Docstoc

CAPTIONING

Document Sample
CAPTIONING Powered By Docstoc
					                                                             1



                            CAPTIONING
                           MAY 16, 2011
                      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.



>>STEVE LUCE: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, 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 OF ALLEGIANCE]

THANK YOU ALL.

YOU MAY BE SEATED.

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

OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION TO INTRODUCE HIMSELF

AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE AT THE DAIS AND THEN TELL US IF

THERE ARE ANY CHANGES TO THIS EVENING'S AGENDA.

>>BRIAN GRADY: GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE.

AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, BRIAN GRADY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

DIVISION.

JOINING US AT THE DAIS TONIGHT ARE, TO MY LEFT, MISS SHERI

MURPHY WITH THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; AND
                                                              2



TO HER LEFT, MR. DAVID HEY WITH THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

CITY-COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION.

WE HAVE NO CHANGES ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, SO I'LL JUST GO TO

THE WITHDRAWALS AND CONTINUANCES -- THE PUBLISHED

WITHDRAWALS AND CONTINUANCES, BEGINNING ON PAGE 1 OF THE

AGENDA.

THE FIRST ITEM IS ITEM 1-A, MAJOR MOD APPLICATION 1-005 2.

THIS PETITION IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING

CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 13, 2011, ZONING HEARING MASTER

HEARING.

ITEM 1-B, MAJOR MOD APPLICATION 11-0230.

THIS PETITION IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING

CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 13, 2011, ZONING HEARING MASTER

HEARING.

ITEM 1-C, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 11-039 3, THIS PETITION

IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE

JUNE 13, 2011, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

ITEM 1-D, REZONING APPLICATION 11-0423, THE APPLICANT

REQUESTS A CONTINUANCE TO THE JULY 25, 2011, ZONING HEARING

MASTER HEARING.

ITEM 1-E, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 11-0429, THIS PETITION IS

OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE JUNE

13, 2011, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

AND ITEM 1-F, REZONING APPLICATION 11-044 2, THIS PETITION
                                                              3



IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE

ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

THAT CONCLUDES THE WITHDRAWALS AND CONTINUANCES.

>>STEVE LUCE: JUST FOR THE RECORD, MR. GRADY, I NOTICE THAT

THERE'S A SIMILAR FREEDOM VILLAGE OF SUN CITY CENTER

APPLICATION.

JUST FOR THE RECORD, THERE'S TWO ITEMS.

ONE'S BEING CONTINUED, AND ONE IS BEING HEARD?

>>BRIAN GRADY: CORRECT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I HAVE A FEW INSTRUCTIONS TO READ

INTO THE RECORD.

THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS A FEW INSTRUCTIONS TO READ

INTO THE RECORD.

THEN WE'LL GET STARTED WITH TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

THIS HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED ACCORDING TO 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, IF THE STAFF OF THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT,

AND, IF APPLICABLE, STAFF OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL

PRESENT THEIR REPORTS AND FINDINGS, AND THEY HAVE FIVE
                                                              4



MINUTES APIECE FOR THAT PURPOSE.

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

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST BUT ARE NOT CONNECTED DIRECTLY WITH

THE APPLICATION, 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.

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

ALL THE PEOPLE IN OPPOSITION, SO IF THERE'S 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'LL BE MADE NEXT.

AND BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE LAST PERSON TO SPEAK

WILL BE THE APPLICANT, WHO WILL HAVE UP TO FIVE MINUTES OF

TIME TO REBUT ANY STATEMENTS MADE IN OPPOSITION TO THE

REQUEST AND TO SUMMARIZE.

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

THERE ARE THREE SECONDS REMAINING AND WILL SOUND THREE

TIMES WHEN A SPEAKER'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.

IF IT APPEARS THAT ADDITIONAL TIME IS NEEDED FOR ANY OF THE
                                                              5



PARTIES TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATIONS, 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 AT THE END OF THE PODIUM.

AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

HE IS HOLDING UP THE PAD THAT YOU NEED TO SIGN.

THESE ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, WHICH MEANS THAT THE

DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION WILL BE BASED ON FACT-BASED

EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AND AS PRESENTED IN THE HEARING

TONIGHT.

TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL, THE 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 REGARDING ANY

APPLICATION BE GIVEN UNDER OATH, SO AT THIS TIME, TO

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

THINK THAT THEY WILL BE SUBMITTING TESTIMONY THIS EVENING.

ANYONE WHO THINKS THEY ARE GOING TO GIVE ANY TESTIMONY,
                                                              6



PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND TAKE THE OATH.

DO YOU SWEAR THAT ANY TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE THIS EVENING

WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE

TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD?

THANK YOU.

YOU MAY BE SEATED.

THE FIRST GROUP OF APPLICATIONS TO BE HEARD TONIGHT ARE THE

SPECIAL USES.

FOR THE SPECIAL USES, TONIGHT'S HEARING IS THE ONLY HEARING

ON THE PETITION.

AS THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER, I WILL RENDER A DECISION

ON THOSE APPLICATIONS.

THE DECISION WILL BE FILED WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE WITHIN

15 WORKING DAYS OF THIS HEARING.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WILL

NOW PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THAT PROCESS.

>>SHERI MURPHY: THANK YOU, MR. HEARING OFFICER.

SHERI MURPHY, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

TONIGHT'S HEARING IS A TIME FOR ALL CITIZENS TO PRESENT

TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE.

THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED TONIGHT WILL BECOME

THE COMPLETE FACTUAL RECORD OF YOUR CASE.

THIS MEANS THAT, AT THE END OF TONIGHT'S HEARINGS ON YOUR

PETITION, THE RECORD WILL CLOSE, AND NO NEW EVIDENCE MAY BE
                                                               7



SUBMITTED HEREAFTER.

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 COUNTY, THE PERSON APPEALING THE

DECISION, AND ANY PERSON WHO MAY LEGALLY INTERVENE, EACH OF

WHOM MAY BE REPRESENTED BY LEGAL COUNSEL.

ONLY THE FOLLOWING PERSONS OR ENTITIES SHALL HAVE STANDING

TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER OR TO LEGALLY

INTERVENE:   FIRST, THE APPLICANT; SECOND, ANY PERSON WHO IS

HERE TONIGHT AND PRESENTS EITHER DOCUMENTARY OR ORAL

TESTIMONY; OR THIRD, ANY PERSON WHO SUBMITS EVIDENCE

THEMSELVES OR THROUGH ANOTHER PERSON PRIOR TO OR DURING

TONIGHT'S HEARING, AND EACH OF WHOM MUST BE ADVERSELY

AFFECTED BY THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, MR. GRADY, WE'RE READY TO INTRODUCE

THE FIRST ITEM.

>>BRIAN GRADY: THE FIRST ITEM IS ON PAGE 2 OF THE AGENDA,

AGENDA ITEM 2, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 11-0329.
                                                              8



THE APPLICANT IS FLORIDA TOWER PARTNERS.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A CELLULAR

COMMUNICATION TOWER.

ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER

PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>> GOOD EVENING.

LAURALEE WESTINE, PALM HARBOR.

I HAVE BEEN SWORN.

I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF FLORIDA TOWER PARTNERS AND T-MOBILE

THIS EVENING.

I AM BEFORE YOU WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH

CONDITIONS, A STAFF RECOMMEND FINDING OF CONSISTENT, AND NO

WETLAND FINDING FROM EPC.

AS TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, NUMBER 6 WAS COMPLETED ON

FEBRUARY 16, 2011, AND THAT DATE STAMPED PACKAGE IS WITHIN

THE DUPLICATE PACKAGE THAT I PROVIDED TO THE CLERK.

ANY MATERIAL THAT I REFERENCED THIS EVENING WILL BE -- HAS

BEEN PROVIDED WITH THAT DUPLICATE PACKAGE.

AS TO CONDITION 7, BOTH FAA AND HCA APPROVALS HAVE BEEN

RECEIVED, THE FIRST ON 12/27/10; THE SECOND ON JANUARY 6,

2011.

I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH STAFF AS TO CONDITION 1.

THE HEIGHT OF 180 SHOULD ACTUALLY BE REVISED TO BE A TOTAL

HEIGHT OF 190.
                                                              9



THE TOP OF TOWER IS 180, BUT THERE IS A TEN-FOOT LIGHTNING

ROD.

ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE THE PLANS WERE CLEAR, I WOULD JUST ALSO,

IN ALL CAUTION, WANT THE CONDITION REVISED AS WELL.

