CAPTIONINGFEBRUARY 18, 2013

ZONING HEARING MASTER

***This is not an official, verbatim transcript of the ***following meeting. It should be used for informational ***purposes only. This document has not been edited; ***therefore, there may be additions, deletions, or words ***that did not translate.

HEARING MASTER:  GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND WELCOME

TO THIS EVENING'S ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. MY NAME IS

STEVE LUCE AND I'LL BE CONDUCTING THIS EVENING'S HEARINGS.  IF

YOU'D ALL PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

(PLEDGE HELD AT THIS POINT.)

HEARING MASTER:  THANK YOU ALL. YOU MAY BE SEATED. 

AT THIS POINT IN TIME I'D LIKE TO ASK THE REPRESENTATIVE OF

THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF TO INTRODUCE HIMSELF AND THE

PEOPLE THAT ARE SEATED AT THE DAIS, AND THEN TELL US IF THERE ARE

ANY CHANGES TO THIS EVENING'S AGENDA.

MR. LEWIS:  THANK YOU, MR. LUCE. MATT LEWIS WITH DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES. TO MY LEFT IS SHER HER WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S

OFFICE. TO HER LEFT MARCIE STENMARK WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION

AND TO HER LEFT YENEKA MILLS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.

MR. LEWIS:  THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE AGENDA, BUT I WILL READ

THE WITHDRAWALS AND CONTINUANCES. THIS IS ON PAGE 1 OF 6 OF THE

AGENDA. STARTING WITH NUMBER A3, REZONE PD 13—0125. THIS

1

PETITION IS OUT OF ORDER AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE MARCH

18TH, 2013, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

NUMBER A4, SPECIAL USE AB 13—0186. THIS PETITION IS OUT OF

ORDER AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE MARCH 18, 2013, ZONING

HEARING MASTER HEARING.

ITEM NUMBER A5, REZONE PETITION PD 13—0124. THIS PETITION

IS OUT OF ORDER AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE APRIL 22ND, 2013

ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. 

AND ITEM NUMBER A6, MAJOR MODIFICATION 13—0126.  THIS

PETITION IS OUT OF ORDER AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE APRIL 22,

2013, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

HEARING MASTER:  ALL RIGHT.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I HAVE A FEW INSTRUCTIONS TO READ INTO

THE RECORD, AS WELL AS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND THEN

WE'LL GET STARTED WITH THE FIRST ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

THIS HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. FIRST, STAFF WILL

INTRODUCE THE ITEM. THEN THE APPLICANT AND ANY WITNESSES OF THE

APPLICANT WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR

REQUEST. NEXT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND IF

APPLICABLE THE STAFF OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL PRESENT

THEIR REPORTS AND FINDINGS, AND THEY HAVE FIVE MINUTES APIECE FOR

THAT PURPOSE.

THEN THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE PROPONENTS, WHO ARE IN FAVOR OF

2

AN APPLICANT'S REQUEST, BUT ARE NOT CONNECTED DIRECTLY WITH THE

PETITION, WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR

STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT. FOLLOWING THAT, THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE

OPPONENTS, WHO ARE AGAINST THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, WILL HAVE A

TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS IN OPPOSITION AM

PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THAT IT IS A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES FOR ALL THE

PEOPLE IN OPPOSITION, SO IF THERE IS A LARGE GROUP, YOU MAY WANT

TO ORGANIZE YOUR STATEMENTS SO THAT ALL THE TIME DOES NOT GET

USED UP BEFORE EVERYONE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

THEN IF EITHER STAFF HAS ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR

REVISIONS TO THEIR REPORTS TO BE MADE FOLLOWING THE TESTIMONY,

THEY WILL BE MADE AT THAT TIME. BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,

THE LAST PERSON GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IS THE APPLICANT,

WHO WILL HAVE UP TO FIVE MINUTES OF TIME TO REBUT ANY STATEMENTS

MADE IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST AND TO SUM RIGHTS THEIR

APPLICATION.

THERE'S A CHIME AT THE PODIUM THAT WILL SOUND ONCE WHEN

THERE ARE 30 SECONDS REMAINING FOR ANY GIVEN SPEAKER, AND WILL

SOUND THREE TIMES WITH THE TIME HAS EXPIRED. IF IT APPEARS THAT

ADDITIONAL TIME IS NEEDED FOR ANY OF THE PARTIES TO MAKE THEIR

PRESENTATION, ADDITIONAL TIME MAY BE GRANTED BY THE HEARING

MASTER. WHEN YOU COME TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS CLEARLY FOR THE RECORD. AFTER YOU PRESENT YOUR

TESTIMONY, PLEASE SIGN IN WITH THE CLERK. THERE'S A PAD DOWN AT

3

THE END OF THE PODIUM, GIVING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

THESE ARE QUASI—JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH MEANS THAT THE

DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION WILL BE BASED ON FACT—BASED EVIDENCE

IN THE RECORD AND THAT IS PRESENTED IN THE HEARING TONIGHT. SOT

MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL, THESE HEARINGS WILL BE INFORMAL. ANY

EVIDENCE PRESENTED MUST BE RELEVANT TO THE REQUEST BEING MADE BY

THE APPLICANT, AND BECAUSE THERE ARE TIME LIMITS, I ASK THAT YOU

TRY NOT TO REPEAT TESTIMONY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN.

IT'S REQUIRED THAT ALL TESTIMONY GIVEN TONIGHT REGARDING ANY

OF THE APPLICATIONS BE GIVEN UNDER OATH, SO AT THIS TIME, TO

EXPEDITE MATTERS, I'LL GIVE THE OATH TO ALL PARTIES WHO THINK

THEY WILL BE SUBMITTING TESTIMONY THIS EVENING. SO IF YOU THINK

YOU'LL BE PROVIDING TESTIMONY TONIGHT, PLEASE STAND UP AND RAISE

YOUR RIGHT HAND.

(OATH ADMINISTERED AT THIS TIME.)

HEARING MASTER:  THANK YOU ALL. YOU MAY BE SEATED.  THE FIRST

GROUP OF APPLICATIONS TO BE HEARD TONIGHT WILL BE I THINK IN THIS

CASE IT'S A MAJOR MODIFICATION AND REZONINGS. THESE ARE HANDLED

DIFFERENTLY THAN THE SPECIAL USES, AND I'LL READ TO YOU THE

INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING THE MAJOR MODS AND REZONINGS.

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT

THERE BE A HEARING BEFORE A ZONING HEARING MASTER ON ALL REZONING

AND MAJOR MODIFICATION REQUESTS PRIOR TO A FINAL DECISION BY THE

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

4

THE ZONING HEARING MASTER DOES NOT MAKE THE FINAL DECISION,

BUT INSTEAD RENDERS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS, AND THEIR FINAL DECISION ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT

REQUEST IS MADE AT THEIR OWN PUBLIC MEETING.  MY RECOMMENDATION

ON EACH APPLICATION WILL BE RENDERED WITHIN 15 WORKING DAYS, AND

THEN THE RECOMMENDATION IS SENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS.

NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ABOUT THE

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT THAT GOVERN PARTICIPATION AT

THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S MEETING.

MS. MURPHY:  THANK YOU, MR. HEARING OFFICER.  GOOD EVENING.

SHERI MURPHY, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY.

TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARING FOR REZONINGS IS THE FIRST OF A TWO

—STEP REZONING PROCESS. THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED

TONIGHT WILL BECOME THE COMPLETE FACTUAL RECORD OF YOUR CASE.

THIS MEANS THAT AT THE END OF TONIGHT'S HEARING THE RECORD WILL

CLOSE AND NO NEW EVIDENCE MAY BE INTRODUCED HEREAFTER.

THE SECOND STEP OF THE REZONING PROCESS IS A PUBLIC MEETING

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AT WHICH POINT THE

BOARD WILL MAKE A DECISION ON EACH PETITION. TONIGHT'S PETITIONS

ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD AT THE BOARD'S APRIL 9TH LAND USE

HEARING.

THE HEARING MASTER WILL FILE A RECOMMENDATION FOR EACH

PETITION HEARD TONIGHT. AFTER THE RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN

5

FILED, EACH INDIVIDUAL WHO WISHES TO SPEAK BEFORE THE BOARD MUST

FILE AND EXECUTE A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT NO LATER THAN THE

DATE OF MARCH 21ST. REQUESTS SHOULD BE FILED WITH THE CLERK TO

THE BOARD HERE AT THE COUNTY CENTER. THE BOARD IS NOT REQUIRED

TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT, HOWEVER, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THE

BOARD CAN ELECT TO HEAR FROM A PARTY OF RECORD.

A PARTY OF RECORD IS A PERSON WHO FITS INTO AT LEAST ONE OF

THE FOUR FOLLOWING CATEGORIES: FIRST, A PERSON WHO IS HERE

TONIGHT AND PRESENTS EITHER TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE;

SECOND, A PERSON CERTIFIED BY U.S. POSTAL SERVICE AS HAVING BEEN

MAILED NOTICE OF TONIGHT'S HEARING; THIRD, A PERSON WHO SUBMITTED

EVIDENCE TO THE MASTER FILE AT LEAST TWO BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO

TONIGHT'S HEARING. OR FOURTH, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO SUBMITTED

EVIDENCE THROUGH PROXY DURING TONIGHT'S HEARING.

IF THE BOARD ELECTS TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT, THE CONTENT SHALL

BE LIMITED TO THE TESTIMONY RECEIVED TONIGHT. THANK YOU.

HEARING MASTER:  THANK YOU, MS. MURPHY. MR. LEWIS, IF YOU COULD

INTRODUCE THE FIRST ITEM.

MR. LEWIS:  THE FIRST ITEM IS ON PAGE 4 OF THE AGENDA, ITEM

NUMBER I1, MAJOR MODIFICATION 12—0263. THIS IS A REMAND FROM THE

DECEMBER 11TH, 2012, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S LAND USE

MEETING. IT'S ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF KINGS AVENUE AND WEST

LUMSDEN.  AND IT'S A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A PD.

FIRST YOU'LL HEAR FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

6

DISCUSSING THE REMAND; THEN THE APPLICANT; AND THEN ISABELLE

ALBERT WILL PRESENT FOR STAFF.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY. VERY GOOD. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

STAFF.

MR. GORMLY:  ADAM GORMLY WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

I WANTED TO ADDRESS WITH AND YOU FOR THE PARTICIPANT HERES

TODAY THE PURPOSE AND THE SCOPE OF THE REMAND OF THIS APPLICATION

BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THIS APPLICATION IS

PREVIOUSLY HEARD BY YOURSELF, CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD WITH A

RECOMMENDATION THAT IT BE REMANDED BACK TO THIS HEARING FOR THE

PURPOSES OF SEPARATING OUT THE ISSUES THAT ARE RELATING TO THE

ZONING OF THE ENTITLEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY VERSUS THE WETLAND

IMPACTS THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPING THOSE

ENTITLEMENTS.

THE APPLICATION IS CONDITIONED TO CALL THOSE ENTITLEMENTS

THAT WOULD BE IN AREAS CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AS WETLANDS TO BE

CONCEPTUAL AND NOT PERMITTED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY ARE APPROVED

FOR IMPACT BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION. AT THIS

TIME THE IMPACTS TO THE WETLANDS HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY THE

APPLICANT, AND THEY HAD BEEN DENIED AND AN APPEAL IS PENDING THAT

WILL ULTIMATELY BE DECIDED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

COMMISSION BOARD, WHICH IS ALSO THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS. THAT CREATES A POTENTIAL FOR A DUE PROCESS

CONCERN WHERE YOU'LL HAVE THE SAME BODY DECIDING TWO DIFFERENT

7

ISSUES EACH OF WHICH IS BASED ON THE RECORD.

SO ACCORDINGLY, THE DIRECTION WAS TO SEPARATE THOSE TWO

ISSUES OUT AT THIS HEARING TODAY AND EFFECTIVELY REVIEW THIS

REZONING APPLICATION IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT COULD BE APPROVED IN

THE EVENT THAT THE WETLAND IMPACTS WOULD BE APPROVED.

I THINK THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE HEARING TODAY SHOULD BE

LIMITED TO THOSE ISSUES THAT DON'T IMPACT THE ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION COMMISSION WETLANDS PERMITTING PROCESS IN ORDER TO

KEEP THOSE TWO RECORDS CLEAN, AND WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU

CONDUCT THE HEARING REQUESTING TESTIMONY THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH

THAT REMAND SO EFFECTIVELY LIMITING IT TO THOSE ISSUES THAT ARE

ZONING RELATED THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED IF THE WETLAND IMPACTS

WERE ULTIMATELY APPROVED.

THE WAY THE APPLICATION IS CONDITIONED, IF THOSE WETLAND

IMPACTS ARE NOT APPROVED, ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT'S PROPOSED FOR THE

WETLAND AREA WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED PURSUANT TO THIS

ZONING IF IT WERE APPROVED.

HEARING MASTER:  IF YOU COULD ELABORATE ON SORT OF THE SCOPE OF

TONIGHT'S HEARING. THE ISSUE, AS YOU DESCRIBED, IS TO SEPARATE

THE TWO ISSUES AND LET THE EPC DEAL WITH THE PERMITTING SIDE OF

THE WETLANDS. AND THE DIRECTION IS TO SORT OF SEPARATE THOSE

TWO.

MR. GORMLY:  CORRECT. SEPARATE THOSE TWO ——

HEARING MASTER:  IN TERMS OF THE PUBLIC THAT'S HERE TONIGHT, AND

8

THEY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE WETLANDS, COULD THEY TALK ABOUT THE

WETLANDS, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THEY SHOULD NOT TALK ABOUT THE

WETLANDS.

MR. GORMLY:  FIRST OF ALL, I WILL SAY THAT WHATEVER TESTIMONY AND

EVIDENCE HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN IN THE RECORD IS STILL IN THE

RECORD.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.

MR. GORMLY:  NOTHING ABOUT THE REMAND HAS CHANGED THAT.  I THINK

THE TESTIMONY THAT'S OFFERED HERE TONIGHT SHOULD BE LIMITED TO

AND FOCUSED ON THE PERMITTING OF THE ENTITLEMENTS ISSUES, AGAIN

RECOGNIZING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SCENARIO THAT WOULD ONLY

ALLOW THOSE ENTITLEMENTS TO BE DEVELOPED IN THE EVENT THAT THE

WETLAND IMPACTS WERE APPROVED. SO ESSENTIALLY WE'RE TALKING

ABOUT DEVELOPMENT THAT CAN ONLY OCCUR ON NON—WETLAND PROPERTY, IF

THE ZONING APPLICATION WERE TO BE APPROVED.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.

MR. GORMLY:  AGAIN, THE PURPOSE OF THIS LIMITATION IS TO NOT

CREATE ANY DUE PROCESS CONCERNS FOR THE APPLICANT GOING THROUGH

THE SEPARATE PERMITTING PROCESS, AND NOT TAINTING THAT PROCESS

FOR EITHER THE APPLICANT OR THE EPC BOARD FOR THAT MATTER BY

PUTTING THOSE TWO ISSUES IN SEPARATE CAMPS.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY. WELL, WE'LL PROCEED WITH A MAJOR

MODIFICATION AT THIS POINT IN TIME, BUT I THINK —— ARE YOU GOING

TO SAY AROUND FOR THIS ITEM.

9

MR. GORMLY:  YEAH, I THINK I WILL.

HEARING MASTER:  ALL RIGHT. WELCOME. AND YOU CAN HELP US WHERE

WE NEED HELP REGARDING THE APPLICANT, THOSE IN SUPPORT, THOSE IN

OPPOSITION, AND THE CONCLUSION BY THE APPLICANT.

MR. GORMLY:  GREAT.

HEARING MASTER:  VERY GOOD. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE

APPLICANT.

MR. LEWIS:  I'D LIKE TO MAKE ONE CORRECTION. WE WILL NOT BE

GIVING STAFF PRESENTATION ON THIS. THE RECORD ALREADY HAS OUR

PRESENTATION, SO WE HAVE NOTHING MORE TO ADD.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY. VERY GOOD. THE APPLICANT, PLEASE.

SPEAKER:  VIN MARCHETTI, FOR THE RECORD, 625 EAST TWIGG STREET,

TAMPA, REPRESENTING RACETRAC PETROLEUM ON THIS SUBJECT SITE, AS

WELL AS THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO OWN THE SUBJECT 2.5 ACRE PARCEL

AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF KINGS AND LUMSDEN IN BRANDON.

MR. HEARING OFFICER, I WANTED TO REITERATE I THINK WHAT ADAM

SPOKE TO EARLIER. CANDIDLY, MY CLIENT HAS SPENT THOUSANDS OF

DOLLARS HAVING TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS WHICH AS IT TURNED OUT,

AND THE BOCC RECOGNIZED DECEMBER THE 11TH, WAS ESSENTIALLY FLAWED

IN THE SENSE OF A DUE PROCESS PERSPECTIVE. 

SO WE STAND BEFORE YOU TODAY, TONIGHT WANTING ONLY TO DEAL

WITH THE ZONING ISSUE, WHICH IS THE ZONING APPLICATION IS ALL

ABOUT, THE WETLAND APPLICATION IMPACT TO —— IMPACT APPLICATION IS

OF COURSE BEING DEALT WITH BY EPC. WE HAVE FILED OUR APPEAL TO

10

THE EPC DECISION ON THAT IMPACT, AND THAT'S GOING THROUGH THE

PROCESS NOW. THE HEARING OFFICER HAS ACTUALLY BEEN ASSIGNED TO

THE MATTER. WE'LL PROBABLY BE IN HEARING ON THAT IN THE NEXT

COUPLE OF MONTHS, IS MY GUESS. SO WE HAVE DISCOVERY ON THAT.

THAT'S A SEPARATE PROCESS.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR FOR THE RECORD THIS

EVENING, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT INTENDING ON DISCUSSING THE, QUOTE,

UNQUOTE WETLAND AT ALL IN OUR PRESENTATION.

I THINK THAT'S VERY CONSISTENT WITH THE BOCC SAID IN

DECEMBER IN SEPARATING THE ISSUES. IN FACT, THE BOARD, AS ADAM

EXPLAINED, THEY EXPRESSED CONCERN I BELIEVE AS WELL DEALING WITH

THE WETLAND ISSUE UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION, IF YOU WILL, AS THE

BOCC SITTING THERE LOOKING AT A ZONING APPLICATION.

SO I WANTED TO SAY THAT UP FRONT TO YOU. ADAM DID MENTION

THAT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS INCORPORATED FROM THE PRIOR HEARINGS

INTO THIS HEARING THIS EVENING. THAT'S ALSO SOMEWHAT PROBLEMATIC

FOR ME AND OUR SIDE BECAUSE WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE WETLAND

DISCUSSION WHICH TOOK PLACE AT YOUR PRIOR HEARING IN OCTOBER

SHOULD HAVE EVER TAKEN PLACE.

AND I TRIED AT THAT HEARING BACK IN OCTOBER TO TWITO LIMIT

THE SCOPE OF THAT DISCUSSION. IT DIDN'T GO SO WELL. EVERYONE

HERE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THE WETLAND. WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT

THE ZONING ITSELF, THE COMPATIBLE OF THE ZONING REQUEST, THE

CONSISTENCY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN TERMS OF THE LOCATIONAL

11

CRITERIA AND WHETHER OR NOT IT'S CONSISTENT, COMPATIBLE ON THE

CORNER OF KINGS AND LUMSDEN FOR 2.5 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL, 8,000

SQUARE FEET TOTAL.

I DID WANT TO MENTION AT THE OUTSET WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO

SPEAKERS THIS EVENING. I ALSO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES HERE FROM

RACETRAC AS WELL AS OTHER CONSULTANTS, BUT THEY'RE NOT INTENDING

ON SPEAKING THIS EVENING.

AS FAR AS THE RECORD GOES, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ONE PART

OF THE RECORD THAT IS IMPORTANT TO OUR SIDE IS WE DO HAVE SOME

LETTERS IN SUPPORT. WE HAD A LETTER FROM MR. CURRY, CLIFF CURRY,

WHO'S OPERATED A LAW OFFICE CATTY—CORNER, IF YOU WILL, TO THE

SUBJECT PARCEL.  A LETTER FROM CLIFF. WE'VE GOT LETTERS FROM THE

HOA AND DIFFERENT OFFICE BUILDINGS BEHIND THE SUBJECT PARCEL. IF

YOU RECALL WHERE THAT IS, AND MIKE HAS SOME GRAPHICS AS WELL.

WE ALSO HAVE A PETITION THAT WAS PLACED AT A STORE THAT

RACETRAC OPERATES AT FALKENBURG AND LUMSDEN, CAUSEWAY. THERE'S A

PETITION THAT WAS IN THE STORE FOR JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS AND IT'S

GOT SOME PEOPLE ON HERE THAT HAVE SIGNED IN SUPPORT OF THE

PROPOSED PROJECT AT CAUSEWAY —— OR LUMSDEN AND KINGS.

WITH THAT, LET ME HAVE MIKE HORNER KIND OF ADDRESS THE LAND

USE ISSUES, AND THEN MR. CARLTON, WHO IS ONE OF THE OWNERS OF THE

PROPERTY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AS WELL.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY. MR. MARCHETTI, KEEP IN MIND, TOO, WE

ALREADY HAVE YOUR TEAM'S TESTIMONY AT THE FIRST HEARING.

12

MR. MARCHETTI:  YES.

HEARING MASTER:  JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND.

MR. MARCHETTI:  I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THE FACTORS THAT MIKE'S

GOING TO TALK ABOUT, BECAUSE TO ME THAT'S WHAT'S RELEVANT THIS

EVENING, SO TO KIND OF CLARIFY THINGS.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.

MR. MARCHETTI:  MR. LUCE, GOOD EVENING.

HEARING MASTER:  GOOD EVENING.

MR. HORNER:  FOR THE RECORD, MICHAEL HORNER, 14502 NORTH DALE

MABRY HIGHWAY, SUITE 200, TAMPA. I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT.

MR. LUCE, WE DID STAND BEFORE YOU OCTOBER 15TH. YOU FILED

AN OPINION RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS FILED ON NOVEMBER 5TH, AND WE

HAD A SPLIT RECOMMENDATION AT THAT TIME, AS YOU WILL RECALL, AND

THAT HASN'T CHANGED TONIGHT.

YOU HEARD MR. LEWIS INDICATE THAT HE WILL DEFER TO THE

RECORD FOR THAT RECOMMENDATION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION I

BELIEVE HAS MODIFIED IT SOMEWHAT, ALTHOUGH WE'RE NOT SURE OF THAT

SPECIFICALLY.  LET ME JUST ADDRESS BRIEFLY, I DID NOT REVISE MY

ANALYSIS. MY ANALYSIS THAT I FILED ON OCTOBER 15TH IS THE SAME.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S NECESSARY TO BE CHANGED BECAUSE IT'S STILL

RELEVANT TO LOCATIONAL CRITERIA PROVISIONS.

THIS WAS FILED IN THE RECORD AND ADDRESSED, ALL LOCATIONAL

CRITERIA FACTORS, AS WELL AS THE TABLE CHART A FOR THE PROVISIONS

FOR THE INTERSECTION OF THE TWO MAJOR LOCAL —— EXCUSE ME —— TWO

13

COLLECTOR ARTERIAL ROADWAYSOMP YOUR PAGE 9, MR. LUCE, YOU MADE IT

VERY CLEAR IN YOUR FINDINGS THAT YOU FOUND IT CONSISTENT FOR THE

MAX MUMP 8,000 SQUARE FEET, COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND

USES AND THE ZONING PATTERN IN THE VICINITY OF THE SUBJECT SITE.

YOU FURTHER FOUND THAT IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING

LOCATIONAL CRITERIA WITHIN THE RES 6 OF 9 HUNDRED FEET FROM THE

DESIGNATED INTERSECTION WHICH IS SIGNALIZED AS YOU KNOW. IN

ADDRESSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S COMMENTS, I JUST WANT TO

GEAR MYSELF A LITTLE MORE SPECIFICALLY TO 16.1, 2 CAN 3, AND THEN

I'LL FALL BACK TO THE 22 POLICY PROVISIONS.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S A MORE CLASSIC REPRESENTATION OF THOSE

GRADUAL TRANSITIONS IN INTENSITY THAT POLICY 16.1, 2 CAN THREE

ADDRESS AND INCORPORATE WITHOUT NAMING THEM SPECIFICALLY, YOU'RE

VERY FAMILIAR WITH THEM, THEY'RE ALREADY WRITTEN IN THE RECORD.

AND THAT'S THE TRANSITION, THE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION TO THIS

PROPOSED RETAIL CONVENIENCE STORE TO A COUNTY STORM WATER

FACILITY, TO AN EXISTING, WHAT THEY CALL PARCEL A FOR THE LUMSDEN

PROFESSIONAL PARK, WHICH IS 65,000 SQUARE FEET. AND THAT

TRANSITIONS TO A RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT USE DIRECTLY TO THE EAST

WHICH IS THE CHURCH AND THEN THAT TRANSITIONS DIRECTLY TO SINGLE

FAMILY DETACHED. THAT'S CLASSIC PLANNING AND TRANSITION OF A

LAND USES THAT FULLY ENCOMPASSES THE INTENT OF THOSE POLICY 16.1,

2 AND 3. THE POLICY 22 PROVISIONS, AS WE READ 22.2, MR. LUCE, IT

TALKS ABOUT THE TABLE CHART A ESTABLISHING MAXIMUM INTENSITIES.

14

THAT'S BASED UPON THE PROVISIONS OF THE FLEW ELEMENT, TALKING

ABOUT YOU ARE NOT GUARANTEED THAT ENTITLEMENT FOR THE MAXIMUM.

AS YOU KNOW, THAT QUADRANT UNDER THE TABLE, CHART A, IS

175,000 SQUARE FEET PER QUADRANT, WITH THE TWO OFFICE PARKS A AND

B. WE HAVE 110,000 SQUARE FEET. OUR PARCEL IS PROPOSED AT 8,000

SQUARE FEET. THAT'S 118 SQUARE FEET. WE ARE WELL UNDER THE

ESTABLISHED MAXIMUM PRESUMPTIVE THRESHOLD FOR THAT QUADRANT

ALLOCATION OF 175,000 SQUARE FEET, TO THE TUNE OF SOME 57,000

SQUARE FEET OF ENTITLEMENTS. CLEARLY WE'RE CONSISTENT WITH

POLICY 22.2.

IT ALSO DISCUSSES THAT YOU CAN'T ASK FOR THAT MAXIMUM, BUT

STILL SUBJECT TO FAR AND SHORT RANGE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT

CONSIDERATIONS. OUR PROPOSED FLOOR AREA RATIO AND THAT

NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL IS .07. THE CHART A ALLOWS FOR A .25 FAR BY

A FACTOROR OF FOUR OR 25 PERCENT IN THE INVERT. WE WE'RE WELL

BELOW THAT THRESHOLD. IN TERMS OF THE ROADWAY LIMITATION,

CAPACITY, CLEARLY WE MEET OUR EXCEED THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS

OF THE GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS, THE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE, AND

THAT'S OF RECORD AS WELL.

ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I PICKED UP IN THE PUBLIC RECORD

LAST TIME WAS THE REFERENCE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

NOTION OF THIS PROJECT IN THE PRIOR 2002 PD FOR THE TWO OFFICE

PARKS, THAT THE ENTITLEMENTS WERE ESSENTIALLY UTILIZED, USED UP,

IF YOU WILL.

15

AND I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT ABSENT THAT PROVISION AND

APPLICATION OF THOSE WAIVERS BACK IN 2002, THAT ANYONE FILING FOR

THAT REQUIREMENT TODAY FOR THAT SOUTH OFFICE PARK, OR FOR THE

EASTERN OFFICE PARK, WOULD STILL ON ITS OWN MERIT BE DEEMED

QUALIFIED UNDER THE EXCEPTION CRITERIA TO BE APPROVED FOR THOSE

RESPECTIVE OFFICE USES. THEY MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS BASED ON

FRONTAGE, ON IRREGULAR CONFIGURATION, ON ON PROXIMITY AND DIRECT

ACCESS TO A MAJOR ARTERIAL ROADWAY AND ALSO FOR NO DIRECT IMPACT

TO ANY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO, WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE HAS BEEN A USED UP OR FULLY

ENTITLED OF THAT WAIVER THAT THEREFORE WE'RE NOT ENTITLED TO A

CONSIDERATION FOR THE RETAIL AT THE CORNER OF THIS INTERSECTION.

WHILE THE POLICIES TALK ABOUT THOSE PROVISIONS SUCH AS LAND USE

COMPATIBLE, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER, ADEQUACY OF

ROADWAYS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS, AS PART OF AND EQUAL

TO OR GREATER WEIGHT THAN THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA CONSISTENCY

FINDING, WE EXCEED ALL OF THOSE CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE LAND USE,

THE ADEQUACY PROVISIONS FOR PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER. CERTAIN FOR

ZONING COMPATIBILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION IS

SUBJECT TO THE FINAL EPC BOARD DETERMINATION THAT MR. MARCHETTI

JUST REFERENCED.

SO I GUESS THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU IS, WHAT IF THIS GETS

APPROVED AND WHAT IF WE FAIL IN THE EPC APPEAL? AND I WOULD

SUGGEST TO YOU THAT NO PRECEDENT IS SET. NO SPADE OF DIRT GETS

16

TURNED WITHOUT FULLY VETH OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, THAT OUR

CLIENT HAS ACCEPTED THAT BURDEN, AND IT'S AN EXPENSIVE BURDEN.

