen?
>> michael owen: thank you,
MR. CHAIRMAN.
So we have sunshine, so we don't
have the benefit of we haven't
discussed it out here and don't
have the benefit of knowing
what's coming.
Do we have the authority to do
that?
I'm just thinking from a rules
of procedure standpoint, that
if -- because now I'm seeing
what's going on.
If we agree that we will somehow
reduce the restrictions of
community benefits that would
affect the rp-2, which we
haven't talked about rp-2 here
much toay, so that wuld affect
an ongoing litigation case,
which is -- which the motion
that's -- what is the motion
that's up?
>> it's oral arguments, they're
appealing the lower ruling.
>> michael owen: okay.
>> it was in the county's favor.
>> michael owen: all right,
gotcha.
So it's oral arguments.
I guess I don't know if we were
to vote as a board, because I
think it might be appropriate to
stay that.
It's a motion -- it would be
a -- it would move to stay
unless opposing counsel agreed
to a stay, but then still the
judge -- the -- the judicial
body has to agree to that,s
well.
>> so I would take what the
board, if this motion were to
pass, I would take it as the
board's direction ease sectionly
to defer this, essentially cease
what's going on with litigation,
awaiting the outcome of what the
board wants to do here.
We have actually outside counsel
handling this litigation at this
stage.
I can confer with them.
But I understand what the
board's potential direction here
is essentially just to stop
what's going on for now, to see
what action the board wants to
take.
>> michael owen: yeah, because,
because, sorry to cut you off,
my -- I disagree with
commissioner cohen.
I think if we come up with
different requirements, or
remove requirements, and we're
in the middle of litigation,
that could be new evidence,
which could bring us back in
court.
Is that a possibility?
>> I would think that any parts
of the rp-2 that the board
subsequently changed, that --
those issues would effectively
be mooted in litigation.
But there are other parts of
this outside of community
benefits that are presently at
issue.
>> michael owen: okay.
All right.
I'll second it.
Thanks for that clarification.
>> ken hagan: just so I
understand.
We're essentially requesting
continuance of oral argument,
which is the same thing the
other side's done a few times?
>> yes.
This has been continued before
by the other side.
and, for what it's worth in
terms of staying it versus
continuing, neither side is
really incurring much in terms
of fees and costs when it's
being continued.
So no other action is being
taken.
The board is asking for
essentially things to be paused
for the moment.
>> ken hagan: and at the end of
the day we still remain the
ultimate arbiter?
>> well the court, like I said,
the lower court judge has ruled
that the county's actions were
proper and legal at the time the
comp plan was adopted.
That's being appealed to the
second dca.
If the second dca was to find
that wasn't the case we would be
back before you regarding the
comp plan.
Otherwise if the second dca
upholds the lower ruling,
then -- well, it MAY be appealed
further, the comp plan
amendments would take effect.
As of this time they are still
not in effect.
>> ken hagan: okay, thank you.
Commissioner myers?
>> gwen myers: okay, thank you.
I know we're responsible for
setting policy and now today
we're becoming lawyers, trying
to see what the legal is going
to say.
Why can't we wait until the case
was over and then if we wanted
to bring this up at that time,
then we could?
Because I think there's ample
enough time to do so.
Thank you.
>> joshua wostal: just to get, I
mean we just found there's no
harm and actually it would be a
punishment if we are going to
ultimately make changes.
We would be causing one of our
constituents to unnecessarily
expand legal fees, they would
not if we put a stay or
continuance, whichever they
decide, I don't know the legal
language, but if we continue to
proceed, and they continue with
oral arguments and appeals, and
they change then our constituent
is just out of a lot of money
that was completely unnecessary.
And ultimately, we're -- we are
the -- these, us seven, this
body, we are the legal body.
The attorney is our client.
Not the other way around.
So, we are the ones who make the
decisions on 100% of their
instructions.
So that's -- that's why it would
make sense at this time to
protect our constituents.
>> ken hagan: thank you.
Commissioner kemp?
>> pat kemp: the work, the
preparation for all of this has
already been done.
It's already been pursued to
this point.
I agree totally with
commissioner myers, we should
just get the result we can do
what we MAY, but we have an
answer, one way or the other
there, and, you know, we should
just stay the course on this.
This is next week.
>> ken hagan: okay.
Motion by commissioner owen,
second by commissioner cameron
cepeda.
No other comments.
Please record your vote.
>> motion carried 4-3.
Commissioners cohen, kemp and
myers voted no.
>> ken hagan: all right.
anything else today?
>> no, sir, that concludes our
agenda.
>> ken hagan: we're adjourned.