JUST FOR -- SO THE ATTORNEY DOESN'T GET NERVOUS ON ME, I DO

HAVE WHAT WE ADVERTISED, AND WE DID NOT ADVERTISE A

SPECIFIC HEIGHT, SO IT READS AS FOLLOWS:   SPECIAL USE FOR

WIRELESS COMMUNICATION AND FACILITY WITH CAMOUFLAGE WAIVER

AND LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH MODIFICATION.

SO WE DID NOT SPECIFY HEIGHT FOR THAT.

WE DID NOTIFY THE PROPER RADIUS.

I'LL GO OVER TO THE ELMO AT THE END OF THIS PRESENTATION.

WE ARE PROPOSING A PARCEL ZONED AS-1, AND IT CONSISTS OF

JUST UNDER 30   ACRES.

IT'S CURRENTLY DEVELOPED IN AN AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL

MANNER.

FTP'S LEASE AREA CONSISTS OF A 70-BY-70 LEASE AREA WITH A

TEN-FOOT LANDSCAPE EASEMENT OUTSIDE OF THAT.

THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SOUTH HAD REQUESTED THAT,

ALTHOUGH WE ORIGINALLY STARTED 9 4 FEET FROM THE SOUTH

PROPERTY LINE, SHE REQUESTED WE RELOCATE THE TOWER 100% OR

THAT WHOLE 180 FEET AWAY FROM HER PROPERTY LINE, AND WE DID

REVISE THE SITE PLAN AND DID COMPLY WITH THAT.

THOSE PLANS ARE IN YOUR PACKAGE, AND THOSE ARE THE PLANS
                                                             10



DATED 4/28/11.

WE DID, AS I STATED IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, EXCEED THE

REQUIRED 64 FEET.

WE ACTUALLY, AT THAT POINT, WERE PROPOSING 95.

AT THIS POINT, WE ARE AT 180.

THE REQUIRED SETBACK IN 6.11.29 IS ONE-THIRD THE TOWER

HEIGHT FROM RESIDENTIAL, WHICH, AS I SAID EARLIER, WAS 64

FEET.

TO THE NORTH WE'RE 460.

TO THE SOUTH WE'RE 180.

TO THE EAST WE'RE 180, AND TO THE WEST WE'RE 1775.

WE HAVE ALSO PROPOSED A 50-FOOT COLLAPSE POINT OR HINGE IN

THIS POWER.

AS YOU ARE AWARE, THERE ARE CERTAIN TYPES OF TOWERS

PRESUMED COMPATIBLE WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

IN THE AS-1 DISTRICT, IT WOULD BE EITHER A TREE, A BELL

TOWER, OR A CLOCK TOWER; HOWEVER, THE CODE DOES ALLOW FOR

YOU TO PROVIDE FOR A CAMOUFLAGE WAIVER, PROVIDED THAT ONE

OF THOSE WOULD BE -- AND I'LL READ THE LANGUAGE -- MORE

VISIBLY OBTRUSIVE AND PRESENT A WIDER PROFILE, ATTRACTING

MORE ATTENTION.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE ARE PRESENTING A FLUSH-MOUNTED

MONOPOLE WHERE THE A ANTENNAS ARE ACTUALLY LOCATED FLUSH UP

OR CLOSELY MOUNTED TO THE POLE.
                                                             11



ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IS THE ACTUAL COAX OF THE CABLES BE

ALSO LOCATED INSIDE THE POLE.

THE IDEA OF A 190-FOOT TREE TOWER OR BELL TOWER OR CLOCK

TOWER, I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU, WOULD PRESENT A MUCH WIDER

PROFILE THAN JUST THE POLE AND THE ANTENNAS CLOSELY MOUNTED

TO THE POLE.

WE ARE A GROUP 5.

THIS TOWER REQUIRES A 20-FOOT TYPE B BUFFER.

WE ARE SURROUNDED BY AS-1 AND RSC-2 TO THE NORTH AND AS-1

TO THE WEST, AR AND PD-MU TO THE EAST, AND AS-1 TO THE

SOUTH.

WE'RE PROVIDING A SIX-FOOT SOLID FENCE SURROUNDING THE

COMPOUND.

WE ARE REQUESTING A REDUCTION IN THE WIDTH OF THE LANDSCAPE

BUFFER.