AND IN JUNE OR LATE MAY, WHENEVER THOSE HEARINGS TAKE PLACE, AND

IF WE ARE UNSUCCESSFUL, I'M JUST ASSUMING THAT FOR THE RECORD.

JUST AS A HYPOTHETICAL. THAT PROVISION FOR THE EPC CONDITION

THAT NOTHING CAN BE DEVELOPED ON THIS SITE UNTIL THAT APPEAL

TAKES PLACE —— AND IT'S FAVORABLE IN OUR INTEREST —— CAN THIS

FACILITY BE DEVELOPED.

SO I THINK THOSE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED

FROM THE COMPATIBILITY, 16.1, 2 AND 3 AND THE 22.2 AND 22.7

POLICY PROVISIONS AS YOU NOTED I THINK ACCURATELY IN THIS

RECOMMENDATION, THIS PLAN COMES BEFORE YOU FULLY CONSISTENT WITH

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. THANK YOU.

HEARING MASTER:  THANK YOU, MR. HORNER. GOOD EVENING.

MR. CARLTON:  GOOD EVENING. DENNIS CARLTON, 601 SOUTH

FALKENBURG, TAMPA 33619.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF A HISTORY OF

THIS PROPERTY. IN 2002, BOB MCCLAIN, WHO IS A FRIEND OF PHINE

ALSO A PARTNER, WAS APPROACHED BY DAVE SCOTT AND JIM MCCULLOUGH

WHO ARE OFFICE CONDO DEVELOPERS ABOUT POSSIBLE EQUITY PARTNER IN

BUYING THE TOTAL PARCEL.  THE OWNER WOULD ONLY SELL IT IN ITS

ENTIRETY FOR CASH. 

BOB IS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF THE BANK —— VALRICO STATE

BANK, CAME TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND TALKED TO US —— I'M ONE

17

OF THE BOARD MEMBERS —— INDIVIDUALLY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE

WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO HELP WITH THIS PROJECT.  WE DECIDED THAT WE

WOULD DO THAT. WE CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY SIMULTANEOUSLY CLOSING

WITH MCCULLOUGH AND SCOTT ON THAT PART ON LUMSDEN. THEY BUILT A

BEAUTIFUL OFFICE CONDO, VERY SUCCESSFUL.

CAME BACK, AS THEY SAID THEY WOULD, BOUGHT THE SECOND PARCEL

AND DEVELOPED ANOTHER OFFICE CONDO.

WE KEPT THE CROWN JEWEL OF THAT PROPERTY AS FAR AS WE WERE

CONCERNED. THAT PROPERTY BACK IN 2002/2003 MET THE LOCATION

CRITERIA FOR A COMMERCIAL USE AS FAR AS WE WERE CONCERNED.

OBVIOUSLY AS BANK DIRECTORS WE FELT LIKE IT MIGHT MAKE A GREAT

BRANCH BANK SITE, REALIZING THAT IF THAT DIDN'T TAKE PLACE, WE

WOULD ALSO AT SOME POINT IN TIME HAVE THE OPTION TO SELL IT TO

SOMEBODY FOR EITHER A DRUG STORE A GAS STATION CONVENIENCE

STORE.  AND THE REALITY IS THAT HAS COME TO FRUITION. WE WERE

APPROACHED BY RACETRAC, AND OBVIOUSLY THEY FEEL LIKE THIS IS AN

APPROPRIATE SITE AT WHAT I WOULD CALL MAIN AND MAIN IN BRANDON.

AND THERE'S NOT VERY MANY MAIN AND MAIN'S LEFT IN BRANDON. SO I

WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD LOOK AT THIS AND AGREE WITH US THAT IT

MEETS THE CRITERIA, THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR COMMERCIAL USE,

AND WOULD FIND THIS COMPATIBLE AND APPROVE THIS APPLICATION. 

THANK YOU.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR.

MR. MARCHETTI:  THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION.

18

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY, VERY GOOD.  THANK YOU, SIR.

I THINK PLANNING —— DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SAID THEY'RE GOING

TO STAND PAT ON THEIR STAFF REPORT. AT THIS POINT IN TIME,

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

MS. STENMARK:  GOOD EVENING, MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF.

AS NOTED BY THE APPLICANT, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES MEET

LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. AT THIS TYPE OF INTERSECTION, COMMERCIAL

USES CAN BE CONSIDERED WITH A 900 FEET OF THIS INTERSECTION WITH

A MAXIMUM OF 175,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES AT EACH

QUADRANT. AND THE APPLICANT MEETS THIS CRITERIA.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT THE PROPOSED

COMMERCIAL USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

PATTERN. THERE ARE OTHER GAS STATIONS ACROSS THE STREET IN THE

COMMERCIAL USES SO OUR CONCERNS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT ARE NOT

BASED ON COMPATIBILITY—TYPE CONCERNS OR LOCATIONAL CRITERIA.

THOUGH COMMERCIAL LOCATIONAL CRITERIA ALLOWS FOR THE

CONSIDERATION OF COMMERCIAL USES WITHIN PARCEL C, FUTURE LAND USE

ELEMENT POLICY 22.2 STATES THAT MAXIMUMS STATED IN THE TABLE AND

DIAGRAM MAY NOT ALWAYS BE ACHIEVED AND THEY'RE SUBJECT TO FLOOR

AREA RATIO LIMITATIONS AND THEY'RE ALSO SUBJECT TO SHORT RANGE

ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AS WELL AS OTHER FACTORS, SUCH AS LAND USE

COMPATIBILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES OF THE SITE.

IN ADDITION, FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 22.7 STATES

19

CONSIDERATION ARES INVOLVING LAND USE COMPATIBILITY, ADEQUACY AND

AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, ADOPTED

SERVICE LEVELS OF AFFECTED ROADWAYS AND OTHER POLICIES OF THE

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING REGULATIONS WOULD CARRY MORE WEIGHT

THAN THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA IN THE APPROVAL OF POTENTIAL

NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USE IN AN ACTIVITY CENTER. AS A RESULT,

THE PRESENCE OF WETLANDS APPROXIMATELY 66 PERCENT OF THE SITE

WITHIN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PARCEL CARRIES MORE WEIGHT THAN

THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA.

IN THE PRIOR REZONE, AN EXCEPTION OF THE GRANTEDED TO THE

LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. A DISTANCE WAIVER FROM THE INTERSECTION. 

AND THAT WAS DUE TO THE PROTECTION —— THE PLANNED PROTECTION OF

THE WETLAND, WHICH WAS LATER PLATTED AS A WETLAND. THE CREATION

OF A THIRD DEVELOPMENT POD, PARCEL C, WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH

SEVERAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES THAT ARE NOTED, INCLUDING

POLICIES IN THE CONSERVATION AND AQUIFER RECHARGE ELEMENT, THE

FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT COMMUNITY

DESIGN COMPONENT.

BASED ON THE AVAILABLE DATA, THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD

ALLOW VEHICULAR USE AREAS AND A GAS STATION WITHIN AN EXISTING

WETLAND AND WETLAND BUFFER AREAS. THE APPROVED SITE PLAN

IDENTIFIED PARCEL C AS A WETLAND, AND THIS AREA WAS SUBSEQUENTLY

PLATTED AS A WETLAND. THE PRESERVATION OF THE WETLAND WAS THE

BASIS FOR THE APPROVE OF THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA DISTANCE WAIVERS

20

AND FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND

THE PROPOSED REZONING INCONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF

HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

HEARING MASTER:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MR. CARLTON:  MR. LUCE, IF I CAN JUST INTERJECT FOR ONE SECOND.

I WANT TO OBJECT TO THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION

IN THEIR STAFF REPORT VERBALLY TONIGHT FROM A DUE PROCESS

PERSPECTIVE.

THEY'RE NOT, IN MY OPINION, NOT VALID, AND AGAIN A SEPARATE

PROCESS.  THEY KEEP REFERRING TO THE WETLAND ISSUES, WHICH THE

BOCC CLEARLY SAID DON'T DEAL WITH IN THIS PROCESS. THANK YOU.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.  AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN

THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

YES, PLEASE COME FORWARD.  GOOD EVENING.

MS. MAGRUDER:  HI.  I'M KIND OF SHORT HERE.

MY NAME IS PAM MAGRUDER AND I AM ONE OF THE BUSINESS OWNERS

WHO OWNS A BUILDING IN THE COMPLEX, LUMSDEN EXECUTIVE PARK. AND

THE REZONING WOULD DIRECTLY IMPACT OUR BUILDINGS CONSIDERABLY. 

MY ADDRESS IS 655 WEST LUMSDEN ROAD, WHICH IS THE ONE BUILDING,

AND WE MET —— MANY OF OUR BUILDING OWNERS MET TO DISCUSS THE

PROPOSED REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT, AND WE DISCUSSED SOME OF THE

PROS AND CONS AND IT WAS A GENERAL CONSENSUS THAT WE OF THE, FOR

MANY REASONS, THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO DEVELOP THAT CORNER.

AND I'LL JUST SHARE WITH YOU A FEW OF OUR CONCERNS. ONE OF

21

THE MAIN ONES WAS SECURITY. WE HAVE EXPERIENCED QUITE A BIT OF

THEFT WITHIN OUR DEVELOPMENT, AND VANDALISM. SO FOR THE PURPOSE

OF DEVELOPING THAT CORNER WHERE IT WOULD GIVE US MORE VISIBILITY,

THAT WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT TO US FOR A SECURITY FACTOR. THERE

ISN'T A 24—HOUR EMERGENCY VET WHO, YOU KNOW, HAS CUSTOMERS COMING

AND GOING DURING THE NIGHT. I KNOW MOST OF OUR BUILDING AREAS

HAVE BEEN VANDALIZED AT NIGHT WHEN THERE'S BEEN NO ONE AROUND.

SO FOR THAT REASON, THAT WAS ONE OF THE IMPORTANT REASONS TO

DEVELOP IT.

ALSO, THE RACETRAC HAD AGREED TO HAVE LIGHTING THROUGHOUT,

SO THAT WILL GIVE A LOT MORE VISUAL LIGHTING TO THE COMPLEX TO

ELIMINATE A LOT OF PEOPLE COMING IN AND ALSO WE HAVE NOTICED THAT

THERE HAS BEEN A PERSON LIVING IN THAT CORNER AS A HOMELESS

PERSON PERIODICALLY. SO THAT IS ANOTHER SECURITY RISK FOR ANY OF

THE OWNERS AND TENANTS IN THE COMPLEX. THANK YOU.

HEARING MASTER:  THANK YOU, MA'AM.

MS. LUTHER:  GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS SUE LUTHER. I'M THE OWNER

OF ALL AMERICAN TITLE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE BUILDINGS IN THE

COMPLEX. ALSO THE VICE—PRESIDENT OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,

OR —— NOT HOMEOWNERS —— CONDO OWNERS ASSOCIATION IN THE PARK. AS

PAT SAID, WE DID MEET WITH THE PARK AND WE HAD A LOT OF

DISCUSSION WITH A LOT OF THE MEMBERS IN THE PARK. MY BUILDING

FOR ONE BACKS UP TO THE AREA WHERE RACETRAC WOULD BE. SO WE HAD

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCERNS WITH RACETRAC OVER THOSE ISSUES.

22

THEY HAD AGREED TO BUILD SOME SORT OF A DIVIDING WALL FOR US

WHILE WE COULD STILL MAINTAIN A LOT OF THE TREES IN THE AREA SO

THAT WE COULD HAVE THE TREES BUT STILL ALSO HAVE THE SECURITY

THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE WITH THEIR LIGHTING. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE

SECURITY CAMERAS 24/7 AIMED IN THOSE DIRECTIONS FOR US, AND THOSE

ARE REALLY BIG ISSUES FOR US BECAUSE OF ALL THE VANDALISM AND THE

THINGS THAT WE HAVE HAD GOING ON IN THE PARK.

WE HAVE HAD, AS PAT SAID, A HOMELESS PERSON THAT'S SCARED A

COUPLE OF THE PEOPLE IN THE PAST. WE ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS,

WE ASKED ABOUT THE WATER ISSUES OR WHERE THE DRAINAGE WOULD GO,

AND THEY'VE GOT GREAT ANSWERS FOR ALL THOSE AND ARE WILLING TO BE

SURE THAT ALL OF THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO US.

WE HAVE A BIG VISIBILITY ISSUE IN OUR PARK WITH THAT BIG

CORNER. NOBODY KNOWS WE'RE THERE. NO MATTER WHAT —— IF YOU

GOOGLE IT, YOU WILL GO THROUGH THE LIGHT AT KINGS AND THEY'LL

TELL YOU TO DO A U—TURN AND GO BACK AND THEY'LL MISS US. PEOPLE

HAVE A REALLY TOUGH TIME FINDING US, AND WE HAVE 18 BIG BUILDINGS

IN THERE AND WE'RE HARD TO BE FOUND. SO HAVING THE RACETRAC

THERE, WE FEEL IS A GREAT LANDMARK. IT WILL BE A PERFECT SPOT

WHERE WE CAN SAY, WELL, WE'RE BEHIND THE RACETRAC, WE'RE RIGHT

THERE.

SO WE ALSO THINK THAT THAT'S A GREAT THING FOR US TO HELP

WITH THE VISIBILITY AND THE AREA THAT WE'RE GOING TO —— YOU KNOW,

THAT WOULD BE MORE VISIBLE FOR US. BUT WE'LL STILL GET TO

23

MAINTAIN SOME TREES AND STILL HAVE THE NICE LOOK OF OUR COMPLEX.

I THINK THAT'S ABOUT IT.

HEARING MASTER:  VERY GOOD.  THANK YOU, MA'AM.  IS THERE ANYONE

ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE

APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE

APPLICATION? ING.

MS. HATLEY:  GOOD EVENING. I'M PAMELA JO HATLEY, 14519 NORTH

18TH STREET IN TAMPA. I'M AN ATTORNEY. I REPRESENT THE OAK PARK

TOWNHOME HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AND ALSO TAMMY CABRERA AND MARK

HARRIS.

I BELIEVE THERE ARE MANY OTHER PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO

WANT TO BE RECOGNIZED AT THIS POINT, AND WHILE THEY STAND, I HAVE

A PRESENTATION TO GIVE TO YOU.

IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE PROPERTY OWNER THIS EVENING THAT

THROUGH A SERIES OF SUBDIVISIONS AND CONVEYANCES THE PROPERTY

OWNER HELD BACK THE CROWN JEWEL OF THIS PARENT TRACT. HOWEVER

HERE, DIDN'T MENTION THAT IN THE EARLIER ZONING PROCESS IN 2002

IT WAS ARGUED THAT THAT CROWN JEWEL AREA WAS NOT DEVELOPABLE

BECAUSE OF THE LARGE WETLAND THAT BISECTED THE PROPERTY, AND

BECAUSE OF —— IT'S UNDEVELOPABILITY, THE HEARING OFFICER AGREED

AND THE COUNTY GRANTED A WAIVER OF LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. THEY

ARGUED THEY COULDN'T DEVELOP THAT CORNER BECAUSE OF THE WETLAND

SO THEY NEEDED TO DEVELOP THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE PARENT TRACT,

24

AND THEY WERE ALLOWED TO DO SO IN THAT ZONING PROCESS.

NOW, WHILE IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TONIGHT TO KEEP THE

PROCESSES SEPARATE, EPC'S PROCESS OF DETERMINING IMPACT TO

WETLAND IS SEPARATE FROM THIS LAND USE ZONING PROCESS. THE

ISSUES THAT THE HEARING OFFICER MUST CONSIDER ARE SET OUT IN THE

LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AS MY LETTER THERE POINTS OUT, IF THE

LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 100303 E, SOME OF THOSE THINGS

THAT THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER MUST CONSIDER ARE THE ZONING

HISTORY OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL, THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF

THE SENT PARCEL AND SURROUNDING LANDS, THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

OF THE USE, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPLICABLE GOALS,

OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES CONTAINED THEREIN.

MY LETTER SETS OUT THE ZONING HISTORY AND THE DEVELOPMENT

HISTORY IN A LOT OF DETAIL, AND I SPOKE ABOUT IT AT THE FIRST

HEARING. BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT JUST BECAUSE I THINK IT'S

IMPORTANT THAT THE APPLICANT IN THAT EARLIER ZONING PROCESS AGAIN

ARGUED THAT A WAIVER WAS IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE

CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS PARENT TRACT, THOSE UNIQUE

CHARACTERISTICS BEING THE WETLAND THAT BISECTED THE PROPERTY.

NOW, I WANT TO TALK JUST A MOMENT ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE

PLAN ASK THE GOALS AND POLICIES WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS OPINED THAT THIS REQUEST IS NOT

CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IN DOING SO, THE

PLANNING COMMISSION SITED A NUMBER OF POLICIES WITH WHICH THIS

25

REQUEST IS INCONSISTENT. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION DIDN'T BASE

ITS OPINION ON ONE SINGLE POLICY.  IT CONSIDERED THE

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS A WHOLE. IT GATHERED —— IT CONSIDERED

POLICIES IN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LIVEABLE COMMUNITIES

ELEMENT, THE CONSERVATION AND AQUIFER RECHARGE ELEMENT, AND ALL

OF THOSE POLICIES TOGETHER POINTED TO A FINDING THAT THIS IS

INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE APPLICANT ON THE OTHER HAND FOCUSES ON POLICY 22.2 IN

THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND SAYS BECAUSE OF THIS, BECAUSE OF

THIS ISOLATED POLICY HERE, WE SHOULD BE APPROVED FOR THIS USE. 

BUT HE NEGLECTS THE REST OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND HE

NEGLECTS THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PARENT TRACT OWNER MADE IN THE

EARLIER REZONING THAT THIS PART OF THIS PARENT TRACT IS NOT

DEVELOPABLE BECAUSE OF THESE REASONS.

HE ALSO NEGLECTS THAT THE WAIVER WAS GRANTED WHICH ALLOWED

THE BUILDING, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARCEL ON THE SOUTHERN END

INSTEAD OF AT THE INTERSECTION, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THE PARENT

TRACT PARCEL AND —— THE PARENT TRACT PARCEL OWNER AND THE OWNER

OF THIS ISOLATED PARCEL HAVE RECEIVED THE BENEFIT OF THEIR

BARGAIN IN THIS TRANSACTION.

NOW, IF THIS REQUEST IS GRANTED IT WILL BE A BETRAYAL OF THE

PUBLIC TRUST.  AND MY LETTER POINTS OUT THAT FLORIDA COURTS HAVE

RECOGNIZED THAT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONINGS REPRESENT AN

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LAND OWNER AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND SO

26

LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, LOOK AT THE ARGUMENTS THAT WERE MADE IN

THAT REZONING THAT REPRESENT THAT THIS WETLAND WOULD BE

PRESERVED.

AND FINALLY, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AT SECTION 10.03.03G

SAYS THAT NO APPLICATION FOR REZONING SHALL BE RECOMMENDED FOR

APPROVAL BY THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER UNLESS IT IS FOUND THE

APPLICATION IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

NOW, ONCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE MAJOR

MODIFICATION REQUESTED TONIGHT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT WAS THE BURDEN SHIFTED TO THE APPLICANT TO

SHOW OTHERWISE. THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO DO SO. SO THEREFORE

THE REQUEST SHOULD BE DENIED. THANK YOU.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY. THANK YOU, MA'AM.  IS THERE ANYONE ELSE

IN THE AUDIENCE WHICH WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?

MS. BACCA:  VIVIAN BACCA, 413 EL GRECO DRIVE IN BRANDON.

I WOULD LIKE TO STAND BY ALL MY PREVIOUS TESTIMONY ABOUT THE

TRAFFIC IMPACTS. HOWEVER I WANTED TO CLARIFY ONE POINT. BECAUSE

THEIR TRAFFIC EXPERT IN THE REBUTTAL SAID —— AND THIS IS FROM THE

TRANSCRIPT WHICH I'M GOING TO BE TURNING IN. AND LASTLY, I

WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THE TRAFFIC COUNTS AND THE TRAFFIC STUDY

WAS BATESOD AND WERE TAKEN IN FEBRUARY OF 2012.  THANK YOU. 

WHAT I SAID WAS THEY USED DATA FOR THE INTERSECTION FROM

APRIL 2011, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE COUNTY RETIMED AND THE

SIGNALS ON THE CAUSEWAY LUMSDEN CORRIDOR JANUARY 2012 INCLUDING

27

THE INTERSECTION FOR LUMSDEN AND '.

NOW, AS I, A NON—TRAFFIC ENGINEER, WAS ABLE TO FIND THIS

REPORT, IT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ME THAT THEY COULD HAVE FOUND THE

SAME REPORT, JANUARY 2012 FOR A STUDY THAT WAS DONE AND DATED

SEPTEMBER 2012.

AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ENTER IN SOME ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION AS RELATED TO SOMETHING I'VE ALREADY PUT IN. WHICH

WAS I PUT IN THE OPINION ON GLH ENTERPRISES LIMITED CASE NUMBER

10—003272.  BECAUSE THAT —— AND I EMPSIGHTSED THE PART THAT THAT

DOES SAY THAT TRAFFIC CAN BE A FACTOR, AND IT WAS HELD, UPHELD IN

THE ZONING. THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES THAT WERE DISCUSSED IN THE

BRIEF BY MR. WHITEHEAD FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY ATTORNEY THAT I

BELIEVE CONTRIBUTED TO THAT OPINION, AND SO FOR YOUR BENEFIT, I'M

GOING TO GIVE YOU THAT BRIEF.  THANK YOU.

HEARING MASTER:  ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD.  THANK YOU, MA'AM. IS

THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN

OPPOSITION? SIR.

MR. CABRERA:  GOOD EVENING. MY NAME'S TONY CABRERA, 904 HILLTOP

DRIVE IN BRANDON.

WE OPPOSE, MY WIFE AND I, BOTH OPPOSE THIS ZONING AND THIS

SITE DEVELOPMENT FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT REASONS. YOU MIGHT

REMEMBER MY WIFE WAS HERE A COUPLE MONTHS AGO. MY BEAUTIFUL WIFE

TAMMY WENT OUT AND HAD OVER 80 PETITIONS FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

I CAN TELL YOU IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A LOT MORE THAN THAT. WE

28

DIDN'T FIND A FEW PEOPLE HOME. BUT WE PRETTY MUCH WOULD HAVE HAD

A HUNDRED PERCENT CLOSURE RATE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

I'M PROBABLY JUST TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE, THE CLOSEST

HOUSE ON THE NORTH SIDE TO THE SITE. I'M ABOUT 387 FEET FROM THE

BACK OF MY PROPERTY, AND YES I DID PACE IT OFF MYSELF —— TO THE

PROPOSED SITE THAT'S ON THIS CORNER. SO, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT

TRAFFIC, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ALL THESE DIFFERENT THINGS, I DON'T

KNOW IF I CAN TALK ABOUT THE WETLANDS OR NOT. PROBABLY NOT.

ANYTHING YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT —— SAFETY, TRAFFIC, NOISE,

POLLUTION. CONSIDER ME AN EXPERT, BECAUSE I LIVE THERE. OKAY.

I'M NOT REPRESENTING ANYBODY BUT MYSELF. I'M NOT TRYING TO GAIN

ANYTHING.  I'M TRYING TO KEEP WHAT I HAVE.

YOU KNOW, FAILED INTERSECTION —— I TRAVEL THERE EVERY DAY. 

LUMSDEN AND KINGS IS A FAILED INTERSECTION. YOU ARE BACKED UP ——

I HAVE TO GO A MUCH DIFFERENT WAY THAN I SHOULD JUST TO GET HOME.

IT'S GETTING WORSE AND WORSE EACH AND EVERY YEAR. I'VE BEEN

THERE SEVERAL YEARS. I'M ON HILLTOP DRIVE. EVERYBODY'S USING IT

NOW AS A CUT—THROUGH. IN THE WALMART CASE, I WISH I COULD

REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE ROAD, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERN OVER A

ROAD THAT BECAME THE MAIN DRAG. WELL, MY ROAD ALREADY IS THAT

WAY, AND IT'S GOING TO BECOME MORE AND MORE THAT WAY.

I'M CONCERNED FOR SAFETY OF CHILDREN THAT GO UP AND DOWN

THAT ROAD ON THEIR BIKES. JUST A LITTLE STORY. A COUPLE YEARS

AGO I HEARD SOME SCREAMING AROUND THE CORNER ON SUNSHINE, WHICH

29

IS ADJACENT TO HILLTOP. SOMEBODY GOT HIT BY A CAR, HAD A BROKEN

LEG, WAS LAYING ON THE GROUND WITH A COMPOUND FRACTURE, YOU KNOW.

THE GUY THAT HIT HIM SAID, MAN, I DIDN'T SEE YOU. SOMEBODY CAME

THROUGH, CUTTING THROUGH, TRYING TO GET SOMEWHERE IN A HURRY.

THESE ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO HAPPEN. 

PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TRY TO GAME THE SYSTEM, GET THROUGH THAT

INTERSECTION, GET TO WHERE THEY'RE GOING. IT'S NOT GOING TO

WORK.

CAN WE TALK ABOUT WETLANDS OR DO I HAVE TO STAY AWAY FROM

THAT? BECAUSE VIFIRST I HAVE FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THAT

PROPERTY ——

HEARING MASTER:  LET ME JUST ASK THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

JUST TO REITERATE HIS EARLIER COMMENTS BUT IN A LITTLE MORE

BRIEFER MATTER.

MR. GORMLY:  THE PURPOSE OF TONIGHT'S HEARING IS TO TAKE

ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY, ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY ON THIS APPLICATION,

SEPARATING OUT THE WETLAND ISSUE IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE OF THE EPC

PROCESS.

MR. CABRERA:  OKAY. WELL, CAN I TALK ABOUT WILDLIFE ASSOCIATED

WITH WETLANDS? 

HEARING MASTER:  I THINK HOO THAT'S OKAY.

MR. CABRERA:  OKAY. I HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, AGAIN BECAUSE I

35 THERE, I ACTUALLY WALKED —— I HAVE FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF

THAT PROPERTY AND WHAT LIVES ON THAT PROPERTY, OKAY.  THERE'S A

30

LOT OF WILDLIFE IN THAT PROPERTY. IT IS A SWAMP LAND, OKAY. I

DON'T KNOW IF THE GENTLEMAN OR ANYBODY BEHIND ME HAVE DONE THAT.

I HAVE. THERE'S SAND HILL CRANES THAT COME IN AND OUT OF THERE.

THEY WALK THROUGH MY YARD, DOWN HILLTOP CAN GO ACROSS THERE. 

IT'S PROBABLY THE ONLY PLACE THEY CAN GO, BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE

IS DEVELOPED IN THAT AREA.

SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T EVEN KNOW —— IT WOULD TAKE SO MUCH

DIRT TO FILL THAT AREA, TO EVEN BUILD SOMETHING BECAUSE OF THE

WAY —— THE NATURE OF THAT LAND, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT'S WORTH

DOING THAT AT THIS POINT.  THERE WOULD BE A DIRT SHORTAGE IN

FLORIDA, IN MY OPINION, FOR THEM TO DO THAT. BECAUSE IT IS A

SWAMP IN THERE.

NOISE AND POLLUTION: I KNOW THE TRAFFIC THAT COMES THROUGH

THESE AREAS, THEY'RE NOISY. IT SMELLS. THAT'S SEVERAL —— I'VE

ACTUALLY BEEN TO RACETRAC, AND I'VE BEEN THERE, I'VE HEARD THE

NOISE LATE AT NIGHT. I KNOW THAT I CAN HEAR IT IN JUST OVER A

FOOTBALL FIELD'S TYPE OF DISTANCE, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING

ABOUT. IT'S A CONCERN TO ME.

I DON'T OPPOSE DEVELOPMENT IF IT'S IN THE RIGHT PLACE.  YOU

KNOW, I KNOW THAT MR. MARCHETTI ALSO REPRESENTS BASS PRO SHOPS,

AND HE ALSO IS PROPOSING A SITE I THINK ON FALKENBURG, IF I'M NOT

MISTAKEN, IN THAT AREA, PROBABLY NOT A BAD SITE. THERE'S ROOM

THERE.  IT'S NOT ON SOMEBODY'S DOORSTEP, OKAY. IT'S NOT IN

SOMEBODY'S BACKYARD.  IT IS NOT. 

31

JUST A COUPLE THINGS, TOO. BEFORE I CLOSE. THE POINT WAS

MADE BY MR. HORNER IN THE LAST SESSION THAT THE CABRERAS MOVED IN

ON HILLTOP AT A TIME WHEN THEY KNEW THERE WAS DEVELOPMENT THERE

BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE STREET THERE WAS A VET CLINIC. WELL,

THAT'S AN INCORRECT STATEMENT. WHEN WE MOVED IN, THERE WAS NO ——

IT WAS WOODED. MAYBE THERE WAS A PLAN TO BUILD IN THAT AREA, BUT

IT WAS NOT DEVELOPED.  IT WAS AN AREA AT THE END OF THE STREET

THAT WAS STILL WOODED. SO I WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION.

ALSO, MR. CARLTON —— I REMEMBER HIS VERY PASSIONATE SPEECH,

AND I WAS ALMOST MOVED TO TEARS THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE ABOUT

DEVELOPMENT. WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE DOING? WE NEED TO GET WITH IT.