WE INTEND TO PROVIDE ALL THE MATERIAL, BUT WE WOULD REQUEST

THAT THAT BUFFER BE REDUCED FROM 20 FEET TO 10 FEET.

WHAT THAT DOES IS IT ALLOWS US TO PLACE -- THIS POLE IS

DESIGNED TO CARRY FIVE CARRIERS, AND IT ALLOWS US TO PUT

ALL FIVE CARRIERS WITHIN THE COMPOUND AS IT'S ORIGINALLY

BUILT OUT.

THAT'S ON PAGE Z-2 OF THE PLANS THAT ARE PROVIDED.

ADDITIONALLY, T-MOBILE PROVIDED MATERIAL AS WELL AS AN

AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL TOWERS WITHIN
                                                             12



THE AREA ON WHICH T-MOBILE CAN COLLOCATE ITS ANTENNAS.

YOU MAIZE NOTICE I JUST INTRODUCED MYSELF THIS EVENING.

MR. SPARKS, WHO IS USUALLY WITH ME, IS HOME SICK TONIGHT.

BUT I DO BELIEVE BASED ON HIS AFFIDAVIT THAT WAS PRESENTED

TO STAFF AND BASED UPON THE PROPAGATION STUDIES AND THE

OTHER LETTER WE PROVIDED THAT WE HAVE MET OUR BURDEN OF

PROVIDING THAT THERE IS A NEED WITHIN THIS AREA.

WE PROVIDED -- AS I STATED EARLIER, WE PROVIDED AN

AFFIDAVIT STATING [INDISCERNIBLE] WOULD ALLOW COLLOCATION

TO THE CLERK ON FEBRUARY 16.

WE WILL ACCOMMODATE, IN ADDITION TO T-MOBILE, FOUR OTHER

CARRIERS, AND WE HAVE SENT OUT THOSE COLLOCATION LETTERS,

AS WE DO TO ALL THE CARRIERS IN THE MARKET, TO LET THEM

KNOW THAT THIS WILL POTENTIALLY BE AVAILABLE.

WE DID RECEIVE TWO CALLS ON THIS MATTER, ONE FROM THE

PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SOUTH WHO REQUESTED THAT WE MOVE THE

TOWER FURTHER NORTH, AND WE DID COMPLY WITH THAT AND

SUBMITTED REVISED PLANS.

THE SECOND WAS FROM THE MASTER ASSOCIATION MANAGER FROM SUN

CITY CENTER WEST MASTER ASSOCIATION KINGS POINT, INC.

HER NAME WAS DANA PHILLIPS, AND SHE ASKED SEVERAL

QUESTIONS.

WE WERE ABLE TO ANSWER THEM, AND SHE SAID SHE DID NOT

BELIEVE THEY WOULD BE AFFECTED.
                                                             13



I DON'T KNOW WHETHER SHE'S HERE THIS EVENING OR NOT, BUT

I'D LIKE TO AT LEAST LET YOU KNOW WHO I HEARD FROM.

WITH THAT SAID, OTHER THAN POPPING OVER TO THE ELMO AND

SHOWING A FEW THINGS VISUALLY, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST

YOUR APPROVAL OF THIS MATTER UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS

FOR ME.

>>STEVE LUCE: IF YOU COULD, JUST FOR THE RECORD, NORMALLY

THE CELL TOWER HEIGHTS I'VE SEEN ARE IN 100, 150 HEIGHT.

WHAT'S THE JUSTIFICATION FOR 190 FEET HEIGHT?

>> IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA -- AND LET ME SHOW YOU AN

AERIAL -- IF YOU'D LET ME DO THIS FIRST, IF I CAN HAVE

THIS.

THIS IS THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY MR. SPARKS STATING THAT

THERE ARE NO EXISTING OR APPROVED STRUCTURES OUT IN THE

SEARCH AREA THAT T-MOBILE CAN COLLOCATE ON.

THIS IS THE LETTER THAT STATES THAT WE COMPLY WITH -- I'M

SORRY.

THIS IS THE LETTER THAT STATES WE HAVE A DEMAND AND NEED IN

THIS AREA.

AND THIS IS THE EXISTING COVERAGE MAP.