WELL, YOU KNOW, HE'S PART OF THE OWNERSHIP GROUP, OKAY. IT'S A

SELF—SERVING INTEREST ON HIS PART TO COME IN HERE AND TO ACT LIKE

DEVELOPMENT, QUOTE, UNQUOTE. I DIDN'T SEE HIM HERE AT THE

WALMART CASE. I HAVEN'T SEEN HIM ON OTHER CASES.

HE HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN THAT PROPERTY, OKAY. SO THAT'S

WHERE HE'S COMING FROM.  BE A BETTER BUSINESSMAN, MAKE BETTER

BUSINESS DECISIONS IS WHAT I WOULD SAY SOTHAT. EVERYBODY ELSE

WE'VE HEARD FROM, SELF—SERVING INTERESTS.  PEOPLE THAT HAVE

INTERESTS IN THOSE PROPERTIES. THEY'RE GOOD REASONS BUT THEY'RE

NOT PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE.

WE LIVE THERE. EVERYBODY BEHIND ME, A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE

LIVE THERE. WE CARE ABOUT WHERE WE'RE AT. 

IT'S ALSO MEMORIALIZED FOR AN OFFICER NAMED RONALD HARRISON.

32

RONALD HARRISON WAS A 55—YEAR—OLD OFFICER, 29—YEAR OFFICER FOR

TPD. I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS WITH TPD FOR THE ENTIRE TIME. HAD A

WIFE AND FOUR CHILDREN.  HE WAS GUNNED DOWN AT THAT INTERSECTION

IN AUGUST OF 2007. THERE'S A MEMORIAL SIGNS ALL THROUGHOUT.  AND

IT'S KIND OF NICE TO SEE THOSE.

THE LAST THING I WANT TO SEE WHEN I COME DOWN IS, YOU KNOW,

A RACETRAC SIGN AND JUST COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT AROUND THAT

INTERSECTION. THAT'S KIND OF A SIDE ISSUE, BUT I THINK IT'S NICE

THAT WE HONOR OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND AT LEAST GIVE BACK TO THEM.

SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TONIGHT.  HOPEFULLY MY

POINTS HAVE BEEN MADE, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

HEARING MASTER:  THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT GENTLEMAN, PLEASE.  YOU.

MR. HOWELL:  MY NAME IS DR. JAMES HOWELL, 310 CAMBRIDGE PLACE,

BRANDON. THAT'S HOME 30 YEARS. OFFICE 1739 SOUTH KINGS.

WE WALK A LOT, MY WIFE AND I HAVE WALKED THAT LOCATION, THAT

AREA, THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 30 YEARS. I WALK BACK AND FORTH

BETWEEN HOME AND OFFICE EVENINGS AND WEEKENDS. BUILT A BUILDING

SEVEN YEARS AGO, IN THE PAST SEVEN JEERS I SUSPECT I'VE WALKED

THAT DIMENSION, THAT DIRECTION FOR 2000, 3 THOUSAND TIMES. I'VE

WALKED PAST THE SUBJECT PROPERTY EVERY SINGLE TIME.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE GENERAL

INCREASE IN TRAFFIC THAT HAS OCCURRED ACROSS THESE NUMBER OF

YEARS, AND WE CAN NO LONGER FEEL REALLY SAFE WALKING IN THE

EVENING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE OF THE CUT—THROUGHS. HE JUST

33

MENTIONED THOSE. TRAFFIC HAS DRAMATICALLY INCREASED. IF

RACETRAC IS THERE, IT WILL DO NOTHING BUT INCREASE IT FURTHER.

THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT, MR. LUCE.

I SUSPECT THAT IF ANYBODY PARKED IN THE 7/ELEVEN PARKING

LOT, WHICH IS PERHAPS A HUNDRED YARDS TO THE SOUTHEAST OF THE

SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND WATCHED HOW MANY PEOPLE MAKE IT A

DESTINATION, THEY WOULD SEE THAT IT IS IN FACT A DESTINATION.

RACETRAC SAYS NO, NO, WE'RE NOT A DESTINATION, IT'S JUST PEOPLE

PASSING BY. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT FOR A MOMENT.

I WILL ALSO TAKE A LITTLE TIME TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE ONE

TIME I'VE SEEN A FLORIDA BOBCAT, AND I WON'T TAKE TOO MUCH TIME

TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE NUMBER OF TIMES I'VE SEEN FOXES ON THAT

PROPERTY.  AGAIN, SEVERAL THOUSAND TIMES I'VE WALKED RIGHT PAST

THAT. AS RECENTLY BY THE WAY AS YESTERDAY AFTERNOON AT FIVE

O'CLOCK AND BACK HOME ABOUT 8:30. TRAFFIC IS A BIG THING. ONE

GENTLEMAN SAID A WHILE AGO MAIN AND MAIN. I'M NOT SURE WHY WE

WOULD WANT TO INCREASE THE CONGESTION AT MAIN AND MAIN, IF THAT

IN FACT IS WHAT YOU MIGHT CALL IT.

ANOTHER LADY MENTIONED THAT SHE LIKES THE IDEA OF USING

RACETRAC AS A LANDMARK. I SUSPECT SHE BOUGHT HER BUILDING LONG

BEFORE RACETRAC WAS EVENING DREAMED UP. SO WHAT DID YOU DO BACK

THEN? THE SAME THING I DO IN MY OFFICE BUILDING FURTHER DOWN THE

STREET, AND THERE ARE ABOUT 800 PACES.

MY HOME 800 PACES TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. MY OFFICE IS 800

34

PACES THE OTHER WAY. AND WHEN I HAVE CLIENTS COMING TO MY

FINANCIAL PLANNING OFFICE I SIMPLY TELL THEM LOOK FOR THE FLAG

POLE. SOMETIMES THEY HAVE TO MAKE A U—TURN. BUT I'M MUCH MORE

CONCERNED ABOUT THE GENERAL TRAFFIC, WATCHING PEOPLE ON THE

INSIDE LANE OF KINGS JOCKEYING TO GET TO THE OUTSIDE LANE SO THEY

CAN WHIP INTO 7/ELEVEN.  I CAN'T DREAM IT WOULD BE ANYTHING

DIFFERENT, SOMEBODY TRYING TO WHIP INTO RACETRAC ON TOP OF THAT.

THE TRAFFIC IS A BIG DEAL. I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT IT. 

I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT SOMEBODY HAVING A FENDER BENDER OR

WORSE, AN ACCIDENT THAT RENDERS THEM WITH A BAD BACK OR PERHAPS

LOSS OF LIFE. THAT'S MORE IMPORTANT TO ME THAN A U—TURN DOWN THE

ROAD.  THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.

HEARING MASTER:  THANK YOU, SIR. LET ME ASK THE OPPOSITION, HOW

MANY MILES PER HOUR SPEAKERS ARE THERE? FOUR? HOW MUCH MORE

TIME DO YOU THINK YOU'LL NEED?

UNIDENTFIED SPEAKER:  I JUST NEED CLARITY ON SOMETHING.

HEARING MASTER:  AMONGST THE FOUR OF YOU, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU

THINK YOU WOULD NEED?

UNIDENTFIED SPEAKER:  THREE MINUTES FOR ME. THREE MINUTES. 

ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.

HEARING MASTER:  FIVE MINUTES TOTAL? YES, SIR.

MR. MARCHETTI:  MR. LUCE, VIN MARCHETTI, FOR THE RECORD. 

WE'RE HERE ON PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS ISSUES ALREADY. THOSE

IN OPPOSITION KNEW CLEARLY WHAT THIS HEARING TONIGHT WAS ABOUT.

35

IT'S ON THE ZONING LAND USE ISSUES. IT'S NOT ABOUT BOB CATS, NOT

ABOUT SOMEONE WHO CHOSE TO LIVE ACROSS THE STREET AND BOUGHT

BEHIND A MOBILE GAS STATION AND A VET CLINIC. IT'S NOT ABOUT A

LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS. IT'S ABOUT JUST THE LAND USE ZONING

ISSUES.

HAD THEY ADDRESSED THEIR TIME PROPERLY, THEY WOULD HAVE 15

MINUTES TO PUT EVERYTHING IN THE RECORD.  NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS ISSUES AGAIN BECAUSE NOW THEY'RE GOING TO

HAVE ANOTHER 15 TO 20 MINUTES IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME, AND WE'RE

SITTING HERE WITH FIVE MINUTES OF REBUTTAL. 

SO, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IF YOU CHOOSE TO GIVE THEM

ADDITIONAL TIME, I WOULD RESTRICT IT AND GIVE US ADDITIONAL TIME

AT THE END.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.  I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO GIVING THE

OPPOSITION FIVE MORE MINUTES OF TIME. AND LET'S, IF THE CLERK,

WE CAN TIME THAT.  AND WHEN THE APPLICANT COMES FORWARD FOR

REBUTTAL, IF THEY NEED ADDITIONAL TIME, THAT'S ALSO ACCEPTABLE. 

THINK.

MR. KNIGHTLY:  JOHN KNIGHTLY, 1011 WINCHESTER LANE, VALRICO. I

TESTIFIED BEFORE. I CAN SKIP THE WETLANDS PART.

I AM A COMPETITOR ACROSS THE STREET AT THE MOBIL. WE TRIED

SEVERAL TIMES TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY, AND EACH TIME I COME TO

ONE OF THESE MEETINGS WE GET A DIFFERENT STORY ABOUT THE

PROPERTY. BUT WE WERE TOLD IT COULDN'T BE DEVELOPED.

36

SO FORTUNATELY FOR US, IN 2008 WE WERE ABLE TO BUY THE MOBIL

ACROSS THE STREET, WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT IT WOULDN'T NEVER BE

DEVELOPED ACROSS THE STREET. BUT I GUESS IF YOU COME ENOUGH

TIMES AND GO AT IT AND KEEP HAMMERING AWAY AT IT, EVERYBODY WILL

GIVE UP AND MAYBE THAT I'LL GET THEIR WAY. THANK YOU.

HEARING MASTER:  THANK YOU, SIR.

MS. FLOTT:  FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE AN EXCERPT FROM THE TEXT FROM

THE HEARING.

HEARING MASTER:  STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

MS. FLOTT: TERRY FLOTT, SEFFNER, FLORIDA.

THAT I'M GOING TO PROVIDE NOW THIS BLUE FOLDER. IT CLEARLY

OUTLINES THAT IT'S A PROCESS THAT NEEDS TO BE SEPARATED, NOT THE

ISSUES SO MUCH.

YOU CAN'T SPEAK ABOUT THIS ZONING WITHOUT MENTIONING THE

WORD WETLAND. MARK THAT ONE DOWN.  IT'S ANOTHER WORD FOR YOU TO

TIME.  YOU GOT THIS LITTLE MARKS GOING THERE.

SO THE NEXT ISSUE IS THE NOTICE THAT WENT OUT WAS A NOTICE

OF CONTINUANCE. IT DID NOT SAY REMAND AND IT DID NOT RESTRICT ——

DIDN'T INDICATE THAT TESTIMONY WOULD BE SEVERELY RESTRICTED.  MR.

GORMLY SHOULD BE WELL AWARE OF WHAT TRANSPIRED AT THE BOCC

HEARING, SO —— THE LAST HEARING

MR. MARCHETTI IS THE ONE THAT INTRODUCED THE CROWN JEWEL TO

THE TESTIMONY. HE INTRODUCED THE CROWN JEWEL IMPACT

DOCUMENTATION, AT WHICH TIME YOU, SIR, STATED THAT IT WASN'T IN

37

YOUR PURVIEW TO EVEN, YOU KNOW, WHY DID YOU SUBMIT THIS STUFF?

SO TO REMIND YOU, YOU DIDN'T CONSIDER THE CROWN JEWEL IN ALL OF

THIS TO BEGIN WITH, SO IT WORKED FOR MR. MARCHETTI THE FIRST

TIME. HE DID A LOUSY JOB. HE CREATED THE CONFUSION. AND NOW

THEY'RE SAYING THAT WE CAN'T EVEN WHISPER THE WORD CROWN JEWEL,

AKA WET LAND.

SO I THINK IT'S DISINGENUOUS, IT'S DISENGENIUS THE AMOUNT OF

TIME THAT HE TOOK THE LAST TIME. WE'RE BRINGING THESE PEOPLE

DOWN HERE. THEY DESERVE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD. YOU DETERMINE ——

YOU, SIR, DETERMINE WHAT YOU CAN CONSIDER AND CANNOT CONSIDER.

I HAVE A FOLTEDER HERE, JUST A FEW THINGS. I HOPE YOU WILL

TAKE A LOOK AT IT. ALL OF IT WAS SUBMITTED THE LAST TIME. AND

MUCH MORE.  PLEASE REMEMBER THAT YOU MUST CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE

THAT IS APPLICABLE IN YOUR MAKING A DECISION. YOU MADE THE

STATEMENT THAT YOU COULDN'T CONSIDER IT LAST TIME, AND YOU WON'T

BE ABLE TO CONSIDER CERTAIN ASPECTS OF IT THIS TIME. WHICH IS

THE PROCESS, NOT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

BECAUSE AS MS. HATLY STATED, YOU CAN BY LAW CONSIDER THE

OVERALL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE BOCC CANNOT DETERMINE

WHICH PARTS OF THE CODES THEY'RE GOING TO FOLLOW AND WHICH PARTS

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO FOLLOW. I'M NOT A HAPPY CAMPER RIGHT NOW,

BUT I WILL PUT THIS IN, AND I HOPE YOU WILL TAKE ALL THAT INTO

CONSIDERATION.

HEARING MASTER:  THANK YOU, MA'AM. NEXT, PLEASE.

38

MR. HARRIS:  HIGH NAME IS MARK HARRIS. I RESIDE AT 501 BRENTWOOD

PLACE IN BRANDON. I'M ABOUT MAYBE A THIRD OF A MILE AWAY FROM

THE INTERSECTION IN QUESTION. I TESTIFIED LAST TIME. IF YOU

REMEMBER, I'M THE ONE THAT TOOK THE TRAFFIC PHOTOS THAT SHOW THE

BACKUP AT THAT INTERSECTION. AND PLEASE REFER TO THOSE WHEN

YOU'RE MAKING YOUR DECISION.

I HAVE A COUPLE THINGS I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT. THE SUPPORT

WE HAD FROM THE BUSINESS OWNERS THAT ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS

RACETRAC ANYTHING IN THERE HAVE BASICALLY SAID THEY'RE FOR THE

RACETRAC BECAUSE THEY WANT ADDITIONAL LIGHTING, MORE SECURITY AND

BETTER VISIBILITY FOR THE CONSUMERS TO FIND THEIR LOCATION.

FOR THAT, WE'RE GOING TO PAVE OVER AN ENTIRE CORNER SO THOSE

ARE THINGS THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE LOOKED AT BEFORE THEY MOVED IN

TO THAT LOCATION. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING FOR —— WAIT FOR SOMEBODY

ELSE TO COME ALONG AND DEVELOP AND THEN, OH, THEY'RE GOING TO PAY

FOR THE TAB ALSO.  OH, LUCKY US.

SO YOU NEED TO CONSIDER THAT THAT MENTALITY HAS —— THAT

MENTALITY HAS RESULTED IN A LARGE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT

DOESN'T NEED TO BE.

ALSO, IF THEY'RE SO INTENT ON A MAIN AND MAIN INTERSECTION

——

HEARING MASTER:  SIR, YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS TO SUM UP.

MR. HARRIS:  OKAY. IF THEY WANT A MAIN AND MAIN INTERSECTION,

THERE'S A FINE LOCATION AT OAK FIELD AND KINGS, THAT'S A FORMER

39

SITE OF A LIFESTYLES FITNESS GYM THAT I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM

WITH RACETRAC MOVING IN THERE.  IT'S ALREADY PAVED. THANK YOU.

HEARING MASTER:  AND THE LAST SPEAKER. FIVE MINUTES ARE UP.

I'LL GIVE YOU TWO MINUTES.

MS. DOWELING:  THANK YOU SO MUCH. BARBARA DOWELING.

AT THE OCTOBER 2012 HEARING THE APPLICANT'S REP SAID YOU

CANNOT HAVE WELL AND SEPTIC TANK IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE

AREAS. THE APPLICANT'S REP BROUGHT UP THAT FIRST. IT WAS MY

RESPONSE THAT I CANNOT BELIEVE IT'S OKAY TO BE SENSITIVE ABOUT

WETLAND SEPTIC BUT IT'S OKAY TO PUT GAS STORAGE TANKS. IT

DOESN'T PASS THE REASONABLE PERSON TEST. 

IT WAS ALSO MR. MARCHETTI WHO BROUGHT UP THE ULI REPORT AND

SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE RECORD, WHICH HE TALKED ABOUT THE ISOLATED

WETLAND. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I DID SUBMIT BACK IN OCTOBER

FROM PUBLIC WORKS, WHICH IS THE INFORMATION FOR RESIDENTS IN HIGH

RISK FLOOD ZONES, WHERE THE FUNCTIONS OF FLOOD PLAINS AND THE W

WORD, CHUWILL NOT LET ME USE, IS STILL NECESSARY TO RECEIVE STORE

AND STORAGE WATER RUN OFF, ET CETERA. THAT WAS IN THE RECORD

FROM THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

HEARING MASTER:  THANK YOU, MA'AM. WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THE

OPPOSITION TESTIMONY. 

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER? NO

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT.

WITH THAT, THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

40

MR. MARCHETTI:  VIN MARCHETTI. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THREE

SPEAKERS ON REBUTTAL:  TRAFFIC, AND THEN RACETRAC'S OPERATIONS

QUICKLY, AND THEN I'LL CLOSE TUP.

MR. RAYSOR:  GOOD EVENING. MIKE RAYSOR FOR THE RECORD.  I'M A

FLORIDA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. I HAVE BEEN SWORN. 

19046 BRUCE B. DOWNS BOULEVARD.

AND I'M GOING TO REITERATE SOME OF THE BOINTS I BROUGHT UP

AT THE LAST HEARING. THE ACCESS FOR THE SITE IS PROPOSED VIA TWO

RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT CONNECTIONS, ONE TO KINGS AND ONE TO LUMSDEN,

WHEREAS THE TURNING RESTRICTIONS INVOLVED WITH RIGHT IN, RIGHT

OUT CONNECTIONS RESULT IN MINIMAL TRAFFIC CONFLICTS AND SAFE AND

EFFICIENT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS. RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT CONNECTIONS.

AS IDENTIFIED IN THE TRAFFIC REPORT THAT WE PREPARED, AND AS

ALSO REFERENCED IN THE COUNTY'S OWN STAFF REPORT, DUE TO THE

CONVENIENCE NATURE OF THIS SITE, A SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY OF THE

TRAFFIC IS ALREADY ON THE ROAD. WE'RE PULLING IT OFF THE ROAD

AND THEN PUTTING IT BACK ONTO THE ROAD. THUS ANY IMPACTS TO THE

SURROUNDING ROADS ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE MINIMAL.

TRAFFIC STUDY DID IDENTIFY A NEW RIGHT TURN LANE WOULD BE

NEEDED ON LUMSDEN, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS MAY ALSO BE NEEDED AS

WE GET TO THE SITE PLAN STAGE TO ADDRESS CONCURRENCY. AGAIN, THE

DATE OF THE TRAFFIC COUNT SEEMED TO HAVE COME UP AT THIS

HEARING.  THEY WERE DONE FOR THE RECORD IN FEBRUARY OF 2012,

WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR AGO, WHICH IS VERY TYPICAL OF

41

THESE TYPE OF STUDIES.

AND THAT OTHER TRAFFIC STUDY THAT I REFERENCED FOR

CONCURRENCY AT THE SITE PLAN STAGE WILL SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS

CONCURRENCY AND SITE ACCESS AND WILL RELY UPON NEW TRAFFIC COUNTS

UNDERTAKEN AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME TO ADDRESS ANY OPERATIONAL

ISSUES WHICH ARE SOMEWHAT REMOVED FROM THIS PROCESS. THANK YOU.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.  THANK YOU.

MS. SITZ:  GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MEGAN SITZ WITH RACETRAC. I

JUST WANT TO BRIEFLY DISCUSS WITH YOU, THE RACETRAC OPERATIONS

AND WHAT WE'VE DONE UP TO THIS POINT. WE HAVE —— THIS IS AN

IMAGE OF OUR STORE.

WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME JUST TRYING TO MAKE OUR ENTIRE

SITE AS VISIBLY APPEALING AS POSSIBLE, INCLUDING LANDSCAPING

ENHANCEMENTS, EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS, INTERIOR STORES IS QUITE

BEAUTIFUL.  WE TAKE THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS ALL THE WAY AROUND

OUR BUILDING.

WE ALSO MET WITH THE NEIGHBORS, INCLUDING THE OFFICE PARK

AND THE HOMEOWNERS NEARBY TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THEIR LOCAL

—— THEIR CONCERNS, WHAT'S GOING ON TODAY AND HOW WE CAN MAKE THE

SITE COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA AND ADDRESS SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS

IN THE MEANTIME.

WE UTILIZE LED LIGHTS THROUGHOUT OUR SITE. IT ALLOWS THE

LIGHT TO STAY WITH IT'S SUPPOSED TO AND ILLUMINATE WHERE — IT

NEEDS TO AND KEEP DARK WHERE IT'S —— YOU KNOW, WHERE IT SHOULD BE

42

DETECTOR DARK. ESPECIALLY ALONG PROPERTY LINES AND SUCH. WE

HAVE FIVE TO SEVEN EMPLOYEES ON—SITE AT ALL TIMES.

WE HAVE 17, AT A MINIMUM, SECURITY CAMERAS ALL THE WAY

AROUND OUR SITE.  WE ALSO WALK OUR SITE HOURLY, WE CLEAN OUR SITE

AT LEAST THREE TIMES A DAY, AND MORE IF NEEDED. WE FEEL LIKE

THIS WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO THE AREA AND WE FEEL LIKE WE'VE REALLY

TAKEN SOME STEPS TO ADDRESS THE LOCAL CONCERNS. IF YOU HAVE ANY

QUESTIONS, HAPPY TO HELP.

HEARING MASTER:  THANK YOU.

MR. MARCHETTI: VIN MARCHETTI CLOSING IT OUT HERE TONIGHT.  LET

ME FIRST REFER TO MS. FLOTT'S COMMENTS AT THE END OF —— BEGINNING

OF HER PRESENTATION.

I'VE GOT TO SAY THAT I'VE —— I HAVEN'T EVER BEEN TOLD BY

SOMEONE THAT I WAS DISHONEST AND I DIDN'T —— I BROUGHT UP THE

ISSUE FIRST. ACTUALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT, WHICH I

HAVE HERE, OF THE OCTOBER 15TH ZHM HEARING, THE FIRST PAGE OF THE

TRANSCRIPT, I BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE SAYING THE ISSUE BEING THE

PLANNING COMMISSION CHOSE TO INCLUDE THE CONSERVATION AQUIFER

RECHARGE ELEMENT IN THEIR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS.

THAT'S BECAUSE THE EPC STAFF CHOSE TO ON THREE SEPARATE

OCCASIONS FILE AGENCY OBJECTION COMMENTS, WHICH THEN CAUSED I

GUESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF TO INTERJECT THE CONSERVATION

RECHARGE ELEMENT INTO THE ENTIRE REZONING APPLICATION. 

DEFINITELY.

43

THE FIRST QUESTION I ASKED OF YOU —— AND I MADE THE COMMENT,

IT'S A QUASI—JUDICIAL HEARING IS WHAT I SAID.  I WANT TO START BY

LETTING YOU KNOW THAT RACETRAC HIRED NUMEROUS CONSULTANTS FOR

THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT RANGING FROM TRAFFIC TO ENVIRONMENTAL

LAND PLANNING TO SITE PLANNING TO ENGINEERING, ET CETERA, WE'LL

HAVE SEVERAL CONSULTANTS SPEAK THIS EVENING. 

THEN I ASKED SPECIFICALLY, I SAID, ACTUALLY —— I'M SORRY. I

WOULD NOT —— I WOULD NOT SPEAK IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE —— I WOULD

ONLY SPEAK TO ZONING ISSUES EXCEPT THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION

INTRODUCED ISSUES DEALING WITH THE WETLANDS IN THE ZONING

ENTITLEMENT STAGE WHICH HAS NOW CAUSED US TO HAVE TO RESPOND

OBVIOUSLY AT THIS POINT OF RECORD SO THAT WE CAN DEAL WITH THEIR,

IN MY OPINION, MISPLACED REPORT.

SO WE WERE FORCED TO DEAL WITH THE WETLAND ISSUE INITIALLY,

BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE THE BOCC TELLING ANYONE AT THAT POINT, NOR

DO I HAVE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY CANDIDLY SITTING THERE TELLING YOU

AT THAT POINT, THAT CONSIDERING THOSE ISSUES WOULD BE IRRELEVANT

AND MISPLACED IN THIS ZONING PROCESS. SO I INTRODUCED IT THE

FIRST PAGE OF THE TRANSCRIPT. YOU CAN READ IT. YOU PROBABLY

REMEMBER IT.

AND I SPECIFICALLY TALKED ABOUT THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES OF

THE EPC. IT'S VERY CLEARLY SET FORTH IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION

IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. EPC HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE WETLAND

ISSUES, PERIOD. PLANNING EXCISION DOES NOT. 

44

WHEN I FILED THE IMPACT WETLAND APPLICATION, IT WASN'T WITH

PLANNING COMMISSION, IT WAS WITH EPC. WE FILED THE APPEAL WITH

EPC.  AND SO, YOU KNOW, I RAISED IT UP FRONT BECAUSE THE STAFF

HAD ALREADY INCLUDED ALL OF THEIR COMMENTS ABOUT THE WETLAND

ISSUES IN THEIR STAFF REPORTS, AND WE HAD TO BASICALLY BACKTRACK

AND COVER THOSE POINTS DURING A ZHM HEARING PROCESS, WHICH

CANDIDLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN JUST AS IT IS TONIGHT ONLY ABOUT THE

ZONING, LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, TRANSPORTATION AS IT RELATES TO

THOSE ISSUES, ET CETERA.

SOIMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR. IDO HAVE A STANDING

OBJECTION, BY THE WAY, ON DUE PROCESS CONCERNS THROUGHOUT THE

OBJECTION —A — OR THE OPPOSITION TESTIMONY, I DIDN'T REALLY HEAR

MUCH ABOUT THE ACTUAL 8,000 SQUARE FEET WE'RE SEEKING ON THE

CORNER OF KINGS AND LUMSDEN. 

I HEARD FROM MR. CABRERA, AND I'VE GOT THAT AERIAL UP THERE.

CAN YOU POINT OUT, MIKE, POINT OUT HIS HOME, PLEASE. MR. CABRERA

BROUGHT UP A LOT OF FINE POINTS. NOT RELEVANT TO THE APPLICATION

TONIGHT BEFORE YOU, OF COURSE. BUT HE BROUGHT UP THE FACT HE

THINKS HAVING A RACETRAC ON THE CORNER OF KINGS AND LUMSDEN ——

HEARING MASTER:  WHAT IS MR. HORNER POINTING TO.

MR. MARCHETTI:  HE'S POINTING TO THE CABRERA'S HOME OFF OF ——

WHAT'S THAT STREET? HILLTOP. HE DOESN'T SAY, HOWEVER, THAT HE

ACTUALLY ACQUIRED THE HOME A FEW YEARS AGO, FOUR, FIVE YEARS AGO,

ON THE CORNER IS A MOBIL GAS STATION. I THINK IT'S INDEPENDENTLY

45

OWNED NOW. A GAS STATION ON THE CORNER. ACROSS THE STREET TO

THE WEST IS A LARGE SHOPPING CENTER.

HE CHOSE TO LIVE IN AN AREA THAT IS HIGH VOLUME OF TRAFFIC

ON ALL THE ROADWAY SEGMENTS. 40 TO 45,000 CARS A DAY RUNNING

ALONGSIDE LUMSDEN AT THAT LOCATION. PROBABLY A SIMILAR NUMBER

NORTH AND SOUTH ON KINGS IS MY GUESS. AND MIKE CAN REFER TO

SPECIFIC REPORTS.  BUT HE CHOSE TO LIVE THERE.

MR. CARLTON, ONE OF THE SPEAKERS, TALKED ABOUT —— MR.

CARLTON NOT BEING A REALLY GOOD —— I THINK HE SAID AN INVESTOR OR

NOT KNOWING REAL ESTATE, HE'S HERE, HE CAN SPEAK FOR HIMSELF. I

WILL TELL YOU THAT I ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE WITH THE PERSON ON

THAT. 

MR. CARLTON IS A VERY REPUTABLE BUSINESSMAN. HE SITS ON THE

BANK BOARD OF VALRICO FOR A REASON BECAUSE OF HIS BUSINESS

ACUMEN, IF YOU WILL.  HE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE 2002 REZONING

APPLICATION BECAUSE HIS PROPERTY ON THE CORNER HE HAD PRESERVED

FOR THE ABILITY TO HAVE COMMERCIAL IN THE FUTURE.  SO I DON'T

KNOW WHERE THAT PERSON'S COMING SAYING THAT MR. CARLTON IS NOT ——

IN THIS GROUP, BY THE WAY. I THINK THERE WERE EIGHT OR NINE

DIFFERENT OWNERS WITHIN THIS PARTNERSHIP GROUP OF THAT CORNER

PARCEL.

I TALKED ABOUT CONSERVATION AQUIFER RECHARGE ELEMENT.

AGAIN, WHEN WE HAD THE REMAND OCCUR BY THE BOCC, I WENT TO THE

PLANNING COMMISSION, WE MET WITH STEVE GRIFFIN AND MELISSA. I

46

TOLD THEM, AND ADAM WAS IN THE MEETING. I THINK IF THEY STAND

WITH THEIR OBJECTION FINDING INCONSISTENCY, IT GOES DIRECTLY

AGAINST THE BOCC COMMENTS AT THE BOCC MEETING IN DECEMBER. THEY

CHOSE TO STICK WITH THEIR INCONSISTENCY FINDING. YOU DID REACH

OUT I THINK TO EPC STAFF. EPC CHOSE NOT TO MODIFY ITS AGENCY

COMMENTS, AND I SIMPLY ASKED —— WE'VE GOT TWO CONDITIONS IN THE

PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT DEAL WITH EPC VERY CLEARLY. 

IF WE DON'T DON'T HAVE AN APPROVAL ON THE WETLAND APPLICATION,

YOU CAN'T BUILD.  IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE.  THEY CHOSE TO LEAVE THE

AGENCY COMMENT OF RECORD, WHICH THEN PROMPTED I BELIEVE THE

PLANNING COMMIS TO SAY, OKAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE OUR

COMMENTS THEN.

WE'LL ALTER OUR STAFF REPORT A BIT. WE'RE STILL GOING TO FIND IT

INCONSISTENT. WE'RE PLAYING THIS GAME BACK AND FORTH. AND I

DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. I SAID THE FIRST PROBABLY FIVE MINUTES OF

OUR ORIGINAL PRESENTATION IN OCTOBER I WANT TO SEPARATE THE TWO

ISSUES, WHICH THEY SHOULD BE SEPARATED, AND AND IT JUST HASN'T

GONE THAT WAY, UNFORTUNATELY. SO, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S

CLEAR FOR THE RECORD.

HEARING MASTER:  THANK YOU. VERY GOOD. WITH THAT, THAT

CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION. STAFF, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT

ITEM.

MR. LEWIS:  THANK YOU, MR. LUCE. THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER I2

——

47

HEARING MASTER:  MR. LEWIS, WHY DON'T YOU JUST GIVE THE FOLKS IN

THE AUDIENCE A MINUTE OR TWO TO STAND UP AND LEAVE THE BOARD ROOM

AND THEN WE'LL QUIET TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

HEARING MASTER:  MR. LEWIS, I THINK WE'RE READY TO PROCEED TO THE

NEXT ITEM.

THE CLERK:  HOLD ON ONE MINUTE.

HEARING MASTER:  IF YOU COULD PROCEED.

MR. LEWIS:  BEFORE I INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER 2, I'D JUST LIKE TO

NOTE FOR THE RECORD, ITEM NUMBER I7, THAT'S APPLICATION NUMBER

REZONE PD 13—0123.  WE'VE JUST IDENTIFIED THAT AS OUT OF ORDER

AND WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE APRIL 22ND, 2013, ZONING HEARING

MASTER HEARING. THE APPLICANT, WE'VE JUST DISCUSSED IT WITH HIM.

HEARING MASTER:  IS THE APPLICANT HERE REGARDING REZONING PD 13—

0123?

MR. HORNER:  MR. LUCE, GOOD EVENING, MICHAEL HORNER, FOR ON THE

RECORD, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.

WE JUST FOUND OUT WE HAVE AN OUT OF ORDER ISSUE BASED ON

SOME INFORMATION THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO US AT THE

INTAKE.  IT'S UNFORTUNATE, BUT IN ORDER TO MEET DUE PROCESS HERE,

WE'LL ASK FOR THAT CONTINUANCE TO APRIL, MATT?

MR. LEWIS:  APRIL 22ND.

MR. HORNER:  APRIL 22ND.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY. LET ME JUST ANNOUNCE FOR THE AUDIENCE, IF

ANYBODY IS HERE IN THE AUDIENCE REGARDING REZONING PD 13—0123 ON

48

TOBACCO ROAD —— OLD TOBACCO ROAD SOUTH OF VAN DYKE ROAD, THAT

ITEM WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE APRIL 22ND, 2013, ZONING HEARING

MASTER HEARING, SIX O'CLOCK P.M. IN THESE CHAMBERS.

I SEE NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE RESPONDING TO THAT CONTINUANCE.

ARE YOU, MA'AM? OKAY. AND YOU'RE OKAY WITH UNDERSTANDING WE'RE

GOING TO APRIL 22ND. VERY GOOD.

WITH THAT, GIVEN THE COMMENTS WITH'VE BY THE APPLICANT, HE'S

AWARE OF THE CONTINUANCE, THIS ITEM IS CONTINUED TO APRIL 22ND,

2013, SIX O'CLOCK P.M. IN THESE CHAMBERS.

MR. HORNER:  THANK YOU, MR. HEARING MASTER.

MR. LEWIS:  OKAY. AGAIN, ON PAGE 4 OF THE AGENDA, WE'RE ON ITEM

NUMBER I2. THIS IS APPLICATION NUMBER REZONE 13—0091. IT'S IN

BRANDON. THE APPLICANT IS CAYGUARD PROPERTIES, LLC. ITS A

REZONE FROM RSC—6 TO CN WITH RESTRICTIONS ON .31 ACRES.  I WILL

GIVE PRESENTATION FOR STAFF FOLLOWING THE APPLICANT.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.  THE APPLICANT, PLEASE.

MR. CAYON:  GOOD EVENING. MY MA'AM JOSE CAYEM. ADDRESS 3319

WEST PAUL AVENUE, TAMPA BAY, 33611. THANK YOU.  I'M THE OWNER OF

CAYGUARD PROPERTIES. 

AND THE INTENTION ON THIS PROPERTY IS TO BE REDEVELOPED TO

OPEN A SMALL CAFE. IT'S RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THE HILLSBOROUGH

COMMUNITY COLLEGE CAMPUS IN BRANDON. 

THE REASON I WANT TO DO THAT IS HAD WHEN I SEE THE PROPERTY

YOU SEE TWO RUN—DOWN DWELLINGS THAT I THINK ARE AFFECTING THE

49

NEIGHBORHOOD. WHILE I THINK THE CAFE WILL BE OF GOOD SERVICE FOR

THE AND THE EMPLOYEES OF THE BUSINESS IN THE AREA, INCLUDING THE

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY JAIL, SHERIFF, AND OTHER OFFICERS.  AND

DEFINITELY I THINK IT WILL BE A GOOD IMPROVEMENT FOR SECURITY,

AND ALSO PROPERTY VALUES FOR THE NEIGHBORS. THAT'S BASICALLY THE

IDEA OF THIS REZONING.

THE CONCEPT WILL BE TO REMOVE THE TWO RUNDOWN DWELLINGS AND

BUILD SOMETHING THAT RESEMBLES THE HOUSES IN THE AREA, SO WE'LL

BLEND IN, PRESERVE DEFINITELY THE TREES, THE BEAUTIFUL TREES THAT

ARE ON THE PROPERTY, AND LIKE I SAID, I DEFINITELY BELIEVE THAT

THIS WILL BE A HUGE IMPROVEMENT.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.  HAVE YOU SEEN THE STAFF'S REPORT ABOUT

APPROXIMATE ——

MR. CAYON:  YES.

HEARING MASTER:  WHAT THEY ARE RECOMMENDING?

MR. CAYON:  CORRECT. AND I'M OKAY WITH THAT. THE RICKS ARE

FINE. I'M NOT INTENDING TO DO ANYTHING ELSE BESIDES THAT.

HEARING MASTER:  ALL RIGHT. AND STAFF EXPLAINED TO YOU THAT

SHOULD YOU GET AN APPROVAL, THAT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SITE

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

MR. CAYON: YES. AND I'M WILLING TO DO THAT, YEAH, THANK YOU

VERY MUCH.

HEARING MASTER:  VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT. STAFF.

MR. LEWIS:  THANK YOU, MR. LUCE. MATT LEWIS WITH DEVELOPMENT

50

SERVICES. I WON'T GET INTO TOO MUCH ABOUT THE REPORT. IT SPEAKS

FOR ITSELFISM WILL SPEAK TO THE RESTRICTIONS AND THE LOGIC BEHIND

THEM, THOUGH.

AS YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY IS BEING PROPOSED FOR A CN WITH

RESTRICTIONS, AND WHAT WE LOOKED AT WITH THOSE RESTRICTIONS IS

THE TRANSITIONING NATURE OF THE AREA. 

THE FUTURE LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY IS UMU—20. WHAT YOU SEE

IS AN AREA THAT'S GRADUALLY BECOMING MORE CONSISTENT WITH THAT

FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION. HOWEVER, THERE'S A GOOD BIT OF

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STILL IN THE AREA, SO IN THE SPIRIT OF

GRADUALLY IMPLEMENTING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHAT WE'RE

PROPOSING IS TO LIM THE MORE INTENSE WITH REGARD TO IMPACTS ON

RESIDENTIAL USES, USES OF THE CN DISTRICT. THOSE BEING THE ONES

THAT HAVE A HIGH LIGHT POLLUTION RATE, A HIGH COMING AND GOING

WITH REGARD TO VEHICLES, OR THAT HAVE A PORTABLE OF CREATING MORE

NOISE. SO THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE IN THOSE VARIOUS RESTRICTIONS.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.

MR. LEWIS:  I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

HEARING MASTER:  NO QUESTIONS. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

MS. STENMARK:  MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE

SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE URBAN MIXED USE 20 FUTURE LAND USE

CLASSIFICATION, THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND THE BRANDON COMMUNITY

PLAN BOUNDARY.

THE PROPOSED REZONING TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL RESTRICTED WOULD

51

ALLOW USES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. URBAN

MIXED USE 20 IS THE MOST INTENSE CLASSIFICATION DISTRICT AND THE

PROPOSED REZONING WILL ALLOW NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES THAT

ARE SUPPORTIVE TO THE ADJACENT COMMUNITY COLLEGE.  SEVERAL

PLANNED POLICIES SUPPORT COMPATIBLE SITE DESIGN, WE'RE SUPPORTIVE

OF THE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED.

WE WOULD FIND THIS APPLICATION CONSISTENT BASED ON THE

APPLICATION AS IT'S STRUCTURED TODAY BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO NOTE

FOR THE RECORD THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION BELIEVES IT WOULD BE

EVEN MORE COMPATIBLE IF THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL RESTRICTION ABOUT

RESIDENTIAL STYLE ARCHITECTURE, GIVEN THAT THERE ARE SINGLE

FAMILY RESIDENCES RIGHT ACROSS —— THERE'S A LITTLE RIGHT—OF—WAY

AND RIGHT NEXT DOOR THERE ARE TWO HOUSES.

WE AGREE WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, THE AREA IS IN

TRANSITION. IT IS THE RIGHT LOCATION, BUT WE THINK THAT WOULD

MAKE IT EVEN BETTER. THE PROPOSED REZONING IS WITHIN THE LIGHT

EXTREMELY CHARACTER DISTRICT OF THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN AND

THIS PROPOSED REWE THINK WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE OTHER USES

WITHIN THIS CHARACTER DISTRICT. BASED ON THOUGH CONSIDERATIONS

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT

WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY. VERY GOOD.  THANK YOU. 

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT

WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE

52

RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE

APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. 

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER? THE APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR

REBUTTAL.  NO NEED FOR REBUTTAL. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. 

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION. STAFF, WE'RE

READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

MR. FERNANDEZ:  MR. LUCE, JOSE FERNANDEZ, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. 

THE NEXT CASE ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM I3, APPLICATION NUMBER 12—

0806.  THE APPLICANT IS HILLSBRO FARMS. THEY'RE LOOKING TO

REZONE THEIR PROPERTY FROM AS—1 TO CG—R. 

MICHELLE HEINRICH WILL BE RENDERING THE STAFF REPORT AFTER

THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.

MR. MINEER: GOOD EVENING, SIR.  I'M KEVIN MINEER WITH THE

GENESIS GROUP, AND I'M ASSISTING THE ZAMBITO FAMILY IN REZONING

THEIR PARCEL, ONE OF THE LAST VACANT PARCELS IN THIS PARTICULAR

SECTION OF DALE MABRY HIGHWAY.

WE'RE SEEKING TO REZONE AN APPROXIMATE 6.8 ACRE PARCEL ON

DALE MABRY HIGHWAY IN THE CARROLLWOOD NORTHDALE AREA TO

COMMERCIAL GENERAL, BUT WITH A RESTRICTED DESIGNATION TO ENSURE

COMPATIBILITY AND CONSISTENCY AND SUCH.

THE SPECIFIC SITE IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DALE MABRY

HIGHWAY. A SIX—LANE DIVIDED MAJOR ARTERIAL WHICH AT THIS

53

PARTICULAR AREA HAS A 50 MILE PER HOUR SPEED LIMIT POSTED RIGHT

IN FRONT OF THE SITE.

THE SITE IS VACANT EXCEPT FOR A BARN AND IT IS COMPLETELY

SURROUNDED BY THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, WHICH IN MY OPINION MAKES IT

AN EXCELLENT CANDIDATE FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT.  IMMEDIATELY TO

THE SOUTH IS A LARGE AUTO DEALERSHIP, GORDON CHEVROLET. THERE

ARE MULTIPLE RESTAURANTS, TWO FURNITURE STORES, AND A 2300

STUDENT HIGH SCHOOL WITH BASEBALL AND FOOTBALL STADIUMS DIRECTLY

TO THE SOUTH OF US. TO THE NORTH IS A SEVEN—ACRE OFFICE PARK,

AND THAT HIGH SCHOOL IS GAITHER, GAITHER HIGH SCHOOL.

TO THE NORTH IS A SEVEN ACRE OFFICE PARK.  TO THE WEST IS

SABLE PALM AT CARROLLWOOD, A 432 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX

CONSISTING OF 16 TWO AND THREE—STORY APARTMENT BUILDINGS.  THE

PROPERTY IS IN THE RES—12 CATEGORY, A PLANNING DISTRICT THAT CAN

CONSIDER A FULL RANGE OF COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, INSTITUTIONAL AND

RESIDENTIAL USES.

AND THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVIDES FOR

DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL USES IN THE RES—12 CATEGORY THROUGH

EITHER INFILL OR IMPLEMENTING LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, WHICH ALLOWS

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT INTERSECTIONS AND/OR AS PART OF A

LARGER PROJECT.

UNFORTUNATELY, WHILE INITIALLY WE WERE THOUGHT OF AS A

PRETTY GOOD INFILL CANDIDATE, WHAT WAS LATER DEEMED TO BE OUR

BLOCK BECAME SMALLER AND INCLUDED GAITHER HIGH AS THE DOMINANT

54

USE, WHICH EVEN THOUGH IT IS QUITE LARGE WITH ITS FOOTBALL

STADIUM AND THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS, IT'S DEEMED A RESIDENTIAL

SUPPORT USE SO IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT WE DO NOT QUALIFY FOR

INFILL, SO A WAIVER REQUESTED THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA POLICIES

WAS REQUIRED. WHICH I DID APPLY FOR AND SUBMIT ALSO. IT'S IN

THE RECORD.

REGARDLESS, HOW WE DO IT, I BELIEVE WE'RE CONSISTENT WITH

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INCLUDING THE INTENT OF THE LOCATIONAL

CRITERIA POLICIES. IN A NUTSHELL, THESE POLICIES AIM TO SCALE

NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE

AREA, THE AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES, MAKE SURE THAT

THERE'S NO ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, AND THEN ALSO OF COURSE THE

MARKETPLACE.

AND THAT'S THE MAIN REASON WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS AT THIS

TIME. THERE'S BEEN SOME INTEREST WITH SOME POTENTIAL END USERS,

COMMERCIAL END USERS TO USE THE PROPERTY.

POLICY 22.8 REQUIRES A WAIVER TO BE BASED ON COMPATIBILITY

OF THE USE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WOULD REQUIRE A

RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF TO SHOW THAT THERE

ARE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THEY HAVE TO HAVE SPECIFIC FINDINGS

THAT HAVE TO BE IDENTIFIED BY EITHER THE STAFF OR THE BOARD OF

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WHICH WOULD SUPPORT GRANTING A WAIVER.

WELL, IN RESPONSE TO THAT, I WOULD ARGUE THAT OUR SITE IS

UNIQUE. THE REQUEST IS FOR RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL ZONING ON ONE

55

OF THE FEW REMAINING VACANT PARCELS LOCATED DIRECTLY ON DAYLIGHT

MABRY HIGHWAY, SIX—LANE MAJOR ARTERIAL, AND ONE OF THE COUNTY'S

RECOGNIZED MAJOR COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS.

THIS PARTICULAR SEGMENT OF DALE MABRY HIGHWAY IN FRONT OF

THE SUBJECT SITE IS USED BY AN ESTIMATED 62,000 CARS A DAY, AND

THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT IS 50 MILES AN HOUR. BASSED ON PROPERTY

APPRAISER DATA ALONG THIS CORRIDOR, WITHIN A MILE OF THIS SITE,

THERE ARE 33 SEPARATE COMMERCIAL PARCELS WITH OVER 900,000 SQUARE

FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND 20 OTHER PARCELS WITH ALMOST

165,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS ALL IN

EXISTENCE TODAY SURROUNDING OUR PARCEL.

HEARING MASTER:  IF YOU SAY HOW FAR YOU'RE LOOKING NORTH AND

SOUTH.

MR. MINEER:  A MILE.

HEARING MASTER:  A MILE EACH WAY? 

MR. MINEER:  A MILE TO THE SOUTH. TO THE NORTH IT'S OFFICE AND

THEN IT PETERS OFF. BUT IT'S BASICALLY WHERE THE NORTHERN ——

WHERE THE NORTHERN PIECE IS. IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO OUR SITE,

OUR COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORS, ARE AN 8.5 ACRE FULL—SCALE AUTO

DEALERSHIP WITH AUTO REPAIR THAT'S DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF US; A

RESTAURANT AND SEVERAL OTHER RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS. 

BESIDES THE ONE MILLION SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL AND

OFFICE, WE HAVE CALCULATED THAT THERE ARE OVER 1700 APARTMENT

UNITS WITHIN A CLOSE PROXIMITY OF OUR SITE.  WE'RE COMPLETELY

56

SURROUNDED BY THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT.

BECAUSE OF THAT, I BELIEVE WE ARE UNIQUE. WE ARE THE SOLE

VACANT PARCEL IN THIS PARTICULAR SECTION OF DALE MABRY HIGHWAY

SURPEDED BY A MAJORITY OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.  WE ONLY —— WE

DO NOT MEET INFILL ONLY BECAUSE HOW ONE DEFINES THE BLOCK.

IF WE WERE TO REDUCE IT TO JUST THE TWO CLOSEST

PERPENDICULAR SEATS, IT'S US AND THE AUTO DEALERSHIP AND WE WOULD

MEET INFILL. IF YOU WANT TO MOVE IT BEYOND THE TWO STREETS THAT

WERE PICKED, THEN WE SCOOP IN A WHOLE BUNCH OF COMMERCIAL

DEVELOPMENT. SO YOU HAVE TO —— THEY'RE NOT BLOCKS LIKE

MANHATTAN. BUT ANYWAY, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU CALCULATE THE BLOCK,

WE EITHER MEET IT OR DON'T MEET IT.

THAT BEING SAID, WE'RE WORKING —— WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH

BOTH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF

OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS TO DEVELOP A SET OF RESTRICTIONS

THAT ALLOW US FLEXIBILITY BUT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT CONTROL TO BE

DEEMED CONSISTENT.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE A SPLIT DECISION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A STRAIGHT CG ZONING

DISTRICT. THEY DON'T EVEN SEE THE NEED TO HAVE THE

RESTRICTIONS.  BUT WITH THAT, BECAUSE THERE WERE NO RESTRICTIONS

THAT WERE GOING TO BE IMPOSED, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF THEN

RECOMMENDED DENIAL BECAUSE THEY WANT SOME RESTRICTIONS ON THE

PROPERTY. THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HOPING YOU WILL HELP US OUT.

57

WE HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH THE RESTRICTION, AND IN FACT WE

HAVE A LIST OF RESTRICTIONS TO THE PROJECT THAT WE WERE WORKING

WITH BOTH STAFFS WITH THAT WE ARE WILLING TO ABIDE BY. AND

THEY'RE ON THE ELMO. 

AND BRUCE, HAVE YOU HANDED —— AND BRUCE IS GOING TO HAND

THEM OUT TO YOU IN A SECOND. IT PROHIBITS SOME OF THE GREATER

IMPACT USES, INCLUDING FAST FOOD AND CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS

PUMPS AND LIMITS AUTO SALE DISPLAY, BUT NOT AUTO REPAIR, WHICH IS

PROHIBITED, BUT LIMITS AUTO DISPLAY TO ONLY THE SOUTHERN HALF,

ESTIMATED AT ABOUT 345 LINEAR FEET OR 3.38 ACRES ADJACENT TO

GORDON CHEVROLET.

IF YOU COULD PUT THE LIST ON THE ELMO. THE REQUEST USE LIST

IS ON THE ELMO. AND I HAVE ALSO HAVE A COPY FOR YOUR

CONSIDERATION. 

THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER THINGS I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT INTO THE

RECORD, TOO, TO AID INTO YOUR REVIEW, AND THAT'S BEING HANDED

OUT.

FIRST OF ALL, IT'S COPIES OF THE AERIAL AND THE

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH CLEARLY SHOW THE SURROUNDING BUILT

ENVIRONMENT, INCLUDING MULTIPLE LARGE COMMERCIAL PARCELS DIRECTLY

TO THE EAST AND TO THE SOUTH OF US.  WE ALSO HAVE 20 LETTERS OF

THE SUPPORT.

THESE PEOPLE RECOGNIZE THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS THE ZAMBITO

FAMLY, HAVE LIVED IN THIS AREA FOR GENERATIONS AND ARE WELL

58

RESPECTED FOR THEIR SOUND BUSINESS AND DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES. 

THIS ISN'T SOME FLY —— SOME QUICKIE THING. THIS IS AN

ESTABLISHED LONG RANGE FAMILY. AND THIS IS THEIR LAST PARCEL ON

DALE MABRY HIGHWAY.

I'VE ALSO INCLUDED A COPY OF THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA WAIVER

FORM LISTING EACH OF THE APPLICABLE PLAN POLICIES AND EXPLAINING

HOW, IN MY OPINION, WE ARE A UNIQUE USE AND WE DO QUALIFY.

AS PART OF THAT, I'VE INCLUDED THE APPENDIX LISTING THE 50

PLUS COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE PARCELS TOTALING OVER 1 MILLION SQUARE

FEET OF NONRERB DEVELOPMENT WITHIN A MAIL OF OUR SITE, ALL ON

DALE MABRY HIGHWAY.

FOURTH, I ALSO HAVE COPIES OF EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN

ME ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF AND THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

STAFF SLOWING THAT WHILE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS RECOMMENDING

DENIAL, IT WAS MY BELIEF THAT WE REALLY WEREN'T THAT FAR OFF ON

DIFFERENCES, AND REGARDING WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO OBTAIN A

RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

IN CONCLUSION, I REALLY APPRECIATE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF STRAIGHT CG. I ALSO PERSONALLY FEEL

THAT GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THIS SECTION

OF DALE MABRY HIGHWAY, IT IS PATENTLY UNFAIR TO FOCUS ON THIS,

THE SOLE VACANT PARCEL, AND REQUIRE A BUNCH OF STANDARDS AND

RESTRICTIONS THAT NO OTHER PARCEL ON DALE MABRY HIGHWAY IS

REQUIRED TO HAVE.  WE'RE THE ONLY VACANT PIECE, IN ESSENCE.

59

HOWEVER, I ALSO RECOGNIZE THE NEED FOR THE PLANNING

COMMISSION STAFF TO REGULATE DEVELOPMENT, AND AS SUCH, FROM DAY

ONE WE PROPOSED CG WITH THE R, WITH THE RESTRICTION, TO PROVIDE

FOR, AS WE MUDDLED OUR WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS, TO PROVIDE FOR A

SET OF CONDITIONS TO GIVE PEOPLE COMFORT.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO GET THERE, AND WITH THAT,

I THANK YOU, AND I COULD ANSWER QUESTIONS.

HEARING MASTER:  IF YOU COULD, JUST WALK ME THROUGH THE TWO

AERIAL GRAPHICS THAT YOU HAVE.

WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE OUTLINES IN WHITE?

MR. MINEER:  OH. THOSE ARE PARCELS THAT ARE DIRECTLY ON DALE

MABRY HIGHWAY. AND WHAT WE DID IS IN WHAT I SUBMITTED TO YOU,

THAT IS THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA WAIVER FORM, I HAVE IN THE BACK A

LIST OF EVERY SINGLE PARCEL THAT'S ON DALE MABRY HIGHWAY, ALONG

WITH THE SQUARE —— THE TYPE OF USE IT IS AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE

THAT IT IS. THAT'S ALL IT IS.  AND THIS IS OUR PIECE RIGHT HERE.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY. BUT EVERY PARCEL THAT YOU OUTLINE IN

WHITE IS NOT COMMERCIAL OR OFFICE.

MR. MINEER:  THAT IS CORRECT.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY. BUT YOU'RE SAYING THE SUBMITTAL THAT YOU

SUBMITTED TO STAFF WITH YOU FILED THE APPLICATION DOES

DISTINGUISH EACH PARCEL AS TO WHAT'S COMMERCIAL, WHAT'S OFFICE.

MR. MINEER:  YES, THAT'S CORRECT. WHAT WE WERE INTERESTED IN IS

—— WE'RE UP IN A PART OF THE COMMUNITY WHERE THE EAST/WEST ROADS,

60

THE PERPENDICULAR ROADS WHICH DEFINE A BLOCK IS NEBULOUS. AND

OUR FEELING IS, WITH THE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL —— I MEAN,

SIGNIFICANT BIG BOXES AND OTHER THINGS ARE DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH

OF US. WE THOUGHT IT WAS NOT THE FAIREST OF ASSESSMENT TO SCOOP

IN GAITHER AND CALL THAT A RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT USE. IT'S A 2300

STUDENT ——

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY. IF YOU RECALL, PERHAPS YOU CAN START AT

YOUR PROPERTY AND GO SOUTH. IF YOU CAN REMEMBER WHAT USES ——

MR. MINEER:  SURE, ABSOLUTELY. WE HAVE AN OFFICE PARK TO THE

NORTH. THIS IS OUR PIECE. THIS IS THE GORDON CHEVROLET. THIS

IS A HAVERTY'S. THAT IS A PIER 1. THIS IS A BOB EVANS. THIS IS

GAITHER HIGH SCHOOL. I'M STARTING TO GET —— ACROSS THE STREET WE

HAVE A SHELL STATION AND MINI WAREHOUSE. WE HAVE TACO BELL, A

BANK, LARGE SHOPPING CENTER, LARGE SHOPPING CENTER, LARGE ——

LARGE SHOPPING CENTER DOWN ALL THE WAY TO THE SOUTH.

AND THEN ACROSS THE STREET WE HAVE MINI WAREHOUSE, WE HAVE

SHELL. THIS IS AN OFFICE? SEMINOLE ELECTRIC OFFICE. THAT'S A

TIRE STORE, BOSTON MARKET, HOME DEPOT, STEAK AND SHAKE AND OTHER

COMMERCIAL. THEY'RE ALL LISTED IN THE BACK UP, THE APPENDIX

WITHIN THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.

MR. MINEER:  SO WE FELT THAT COMMERCIAL GENERAL, WITH

RESTRICTIONS, SO THAT WE COULD MUDDLE OUR WAY THROUGH THE

DIFFERENT CONDITIONS, WASN'T A BAD REQUEST.

61

THE SECOND HANDOUT —— IT JUST BASICALLY SHOWS THAT IT'S RED

DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF US AND NOT TO BE —— IT'S PROBABLY RED TO

MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE.

HEARING MASTER:  BUT THIS IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GRAPHIC?

MR. MINEER:  THAT'S CORRECT, THESE ARE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

DESIGNATIONS.

HEARING MASTER:  AND THE COLORS?

MR. MINEER:  RED IS COMMERCIAL OFFICE. BABY BLUE IS PUBLIC. AND

THEN YOU'LL NOTE THAT THE CHEVY DEALERSHIP, THE HAVERTY'S, THE

BOB EVANS, AND —— THE BOB EVANS AND THE PIER ONE ARE ALL WITHIN

THE SAME R—12 DESIGNATION AS WE ARE. AND THEN TO THE NORTH OF

US, THE OFFICE PARK IS R—9.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY. WITH RESPECT TO THE SITE ITSELF, THE

EAST/WEST ROAD THAT RUNS ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE OF THE

SUBJECT SITE, IS THAT A PRIVATE ROAD FOR THE APARTMENT COMPLEX

THAT'S TO THE WEST OR IS THAT A PUBLIC RIGHT—OF—WAY?

MR. MINEER:  IT'S A PRIVATE ROAD BUT IT'S USED BY BOTH THE OFFICE

COMPLEX TO THE NORTH AND THE APARTMENT COMPLEX TO THE WEST. THE

ROAD IS OWNED BY OUR CLIENT, BUT IT'S NOT PART OF THE REZONING,

BUT IT'S OWNED BY OUR CLIENT. IT'S ALSO BASICALLY —— THERE ARE

STUB—OUTS TO SERVE OUR SITE, TOO.

HEARING MASTER:  SO YOU HAVE LEGAL ACCESS.

MR. MINEER:  MOST CERTAINLY DO, YES, SIR.