THE GREEN THAT YOU'LL NOTE IS THE ACTUAL COVERAGE THAT'S

PROVIDED, AND YOU'LL NOTE WHERE THERE'S NO GREEN OR NO

GREEN OVERLAY, THAT'S WHERE THERE'S NO COVERAGE.

WHAT YOU CAN SEE IS THAT THERE JUST SIMPLY AREN'T ANY
                                                            14



TOWERS OUT IN THAT AREA.

AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST, GETTING MORE HEIGHT WILL

GIVE YOU ADDITIONAL COVERAGE, BUT IN THIS TYPE OF AREA,

WITH THE SPARSENESS THAT THEY HAVE OUT THERE, THAT'S THE

BASIS FOR THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.

GENERALLY IN TOWN, YOU'LL SEE THE 120 OR THE 130, BUT IN

THIS CASE, WE NEEDED THE HEIGHT TO MAKE THOSE SITES BE ABLE

TO TALK TO EACH OTHER.

PUTTING ON THE ELMO NOW, JUST SO THE ATTORNEY KNOWS I AM

NOT MAKING THINGS UP, WE DID NOT SPECIFY HEIGHT IN THERE.

SHOWING AN AERIAL OF THE SITE.

THIS IS A CLOSE-UP.

THIS IS APPROXIMATELY THE SITE.

IT WILL BE LOCATED 180 FEET FROM THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY

LINE.

THIS IS JUST A FURTHER-OUT AERIAL, AND I THINK THAT ALSO

GIVES YOU A BETTER IDEA OF JUST HOW RURAL THIS AREA IS.

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THIS IS AN EXISTING FLUSH-MOUNTED

TOWER.

YOU CAN SEE THE TWO SETS OF ANTENNAS THAT ARE YOU

COLLOCATED UP AT THE TOP, RELATIVELY CLOSE AND SLIMLY

MOUNTED TO THE TOWER.

WITH THAT SAID, IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF ME, I

WOULD SIMPLY ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL.
                                                             15



>>STEVE LUCE: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

OKAY.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT:    GOOD EVENING.

ISABELLE ALBERT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THIS REQUEST IS TO DEVELOP A FLUSH-MOUNTED MONOPOLE

WIRELESS COMMUNICATION TOWER WITH A HEIGHT OF 190 FEET,

INCLUDING -- WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE TEN-FOOT LIGHTNING

ROD.

AND THE REQUEST ALSO INCLUDED A WAIVER TO THE BUFFER

REQUIREMENT FROM 10 FEET TO -- FROM 20 FEET TO 10 FEET,

WHICH STAFF HAS NO OBJECTIONS TO IT.

AND THE SURROUNDING AREA IS MOSTLY RESIDENTIAL AND LARGE

SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS.

THE SITE WILL BE ACCESSED BY 36th STREET, WHICH IS

CURRENTLY UNIMPROVED BUT WOULD HAVE TO BE IMPROVED UPON

DEVELOPMENT OF THIS TOWER.

AND THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS, AND WE

HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THE CLARIFICATION WITH -- IN

CONDITION NUMBER 1, WHERE IT WOULD BE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 1

THE 0 FEET -- 190 FEET, INCLUDING A 10-FOOT LIGHTNING ROD.

I AM HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU.
                                                             16



PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

>>DAVID HEY:   THANK YOU, MR. HEARING OFFICER.

DAVID HEY, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN TWO LAND USE CATEGORIES, THE

RESIDENTIAL-1 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY AND THE RESIDENTIAL-

2 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY.

THE SITE IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN TWO COMMUNITY PLANNING

AREAS, THE RUSKIN COMMUNITY PLAN AND THE SOUTHSHORE

AREAWIDE SYSTEMS PLAN.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT

SETBACKS TO THE NORTH AND WEST, AND THE SITE'S PROXIMITY TO

A STATE RECREATION AREA TO THE EAST MINIMIZE THE IMPACTS OF

THE PROPOSED TOWER TO ADJACENT USES.

THE PARCEL TO THE SOUTH INCLUDES A DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY

RESIDENCE.

THE RESIDENCE IS OVER A HUNDRED FEET FROM THE NORTHERN

PROPERTY LINE, PROVIDING GREATER SEPARATION AND INCLUDES

NUMEROUS TREES THAT WOULD PROVIDE SCREENING TO THE PROPOSED

TOWER.