HEARING MASTER:  I KNOW IT'S EUCLIDEAN ZONING. AND IF YOU KNOW,

62

HAVE YOU DONE ANY PRELIMINARY YIELD ANALYSIS AS TO THE AMOUNT OF

SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT MIGHT BE LOCATED ON THE SUBJECT SITE, GIVEN

THE NEED FOR PARKING, STORM WATER, ON—SITE CIRCULATION, LOAD

ASKING UNLOADING, LANDSCAPING, BUFFERING?

MR. MINEER:  YES. AND WE'RE HAPPY WITH THE CG STANDARDS WITH OUR

PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS. WE HAVE A VARIETY OF END USERS THAT WE'RE

INTERESTED IN. THEY'RE ALL RELATIVELY LOW—KEY. WE READ CRYSTAL

CLEAR FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT

FAST FOOD.

WE HAD A COUPLE OF NEIGHBORS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT GAS

STATIONS WITH PUMPS. SO WE SPECIFICALLY TOOK THOSE OUT. WE TOOK

OUT A LOT OF THE OTHER HEAVIER USES.

BUT THE REASON THAT WE WANTED TO STICK WITH CG—R IS WHAT WE

BELIEVE ONE OF THE POTENTIAL USES COULD BE WOULD BE MINI

WAREHOUSES, AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE CG. YOU CAN'T HAVE CN. YOU'VE

GET TO HAVE CG FOR MINI WAREHOUSE. AND THEN LIKEWISE THERE'S

BEEN SOME INTEREST WITH THE CHEVY DEALERSHIP TO THE SOUTH. AND

WE THOUGHT IT WOULDN'T BE BAD WITHIN THE SOUTHERN TO HAVE AN

OPPORTUNITY FOR DISPLAY OF CARS, NOT CAR REPAIR. AND WE

SPECIFICALLY TOOK CAR REPAIR OUT AS PART OF OUR RESTRICTIONS. 

HEARING MASTER: AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CG?

MR. MINEER:  ABSOLUTELY.

HEARING MASTER:  WE'LL GET TO THEM IN A MOMENT. BUT THE STAFF

63

REPORT WHICH THEY FILED THEY RECOMMENDED DENIAL.

MR. MINEER:  BUT THE WAY IT READS IS THEY RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF

CG—R.  THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF STRAIGHT CG.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.

MR. MINEER:  WHILE I APPRECIATE THAT —— BECAUSE IF YOU REALLY

LOOK AT THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, ISSUES —— NOT TO VENT, BUT ONE OF

THE ISSUES THAT WE HAD WAS THERE WAS THIS BIG PUSH TO MAKE AT A

MORE URBAN, BRING IT UP TO THE IS STREET. WHICH YOU CAN'T DO IN

CG. CG HAS A 35 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK ANYWAY.

BUT IT'S 50 MILES AN HOUR HERE. IT'S NOT URBAN. NOBODY

ELSE HAS BUILDINGS SET UP TO THE STREET LIKE THAT. WE WANTED TO

HAVE THE ABILITY TO SET THE BUILDINGS BACK LIKE A CONVENTIONAL

RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT.  IT'S NOT URBAN, IT'S NOT 30 MILES AN HOUR

OR 20 MILES AN HOUR. IT'S ONE OF PROBABLY HILLSBOROUGH'S TWO

COMMERCIAL ARTERIALS.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY. THE LIST OF RESTRICTED USES —— I GUESS

YOU TURNED IT AROUND AND SAY THE LIST THAT YOU SUBMITTED TONIGHT,

AT TONIGHT'S HEARING, SHOWS THE USES THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE

SITE.

MR. MINEER:  EXACTLY, YES, SIR. AND MOST OF THEM ARE SPECIALTY

RETAIL AND LOWER KEY USES.

HEARING MASTER:  AND YOU SHARED THIS LIST WITH THE DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF?

MR. MINEER:  YES, ABSOLUTELY, WEEKS AGO. ONE OF THE THINGS I

64

INCLUDED IN THERE IS MY EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE TO THE DIFFERENT

STAFFS. AND YOU'LL SEE WHERE I PROPOSE THIS WEEKS AGO. BUT

UNFORTUNATELY IT WAS QUIETING CLOSER AND CLOSER TO FILING AND WE

COULDN'T FINISH IT.

HEARING MASTER:  ALL RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND.

MR. MINEER:  THANK YOU, SIR.

HEARING MASTER:  THANK YOU. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES STAFF.

MS. HEINRICH:  GOOD EVENING. MICHELLE HEINRICH, DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES. 

AS MR. MINEER STATED, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A ZONING

OF COMMERCIAL GENERAL RESTRICTED ON PROPERTY THAT'S CURRENTLY

ZONED AS—1 AGRICULTURAL SINGLE FAMILY. THE SITE IS LOCATED ON

THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH DALE MABRY NORTH OF NORTH GREEN AVENUE.

THE PROPERTY IS 7.6 ACRES IN SIZE AND IT IS LOCATED IN THE

GREATER CARROLLWOOD—NORTH DALE'S PLAIN AREA. AS YOU SAW IN THE

AERIAL, THE SITE IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND PARCELS TO THE NORTH,

WEST, SOUTH AND EAST HAVE ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED.

THE APPLICANT REQUESTED TO REZONE FOR CG USES WITH

RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN PROPERTIES. AT THE TIME OF THE FORMAL

APPLICATION, THOSE WERE THE ONES THAT I HAVE IN MY STAFF REPORT,

WHICH WERE ON THE NORTH HALF OF THE SITE, SALES, RENTAL AND

SERVICE OF NEW AND USED DOMESTIC VEHICLES AND SALES RENTAL AND

SERVICE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND MOTORIZED VEHICLE REPAIR

65

WOULD NOT OCCUR ON THE NORTHERN HALF.

THE LISTING THAT WE RECEIVED TONIGHT WAS DISCUSSED IN AN

EMAIL. HOWEVER, WE WEREN'T UNDER THE OPINION THAT THIS WAS THEIR

FORMAL REQUEST CHANGE. SO WE DID JUST RECEIVE THIS TONIGHT. WE

HAVEN'T REVIEWED IT FOR THIS.  HOWEVER, I STILL BELIEVE THAT EVEN

WITH THIS, OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR CG WOULD REMAIN.  BUT I WOULD

JUST NOTE IF YOU DO CHOOSE TO APPROVE THIS, IF THIS IS WHAT YOU

WILL BE APPROVING, THAT YOU WOULD REFERENCE THE HANDOUT THAT WAS

SUBMITTED AT TONIGHT'S HEARING.

THE PROPOSED ZONING IS OF A PARCEL OF ADEQUATE SIZE TO MEET

SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR CG, AS MR. MINEER NOTED. STAFF

DID NOT SEE ANYTHING THAT WOULD PROHIBIT ANYTHING.  THE SITE IS

LOCATED WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, WITH THE ABILITY TO

UTILIZE COUNTY WATER AND WASTE WATER. AS YOU SAW, IT'S LOCATED

ON DALE MABRY, WHICH IS A SIX—LANE PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL ROADWAY. 

STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS REQUEST, OR TRANSPORTATION STAFF HAS

REVIEWED IT AND CONCLUDED THAT THIS SECTION OF DALE MABRY FROM

URLICK TO VAN DYKE ROADS IS OPERATING AT AN UNACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF

SERVICE.  HOWEVER, OPERATIONAL AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS WOULD BE

IDENTIFIED AT THE SITE PLAN STAGE AND THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD

MAKE THE ROADWAYS OPERATE IN A SAFE AND EFFICIENT MANNER. ALSO

THE SITE IS LOCATED IN AN AREA CURRENTLY SERVED BY THE BUS

SERVICE, AND ALSO DALE MABRY IS AN APPROVED TRUCK ROUTE.

IN TERMS OF COMPATIBILITY, AS YOU SAW, THE PROPERTY TO THE

66

SOUTH IS USED FOR A CAR DEALERSHIP, THAT'S GORDON CHEVROLET.

THEY DO HAVE THE APPROVAL FOR MINOR AND MAJOR AUTO REPAIR, AND

THIS IS CONSIDERED A CG USE. THOSE USES WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED IN A

CN CATEGORY. TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE IS AN EXISTING OFFICE

PARK, A MULTI—FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS LOCATED TO THE WEST FEATURING

MULTI—STORY BUILDINGS. EAST OF THE SITE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF

DALE MABRY IS BOTH SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI—FAMLY. I BELIEVE IT'S

THE NORTH LAKES NEIGHBORHOOD, WITH THE MULTI—FAMILY OBVIOUSLY

HAVING MULTI—STORY BUILDINGS. AND THEY ARE SURROUNDED BY A

CONCRETE WALL AT THIS TIME.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT COMMERCIAL

GENERAL USES ON THE SITE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

AS YOU SAW IN THE AERIAL SHOWN TO YOU BY MR. MINEER, THE LARGER

DEVELOPMENT AREA FEATURES USES SUCH OOZE A HIGH SCHOOL, LARGE—

SCALE SHOPPING CENTERS, RESTAURANTS, FAST FOOD AND HOME

IMPROVEMENT STORES. AND THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON A MAJOR

ARTERIAL, AND AS SUCH, COMMERCIAL USES ARE APPROPRIATE AT THAT

LOCATION.

THE PARCEL DOES FIT INTO THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN THAT

ALREADY EXISTS IN THE AREA. AS YOU SAW, THE PROPERTY TO THE

SOUTH IS ALREADY IN USE FOR COMMERCIAL, AND AWE ALSO HAVE THE

OFFICE TO THE NORTH WHICH PROVIDES A TRANSITION FROM THE

NORTHDALE COMMERCIAL AREA TO THE LESS INTENSE USES FOUND NORTH OF

THAT SITE, WHICH INCLUDE MORE MULTIFAMILY AND ALSO A PARK, LAKE

67

PARK, WHICH EXISTS OFF DALE MAYBERY. 

THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THIS SITE IS RES—12

WHICH CAN POTENTIALLY ALLOW NONRESIDENTIAL USES SUBJECT TO

MEETING THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. THE PLANNING STAFF, PLANNING

COMMISSION STAFF HAS FOUND THAT IT DOES NOT MEET THAT LOCATIONAL

CRITERIA, AND THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A WAIVER.

STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CG—R

ZONING. WE FEEL THAT ALL OF THE CG USES WILL NOT BE TOO INTENSE

FOR THE AREA. SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT STAFF LOOKS AT WHEN

DETERMINING COMPATIBILITY WOULD BE SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS THAT COULD OCCUR ON THAT PROPERTY NEXT TO THE OTHER

USES. AND IN THIS CASE WE HAVE A CAR DEALERSHIP TO THE SOUTH AND

MULTI—FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO THE WEST. 

WE BELIEVE THAT IT'S NOT UNCHARACTERISTEC FOR DEVELOPMENT IN

THIS AREA AND THAT CURRENTLY IN PLACE THERE IS ADEQUATE

PROVISIONS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADDRESS COMPATIBILITY,

SUCH AS BUFFERING AND SCREENING. IF THERE WAS TO BE A FAST FOOD

RESTAURANT, THERE'S PROVISIONS FOR HOW CLOSE THE SPEAKER BOX

COULD BE LOCATED. LIGHTING STANDARDS, HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS IN

TERMS OF SETBACK. SO WE FEEL WITH THOSE USES IN PLACE, OR THOSE

PROVISIONS IN PLACE, ANY OF THE CG USES WOULD BE FINE TO OPERATE

THERE.

AND I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL I HAD, UNLESS YOU HAD ANY

QUESTIONS.

68

HEARING MASTER:  WELL, I GUESS IT'S A SOMEWHAT UNIQUE POSITION

THAT YOUR INDEMNITY IS TAKING.  YOU FEEL THAT A MORE ROBUST

APPLICATION WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE THAN THE RESTRICTIONS BEING

PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.

MS. HEINRICH:  WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ROBUST.

HEARING MASTER:  A FULL RANGE OF CG USES WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

MS. HEINRICH:  YES, WE DO.

HEARING MASTER:  FOR THE SUBJECT SITE. THE CHARACTERIZATION THAT

YOU HAVE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL IS THE TESTIMONY OF THE APPLICANT.

I MEAN, I GUESS TECHNICALLY THAT'S NOT CORRECT, BUT TO A CERTAIN

EXTENT, YOU DO SUPPORT CG, IF THEY HAD ——

MS. HEINRICH:  CORRECT.

HEARING MASTER:  —— REQUESTED CG.

MS. HEINRICH:  RIGHT. WE DON'T FEEL ANY RESTRICTIONS IN THE USES

ARE NECESSARY.

HEARING MASTER:  AND YOU REFERENCE A SET OF DESIGN STANDARDS THAT

MAY BE IN SORT OF FORMULATION STAGE AT THIS POINT. CAN YOU

ELABORATE?

MS. HEINRICH:  WOULD THAT BE THE OVERLAY?

HEARING MASTER:  I THINK IT'S AN OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT MAY HAVE

DESIGN STANDARDS ATTACHED TO THEM.

MS. HEINRICH:  WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING —— AND MARCIE I'M SURE WILL

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. I BELIEVE THE NORTHDALE CARROLLWOOD

COMMUNITY'S PLAN WAS ADOPTED ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO. THERE WAS ONE

69

OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THAT PLAN WAS A NORTHDALE OVERLAY. I

THINK PROBABLY FOR THIS AREA OF DALE MABRY.

THERE IS CURRENTLY AN OVERLAY FURTHER NORTH CLOSER TO THE

VAN DYKE INTERSECTION.  I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT IS ON OUR

PROGRAM.  JOSE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ELABORATE, BECAUSE I KNOW HE

WORKS A LOT WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THOSE PROJECTS. BUT

IT IS RECOMMENDED, SO I WOULD ASSUME AT SOME POINT STAFFS WOULD

BE WORKING TOGETHER FOR THAT.

HEARING MASTER:  MR. FERNANDEZ ——

MR. FERNANDEZ:  MR. LUCE, JOSE FERNANDEZ, DEVELOPMENT SERVICE.

A COUPLE POINTS TO CLARIFY. FIRST OF ALL, IN RELATIONSHIP

TO THE USES THAT WE'RE SEEING. THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THAT WAS

FILED BACK IN AUGUST 23 BASICALLY REQUESTS CG USES BUT IT LIMITS

HALF OF THE PROPERTY TOWARDS THE NORTH PART TO PROHIBIT THREE

USES. THEY ARE LISTED IN THE APPLICATION.

I'M GOING TO REPEAT IT FOR THE RECORD.  SALES AND RENTAL AND

SERVICE OF NEW AND USED DOMESTIC VEHICLES; SALES AND RENTAL AND

SERVICE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES; AND THREE, MOTORIZED VEHICLES.

MOTORIZED VEHICLE REPAIR. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CG USES AND

RESTRICTING THREE USES TO THE NORTHERN PART OF THE PROPERTY.

THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION ON FILE.

WE HAVE EMAILS EXCHANGING, AS YOU CAN SEE, AND THE APPLICANT

HAS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, BUT OUR REPORT DIDN'T REFLECT THE

USES THAT WERE SUBMITTED TONIGHT BECAUSE WHILE IT WAS MADE AS

70

PART OF THE RECORD IS WHAT WE HAVE HERE. SO IT WAS DONE ON WHAT

WAS FILED ORIGINALLY. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID THE SAME

THING.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE USES THAT THEY ARE PROMOTING TODAY AND

THEY'RE SUBMITTING AS PART OF THE RECORD, THEY COULD BE

CONSISTENT, AND OUR OPINION WOULDN'T CHANGE.

THE SECOND POINT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY IS THAT WE ARE

NOW SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION —— WE ARE SUPPORTING THE

APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT

IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA, THE TRANSITIONS ARE ALREADY THERE,

AND THE DYNAMIC THAT WE ALREADY HAVE ON NORTH DALE MABRY.

STAFF BELIEVES AT THIS POINT THAT RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT

NECESSARY, EVE WEN THE USES THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING. AND

THE OTHER THING THAT WE'RE SEEING IS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE

STANDARD DISTRICT RESTRICTIVE IF THEY'RE NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE

THEY IMPOSE A BURDEN ON STAFF TO RENDER INFORMATION TO CITIZENS,

AND ALSO THEY BRING PROBLEMS FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT, BECAUSE THE

INFORMATION IS NOT STANDARD INFORMATION. WE NEED TO LOOK INTO

THE RECORDS.

SO WE WILL BE SEEING THAT IN THE FUTURE, TRYING TO LIMIT

THAT IF THEY ARE NOT NECESSARY. AND THAT'S THE OUR POSITION

KNEEN IS TO SUPPORT THE APPLICATION. WE DON'T FEEL THAT THE

RESTRICTIONS ARE NECESSARY AT THIS POINT.

HEARING MASTER:  I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION. AND THEN THE

71

QUESTION ABOUT DESIGN STANDARDS, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY ——

MR. FERNANDEZ:  YES ——

HEARING MASTER:  THAT ARE BEING DEVELOPED FOR THIS AREA OF THE

COUNTY?

MR. FERNANDEZ:  AS YOU'RE GOING TO LISTEN TO THE PLANNING

COMMISSION, THE COMMUNITY PLAN IS CALLING FOR AN OVERLAY AROUND

NORTH DALE MABRY.  THAT WAS PROPOSED. THE PLAN WAS ADOPTED, BUT

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HAT NOT WORKED ON AN OVERLAY AT THIS POINT.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.

MR. FERNANDEZ:  SO WE DON'T HAVE REGULATIONS RIGHT NOW THAT

ADDRESS THE CONCERNS AT PRESENT IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN REGARDING

ENHANCE THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND THAT KIND OF THING.

HEARING MASTER:  VERY GOOD. MS. HEINRICH, DOES THAT CONCLUDE

YOUR COMMENTS? 

MS. HEINRICH:  YES.

HEARING MASTER:  AT THIS POINT IN TIME, PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF.

MS. STENMARK:  MARCIE STENMARK, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE

SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL 12 FUTURE LAND USE

CLASSIFICATION, THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND THE GREATER

CARROLLWOOD—NORTHDALE COMMUNITY PLAN.

THE PROPOSED REZONING TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL RESTRICTED WOULD

ALLOW USES THAT ARE TOO INTENSE AND INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE

SURROUNDING AREA. THE RESIDENTIAL 12 FUTURE LAND USE

72

CLASSIFICATION IS GENERALLY INTENDED FOR RESIDENTIAL USES OR

NONRESIDENTIAL USES SITES THAT MEET COMMERCIAL LOCATIONAL

CRITERIA.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT MEET COMMERCIAL LOCATIONAL

CRITERIA AND IS OVER 5,000 FEET FROM THE NEAREST QUALIFYING

INTERSECTION OF NORTHDALE BOULEVARD AND NORTH DALE MABRY, AND THE

MAXIMUM DISTANCE FOR THIS CLASSIFICATION IS 1,000 FEET AS

ESTABLISHED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SINCE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN OUR

REVIEW, I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT NORTH DALE MABRY HIGHWAY IS ONE OF

THE ROADS THAT THE BOARD USED AS AN EXAMPLE WITH THEY ADDED

LOCATIONAL CRITERIA TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THEY WERE

OBSERVING UNCONTROLLED PATTERNS OF STRIP COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

AND ESTABLISHED THESE POLICIES TO AVOID SUCH IN THE FUTURE.

WHERE APPROVED MORE INTENSE USES ARE TO OCCUR AT DEFINED

INTERSECTIONS AND TRANSITION DOWN IN INTENSITY.

BY DESIGN, NOT ALL INTERSECTIONS THAT EXIST IN HILLSBOROUGH

COUNTY ARE —— MEET LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. ONLY DEFINED ONES. AND

THAT'S ON PURPOSE SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE STRIP COMMERCIAL

DEVELOPMENT THAT GOES ALONG LONG STRETCHES OF THE ROADS. 

THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE APPLICANT INDICATED THE SITE

IS AN INFILL PROJECT THAT MEETS THE INTENT OF THE FUTURE LANT USE

ELEMENT POLICY 25.3. WHILE WE AGREE THAT THE SITE IS VACANT AND

SURROUNDED BY DEVELOPMENT, AND MEETS THE PLANNING GREEN BOOK

73

STANDARDS OF WHAT YOU WOULD CALL INFILL, IT DOESN'T MEET THE

INFILL PROVISION AS DEFINED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE REASON FOR THAT NAMELY IS THAT THE CLOSEST ROADS TO THE

SITE ARE PRIVATE ROADS.  THEY'RE NOT PUBLIC RIGHT—OF—WAYS. AND

THE POLICY SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT WHEN YOU MEASURE FOR THE

INFILL POLICY, YOU GO FROM PUBLIC RIGHT—OF—WAY TO PUBLIC RIGHT—OF

—WAY. 

LESS THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE PARCELS BETWEEN THE NEAREST

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY ARE ZONED OR USED FOR COMMERCIAL

DEVELOPMENT. AS NOTED BY THE APPLICANT, GAITHER HIGH SCHOOL AND

THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY ACTUALLY TAKE UP A LARGE PORTION OF THE

BLOCK, OR WHAT IS DEFINED BY THE BLOCK IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE APPLICANT CAN REQUEST A WAIVER FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT

POLICY 22.8 ALLOWS THE BOARD TO WAIVE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA BASED

ON THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE USE WITHIN THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND

THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A JUSTIFICATION. AND THERE ARE

COMMERCIAL USES IN THE VICINITY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF

FOUND NO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES TO SUPPORT THE WAIVER AND THE

INTENSITY OF THE PROPOSED USES IS INCOMPATIBLE.

MY REMARKS RIGHT NOW ARE FOCUSED UPON THE OFFICIAL REQUEST

—— THAT MR. FERNANDEZ DESCRIBED. WHEN I'M DONE WITH MY REMARKS

I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE REQUEST THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT

OF YOU TONIGHT AND GIVE SOME REMARKS THERE.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO SEVERAL COMMERCIAL USES

74

TO THE SOUTH, INCLUDING A CAR DEALERSHIP. WE'D LIKE TO NOTE FOR

THE RECORD THAT WAS APPROVED IN 1988, BEFORE THE APPROVAL OF

COMMERCIAL LOCATIONAL CRITERIA.

THE OFFICE USE TO THE NORTH HAS VERY STRICT CONDITIONS ABOUT

THE APPEARANCE OF THEIR STRUCTURES. THERE'S A MAXIMUM SQUARE

FOOTAGE AND THERE'S A RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURAL STYLE. THAT'S

WHY THEY LOOK VERY UNIQUE AND THEY ARE SO COMPATIBLE WITH THE

SURROUNDINGS.

AS STATED IN FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OBJECTIVE 22,

COMMERCIAL LOCATIONAL CRITERIA WAS ADDED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE

PLAN TO AVOID STRIP COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. IT IS OUR BELIEF

THAT ALONG THIS PORTION OF DALE MABRY HIGHWAY THE AUTO DEALERSHIP

TO THE SOUTH ESTABLISHES A NORTHERN EDGE OF THE EXISTING STRIP

COMMERCIAL PATTERN. ON THE EAST SIDE OF DALE MABRY STRIP

COMMERCIAL USES END SOUTH OF LAKE VIEW DRIVE. FROM THE SUBJECT

PROPERTY NORTH ARE OFFICE RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT AND

PARK USES, AND THE NEXT GROUPING OF COMMERCIAL USES IN A

NORTHERNLY DIRECTION IS AT VAN DYKE ROAD AND NORTH DALE MABRY,

WHICH IS THE NEXT INTERSECTION THAT MEETS LOCATIONAL CRITERIA.

FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 22.5 CALL FAIRS TRANSITION

DOWN IN INTENSITY FROM ENTREXES. APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED USE

LIST WOULD RESULT IN THE FURTHER EXTENSION OF COMMERCIAL USES

RATHER THAN PROVIDE THAT TRANSITION. 

BASED ON FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 22.6, THIS PROPERTY

75

MEETS AN EXCEPTION FOR OFFICE USES, AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF

WOULD SUPPORT OR FIND AN OFFICE USE CONSISTENT WITH THE

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AT A MINIMUM, IT IS OUR BELIEF THAT THE NORTHERN HALF OF

THIS PROPERTY SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO OFFICE USES ONLY TO PROVIDE

THE NOTED TRANSITION.  AS NOTED IN THE POLITICS AND THE STAFF

REPORT, BOTH THE FUTURE LAND USE AND THE GREATER CARROLLWOOD—

NORTHDALE COMMUNITIES PLAN DISCOURAGE STRIP COMMERCIAL

DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S NOT JUST THE COMMUNITY PLAN. IT'S THE OVERALL

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.  THE PROPOSED REZONING DOES NOT ADDRESS SITE

DESIGN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ITS AVOIDANCE

OF STRIP COMMERCIAL POLICIES. AS A STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT THE

TYPICAL ELEMENTS OF STRIP COMMERCIAL DESIGN, LIKE YOUR ACCESS

POINTS, PARKING LOCATION DESIGN, AND BUILDING LAYOUT ARE NOT

ADDRESSED THEY COULD BE A TYPICAL COMMERCIAL STRIP AND DESIGN. 

THE GREATER CARROLLWOOD—NORTHDALE COMMUNITY PLAN RECOMMENDS

FOCUSING MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND/OR INTERSECTIONS COMPLYING

WITH LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, AND AS NOTED BEFORE, THE SITE DOES NOT

MEET LOCATIONAL CRITERIA.

THE COMMUNITY PLAN ALSO ENCOURAGES AN ENHANCED DESIGN OF

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S WHAT WE DISCUSSED. AN OVERLAY IS

PLANNED BUT HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED AT THIS TIME. SO AS A

RESULT, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF WAS TRYING TO WORK WITH THE

76

APPLICANT AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ALL ALONG TO TRY TO ADDRESS

THE DESIGN, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SURE AT WHAT TIME THE OVERLAY MIGHT

BECOME ADOPTED. IT COULD TAKE QUITE A BIT. THE COMMUNITY PLAN

LIST OF IMPLEMENTATION IS QUITE EXTENSIVE.THEY'RE LOT OF IDEAS.

DURING REVIEW, WE MET WITH THE APPLICANT MANY TIMES AND WE

WORKED TOGETHER VERY CLOSELY.  THE POTENTIAL DESIGN

CONSIDERATIONS THAT WOULD LESSEN THE APPEARANCE OF STRIP

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WE TALKED ABOUT INCLUDED A POTENTIAL

MAXIMUM SETBACK FROM DALE MABRY, PUTTING THE PARKING BEHIND THE

BUILDING FACADE, PERHAPS PROHIBITING ACCESS FROM DALE MABRY

HIGHWAY IN FAVOR OF AN ACCESS POINT TO THE NORTHERN RIGHT—OF—WAY,

MAYBE A BERM ALONG DALE MABRY AND ESTABLISHING A MAXIMUM BUILDING

SIZE.

I'D LIKE TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT WE'RE NOT PICKING ON

THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY OWNER. WE HAVE WORKED OUT THESE TYPES

OF DETAILS WITH OTHER APPLICANTS ON OTHER MAJOR CORRIDORS,

INCLUDING U.S. HIGHWAY 301. THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT IS

REQUESTING A WAIVER TO LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, AND SO WE FEEL

BECAUSE THERE'S A NEED FORA A WAIVER, IT WARRANTS US TO SPEND A

LITTLE TIME ON THE DESIGN AND SEE WHATEE CAN ACHIEVE.

AND SO WE DID TAKE A LOOK AT THE PROPOSED USE LIST VIA EMAIL

TODAY, AND WE'VE SEEN IT IN THE PAST AS WELL. OUR STAFF REPORT

WAS BASED ON THE PREVIOUS LIST. 

BUT WE DID WANT TO SAY THAT THE PROPOSED USE LIST DOES

77

PROVIDE MORE GUIDANCE REGARDING ALLOWABLE USES ON THE PROPERTY,

AND IT HELPS ADDRESS MANY OF OUR COMPATIBILITY CONCERNS. GAS

PUMPS AND DRIVE—THROUGH RESTAURANTS, WHICH ARE MORE INTENSE USES,

WOULD NOW BE PROHIBITED, AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT AND FEEL

THAT'S A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND WILL HELP A LOT.

TWO OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WE HAVE IN OUR STAFF REPORT,

THOUGH, WE FEEL ARE STILL NOT ADDRESSED. ONE IS LIMITING

ALLOWABLE USES ON THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE PROPERTY TO OFFICE

USES, WHICH WE WOULD RECOMMEND, AS WELL AS A DESIGN RESTRICTIONS

THAT WE TALKED ABOUT A MOMENT AGO TO AVOID A STRIP COMMERCIAL

PATTERN.

IF WE HAD MORE TIME, WE WOULD VERY MUCH WISH TO WORK WITH

THE APPLICANT TO SEE IF WE COULD FIND SOME DESIGN RESTRICTIONS

THAT THEY COULD LIVE WITH, THAT WOULD IMPLEMENT THE COMMUNITY

PLAN AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS. BUT WE RAN OUT OF TIME

UNFORTUNATELY, AND WE HAVE WHAT WE HAVE. AND WE UNDERSTAND WE

CANNOT FORCE RESTRICTIONS ON APPLICANTS AND THAT IT IS WHERE IT

IS AT.

THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS BETTER, AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

BASED ON THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND

THE PROPOSED MAJOR MODIFICATION INCONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF

HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

HEARING MASTER:  VERY GOOD. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE

ANYONE'S IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE

78

APPLICATION?

MR. ZAMBITO:  GOOD EVENING. FRANK ZAMBITO, 17901 SINGING WOOD

PLACE.

I'M ONE OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, ALONG WITH MY

BROTHERS AND NUMEROUS COUSINS ALSO THAT OWN THIS PROPERTY. I

WASN'T PLANNING ON SPEAKING THIS EVENING, BUT I FELT THAT BECAUSE

MY FATHER, MY GRANDFATHER AND UNCLES HAVE OWNED THIS PROPERTY

WELL BEFORE ANY PLANS WERE PUT IN PLACE. THE EAST SIDE OF DALE

MABRY WAS WHAT THEY STARTED WITH.  THEY HAD A DAIRY FARM

OPERATION.

IN THE EARLY 1970S, THEY DECIDED TO SELL THAT PROPERTY TO

JUMP START NORTH TAMPA. IF IT WASN'T FOR THEM JUMP STARTING

NORTH TAMPA AND HAVING THAT LARGE COMMUNITY GO INTO PLACE, THE

EAST SIDE OF DALE MABRY DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM OUR

PROPERTY WE'RE TRYING TO REZONE RIGHT NOW, THAT PROPERTY WAS

REALLY A BIG START.

YEARS LATER HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CAME TO MY FAMILY, MY DAD

AND MY UNCLES AND DISCUSSED BRINGING A HIGH SCHOOL TO NORTH

TAMPA. MY DAD WAS AN EDUCATOR PRIOR TO BEING A CATTLE FARMER.

HE DECIDE ASKED THEY SAT DOWN, THEY PUT GAITHER HIGH SCHOOL

THERE. WE MOVED FURTHER NORTH. 

THE CAR DEALERSHIP WAS PROPERTY THAT WAS SOLD AFTER WE SOLD

IT TO THE DEVELOPER THAT HAD THE APARTMENT COMPLEX. BOB EVANS,

HAVERT'S'S AND PIER 1 IMPORTS, ANOTHER BIG PLUS FOR THAT AREA.

79

IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, NORTH OF OUR CURRENT

PROPERTY, THERE'S NOT MUCH THERE.  THERE'S RESIDENTIAL AND

THERE'S LAKE PARK, A 500 ACRE PARK WHICH WILL NEVER BE DEVELOPED.

IF YOU LOOK TO THE EAST AGAIN, THERE'S A BRICK WALL ACROSS

FROM DALE MABRY FROM THE CORNER OF NORTH LAKES ALL THE WAY TO THE

END OF THEIR SUBDIVISION. IT'S RESIDENTIAL. YOU WILL NEVER SEE

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE EAST SIDE OF DALE MABRY.

TO THE SOUTH YOU DO HAVE GAITHER HIGH SCHOOL ASK THE

DEALERSHIP. IT'S A SEVEN ACRE PARCEL. NOT EVEN SEVEN ACRE

PARCEL OF LAND.  IT'S OUR LAST PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WE OWN.

WE'RE LOOKING TO GO IN THERE CAN DO THE RIGHT THING AND PUT THE

RIGHT DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO

MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT.

DALE MABRY HIGHWAY IS NOT 301. I TRAVEL 301 NUMEROUS TIMES.

301 HAS A LONG WAY TO GEFORFEITURE IT BECOMES A MAIL MABRY

HIGHWAY. WHEN'S THE LAST TIME YOU WENT FROM MACDILL AIR FORCE

BASE AND GOT ON THE ROAD AND TRAVELED NORTH. HOW MANY GREEN

PASTURES HAVE YOU SEEN BETWEEN THE AIR FORCE BASE AND VAN DYKE

ROAD? NOT VERY MUCH.

WE'RE ONE OF THE LAST REMAINING PIECES OF PROPERTY. WE'RE

ASKING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY. WE'RE NOT GOING TO

GO AND ASK FOR THE WRONGS THINGS.  MY PARENTS, MY UNCLES, THEY'VE

ALWAYS GONE IN AND TRIED TO GET THE RIGHT THING FOR THE

COMMUNITY. AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO SEE. I APPRECIATE YOUR

80

TIME TONIGHT. HOPEFULLY WE REQUEST MAKE THOSE CHANGES AND WE

LOOK TO IT. THANK YOU.

HEARING MASTER:  THANK YOU, SIR. SIR, IF I CAN GET YOU TO SIGN

IT.  THE NEXT PERSON.

MR. CIANCIOLA:  MY NAME IS DOMINIC CIANCIOLA. I DO A LOT OF FOOD

SERVICE PROFESSIONAL TRAINING SERVICES, AND I DO A LOT OF

RESPONSIBLE VENDOR TRAINING, AS WELL AS RESTAURANT CONSULTING

BUSINESS. 

I'M HAPPY TO SAY THAT THE ZAMBITO FAMILY HAS BEEN AN ICON IN

NORTH TAMPA, DEVELOPING BUSINESSES FOR SMALL ENTREPRENEURS.

THERE ARE MANY SECOND AND THIRD GENERATION FAMPLIES THAT HAVE NOW

HAVE AN INCOME AND LIVE OFF OF THAT INCOME DUE TO THE FACT OF THE

SALE OF PROPERTY AND THE COMMERCIAL CHANGES HERE THAT HAVE TAKEN

PLACE UP IN THAT AREA.  AND I CONGRATULATE THIS COMMISSION AND

EVERYONE PRIOR TO YOU FOR DOING SO.  THANK YOU.

HEARING MASTER:  THANK YOU, SIR.  IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE

AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I

SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE

APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER? THE APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR

REBUTTAL.

MR. MINEER:  THANK YOU, SIR. AGAIN, KEVIN MINEER WITH THE

GENESIS GROUP. JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANT TO GET PUT INTO

81

THE RECORD. I KNOW IT SOUND A LITTLE CONFUSING ABOUT WHAT WAS

ORIGINALLY APPLIED FOR AND THEN NOW WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL

THAT'S OUT THERE.

THE BOTTOM LINE, WE APPLIED FOR CG RESTRICTED ON DAY ONE,

AND ON DAY ONE WE TOOK OUT A FEW OF THE THINGS THAT WE FELT WERE

ESPECIALLY HONOROUS, PERHAPS. IT'S A WORKING THROUGH PROCESS.

YOU MUDDLE IT THROUGH WITH THE DIFFERENT STAFFS. AND THIS LIST

THEY GOT SEVERAL WEEKS AGO, AND IT WAS ONE OF MANY THAT WE THREW

OUT THERE OVER TIME.

WE HAD MULTIPLE MEETINGS, AND I THINK THE FRUSTRATION THAT

WE HAD WAS IT WAS NEVER QUITE CLEAR —— WE KNEW WHAT THEY DIDN'T

LIKE BUT WE NEVER COULD GET A HANDLE ON WHAT THEY DID LIKE. AND

ISSUES LIKE, WELL YOU NEED TO HAVE A BETTER DESIGN, YOU NEED TO

HAVE BETTER DESIGN. WHAT IS THIS DESIGN?

WHAT IS STRIP COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT? EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT

STRIP COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS. APPARENTLY WHAT IT HONED DOWN

TO WAS BRING THE BUILDINGS UP TO THE STREET.

AND IT'S MY GUT FEELING AND IT'S THE FEELING OF MY PARTNER

AND THE DEVELOPERS THAT I WORK WITH THAT YOU PUT COMMERCIAL

STRUCTURES UP ON THE STREET NEXT TO A SIX—LANE 50 MILE—AN—HOUR

HIGHWAY, THAT'S —— THAT'S A RECIPE FOR FAILURE. WE WANTED TO BE

A PROJECT LIKE ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL PROJECT UP OR DOWN THE

STREET.

ALSO WOULD LIKE TO PUT INTO THE RECORD A COUPLE YEARS AGO MY

82

CLIENT, UNBEKNOWNST TO ME, I WASN'T PART OF THIS.  ACTUALLY CAME

UP AND REQUESTED HATHEY SPECIFICALLY BE TAKEN OUT OF THE

CARROLLWOOD PLAN. WHY? BECAUSE THEY WERE CONCERNED THAT THEY

WOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHER PIECES UP AND DOWN DALE

MAYBERY.  NOT PIECES ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE NORTHDALE COMMUNITY,

BUT ON DALE MABRY HIGHWAY. BECAUSE THEY ARE UNIQUE. THEY'RE THE

SOLE VACANT PIECE.

HEARING MASTER:  ARE YOU SAYING THAT THEY'RE NOT IN THAT ——

MR. MINEER:  THEY ARE. WHAT HAPPENED WAS AT THE TIME DCA WAS

PRETTY AGGRESSIVE ON PIECES STAYING IN, BEING TAKEN OUT. MY

CLIENT WAS LED TO BELIEVE THAT THE CARROLLWOOD PLAN WOULD NOT

ADVERSELY AFFECT THEM, SO THEY BACKED OFF. THEY LET IT SLIDE.

AND NOW TWO YEARS LATER IT IS. IT POTENTIALLY ADVERSELY

AFFECTING THEM.

ALSO I JUST WANT TO PUT INTO THE RECORD THIS WHOLE ISSUE

ABOUT MEETING LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, NOT MEETING LOCATIONAL

CRITERIA. THE CAR DEALERSHIP TO THE SOUTH DOESN'T SEEM TO MEET

LOCAL CRITERIA OR INFILL.  THE HAVERTY'S DOESN'T MEET INFILL. 

THE BOB EVANS DOESN'T MEET INFILL, YET THEY'RE THERE, AND THEY

ARE OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORHOOD.

I WOULD APPRECIATE SOME SORT OF CONSIDERATION ON THE BUILT

ENVIRONMENT TODAY AND WHO ARE OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS TODAY.

THIS LIST OF USES THAT WE HAVE IN HERE ARE ALL RELATIVELY

BENIGN. MOST OF THEM ARE CG, BUT IN FACT THE BIG ISSUE WAS FAST

83

FOOD. WE TOOK THAT OUT. THE BIG ISSUE WAS GAS PUMPS.  WE TOOK

THAT OUT.  BUT WE KEPT THE CG BECAUSE OF MINI WAREHOUSE. A LOT

OF PEOPLE THINK MINI WAREHOUSE IS AN INTENSE USE. I DON'T. I

THINK IT'S RATHER BENIGN. IT DOESN'T GENERATE A LOT OF TRAFFIC,

IT'S NOT A BIG PROBLEM.

SOME PEOPLE CONSIDER IT STRIP COMMERCIAL. I DON'T.  SOME

PEOPLE CONSIDER IT AN UGLY USE. I DON'T.  THE BOTTOM LINE IS, WE

FOCUSED ON USES, BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DEAL WITH.

WHEN IT COMES TO DESIGN, WE GOT JUST A BUNCH OF VAGUE MATITUDES

ON WHAT IS GOOD DESIGN AND WE DID NOT FEEL IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO

PROCEED FORWARD WITH A PD ON A DESIGN WHERE WE DON'T SPECIFICALLY

HAVE ANEND USER LOCKED IN.

NONE OF THE NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH OF US HAVE HAD TO DO IT,

AND WE DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS APPROPRIATE. AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

FOUND —— DID NOT FEEL IT WAS APPROPRIATE. THEY'RE RECOMMENDING A

STRAIGHT CG, SO WE'RE KIND OF LIKE THE MIDDLE MAN. AND I BELIEVE

THAT PIE PARTNER HAS A FEW THINGS TO SAY.

MR. KASCHYK:  GOOD EVENING, MR. HEARING MASTER. BRUCE KASCHYK,

GENESIS GROUP, 3910 US HIGHWAY 301.

I GET TO TRAVEL DALE MABRY HIGHWAY ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS AND WE

TALK ABOUT THE DESIGN STANDARDS. I DON'T HAVE AN AERIAL TO

REPRESENT IT BUT IT JUST CAME TO MIND WHILE WE WERE SITTING THIS

TALKING ABOUT THIS. 

THE INTERSECTION OF FLETCHER AND DALE MABRY, WHICH IS SOUTH

84

OF US, MORE IN THE TRADITIONAL CARROLLWOOD VILLAGE AREA, THERE'S

BEEN A LOT OF REDEVELOPMENT GOING ON, A LOT OF REINVESTMENT

THAT'S BEEN OCCURRING AND KNOCKING DOWN OF OLD BUILDINGS AND

DEVELOPMENT OF NEW BUILDINGS. THE DENNY'S WAS REPLACED BY A

CHASE. A BOSTON MARKET WAS REPLACED BY A TIRE STORE. THERE WAS

A PERKINS, NOW REPLACED BY A PDQ.

ALL OF THIS INVESTMENT, WHICH IS GREAT FOR THE COMMUNITY,

THERE'S EVEN THE PUBLIX IS GETTING REDEVELOPMENT IN THE

CARROLLWOOD VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER.  ALL OF THEM ARE DEVELOPING

IN WHAT I WOULD CALL THE CONVENTIONAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDARD. THERE'S NONE OF THEM ARE BEING ENFORCED WITH THE

DESIGN OVERLAY. AGAIN, IT JUST GOES BACK TO WANTING TO BE

CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS ALSO OCCURRING IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE

AREA. THANK YOU.

HEARING MASTER:  ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD.  AND MR. MINEER, THAT

CONCLUDES YOUR REBUTTAL?

MR. KASCHYK:  YES, SIR.

HEARING MASTER:  WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION.

STAFF, WE'RE READY FOR THE INCOME ITEM.

MR. FERNANDEZ:  MR. LUCE, THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE

APPLICATION 12—0860.  THE APPLICANT IS ANTONIO COTTO. THE

REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT 2—COP—RX.

MICHELLE HEINRICH WILL RENDER THE STAFF REPORT AFTER THE

APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION.

85

HEARING MASTER:  GIVEN THAT THIS IS A FIRST SPECIAL USE ITEM THAT

IS GOING TO BE HEARD TONIGHT, I HAVE A FEW INSTRUCTIONS TO READ

INTO THE RECORD REGARDING HOW SPECIAL USES ARE HANDLED, AND THEN

THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ALSO HAS A FEW INSTRUCTIONS TO READ

INTO THE RECORD REGARDING SPECIAL USES.

FOR THE SPECIAL USES, TONIGHT'S HEARING IS THE ONLY HEARING

ON THE PETITION, AND AS THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER, I WILL

RENDER A DECISION ON THESE APPLICATIONS. MY DECISIONS WILL BE

FILED WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE WITHIN 15 WORKING DAYS OF THIS

HEARING. NOW, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WILL PROVIDE SOME

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THAT PROCESS.

MS. MURPHY:  THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. HEARING OFFICER. AGAIN, SHERI

MURPHY, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY.

TONIGHT'S HEARINGS REGARDING SPECIAL USES IS THE TIME AGAIN

TO PRENTTESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE. THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY

THAT YOU PRESENT WILL BECOME THE COMPLETE FACTUAL RECORD OF YOUR

PETITION. THIS MEANS AT THE END OF TONIGHT'S HEARING THE RECORD

WILL CLOSE AND NO NEW ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY BE SUBMITTED.

DECISIONS OF THE HEARING OFFICER ON SPECIAL USES MAY BE

APPEALED TO THE LAND USE APPEALS BOARD WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS

AFTER RECEIPT OF THE HEARING OFFICER'S WRITTEN DECISION. IN

MAKING A FINAL DECISION, THE APPEALS BOARD SHALL ONLY CONSIDER

TONIGHT'S RECORD, THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION, AND ORAL

ARGUMENT BY THE PARTIES PRESENTING, EACH PERSON MUST BE ADVERSELY

86

AFFECTED BY THE DECISION TO APPEAL THE HEARING OFFICER'S

DECISION. THANK YOU.

HEARING MASTER:  THANK YOU. AND THE APPLICANT, PLEASE.

MR. COTTO:  GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ANTONIO COTTO. THE

LOCATION IS 5522 HANLEY ROAD, TAMPA, FLORIDA, 37646

THIS IS A SMALL RESTAURANT, SPANISH RESTAURANT; A FAMILY

RESTAURANT. EVERYBODY GO ENJOY AND EVERYTHING. 

ALSO THE CUSTOMER WHEN THEY GO TO EAST THEY ASK ME, WHY YOU

HAVE NO WINE, YOU HAVE NO BEER, WE CAN EAT PRETTY NICISM SAY A

YEAR AGO I START MY RESTAURANT. WE DO PRETTY GOOD, THANK YOU

GOD.  NOW I DECIDE TO SATISFY THE FAMILY TO GO TO THE RESTAURANT.

I HOPE YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION FOR MAKING THIS POSSIBLE. 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

HEARING MASTER:  HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN BUSINESS AT THIS

LOCATION?

MR. COTTO:  A YEAR AND FOUR MONTHS.

HEARING MASTER:  A YEAR AND FOUR MONTHS. OKAY. ARE THIS ANY

OTHER AW USES IN THIS SHOPPINGS CENTER THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF.

MR. COTTO:  I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T KNOW SONOCO

CLOSEST WE HAVE.

HEARING MASTER:  WHEN YOU COME TO WORK IN THE MORNING, YOU DON'T

NOTICE?

MR. COTTO:  I JUST GO TO WORK HARD FOR THE PEOPLE, AND THAT'S IT.

HEARING MASTER:  YOU'RE ON A MISSION.  VERY GOOD.

87

MR. COTTO:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

HEARING MASTER:  ALL RIGHT. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.

MS. HEINRICH:  GOOD EVENING.  MICHELLE HEINRICH, DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES.  AS STATED, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A DISTANCE

WAIVER TO THE MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIRED TO COMMUNITY USES. THE

PROPOSED AB CLASSIFICATION IS A 2—COP—RX THAT ALLOWS FOR BEER AND

WINE FOR SALE AND CONSUMPTION ON PREMISES ONLY IN CONNECTION WITH

A RESTAURANT.

THE WET ZONE AREA WILL COMPRISE A TOTAL OF 1665.32 SQUARE

FEET AND THERE'S NO PROPOSED OUTSIDE WET ZONE AREA, LIKE A PATIO

OR DECK OR LOUNGE.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 5222 HANLEY ROAD. IT'S IN AN

EXISTING COMMERCIAL CENTER LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF

PAULA DRIVE AND HANLEY ROAD. AND AS MR. COTTO STATED, IT WILL BE

A RESTAURANT, OR IS AN OPERATING RESTAURANT. AND THE 2—COP IS

NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE, UNLIKE THE 4—COP

—RX'S. THE 2—COP RXS DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE THE 4,000 MINIMUM GROSS

FLOOR AREA OR THE 100 SEATS. THEY JUST HAVE TO STILL MEET THE

REQUIREMENT OF AT LEAST 51 PERCENT OF THEIR REVENUE BEING FROM

NON—ALCOHOL AND FOOD SALES.

THERE ARE THREE COMMUNITY USES WHICH EXIST WITHIN THE 500

FOOT DISTANCE FROM THE SITE. THE FIRST ONE IS A CHURCH WITH

SCHOOL FACILITIES.  THAT IS THE ST. MATTHEW LUTHERAN CHURCH. AND

THAT'S LOCATED 197 FEET EAST OF THE PROPERTY, AND THAT WOULD

88

REQUIRE A WAIVER OF 303 FEET.

THE SECOND ONE IS A CHILD CARE CENTER, WHICH IS LA PETITE

ACADEMY, LOCATED 198 FEET NORTHWEST. THAT WOULD REQUIRE A

DISTANCE WAIVER OF 302 FEET.

AND LASTLY A SCHOOL, TOWN N COUNTRY ELEMENTARY, IS LOCATED

427 FEET NORTHEAST, AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE A WAIVER OF 73 FEET.

THERE ARE NO OTHER WAIVERS REQUESTED. FOR THE RESTAURANT,

THERE'S NO CONCENTRATION REQUIREMENT. SO THERE ARE OTHER AB'S IN

THE AREA. JUST BASED FROM MY EXPERIENCE IN THE AREA, MOST OF

THEM APPEAR TO BE TIED TO LIKE PACKAGE STORES OR SPECIALIZED FOOD

MARKETS THAT PROBABLY JUST HAD THE 2 APS OR 1 APS. BUT NONE OF

THOSE COUNT IN THE CONCENTRATION REQUIREMENT.

HEARING MASTER:  I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A FEEL FOR THE CHARACTER

OF THE SHOPPING CENTER.

MS. HEINRICH:  MY REMEMBRANCE OF IT, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY

OTHER RESTAURANTS. IT'S NOT A VERY LARGE SHOPPING CENTER.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.

MS. HEINRICH:  THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE WAIVERS IN HIS WRITTEN

APPLICATION FOR THE COMMUNITY USES. ALCOHOL SALES WILL BE

INCIDENTALLY TO THE PRIMARY RESTAURANT USE.  THE SITE IS LOCATED

WITHIN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER AND/ORIENTED TERRITORIEDS

NORTH AWAY FROM THE CHURCH SCHOOL FACILITY THAT'S LOCATED TO THE

EAST. 

HANLEY ROAD SEPARATES THE SUBJECT SITE FROM THE CHURCH

89

SCHOOL FACILITY AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION WILL

OCCUR MAINLY IN THE EVENING WITH DINNER SERVICE, WHICH DOES NOT

HAVE THE SAME PEAK OPERATING HOURS AS THE CHILD CARE CENTER, THE

CHURCH OR THE SCHOOL FACILITIES.

STAFF IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATIONS,

AND WE ADD TO THE REPORT THAT THE ACTUAL WALKING DISTANCE TO THE

DAY CARE IS LONGER THAN THE STRAIGHT—LINE DISTANCE BECAUSE THAT

BUILDING DOES SIT BACK OFF THE ROAD QUITE A BIT. THAT HOLDS TRUE

ALSO FOR THE ST. MATTHEW LUTHERAN CHURCH AND FOR THE TOWN AND

COUNTRY LEMARY, WHILE JUST A SMALL CORNER IS WITHIN THAT 500 FOOT

RADIUS, THE ACTUAL SCHOOL BUILDINGS ARE LOCATED MUCH FURTHER AWAY

FROM THAT LITTLE CORNER.

NO AGENCY OBJECTIONS WERE RECEIVED BY STAFF. AND THEREFORE

WE FIND THIS TO BE APPROVABLE, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY REASONS

YOU HAVE.

HEARING MASTER:  VERY GOOD. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT

WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE

RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE

APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER? THE APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR

REBUTTAL.

MR. COTTO:  NO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

90

HEARING MASTER:  NO NEED FOR REBUTTAL. WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES

THIS APPLICATION. AND STAFF, WE'RE READY FOR THE INCOME ITEM.

MR. FERNANDEZ:  THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM I5, THE

APPLICATION NUMBER AB 13—0066.  AND THE APPLICANT IS NORTH DALE

MABRY INVESTMENTS. THEY ARE REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE ALCOHOLIC

BEVERAGE FOR A 4—COP.

MICHELLE HEINRICH WILL RENDER THE STAFF REPORT AFTER THE

APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION.

HEARING MASTER:  GOOD EVENING.

MR. GREGORY:  GOOD EVENING.  I AM WILLIAM GREGORY, 715 SWAN

AVENUE, TAMPA BAY 33606, FOR THE APPLICANT. 

PART OF THIS PROPERTY IS ALREADY ZONED —— WET ZONED AND HAS

GOT AN EXISTING 4—COP LICENSE OPERATING AT THE PRESENT TIME. BUT

WE'RE {FOR AN INCREASE TO 6927 SQUARE FEET WHICH WOULD INCLUDE

THE ENTIRE BUILDING AT QUICK 03 NORTH DALE MABRY AND A PROPOSED

OUTDOOR DECK OF APPROXIMATELY I THINK 2200 AND SOME OFF SQUARE

FEET.

WHY HAVE —— WE RECEIVED THE STAFF'S COMMENTS LAST THURSDAY,

AND BASICALLY IN ORDER TO MEET THEIR OBJECTIONS WE ARE PROPOSING

TO PUT A ROOF ON TOP OF THE OUTDOOR DECK, AND ON THE EAST SIDE,

WHICH IS WHERE THE MAJOR COMPLAINT IS BECAUSE WITHIN THE WAIVER

AREA THERE IS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX OR CONDOMINIUM, I BELIEVE, WE

ALSO INTEND TO PUT A WALL AND ATTACH IT TO THE ROOF ON THE EAST

SIDE SO MUSIC, NOISE, ET CETERA, WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GETO THE

91

EAST.

HEARING MASTER:  WHEN YOU SAY A WALL, WHAT KIND OF WALL?

MR. GREGORY:  IT WILL BE A POURED CONCRETE WALL THE NORTH AND THE

WEST WILL REMAIN OPEN, WHICH WAS THE ORIGINAL PLAN. TO THE NORTH

IS A CHINESE RESTAURANT WHICH CLOSES —— AS A RESTAURANT, NOW

CLOSES ABOUT 10 P.M. THE REST OF THE AREA I BELIEVE IS MOSTLY

COMMERCIAL TO THE NORTH. TO THE WEST IS DALE MABRY HIGHWAY. AND

I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY PART WE HAVE.

NOW, I HAVE SOME OTHER ITEMS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE

PLANS THAT WE HAVE, WE HAVE A COPY OF THEM. WE CAN GIVE YOU A

COPY.

MR. GREGORY:  WE ALSO HAVE WHAT I CALLED A TESTIMONIAL, WHICH IS

A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM 40 OF THE AREA NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS,

INCLUDING 14 THAT I'VE IDENTIFIED ON THIS THAT LIVE IN THE

APARTMENT COMPLEX, CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX TO THE EAST OF THE

PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE MAJOR I BELIEVE OBJECTION BECAUSE IT'S

WITHIN THE WAIVER AREA.  IF YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT.

HEARING MASTER:  IF YOU DON'T MIND, GIVE IT TO THE CLERK. SHE'S

VERY GOOD ABOUT MAKING COPIES AND GETTING THOSE TO ME. THANK

YOU, SIR.

MR. GREGORY:  I THINK THAT'S IT FOR THE PRESENT TIME.

HEARING MASTER:  YOU OR THE OTHER GENTLEMAN, WALK ME THROUGH THE

SET OF PLANS YOU JUST GAVE. MY THINK WHAT IT'S SHOWING IS THE

OUTSIDE DECK ELEVATION ON THE FIRST SHEET, OR NOT?

92

MR. PALORI:  ACTUALLY, THAT'S A RENDERING OF WHAT THE OUTSIDE

WILL LOOK LIKE. MY NAME IS PETE PALORI, 4145 HENDERSON

BOULEVARD. 

A1.1, IT LOOKS LIKE THIS.

HEARING MASTER:  YES.

MR. PALORI:  IT SHOWS THE FLOOR PLAN OF THE DECK. AND IF YOU

LOOK ON THE —— YOU THINK MAYBE I COULD TRY TO SQUEEZE THIS ON

THERE?

HEARING MASTER:  YOU COULD TRY.

MR. PALORI:  CAN YOU SEE THIS? YOU CAN SEE WHAT I SEE, RIGHT?

HEARING MASTER:  JUST SLIDE IT DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT.

MR. PALORI:  THIS ——

HEARING MASTER:  I'M SORRY, SIR. IF YOU COULD, JUST SLIDE THE

IMAGE DOWN.  MICHELLE, IF YOU COULD HELP. THAT'S BETTER.

MR. PALORI:  RIGHT THERE IN.

HEARING MASTER:  YES.

MR. PALORI:  OKAY.  THIS IS THE OUTSIDE DECK RIGHT HERE WHERE YOU

SEE THE LINES GOING UP AND DOWN LIKE THIS. THESE WOULD BE THE

TABLES. THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, THIS IS THE BACK OF MY CURRENT

BUILDING RIGHT HERE, WHICH IS CONCRETE. AND HERE'S WHERE THE

DECK WOULD BE ON THE SIDE. THESE LINES RIGHT HERE, THAT LINE,

THAT IS A POURED CONCRETE WALL, AND THEN IT COMES UP THE SIDE OF

THE BUILDING AS WELL, NOT JUST IN THE BACK.

HEARING MASTER:  MICHELLE, SLIDE THE GRAPHIC OVER.

93

MR. PALORI:  OKAY. RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF THE RULER, DO YOU SEE

THAT? THAT'S ALSO A POURED CONCRETE WALL.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.

MR. PALORI:  AND THEN ABOVE THIS ——

MR. PALORI:  THAT WALL IS ON THE EAST PART OF THE PROPOSED

OUTDOOR DECK.

MR. PALORI:  THIS PART RIGHT HERE IS A ROOF OVER MUCH OF THE

DECK, ABOUT HALF OF IT. BUT IF YOU LOOK RIGHT HERE, THIS SPACE

RIGHT HERE, THE ROOF STARTS HERE AND HERE, SO THE DECK WOULD BE

EXPOSED HERE. WHAT I'M DOING IS I'M PUTTING A ROOF THAT'S

ATTACHED TO THIS ROOF OVER THE DECK AND GOING DOWN TO THE

CONCRETE WALL AND THEN I'M GOING TO INSULATE THIS ROOF WITH R—30

INSULATION.

HEARING MASTER:  SO THAT THERE'S A SEAMLESS TRANSITION FROM THE

ROOF TO THE WALL.

MR. PALORI:  YES, SIR.

HEARING MASTER:  NO GAP.

MR. PALORI:  NO, SIR. AND I ALSO HAVE A PICTURE OF IT THAT I CAN

SHOW YOU THAT MY ARCHITECT DID.

MR. PALORI:  IT'S C1.2, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT.  THE BOTTOM

RENDERING IS THE OUTSIDE DECK.

HEARING MASTER:  I'VE GOT IT.

MR. PALORI:  CAN YOU SEE IT?

HEARING MASTER:  YES.