DUE TO THE SIGNIFICANT BUFFERING AND NATURAL SCREENING,

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF SUPPORTS THE WAIVER TO THE

LANDSCAPE BUFFER.

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL TEN FEET IN HEIGHT

FOR THE LIGHTNING ROD WOULD NOT ALTER PLANNING COMMISSION'S
                                                             17



CONSISTENCY FINDING DUE TO THE LARGE SETBACKS PROVIDED AND

THE PROPOSED HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE.

AND BASED ON THOSE CONDITIONS AND THE LISTED OBJECTIVES AND

POLICIES WITHIN THE REPORT PROVIDED TO YOU, THE PLANNING

COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE CONSISTENT

WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT

TO THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

DEPARTMENT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

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

WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE

APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

APPLICANT, OPPORTUNITY FOR FINAL COMMENT.

>> [OFF MICROPHONE]

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

APPLICANT WAIVES REBUTTAL.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION.

MR. GRADY, WE ARE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 3, SPECIAL USE
                                                             18



APPLICATION 11-0398.

THE APPLICANT IS BRANDON COMMUNITY ADVANTAGE CENTER,

INCORPORATED.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR DISTANCE

SEPARATION WAIVERS FOR AN 11-C ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER

PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE.

MARSHAL RAINY, 201 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 3200,

TAMPA, HERE ON BEHALF OF THE BRANDON COMMUNITY ADVANTAGE

CENTER, INC.

THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A WET ZONING APPROVAL UNDER THE

11-C(4) OF THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THE VENUE IS A MULTIPURPOSE FACILITY THAT HAS A SPECIAL

FUNCTION, AND IT'S A SPECIAL FUNCTION, AN EVENT HALL,

ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMBINED USE WITH HCC CLASSROOMS AND

OTHER COMMUNITY SPACE THERE.

THE -- WE ARE REQUESTING THIS SPECIAL USE DESIGNATION

TOGETHER WITH THE VARIANCE OF THE 150-FOOT REQUIREMENT ON

THE RESIDENTIAL SITINGS.

WE HAVE A 61-FEET IS THE BUFFER.
                                                             19



THERE WILL BE A ROAD AND BUFFERING AND LANDSCAPE BETWEEN

THE ACTUAL COMMUNITY CENTER AND THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS WHEN

THEY'RE ULTIMATELY DEVELOPED.

WE ARE ALSO REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE 500 FEET FROM A

PUBLIC SCHOOL.

IF YOU CARE TO HAVE ME PUT THIS ON THE ELMO, I CAN

DEMONSTRATE THERE'S A -- THERE'S AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

LOCATED TO THE NORTHEAST OF THE SITE, BUT IT'S BUFFERED BY

WATSON ROAD, AND THEN THERE'S A VEGETATIVE AREA IN THE

SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SCHOOL SITE THAT WOULD SCREEN THIS,

PLUS THE EVENTS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE SUBJECT TO

ALCOHOLIC USES WOULD BE EVENING/WEEKENDS, NOT DURING SCHOOL

HOURS.

SO I BELIEVE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED THIS.

WE'VE RECEIVED NO OBJECTIONS.

I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE RECEIVED AN OBJECTION FROM THE SCHOOL

BOARD EITHER.

SO AT THIS POINT, IF I CAN PUT THIS ON THE ELMO.

>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH, IF YOU'VE GOT AN EXHIBIT THAT SHOWS THE

LOCATION OF YOUR FACILITY IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE SCHOOL.

>> YES.

I'VE GOT A LARGER PICTURE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> [OFF MICROPHONE]
                                                            20



>>BRIAN GRADY: SIR, YOU NEED TO BE ON THE MICROPHONE.

>> THERE.

 -- LOCATED HERE IN A PIE-SHAPED PARCEL IN THE SOUTHEAST

CORNER OF THE WINTHROP DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS THE ACTUAL AREA THAT WE'RE REQUESTING THE SPECIAL

ZONING FOR.

THERE'S A ROAD, A PERIMETER ROAD, THAT WOULD ULTIMATELY RUN

ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY.

THESE ARE PLATTED RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN

DEVELOPED HERE TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY.

WE'RE ASKING -- WE'RE SEEKING A VARIANCE OF 39 FEET BECAUSE

WE ONLY HAVE 61 FEET OF BUFFER THERE.

I'M SORRY.

THAT WOULD BE 89 FEET BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE 61 FEET OF

BUFFER HERE.

YOU'LL ALSO NOTE ON THE 500-FOOT CIRCUMFERENCE, THERE IS

ACTUALLY AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ON THIS SITE, BUT THIS

SOUTHWEST CORNER IS A VEGETATED SITE, AND THAT'S WHY I

BELIEVE STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BECAUSE WE'VE GOT

THE BUFFER THERE FROM THE VEGETATION AS WELL AS THE FACT

THAT WATSON ROAD RUNS ALONG HERE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE

PROPERTY.

SO WE'D BE SEEKING A VARIANCE OF ABOUT 250 -- 248 FEET ON

THAT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT.
                                                             21



WITH THAT, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE APPROVAL OF

THE REZONING FOR THIS CENTER.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.

I'LL JUST NEED TO HEAR SOME TESTIMONY FROM STAFF.

>> I'LL STEP ASIDE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT:    GOOD EVENING.

ISABELLE ALBERT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THE REQUEST IS FOR AN 1-C FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT TO

ALLOW BEER, WINE, AND LIQUOR FOR SALE AND CONSUMPTION ON

THE LICENSED PREMISES FOR WEDDING AND SPECIAL OCCASION

RECEPTION HALL.

THE PETITIONER INTENDS TO OCCUPY THE 16,436-SQUARE-FOOT

SITE FOR THE BRANDON COMMUNITY CENTER.

THIS REQUEST WILL NEED A WAIVER TO REQUIREMENT THAT THERE

BE NO RESIDENTIAL USE WITHIN 150 FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE,

AND A RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTY LIES 61 FEET JUST TO THE

NORTH OF THE SITE.

THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A WAIVER OF 89 FEET

TO THE SPECIFIC DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENT FROM

RESIDENTIAL USE.

THEY ARE ALSO REQUESTING WAIVERS TO COMMUNITY USE WITHIN

500 FEET.
                                                             22



IN THIS CASE, A SYMMES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LIES 252 FEET EAST

OF THE SITE.

THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A WAIVER 248 FEET

FROM SPECIFIC DISTANCE SEPARATION FOR THE COMMUNITY USE.

NO AGENCIES OBJECTED TO THIS REVIEW.

THE SITE IS FOR THE BRANDON COMMUNITY CENTER, WHICH HAS A

RECEPTION AREA FOR HOLDING SPECIAL EVENTS.

IT ALSO -- THE CENTER ITSELF ALSO HAS SPACES RENTED OUT TO

THE HILLSBOROUGH COMMUNITY COLLEGE.

THE SITE WELL SEPARATED FROM THE SCHOOL BY EXISTING BUFFER

AND VEGETATION AND A ROAD, AND THEREFORE, A DIRECT WALKING

ROUTE FROM THE SCHOOL TO THE SUBJECT SITE IS IMPOSSIBLE.

THE BUILDING ENTRANCE IS ALSO LOCATED AWAY FROM THE SCHOOL.

THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT YET

BUILT; HOWEVER, FOR THE CONCEPT PLAN ILLUSTRATED --

ILLUSTRATED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT BUFFERING WITH THE

FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF [INDISCERNIBLE] AND LANDSCAPING.

STAFF DOES FIND THIS REQUEST APPROVABLE FOR A WET ZONING

THAT WAS INDICATED ON THE WET ZONE SURVEY.

I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: JUST FOR THE RECORD, MS. ALBERT, IF YOU HAVE

A COPY OF THE UNDERLYING PD ZONING CONDITIONS, MAYBE YOU

CAN MAKE THAT AVAILABLE TO ME, EITHER TONIGHT OR IN OPTIX

>>ISABELLE ALBERT:   I'D HAVE TO LOOK IN THE FILE.
                                                            23



I DON'T HAVE THEM WITH ME.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

BECAUSE I TRIED TO LOOK THEM UP ON OPTIX, AND I COULD NOT

GET ACCESS TO THEM.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT:    OKAY.

I'LL LOOK IN THE FILE.

IF NOT, I CAN RUN UPSTAIRS AND GET THOSE FOR YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: OR AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING, WE CAN PUT

THEM OUT THERE ON OPTIX SO WE CAN ALL LOOK AT THEM.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT:    SURE.