94

MR. PALORI:  SO, NOW WE CAN SEE. THIS WALL RIGHT HERE IS THE

WALL THAT I SAID WOULD BE GOING UP THE SIDE OF THE DECK, OKAY.

AND THEN THIS IS THE ROOF THAT WOULD BE ABOVE IT. SO AS YOU CAN

SEE, THIS IS THE BIG ROOF OVER THE DECK RIGHT HERE, AND THEN THIS

IS THE SIDE OF THE CONCRETE WALL WITH THE OTHER ROOF.

AND THEN THESE WILL BE ATTACHED ON THE INSIDE AND IT WILL BE

ALL INSULATED, SO THEREFORE IF I DO HAVE LIVE MUSIC —— MIND YOU,

THIS IS GOING TO BE —— I DON'T KNOW IF YOU —— HAVE YOU SEEN PJ'S,

THE LIQUOR STORE NORTH DALE MABRY ON THE RIGHT?

HEARING MASTER:  EXISTING PJ'S.

MR. PALORI:  IT'S BEEN THERE FOREVER. MY FATHER AND GRANDFATHER

HAVE HAD IT. IT'S BASICALLY THE UGLIEST THING ON DALE MABRY NOW.

AND VILLAGE INN HAS REDEVELOPED TWICE. WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DO

THIS. WHAT WE HAVE THERE NOW IS WE HAVE A PACKAGED STORE WITH A

BAR IN THE REAR. BACK IN THE '70S AND '80S WHEN MY FATHER AND

GRANDFATHER DID THIS, THIS WAS LIKE THE IN THING. 

WELL, NOW IT'S MORE OF A YOUNGER CROWD.  I'VE GOT CHEAP

DRINKS, SO I GET ALL THE LEFT—OVERS FROM PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T GO

OTHER PLACES. AND I'M NOT HAPPY WITH IT.

I'M 32 YEARS OLD NOW. I HAVE A BABY ON THE WAY. I HAVE

COME INTO THIS BUSINESS AND I'VE BEEN IN THE BAR BUSINESS AND I

DON'T WANT MY CHILDREN TO COME INTO IT. SO WHAT I'M DOING IS,

YOU KNOW, AS YOU CAN SEE, I DON'T HAVE TO HAVE FOOD IN HERE. I'M

4—COP. I CAN SELL BOOZE, WHICH EVERYBODY —— I'M SURE YOU SEE A

95

LOT OF PEOPLE THAT RESTAURANTS THAT WANT TO ADD BOOZE BECAUSE

THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY IS.

I WANT TO CHANGE IT TO MAKE IT MORE OF A —— I'M A TAMPA

BAY 5TH GENERATION, FLORIDA. WHAT I'M DOING HERE IS A FLORIDA

BUILDING WITH THE ALUMINUM ROOF. I'M HAVING GRAY'S TAXIDERMY

BUILD ME A 15—FOOT FIBERGLASS BLUE MARLIN.

IT'S GOING TO BE ALL FLORIDA PRODUCTS.  LET'S SAY IF I CAN

GET FLORIDA MAHI MAHI FRESH, AND FRESH CANTALOUPE. THAT'S GOING

TO BE THE DISHES. I'M FROM FLORIDA, I LOVE FLORIDA, I'M TIRED OF

PERSONALLY SEEING EVERYTHING FROM EVERYWHERE ELSE AND I WANT TO

SUPPORT FLORIDA. YOU CAN'T GET THAT HERE. YOU GO TO A PLACE IN

FLORIDA AND THEY GO, THE FISH OF THE DAY IS ALASKAN SALMON?

REALLY? WHERE YOU GOT THAT HERE?

SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS JUST BRING OLD REAL FLORIDA HERE

AND KIND OF —— RIGHT NOW OUR AGE GROUP I WOULD SAY IS 21 TO 35,

AND MY BUSINESS —— I'M BUSY FROM MIDNIGHT TO 3, YOU KNOW. PEOPLE

GO OUT TO GREEN IGUANA OR THEY GO TO OTHER PLACES AND THEN THEY

COME TO MY PLACE AT THE END OF THE NIGHT AND CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR

ME, AFTER THEY GOT, YOU KNOW —— SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS I

WANT TO BE 30 AND UP.

I'M NOT GOING TO BE PLAYING ANY HEAVY METAL. I'M NOT GOING

TO BE PLAYING ANY HIP—HOP OR OTHER THINGS. I WANT TO PLAY STEEL

DRUMS, JIMMY BUFFET UKNOW, SOMETHING MORE OF A MORE TROPICAL LAID

BACK. I WANT —— I'LL BE HOPE UNTIL 3, BUT I WANT THE CROWD THAT

96

COMES IN FOR HAPPY HOUR, DINNER, AND THEN YOU KNOW, MIDNIGHT, AND

THE PEOPLE THAT LIKE TO COME OUT AND JUST ENJOY THEMSELVES.

AND I'M GOING TO SURROUND THE PROPERTY IN PALM TREES AND I'M

GOING TO HAVE THAT SOFT WHITE SAND THAT WE ALL LOVE AT CLEARWATER

BEACH WITH YOU WALK ON IT. I WANT TO ADD THAT AROUND THE BUCK.

BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE UP IN NORTH TAMPA FROM THE PEOPLE

THAT WE'VE HEARD OF, IF THEY WANT A SEAFOOD DINNER OR SOMETHING

LIKE THIS, YOU HAVE TO GETO SALT ROCK, YOU HAVE TO GO TO

SOMEWHERE ON THE BEACH. THAT'S THREE HOURS AWAY.

SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS I'M TRYING TO BRING WHAT YOU CAN

GET OUT THERE OVER HERE. BECAUSE I HAD TO FIND A NICHE. AND MY

NICHE —— THERE'S NOTHING ELSE THERE LIKE THAT.

HEARING MASTER:  LET ME ASK YOU. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TEAR

DOWN THE EXISTING BUILDING OR TRY TO PUT STUDS ——

MR. PALORI:  I'M BASICALLY GOING TO USE THE WALL. MY PACKAGE

STORE WILL STAY OPEN FOR BUSINESS THE WHOLE TIME BECAUSE THAT'S

BASICALLY WHAT'S GOING TO PAY FOR ALL THIS.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.

MR. PALORI:  BUT I'M GOING TO ADD SOME WALLS. BUT LIKE RIGHT

NOW, IT'S LIKE EIGHT FOOT CEILINGS IN THERE. IF YOU SEE ON HERE,

THERE'S GOING TO BE THESE BIG TRUSSES AND EVERYTHING AND I'M

GOING TO LEAVE ALL THE TRUSSES OPEN IN THERE. I'M GOING TO PUT

SOME DORMERS ON THE ROOF AND HAVE IT ALL LIT UP IN THERE. IT'S

GOING TO BE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THEME FROM WHAT IT IS NOW.

97

HEARING MASTER:  ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. I GOT A VERY GOOD IDEA

WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.

MR. PALORI:  OKAY.

HEARING MASTER:  ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE?

MR. PALORI:  YES. JUST ONE OTHER POINT.  PART OF THE FILE

ALREADY INCLUDES A SURVOY THAT SHOWS THE EXISTING WET ZONING FOR

THIS PROPERTY. AND THERE IS A COVERED WOOD PATIO ALREADY WITHIN

THE WET ZONING THAT HAS SPEAKERS ON IT, THAT PLAYS MUSIC NOW FROM

THE BAR.

AND MR. PALORI HAS NEVER RECEIVED ANY OBJECTION THERES

ANYBODY, THE APARTMENTS TO THE EAST, AND HE HAS EXISTING MUSIC

THAT'S ALREADY GOING OUT.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.

MR. PALORI:  I HAVE THAT PIECE OF PAPER I CAN SHOW YOU ON HERE.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY. IF YOU PUT IT ON THE ELMO, I THINK HTV

WILL PICK UP ON THE ELMO.

MR. PALORI:  THE SHADED—IN AREA IS THE ORIGINAL 4—COP ZONING DONE

BACK IN 1964.  AND THERE IS A WOOD PATIO RIGHT THERE ON THE SIDE

OF MY BUILDING. NOW, THE WHOLE —— THIS IS MY STRUCTURE RIGHT

HERE. THE PATIO I'D BE BUILDING IS ON THIS SIDE OVER HERE.

AND ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR IS THE COVERED PATIO THAT'S ON THIS

SIDE OVER HERE, THAT'S ALL GOING TO BE COVERED IN, CONCRETE

WALLED, SOLID BUILDING. AND THE RESIDENTIAL IS CLOSER TO THIS

COVERED WOOD PATIO, AND THERE'S NO WALL ON THE BACK OF HERE ON

98

THE COVERED PATIO BLOCKING ANY NOISE GOING BACK THERE.

SO I'M MOVING THE PATIO TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING

FURTHER AWAY, WHICH WE HAVE —— HAD OUR SURVEYOR COME UP WITH IT.

IT'S ABOUT 210—AND—A—HALF FEET AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTS. AND WE

WILL ALSO BE PUTTING A CONCRETE BLOCK WALL ON THE BACK OF IT. SO

IN MY MIND, YOU KNOW, WITH THE CUSTOMERS THAT I'VE DESCRIBED THAT

I HAVE NOW, IF NOBODY COMPLAINED ABOUT THEM ON THIS PATIO OVER

HERE, WITH NO WALL, IMAGINE MY CUSTOMERS THAT I WANT TO HAVE IN

THERE WITH A BLOCK WALL.

AND AROUND MY AREA OVER HERE IS ALL WETLANDS, SO DIFFERENT

FROM BEFORE, I'M ACTUALLY HAPPY ABOUT THE WETLANDS. BECAUSE IT'S

A HUGE SWAMP BACK HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE BEEN UP THERE.

MY FATHER ACTUALLY USED TO TAKE ME BACK THERE WHEN I WAS EIGHT

AND WE'D PUT CRAWFISH TRAPS. BUT THE SOUND WOULD HAVE TO GO

THROUGH THE SWAMP AND BACK AROUND AND COME AROUND BACK TO THE

APARTMENTS.

AND PLUS WITH THIS, I WANT TO DO IT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO

—— I WANT TO BUILD THE WALL. I DON'T WANT TO CAUSE PROBLEMS. I

DON'T WANT TO NEED TO BE ON BAY NEWS NINE, BUSINESS MAN PISSES

OFF COMMUNITY. I'M GOING TO PUT OVER A MILLION DOLLARS IN THIS.

IF I PISS OFF THE COMMUNITY OR UPSET THE COMMUNITY, PARDON MY

LANGUAGE, IT'S ONLY GOING TO HURT ME. AND I DON'T WANT TO DO

THAT. I WANT EVERYBODY TO BE HAPPY.

I WANT THE PEOPLE COMING HOME FROM WORK TO THESE CONDOS TO

99

COME IN AND HAVE A FISH SANDWICH AND HAVE A DRINK. SO IT'S IN MY

BEST INTEREST TO MAKE THE COMMUNITY HAPPY AND BUILD A NICE —— I

MEAN, LIKE I TOLD YOU, IF YOU'VE BEEN THERE, PJ'S IS THE UGLIEST

THING UP THERE. VILLAGE INN AND KFC ARE NICER. AND I WANT TO BE

A NICE PART OF THE COMMUNITY AS WELL.

HEARING MASTER:  VERY GOOD.  THANK YOU, SIR.  MR. GREGORY THAT,

CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?

MR. GREGORY  YES, SIR, THAT CONCLUDES OUR TESTIMONY.

HEARING MASTER:  ALL RIGHT. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES STAFF.

MS. HEINRICH:  GOOD EVENING. MICHELLE HEINRICH, DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES.

AS YOU HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING

A DISTANCE SEPARATION WAIVER FOR A EXPANDED 4—COP, AND THAT

ALLOWS FOR BEER, WINE AND LIQUOR FOR SALE AND CONSUCHTION BOTH ON

AND OFF THE PREMISES. THE WET ZONE AREA, WITH THE EXISTING AND

THE PROPOSED, WOULD BE 6927 SQUARE FEET.  AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE

AN AREA OF 2,747 SQUARE FEET OF OUTSIDE PATIO AREAS. 

THE PROPERTY IS ZONED CG AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER

OF NORTH DALE MABRY HIGHWAY AND WEST HUMPHREY STREET. THE SITE

IS AN EXISTING PACKAGED STORE AND SPORTS RESTAURANT OR SPORTS BAR

AND DOES CURRENTLY HAVE AN OUTSIDE PATIO, AND THAT PATIO SIZE IS

470 SQUARE FEET, AND IT'S LOC ALONG THE SOUTH. I BELIEVE THE

APPLICANT REFERENCED THAT. AND I ALSO HAVE SOME PHOTOS OF THE

100

SITE TO GIVE YOU A BETTER IDEA OF THE EXISTING PATIO.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.

MS. HEINRICH:  THIS IS THE EXISTING PATIO ALONG THE SOUTH. IT

RUNS LOOM THE ENTIRE LENGTH. AND SOME OF IT IS OPEN ON THE BACK

THAT FACES TOWARDS THE EAST. 

AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THE PROPERTY WAS WET ZONED IN 1964.

IT WAS KNOWN AS JOANNE'S TAP ROOM, AND I ALSO SAW IN THE RECORDS

IT LISTED AS CARROLLWOOD LOUNGE. AND IT WAS APPROVED FOR A 4—

COP. IT WAS APPROVED FOR NOT THE EXACT SAME CONFIGURATION THAT

THE BUILDING IS TODAY. I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT IS. HOWEVER, IN

THIS APPLICATION THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO RECOGNIZE THAT

EXISTING PORTION.

THE AREA OUTLINED IN YELLOW IS WHAT WAS WET ZONED IN 1964.

THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THE BUILDING AND OUTSIDE AREA DOES LIE

WITHIN THAT. HOWEVER, RIGHT UP IN HERE IS A PACKAGE STORE. I

CANNOT FIND ANY APPROVAL FOR THAT.  I DO KNOW THAT IT HAS BEEN

THERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME. BUT THE APPLICANTS ARE INCLUDED THAT

IN THEIR APPLICATION.  WHICH YOU'LL SEE HERE. THIS IS THE

PACKAGE STORE THAT THEY WANT TO EXPAND, AND THIS IS THE OUTSIDE

PATIO WHICH IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. AREZ DID.

THEREFORE, A WAIVER OF 159. SEVEN FT. IS REQUIRED. THE COUNTY

REQUIREMENT IS 250 FEET.

THE PROPERTY IS CONSTRUCTED AND USED FOR MULTI—FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL. IT HAS MULTIPLE STORIES AND OUTSIDE BALCONIES.  NO

101

COMMUNITY USES EXIST WITHIN 500 FEET AND NO WAIVER TO THE

CONCENTRATION REQUIREMENT IS REQUIRED.

I DID JUST WANT TO SHOW YOU A QUICK AERIAL. THIS IS THE WET

ZONE SURVEY. THIS IS THE PROPERTY AND THIS IS THE DISTANCE TO

THE CLOSEST RESIDENTIAL.  THE COMPLEX DOES KIND OF WRAP AROUND

HERE SO THERE IS AN AREA OF WETLANDS THAT'S ZONED CG THAT IS

HERE. HOWEVER, THERE ARE RESIDENCES HERE AS WELL, WHICH IS THE

CLOSEST. YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE AERIAL THAT'S IN YOUR BACKUP. 

THIS IS THAT BOTTOM PORTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL. THIS IS WHERE

THE CLOSEST ARE, WHICH IS THE LITTLE OVER 90 FEET.

THE APPLICANT DID STATE IN THE APPLICATION SOME WAIVERS FOR

THEIR REQUEST.  THEY STATED THAT THE EXPANSION WILL NOT INTENSIFY

THE EXISTING USE OF THE PROPERTY; THAT THE PROPERTY IS SEPARATED

FROM THE RESIDENTIAL TO THE EAST BY TREES, A WETLAND AND A

NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING, AND THE PROPERTY IS SEPARATED FROM

RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH —— I'M SORRY —— TO THE WEST BY NORTHDALE

MAYBERY.  HOWEVER THAT RESIDENTIAL FALLS OUTSIDE THE 250—FOOT

RADIUS SO THERE'S NO WAIVER NEEDED OVER THERE.

STAFF IS IN DISAGREEMENT WITH THOSE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENTS

IN REGARDS TO THE OUTSIDE PATIO. WHILE THE EXPANSION WILL NOT

INTENSIFY THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PERMIT, THE CURRENT USE

OCCURS MAINLY INSIDE THE BUILDING AND A SMALL PATIO AREA ALONG

THE SOUTHERN FACADE.

THE PLACEMENT OF A 2,277 SQUARE FEET OUTSIDE PATIO WILL

102

CREATE AN INCREASE IN ACTIVITY, NOISE, AND THEREFORE IMPACTING

THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL. THE SITE DOES CURRENTLY OPERATE AS A

SPORTS BAR WHICH UNLIKE A RESTAURANT WILL OPERATE PAST 12

MIDNIGHT.

THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL WAS DONE IN 1964, AND AT THAT TIME

THERE WERE NO REQUIREMENTS TO BE AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL. HOWEVER,

NOW WE DO HAVE THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE, WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE

HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY.

THE MAJORITY OF THE SPACE BETWEEN THE TWO USES CONSISTS OF A

PARKING LOT WHICH SERVES THE EXISTING USE AND WOULD BE ACTIVE

DURING THE SITE'S HOURS OF OPERATIONS. SO THE PATIO WOULD BE IN

USE AS LONG AS —— OR THE PARKING LOT WOULD BE USED, WHICH IS MUCH

CLOSER THAN THE WET ZONED AREA IF THE PATIO WERE CONSTRUCTED.

AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET IS NOT USED FOR PARKING AND

CONTAINS TREES, GRASS AND SOME PLANTINGS. A SIX—FOOT HIGH WOODEN

FENCE IS LOCATED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. STAFF DOES NOT VIEW

THESE AS ENOUGH TO REDUCE THE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIALLY

ZONED PROPERTY. THOUGH THE LARGE WETLAND AREA EXISTS TO THE

NORTHEAST TO THE SITE, NOT TO THE IMMEDIATE EAST BETWEEN THE

PROPOSED PATIO AND RESIDENTIAL. 

AND STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PATIO BUT DOES

FIND THE PACKAGE STORE WET ZONING TO BE APPROVABLE, WHICH IS THE

INSIDE NORTHERN HALF CURRENTLY EXISTING SITE.  AND I WOULD ALSO

JUST SHOW TO YOU —— AND THESE ARE ALL IN OPTIX, THE PICTURES

103

HERE.

THIS IS THE VIEW TO THE RESIDENTIAL FROM BEHIND THE

BUILDING. THIS IS THE FENCE ASK THE RESIDENTIAL USES THROUGH THE

TREES.  IF YOU STEPPED A LITTLE CLOSER WITHIN THE PARKING LOT,

THIS IS THE TYPICAL TREE LINE BETWEEN THERE.

AND I WOULD ALSO JUST STATE FOR THE RECORD STAFF DOES

APPRECIATE THE I GUESS IMPROVEMENTS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MADE

AS FAR AS THE WALL AND THE COVER AND THE SOUNDPROOFING. HOWEVER,

WE THINK AT THAT DISTANCE TO RESIDENTIAL, WE STILL WOULD NOT FIND

THAT APPROVABLE. AND SO FOR THE PATIO, WE DO NOT RECOMMEND

APPROVAL. FOR THE EXISTING PACKAGE STORE EXPANSION THAT'S

INSIDE, STAFF DOES NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT. AND I'M

AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

HEARING MASTER:  I GUESS YOU JUST ANSWERED MY QUESTION ABOUT THE

DRAWINGS. HAVE YOU SEEN THE DRAWINGS BEFORE TONIGHT?

MS. HEINRICH:  NO, SIR.

HEARING MASTER:  ABOUT HAVING A WALL ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY

OR ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE BUILDING?

MS. HEINRICH:  NO, SIR. I DON'T KNOW IF MY SUPERVISOR ——

HEARING MASTER:  AND THEN A ROOF THAT WOULD GO OVER THE TOP?

MS. HEINRICH:  RIGHT. HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT WOULD STILL BE OPEN ON

THE SIDE, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD STOP ANY ISSUES THAT COULD

OCCUR LATE IN THE EVENING. UNLIKE A LOT OF RESTAURANTS THAT

MIGHT STOP AT NINE OR SO, WITH HAVING A 4—COP, IT WOULD OPERATE

104

AS A BAR, OF COURSE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY RAND WE FEEL THE

IMPACTS THAT WOULD BE OCCURRING ON THE OUTSIDE WOULD NOT BE

MITIGATED THROUGH THE ROOF AND ONE WALL.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.  THE TESTIMONY BY THE APPLICANT TALKED

ABOUT THE EXISTING LIQUOR STORE WOULD CONTINUE TO STAY IN

BUSINESS FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. WHAT IS A LIQUOR STORE

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ZONING SPECIAL USE PERMIT? IS IT A 3—PS?

MS. HEINRICH:  YEAH. YOU CAN DO 4—COP OR 3—PS. SOME DO 4—COPS

BECAUSE THEY HAVE TASTINGS, YOU KNOW, LIKE A WINE TASTING OR

SPECIAL EVENT.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY. 4—COP WOULD COVER THE LIQUOR STORE AS

WELL AS THE RESTAURANT BAR.

MS. HEINRICH:  YEAH. I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT EXPANSION TOOK

PLACE.  I DID REVIEW AERIALS. IT WAS PRETTY HARD TO TELL, GIVEN

THE QUALITY AT THE TIME. WHEN EXACTLY IT OCCURRED. BUT I KNOW

FOR A FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN OUT THERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

HEARING MASTER:  FOR THE RECORD, THE OUTSIDE PATIO AREA IS 2,277

SQUARE FEET?

MS. HEINRICH:  YES.

HEARING MASTER:  BECAUSE I SAW ELSEWHERE IN THE STAFF REPORT

DIFFERENT NUMBERS.

MS. HEINRICH:  THE NUMBERS UP TOP, THE 2747 THAT CONTACTS FOR THE

EXISTING PATIO ON THE SOUTH END.

HEARING MASTER:  COMBINING THE TWO. BUT THE TESTIMONY FROM THE

105

APPLICANT WAS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO ENCLOSE THE SOUTHERN PATIO.

MS. HEINRICH:  OKAY. THEN THAT WOULD JUST BE FOR THE OUTSIDE

PATIO ON THE NORTH.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.

MS. HEINRICH:  WHICH IS THE 4,277.

HEARING MASTER:  2,277.

MS. HEINRICH:  UH—HUH.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY. I UNDERSTAND.

MS. HEINRICH:  THANK YOU.

HEARING MASTER:  AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE

AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

MR. CIANCIOLA:  ONCE AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, DOMINIC COAMCOP;A,

LAST CALL TRAINING, 918 EAST MCBERRY.

I'M IN FAVOR FOR IT. HOWEVER, I DO HAVE A LITTLE OPPOSITION

ON THE PATIO ON THE REAR SIDE CLOSSEST TO THE RESIDENTS. I LIVE

IN A COMMUNITY WHERE ELLIS FOLK RESTAURANT IS AND THERE'S NO

MUSIC PLAYED OUTSIDE AND IT'S A VERY RELAXING ENVIRONMENT. IT

HAS A VERY LARGE UPSCALE BURGER PRICE AND NICE SEAFOOD QUALITY.

THEREFORE, WITHOUT SOUND OUTSIDE MAYBE THE NEIGHBORS WON'T BE

DISTURBED ON THIS PATIO.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I'D RECOMMEND THERE'S A RESPONSIBLE

VENDOR TRAINING PROGRAM IN PLACE WHERE HE ACTUALLY UPHOLDS TO THE

1986 RESPONSIBLE VENDOR ACT TRAINING IN ORDER TO PREVENT ANY

OVERSERVICE OR ANY LOUD INVOLVEMENT.

106

IT SOUNDS LIKE HE'S TRYING TO BRING THE AGE LEVEL UP WHERE

THERE IS A LOT MORE RESPONSIBLE VENDORS DINING IN HIS RESTAURANT,

AND IT ALSO SOUND LIKE HE MAY PRICE OUT HIS RESTAURANT TO A

LARGER SCALE WHERE HE MAY PRICE OUT THE YOUNGER GROUP OF

INDIVIDUALS. 

BUT BY REMOVING OUTSIDE MUSIC, OKAY, THAT MAY HELP AND

ASSIST YOUR DECISION, JUST AS IT IS AT ELLA'S AND MANY

RESTAURANTS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY AND THROUGHOUT THE CITY, THAT

LIVE POTENTIALLY RIGHT IN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS.  THANK YOU.

HEARING MASTER:  ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.  IS IT ANYONE ELSE IN THE

AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I

SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE

APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

MR. FERNANDEZ:  JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE PLANS THAT WERE

SUBMITTED TODAY, STAFF DIDN'T RECEIVE. IT THEY WERE PRESENTED AT

THIS HEARING. AND THAT WOULDN'T CHANGE OUR RECOMMENDATION.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.  AND THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR

REBUTTAL.

MR. GREGORY:  AGAIN, WILLIAM GREGORY FOR THE APPLICANT. 

AS STAFF MENTIONED, LEGALLY, TECHNICALLY IT IS 90 FEET FROM

THE BUILDING TO THE PROPERTY LINE. BUT REALISTICALLY FOR

PURPOSES OF SOUND, ET CETERA, IT'S 2 PEN .5 FEET TO THE NEAREST

107

BUILDING. THAT'S WHAT MR. PALORI IS PUTTING ON THE ELMO. SO

EVEN THOUGH IT'S STILL WITHIN THE WAIVER REQUIRED, IT'S NOT

NEARLY AS FAR AS 159.7 FEET. SO FOR SOUND TO GET TO THE FIRST

BUILDING, IT'S 210.5 FEET.

SECOND, REFERRING TO THE ORTHOPHOTOGRAPHY MAP OF

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, WHICH INCLUDES THIS PARTICULAR AREA, YOU'LL

NOTE WHERE THE PROPOSED DECK IS SUPPOSED TO GO TO THE EAST OF IT

IS A VERY LARGE AREA OF TREES AND SWAMP. WHAT STAFF IS GIVING

YOU IS TELLING YOU, OH, IT'S REALLY —— YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE

BUILDING, THE EXISTING BUILDING, TO GET THE MUSIC FROM THE NORTH

NEW PROPOSED DECK TO THE PARTICULAR —— THE CLOSEST PARTICULAR

BUILDING OF THE APARTMENT.

AND THIRD, AND I THINK OF MOST IMPORTANCE, IS I HAVE

RESIDENTS OF THE APARTMENT CONDOMINIUM SAYING THAT THEY URGE YOU

TO APPROVE THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION. AND I WOULD ASK MS.

HEINRICH —— SHE'S NOT HERE —— IS HAVE THEY RECEIVED ANY

OBJECTIONS FROM ANY —— HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY OBJECTIONS FROM ANY

OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE APARTMENT CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX?

MS. HEINRICH:  MICHELLE HEINRICH, PLANNING GROWTH MANAGEMENT. I

HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PHONE CALLS OR EMAILS.

MR. GREGORY:  OKAY. SO THEY HAVE NO OBJECTIONS FROM ANY OF THE

RESIDENCE, AND I HAVE TESTIMONIALS FROM AT LEAST 14 THAT I PICKED

UP FROM THE ADDRESSES. THAT'S ALL WE HAVE.

HEARING MASTER:  ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

108

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION. AND STAFF, WE'RE

READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

MR. FERNANDEZ:  THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM I6, THE

APPLICATION IS AB 13—0113. AND THE APPLICANT IS JIUSEPPE

MASCALI. HE'S LOOKING FOR A SPECIAL USE —— JIUSEPPE MASCALI; IS

THAT CORRECT? AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE AB 4—COP.

MICHELLE HEINRICH WILL RENDER THE REPORT AFTER THE APPLICANT'S

PRESENTATION.

MR. MASCALI:  MY NAME IS JIUSEPPE MASCALI. I'M THE OWNER.

THAT'S THE SECOND TIME I APPLY FOR THE SAME THING. I ALREADY BE

GRANTED IN 2008. I JUST WAS ASKING FOR ADDITION. I'M BACK

AGAIN. I DO ALL THIS, WASTED FOUR MONTHS OF MY TIME. I RENTED

THE PLACE AND NOW I GOT TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON, BECAUSE IT JUST

WAS ADDITION. I DON'T NEED TO REAPPLY THE OLD THING. I JUST BE

APPROVED GRANTED IN 2008.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.

MR. CIANCIOLA:  DOMINIC CIANCIOLA, REPRESENTATIVE OF JIUSEPPE.

I CAN TAKE YOU A WALK BACK IN TIME, TRY TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA

ABOUT HIS OPERATION. HE'S BEEN IN OPERATION SINCE 1989. SINCE

1989, HIS COMMUNITY, THE LUTZ COMMUNITY, HAS DEVELOPED BY 50

PERCENT. AND SINCE THE YEAR 2000, THERE'S BEEN A 20 PERCENT

INCREASE OF RESIDENTS IN HIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THEREFORE, HIS

RESTAURANT IS A VERY UPSCALE RESTAURANT. THERE'S A HARP PLAYING

IN IT IN THE DINING ROOM AND IT'S A MUCH HIGHER QUALITY LEVEL OF

109

RESTAURANT AS OPPOSED TO THE BEEF OBRADY'S AND HIS NEIGHBORING

ATTRIBUTES THAT HE NEEDS THE WAIVER FOR.

WE'RE IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE FEW

WAIVERS. THE FIRST WEAR THAT WE'RE HERE TO ADDRESS IS THE 500

FOOT STANDINGAV I CHURCH. THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO CHURCHES.  ONE OF

THEM IS VACANT.

I DID REQUEST FROM STAFF THAT THEY CALL THEIR APPRAISER'S

OFFICE, BECAUSE UNDER FURTHER DUE RESEARCH I FOUND OUT THROUGH

THE AOPERATESER'S OFFICE THEY WERE UNABLE TO GIVE ME

DOCUMENTATION THAT THAT CHURCH WAS VACANT. BUT UNDER THE

APPRAISAL, THERE'S NOT A CHURCH WITHIN THAT ESTABLISHMENT ON THE

FLAGSHIP DRIVE ADDRESS.

THE SECOND CHURCH THAT IS PART OF OUR ADDRESS TODAY IS THE

WELL OF LIFE —— THE SUNRISE WORSHIP CENTER, WHICH IS ACROSS THE

MEDIUM OF ROUTE 41. YOU'LL FIND THAT ROUTE 41 HAS A MEDIAN IN

THE MIDDLE OF IT AND IN FRONT OF MR. JIUSEPPE'S RESTAURANT THERE

IS ABOUT A 12, 14 FOOT MEDIAN THERE AS PEOPLE ARE ENTERING AND

EXITING HIS RESTAURANT. THERE WILL BE NO INTERFERENCE WITH THAT

CHURCH.

WE RECEIVED THE MAIL BACK FROM THAT CHURCH PRIOR TO

CHRISTMAS WHEN STAFF WAS ON HOLIDAY BREAK, I WAS ATTEMPTING TO

CONTACT THE STAFF, WHICH BUMPED OFF HIS HEARING DATE AND AN EXTRA

CHARGE TO MOVE IT OFF DUE TO THE FACT OF THE FACT AND FINDINGS.

THE CHURCH, SUNRISE WORSHIP CHURCH IS OWNED BY LUTZ CHURCH

110

WHICH IS UP ON —— WHICH IS ON MY MAILING LIST. LET ME PUT THIS

UP HERE FOR YOU.  HERE'S MY CERTIFIED MAILING LIST THAT'S COMING

UP IN FRONT OF YOU. 

ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST COLUMN, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE FIRST

CHURCH OF GOD, INCORPORATED, IS ACTUALLY THE PROPERTY OWNER OF

WELL OF LIFE CHURCH. WELL OF LIFE CHURCH DOES NOT RECEIVE MAIL

AT THAT PRIOR LOCATION. HOWEVER, AT THE P.O. BOX THEY DID

RECEIVE MY MAIL ON MY FIRST APPLICATION PROCESS.

I WAS INSTRUCTED BY COUNSEL THAT I —— OR PLANNING THAT I HAD

TO RE—MAIL EVERYBODY AGAIN, LOSING AN EXTRA MONTH OF TIME, AND A

FINANCIAL EXPENSE OF $107.50 AS OPPOSED TO THAT BECAUSE COUNSEL

WAS ON HOLIDAY DURING THE CHRISTMAS BREAK BEFORE I WAS ABLE TO

HAVE ANY COMMUNICATION, AND THE LACK OF THEIR CALLING BACK.

SO WE GOT A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION. WE MISSED VOLENTINE'S

DAY AND WE'RE STANDING IN FRONT OF YOU, AND AS WE GO FORWARD

YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THERE ARE GREEN SQUARES ON THAT MAILING LIST.

THOSE GREEN SQUARES ARE ACTUALLY THE UNNEEDED, UNCALLED FOR

RECEIPTS OF OUR NEIGHBORS THAT ACTUALLY APPROVE THIS PLAN AND

THIS ENLARGEMENT OF THE PLAN.

THE MAP IN FRONT OF ME WILL IDENTIFY THAT THESE NEIGHBORS ——

AND I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT YOU EVIDENCE TO THESE.  AND I'VE GOT

COPIES FOR YOU.  THAT THESE NEIGHBORS HAVE SIGNED OFF, AND IT'S

THE NEIGHBOR TO ITS NORTH, THE NEIGHBOR TO ITS EAST, THE NEIGHBOR

WHO DOORS BEHIND HIM, AND TWO LARGE—SCALE NEIGHBORS, TWO LARGE—

111

SCALE NEIGHBORS THAT OWN A PRETTY LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY RIGHT

IN THE NUMBERS ON THE GREEN AND YELLOW PLOTS STRAIGHT BEHIND HIM.

BEHIND HIM THERE'S A VACANT PROPERTY THAT'S UNDERDEVELOPED.

YOU'LL NOTICE RIGHT THERE WHERE THE 510 IS ACTUALLY WHERE

THE LIFE LIFE CHURCH USED TO STAND.  AND I'LL POINT IT OUT TO

YOU.

RIGHT HERE IS THIS PROPERTY. DOWN HERE IS THE PROPERTY TO

THE SOUTH OF HIM, THERE'S A WELL OF LIFE CHURCH THERE. NOW

VACANT. AND REQUESTED THAT COUNSEL ACTUALLY CHECKED WITH THE

APPRAISER'S OFFICE TO VERIFY THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE THAT

INFORMATION CAN'T BE GIVEN OUT TO THE PUBLIC.

AND YOUR APPLICATION PROCESS, WHEN I SUBMITTED MY DOCUMENTS,

YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE SUNRISE WORSHIP CHURCH, THE MAIL WAS SENT

BACK AND IT'S THE SAME EXACT PROPERTY BY FOLIO NUMBER AS LUTZ

CHURCH OF GOD.  SO HE'S UP AGAINST A WALL AND HE'S MISSED A FEW

HOLIDAYS ALREADY DUE TO THE PROGRESS.

AS WE MOVE FORWARD ON THE WAIVER OF THE CHURCH, THE SUNRISE

CHURCH, I GOT MY NEXT PHOTO UP HERE FOR YOU.  MY NEXT PHOTO IS

PRESENTED AT THE ELMO THERE. AND YOU'LL NOTICE THAT ROUTE 41

DOES HAVE A MEDIAN IN. THE RED DOT THERE IS ACTUALLY MR.

JIUSEPPE'S VILLAGE AJEEL. AND THE TWO BOTTOM ONES IS THE

STARTING POINT AND THE VIEW POINT FROM THE CHURCH TO THE

RESTAURANT AND FROM THE RESTAURANT TO THE CHURCH.  SO THAT'S NO

DIRECT ACCESS TO HIS PROPERTY AT ALL.

112

KEEPING FAMILIES SAFE. AND WHAT HE'S ATTEMPTING TO DO IS

HAVE SPECIAL EVENTS, GROWING HIS OPERATION ALLOWS HIM TO HAVE

PRIVATE ROOMS WHERE THE KIDS CAN BE PLAYING AND DINNERS LIKE

THAT.

AND I'LL TRADE OFF TO GIVE YOU A HISTORY AND TIME OF PRIOR

PERMITS.  IN 2008, THE STATE ACTUALLY APPROVED FROM POINT A ALL

THE WAY TO POINT B AND THEN THE FULL EXPENDED PATIO AS BEING WET

ZONED. THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE HAVING WITH THIS IS THAT YOU'RE

NOT ALLOWED TO LEAVE —— YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO LEAVE AN ALCOHOLIC

ESTABLISHMENT AND RE—ENTER A DIFFERENT ALCOHOLIC ESTABLISHMENT.

WE APPLIED FOR A 4—COP AND WE WERE DENIED THAT DUE TO THE FACT

THAT THE WET ZONING DID NOT HAVE THE PROPER WET ZONE APPROVAL

FROM THE COUNTY. OKAY.

WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO HERE IS ACTUALLY INCREASE OUR

WET ZONING TO COVER THE ADDITION —— HANG ON. I GOT MY ADDITION

UP THERE. BUT TO COVER A FEW ADDITIONS HERE. FIRST OFF IS A

CONCRETE PATIO. BECAUSE HE HAS A WINE TASTING ROOM BACK HERE

THAT HAS ABOUT 20 SEATS. PEOPLE THAT HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE AND

BREATHE AND SMOKE OR DO WHAT THEY WANT, THEY HAVE TO WALK ALL THE

WAY THROUGH THE RESTAURANT, DISTURBING THE RESTAURANT, WITH THEY

COULD BE OUT ON THIS COVERED PATIO ENJOYING THE WINE ACTIVITYING

AND UPSELLING HIS WINE THAT HE SELLS FOR OFF PREMISE CONSUMPTION.

AND WE INCLUDED THE CONCRETE WALKWAY ON THIS SIDE, SO WE'RE

ACTUALLY THEY CAN ACTUALLY HAVE A COVERED PATIO. SO WHERE HE'S

113

IN COMPLIANCE WITH SEVENING ON THAT PATIO THAT'S BEEN PREVIOUSLY

APPROVED.  HE'S DONE SOME EXTENSION AND SOME REALLY COST EXPENSE

ITCH ADDITIONAL STUFF TO IT.

AND YOU'LL NOTICE HERE ON THIS ONE, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT

WE'RE LOOKING FOR. AN ALLSTATE OUTFIT WENT OUT OF BUSINESS. HE

PUT ANOTHER DINING ROOM ON TO HIS RESTAURANT. THE HARP PLAYER

PLAYS ABOUT HERE. IF THERE'S CHILDREN THIS THIS ROOM, THOSE THAT

WANT TO ENJOY THE HARP PLAYER CAN'T REALLY HEAR THE HARP PLAYER.

BUT THE CHILDREN IN THIS ROOM CAN ACTUALLY DINE WITH THEIR

FRIENDS AND FAMILY AS HE WOULD LIKE TO DO FOR CATERING FUNCTIONS.

THE SECOND ROOM THAT HE'D LIKE TO ADD ON WOULD BE A BACK

AREA ROOM ONCE AGAIN AS ANOTHER TASTING ROOM, THEREFORE

SERVICEABILITY.  SO HE REALLY, A, NEEDS THE INCREASE TO A 4—COP

ON AND OFF PREMISE FOR TWO REASONS: ONE, HE WANTS TO SELL

UPSCALE ITALIAN WINES THROUGHOUT THE HOLIDAY SEASONS. 

HE WOULD LIKE HIS TASTINGS ON PREMISE WHERE HE CAN ACTUALLY

POUR ON PREMISE SO WHERE INDIVIDUALS CAN TASTE THE WINE THAT

THEY'RE PURCHASING. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, HE CAN ALSO QUALIFY

FOR THE FULL DINING VENUE SRX THAT ALLOWS HIM ON HIS EXISTING AND

HIS BUILD—OUT IN ORDER TO HAVE HIS OPERATION RUNNING AT A LOWERER

COST AND MORE FEASIBILITY IN ORDER TO EMPLOY MORE NEIGHBORS.

AS I STATED, LUTZ GREW BY 50 PERCENT SINCE 1990.  HIS

RESTAURANT HASN'T CHANGED.  HE'S A COMMUNITY, HE'S PUT A LOT OF

PEOPLE TO WORK IN THE COMMUNITY, HE PAYS WORKMAN'S COMP, AND HE'S

114

GREAT TO THE COUNTY AND TO THE SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY. SO WE'RE

JUST ASKING FOR THIS EXPANSION, AND THERE SHOULD BE REALLY NOT A

WHOLE LOT OF QUESTION ABOUT IT, BEING THAT HE WAS THERE PRIOR TO

MOST OF THE BUILDUP IN LUTZ. THANK YOU.

HEARING MASTER:  ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, SIR. AT THIS POINT IN

TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN

SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. 

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE

APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING. 

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

MS. HEINRICH:  WE JUST HAVE TO GO OVER OUR STAFF REPORT. I'LL

MAKE IT QUICK.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.

MS. HEINRICH:  MICHELLE HEINRICH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

AS YOU HEARD, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A DISTANCE

SEPARATION WAIVER FOR A 4—COP, AND THAT ALLOWS FOR BEER, WINE AND

LIQUOR FOR SALE AND CONSUMPTION ON AND OFF THE PREMISES. THE WET

ZONE AREA WILL COMPRISE OF 7,114 SQUARE FEET, AND THAT WOULD

INCLUDE 1,137 SQUARE FEET OF OUTSIDE PATIO AREAS THAT THE

GENTLEMAN OUTLINED FOR YOU THAT THEY'RE SEEKING.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER

ON THE EAST SIDE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 41, AND THE SUBJECT SITE WAS

PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR A 4—COP UNDER SPECIAL USE PERMIT 08—0511.

AND AS YOU SAW, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO EXPANELED THE INSIDE

115

AND INCLUDE SOME OUTSIDE PATIO AREAS.

THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL WAS FOR A TOTAL OF 4,267 SQUARE FEET. 

THERE ARE TWO COMMUNITY USES PER THE SURVEY THAT EXIST WITHIN 500

FEET. ONE IS LOCATED 400 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST, AND ANOTHER ONE

IS LOCATED 142 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST AND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE

SAME SHOPPING CENTER. THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT DOES NEED A

WAIVER OF 100 FEET TO —— ON THE SURVEY, SHOWN ON THE SURVEY AS

THE SUNRISE WORSHIP CENTER, AND A WAIVER OF 358 FEET TO WHAT IS

SHOWN ON THE SURVEY AS THE WELL OF LIFE COMMUNITY USE.  AND NO

OTHER WAIVERS ARE REQUIRED. 

AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THE SITE HAS BEEN IN OPERATION FOR

23 YEARS AND WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR A PERMIT. THE SUNRISE

WORSHIP CENTER IS SEPARATED FROM THE SUBJECT SITE BY U.S. 41, A

MAJOR DIVIDED HIGHWAY.

THE WELL OF LIFE IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTHEAST AND IS ORIENTED

TO THE NORTH, WHILE THE EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT IS ORIENTED TO THE

WEST FACING U.S. 41. THE OUTSIDE PATIO AREA IS ALSO ORIENTED TO

THE NORTH AND THE PRIVATE PARTY AND WINE ROOMS WILL BE LOCATED AT

THE NORTHERN END OF THE BUILDING, AND THOSE WILL BE ENCLOSED. 

STAFF DOES CONCUR WITH THESE STATEMENTS AND WOULD ALSO JUST

NOTE THAT AT THE PREVIOUS AB THE APPLICANT DID HAVE A CONDITION

OF APPROVAL WHICH IS STILL BEFORE YOU TODAY. THE APPLICANT IS IF

AGREEMENT WITH KEEPING THAT RESTRICTION WHICH HAS TO DO WITH

TIMES FOR THE EXPANSION.

116

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.

MS. HEINRICH:  STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY OBJECTIONS FROM ANY

REVIEWING AGENCIES, AND THEREFORE WE FIND THIS APPROVABLE. AND

IF APPROVED, THIS WOULD RESCIND AND REPLACE THE PREVIOUS AB FROM

2008. I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

HEARING MASTER:  NO QUESTIONS, VERY GOOD.  THANK YOU.

GIVEN THAT I ALREADY ASKED ABOUT THOSE IN SUPPORT AND THOSE

IN OPPOSITION, I'VE COVERED THAT TERRITORY. AT THIS POINT IN

TIME, THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

MR. CIANCIOLA:  DOMINIC CIANCIOLA IN REBUTTAL.

ONCE AGAIN, THE STAFF REPORT IS INACCURATE STATING THERE'S A

CHURCH WITHIN A HUNDRED AND SOME FEET OF IT. THAT IS A VACANT

PROPERTY. I REQUEST THAT YOU FURTHERMORE CALL THE APPRAISER'S

OFFICE. THEY DO NOT HAVE A PERMIT FOR THAT CHURCH THERE, AND IT

IS A VACANT PROPERTY. THEREFORE, THAT WAIVER IS NONEXISTENT.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY.

MR. CIANCIOLA:  LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I DID WANT TO GIVE YOU A FULL

PACKET, INCLUDING THE INSPECTOR'S BEVERAGE REPORT. BECAUSE HE'S

ALREADY PAID HIS $400 TO THE BEVERAGE LICENSE THAT THEY SAID WILL

BE APPROVED, WITH THEY WALKED OUT AND SAW THE CONCRETE PATIOS NOT

BEING WET, THAT'S WITH THEY DENIED HIM HIS PRIVILEGE. SO

THEREFORE IT'S ALSO INCLUDED IN THE REPORT.

HEARING MASTER:  ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD.

MR. MASCALI:  BECAUSE THE TWO, I ASKED THE LADY, I HAVE 1,100

117

SQUARE FEET. THEY SAY I WAS BE APPROVAL. WHAT I NEED IS JUST

THE ADDITION. AND THEY MAKE ME DO THE WHOLE THING, IS FOUR

MONTHS. SO I JUST REALIZED THAT I'M A BUSINESS FOR 23 YEARS AND

I STILL GROWING. YOU GOT TO BE PROUD OF PEOPLE LIKE THIS THAT

LIVE THE AMERICAN DREAM.

HEARING MASTER:  YES. VERY GOOD.  THANK YOU, SIR.  WITH THAT,

THAT CONCLUDES REBUTTAL AND THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION. AND

STAFF, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

MR. FERNANDEZ:  THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM I7. THIS IS

A MODIFICATION TO A PD, PD 13—0123 LU. I WANT TO REMIND YOU THIS

APPLICATION WAS GOING TO BE CONTINUED BECAUSE IT'S OUT OF ORDER

FOR NOTICE, SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO THE NEXT CASE, WHICH IS

ITEM I8A. THIS IS A MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING PD, APPLICATION

NUMBER 13—0136A. AND IS A REZONING TO A PD, AND THE PD NUMBER

910045.

THIS APPLICATION IS RELATED TO THE NEXT APPLICATION THAT IS

GOING TO BE HEARD. THIS APPLICATION AB APPLICATION 130136. BOTH

LOCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY AREA.  SO IF YOU —— SINCE BOTH

APPLICATIONS ARE RELATED, IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE CAN LISTEN TO THE

APPLICANT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO MANAGE LIKE THAT OR HOW

YOU WANT TO DO IT. BECAUSE THEY ARE EXTREMELY RELATED.

HEARING MASTER:  YOU'RE ASKING ME IF WE CAN COMBINE THE TESTIMONY

OF THE APPLICANT AND APPLY IT IT TO BOTH PROJECTS.

MR. FERNANDEZ:  YES. IF YOU NEED ANY CLARIFICATION, WE WILL BE

118

ABLE TO DO SO.

HEARING MASTER:  I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT. I WOULD SUSPECT

THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO THAT EITHER.  THE

APPLICANT.

MS. JAMES:  GOOD EVENING. I'M JUDY JAMES, 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD.

I HAVE NO OBJECTION.

HEARING MASTER:  ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD.

MS. JAMES:  THIS IS A SMALL ONE—AND—A—HALF ACRE PARCEL THAT

CONSISTS OF TWO DIFFERENT FOLIOS, ONE ZONED PD AND ONE WHICH WAS

A MOBILE HOME PARK, THE OTHER ONE IS AN RDC—12.  THE PARCEL THAT

WAS ZONED FOR THE MOBILE HOME PARK WAS NEVER DEVELOPED. IT

ACTUALLY IS PART OF AN OLD ZONING CONFORMANCE CASE, AND AT THE

POINT IN TIME THAT ZONING CONFORMANCE WENT THROUGH THERE WAS NO

CONTINUITY OF OWNERSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO PARCELS. IT'S BEEN

SEPARATED OUT SINCE THAT TIME. WE'RE ASKING FOR RMC—20 TONIGHT.

MY CLIENT IS THE FLORIDA HOME PARTNERSHIP. THEY'VE BEEN

WORKING WITH THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING

DEPARTMENT, AND THE STAFF —— THE SITE'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPED

INTO TRIPLEXES FOR FAMILY WHOSE INCOME DOES NOT EXCEED 120

PERCENT OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME.

THERE'S GOING TO BE COUNTY GRANT FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR

BUILDING OF THIS PROPERTY, AND I'M GOING TO PLACE INTO THE RECORD

A LETTER FROM THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEPARTMENT JUST SAYING THAT.

AND ALSO ASKING FOR A FAST TRACK FOR PLAN APPROVAL. BUT IT

119

DOESN'T APPLY TO THE ZONING TONIGHT.

HEARING MASTER:  JUST CURIOUS, WHAT —— IF THEY WANT TO FAST

TRACK, WHAT ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT.

MS. JAMES:  THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS.

HEARING MASTER:  THE SITE DEVELOPMENT?

MS. JAMES:  YES, SIR. THE AREA IS A MIXTURE OF MULTIFAMILY

MOBILE HOMES, APARTMENTS, DUPLEXES. WE HAD NO OBJECTION FROM ANY

AGENCIES AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

HEARING MASTER:  ALL RIGHT. LET ME JUST CLARIFY: WHEN WE PUT

TOGETHER THE DOCUMENTATION FOR THIS HEARING —— AND WE HAVE HER

TESTIMONY THAT YOU'VE JUST GIVEN APPLY TO THE SECOND ITEM AS

WELL.

MS. JAMES:  YES. THE SECOND ITEM DEALS WITH THE EXISTING PD

WHICH WAS FOR FOR MOBILE HOME WHICH WAS PART OF THE OLD ZONING

CONFORMANCE. AND WE'RE SEPARATING OUT PART OF THE PARCEL,

ABOUTAN ACRE.

HEARING MASTER:  THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD. IF YOU COULD

SHOW ME. DO YOU HAVE A GRAPHIC THAT SHOWS ME THE PD AND HOW THAT

WAS ONCE AND HOW IT'S GOING TO BE?

MS. JAMES:  HEAR'S THE ORIGINAL 910045 PD. WE ARE PURCHASING

THIS PARCEL RIGHT HERE. IT'S CURRENTLY OWNED BY HABITAT FOR

HUMANITY. IT'S VACANT. IT WAS NEVER DEVELOPED AS PART OF THE

MOBILE HOME PARK.

HEARING MASTER:  IS THERE A MOBILE HOME ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF

120

IT?

MS. JAMES:  THERE ARE SOME EXISTING MOBILE HOMES IN THIS AREA.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY. AND THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH BIFURCATING

THE PD?

MS. JAMES:  I HAVE NO IDENTIFIED ANY PROBLEM.

HEARING MASTER:  ALL RIGHT. WHEN THE AGENDA SAYS IT'S 1.5 ACRES

ON THE 136 AND THEN IT'S 1.5 ON 136A, IS IT THREE ACRES TOTAL OR

——

MS. JAMES:  THERE'S AN ISSUE ABOUT THAT. THE ORIGINAL ZONING

CONFORMANCE SAID THIS AREA WAS 3 ACRES TOTAL, AND WHEN YOU ADD

THE ACREAGE FOR THIS PIECE AND THIS PIECE, RIGHT NOW IT COMES TO

FIVE ACRES ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTY AOPERATESER'S OFFICE. I

HAVE NO WAY TO VERIFY IT.  OUR PROPERTY IS 1.5 ACRES, WHICH IS

THIS PIECE, PLUS THIS SMALLER FOLIO WHICH IS THE RDC—12.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY. SO HELP ME THEN, FROM 136, WHAT'S THE

SIZE OF THAT REZONING? BECAUSE IT GOES FROM RDC AND PD TO RMC—

20. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN 1.5 ACRES THEN, I WOULD

ASSUME.  I JUST DON'T WANT ANYTHING TO COME BACK ON THIS

APPLICATION IF WE'RE NOT CITING THE RIGHT ACREAGE.

MS. JAMES:  IF YOU GIVE ME A SECOND, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GET THE

BIG FILE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

HEARING MASTER:  ALL RIGHT.

MS. JAMES:  THE PARCEL THAT WAS PART OF THE PD IS ACTUALLY 1.38

ACRES, AND THEN THIS OTHER LITTLE PIECE HERE IN THE CORNER OF THE

121

RDC—12, WHICH IS THE SEPARATE FOLIO, WOULD BE THE REMAINDER.

HEARING MASTER:  ALL RIGHT.

MR. FERNANDEZ.12.

HEARING MASTER:  1.38 AND .12.

MS. JAMES:  YES, SIR.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY. AND THAT MAKES 136 THE REZONING FROM RDC—

12 AND PD TO RMC—12 —— RMC—20 ON 1.5 ACRES TOTAL.

MS. JAMES:  THAT'S CORRECT.

HEARING MASTER:  AND THEN 136A IS RGC 12 AND PD, AND IT'S A MAJOR

MODIFICATION TO THE PD?

MS. JAMES:  THAT MAJOR MODIFICATION IS THE FACT THAT THEY WANT TO

—— WE WENT AROUND AND AROUND WITH THE COUNTY STAFF ON THIS

PROCESS. IN ORDER —— THIS ORIGINAL PD, WHICH WAS 910045, THE

1.36 WILL BE DEDUCTED FROM THAT PD H.

HEARING MASTER:  SO THE BALANCE, THE REMAINING PD H WILL ALSO

JUST COINCIDENTALLY BE 1.5 ACRES.

MS. JAMES:  I WON'T EVEN BEGIN TO TESTIFY ABOUT THAT.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY. STAFF IS APPROXIMATING THAT IT'S 1.5

ACRES. ALL RIGHT. I THINK I'VE GOT THE SCORECARD ACCURATE. 

ANYTHING ELSE?

MS. JAMES:  I DON'T THINK SO.

HEARING MASTER:  VERY GOOD. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES STAFF.

MR. FERNANDEZ:  YES. THE FIRST APPLICATION, THE MAJOR MOD 13—

122

0136 IS A COUNTER INITIATED APPLICATION. BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE

LOOKING IS TO SUBTRACT THE FOLIO NUMBER 36230 OUT OF THE PD.

IT'S CURRENTLY VACANT AND IS OWNED BY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY.

WITH THAT, WHAT WE WILL DO WITH THAT MODIFICATION IS JUST TO

CHANGE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PD. THE DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS

ARE ALREADY —— ASSISTING DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS PD ON 9104

AND FIVE ARE GOING TO REMAIN THE SAME AND THE SAME PERMITTED

USES. THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE.  THE ONLY THING WE'RE

GOING TO DO IS REMOVE THAT SECTION AND COULD BE REZONED TO RMC 20

BY THE APPLICATION 13—0136.

STAFF ANALYZED THE APPLICATION. WE DIDN'T RICHARDSON ANY

CONCERN FROM ANY OF THE COUNTY DEPARTMENTS, AND WE FIND IT

APPROVABLE, BOTH OF THEM.

HEARING MASTER:  ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. AND PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF.

MS. MILLS: YENEKA MILLS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

FIRST LET ME CORRECT FOR THE RECORD IN MY REPORT IT REFERS

TO REZONING 130136 B, AND IT SHOULD JUST BE REZONING NUMBER

130136. AND I'VE ALREADY GIVEN YOU THOSE —— CORRECTION OF THOSE

MAPS.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL 20 LAND USE

CATEGORY, THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND THE UNIVERSITY AREA

COMMUNITY PLAN. THE PROPOSED MAJOR MODIFICATION TO REMOVE

ACREAGE FROM THIS EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS ALLOWABLE

123

WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL—20 FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION. THE

REMOVAL OF THIS PARCEL WOULD RESULT IN A DENSITY THAT'S UNDER THE

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY WITHIN THIS FUTURE LAND USE

DESIGNATION.

AGAIN, THE REMOVAL IS A PROCEDURAL —— IS PROCEDURAL AND

ALLOWS THE ACCOMPANYING PROPOSED REZONING, AND BASED ON THESE

CONSIDERATIONS, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED

MAJOR MODIFICATION WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH

COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

HEARING MASTER:  OKAY. AND THEN JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE REVISED

GRAPHIC THAT YOU GAVE ME, MAJOR MODIFICATION IS —— THERE IS A

DIVIDING LINE HERE WHICH DOESN'T INCLUDE WHAT WOULD BE THE

EASTERN PORTION OF THAT SITE.  SO JUST SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR, I

THINK THIS GRAPHIC IS ALSO NOT EXACTLY A HUNDRED PERCENT CORRECT.

MS. STENMARK:  THE GRAPHIC MATCHES THE ZONING MAP, SO WE WANTED

TO HAVE THEM THE SAME. AND YOU'RE CORRECT, THERE'S A DIVIDING

LINE THAT'S GOING AWAY INTO THE OTHER —— INTO THE ZONINGS THAT'S

SUBJECT TODAY. SO THE EASTERN PORTION IS PART OF THE APPLICANT'S

ZONING.

HEARING MASTER:  THE EASTERN PORTION WOULD GO TO RMC—20.

MS. STENMARK:  YES.

HEARING MASTER:  AND THE WESTERN PORTION WOULD REMAIN AS PDH.

MS. STENMARK:  YES.

124

HEARING MASTER:  WE'RE SQUARE. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT —— I'M

SORRY.

MS. STENMARK:  MS. MILLS HAS SOME MORE TESTIMONY TO GIVE ——

HEARING MASTER:  I'M SORRY.  I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

MS. STENMARK:  —— ON 136A.

MS. MILLS:  THE PROPOSED REZONING IS GOING TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT

THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES. IT ALSO

SUPPORTS THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE UNIVERSITY AREA

COMMUNITY PLAN AS WELL AS POLICIES SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF

AFFORDABLE HOUSING FROM THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE

PLAN.

SO ALSO BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF FOUND THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF

HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS

PROPOSED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

HEARING MASTER:  VERY GOOD.  THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AT THIS POINT

IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN

SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE

APPLICATION? I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

THE APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.  THERE'S NO NEED

FOR REBUTTAL FROM THE APPLICANT.

125

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION.  AND ALSO

CONCLUDES TONIGHT'S ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. WE ARE

ADJOURNED.

126