>>STEVE LUCE: 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 RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE

APPLICATION?

SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

APPLICANT, OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL, FINAL COMMENT?

NO FINAL COMMENT?

ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION.
                                                             24



MR. GRADY, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

>>STEVE LUCE: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 4, SPECIAL USE

APPLICATION 11-040 1.

THE APPLICANT IS BERMIE O'BRIEN.

THE REQUEST IS FOR --

>> EXCUSE ME, SIR, CAN YOU PLEASE SIGN IN?

EXCUSE ME, SIR, CAN YOU PLEASE SIGN IN?

>>BRIAN GRADY: SIR, YOU NEED TO SIGN IN WITH THE ...

ONCE AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, NEXT ITEM IS SPECIAL USE

APPLICATION 11-001.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR DISTANCE

SEPARATION WAIVERS FOR A 4-COP-X ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT.

SUSAN MARINER WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER

PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>> MR. HEARING OFFICER, STAFF, MY NAME IS TODD PRESSMAN, PO

BOX 66015 IN PALM HARBOR, FLORIDA.

IF WE COULD GO TO THE OVERHEAD, PLEASE.

>>STEVE LUCE: SURE.

>> OH, I HAVE TO PUSH THE COMPUTER -- THERE WE GO.

MR. HEARING OFFICER, WE ARE HERE FOR SU-11-0401, WHICH IS A

4-COP-X.

REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE DISTANCE SEPARATION.

THE WAIVER IS REQUESTED FROM THE FOLLOWING TO A

RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY LOCATED 159 FEET SOUTH OF THE
                                                             25



SITE, A 250 FOOT SEPARATION IS REQUIRED, SO IT'S A DISTANCE

WAIVER OF 91 FEET.

THIS IS A -- THE ESTABLISHMENT IS O'BRIEN'S IRISH PUB AND

GRILL, HOME OF IRISH HOSPITALITY, AND I'M HERE TODAY WITH

MR. BERMIE O'BRIEN AND THERESA BRENNAN, WHO ARE PARTNERS IN

THE ESTABLISHMENT.

THIS IS THE SHOPPING CENTER THAT THE SITE IS LOCATED IN.

THIS IS DALE MABRY.

WE ARE ACTUALLY LOOKING SOUTHWARD.

THIS IS LOOKING SOUTH IN THIS DIRECTION.

AND YOU HAVE A SURVEY WHICH SHOWS YOU THAT WHAT'S PROPOSED

IS THE LAST UNIT AND AN OUTDOOR AREA.

THAT'S JUST A BLOW-UP OF IT.

THAT'S ON YOUR SITE SURVEY.

THE SITE IS LOCATED HERE.

THE MEASUREMENT BY SURVEY IS 159 FEET FROM A LITTLE BIT OF

THE OUTDOOR AREA TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

BUT IN REALITY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT DISTANCE SEPARATIONS, REAL

DISTANCE SEPARATIONS -- AND I'LL QUALIFY THESE ARE GOOGLE

MEASUREMENTS AND A LITTLE BIT ESTIMATED BECAUSE I HAD TO

ESTIMATE WITH THE BUILDING OVERHANG -- THAT THE CLOSEST

BUILDING IS 246, MORE OR LESS, 277 HERE, 327 HERE.

THE SHOPPING CENTER IS A LONG-TERM, EXISTING IN THE AREA,

HAS A LOT OF COMMERCIAL USES, AND IS OBVIOUSLY FULLY
                                                             26



CAPABLE OF MAINTAINING AND CONTAINING USE OF THIS BASIS.

ZOOMING IN, LOOK AT THE MITIGATION ELEMENTS, NUMBER ONE,

YOU HAVE A VERY THICK TREE BUFFER LYING HERE BETWEEN THE

TWO USES.

YOU ALSO HAVE A BUILDING BUFFER.

THIS IS, OBVIOUSLY, A SITE THAT WILL BE DEVELOPED AT SOME

TIME.

I CAN'T STAND HERE AND TELL YOU IT WILL BE DEVELOPED

TOMORROW, BUT IT IS A COMMERCIAL SITE.

IT'S PART OF THE PD AND WILL BE DEVELOPED.

ALONG WITH THE TREE BUFFER, I'LL SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES,

YOU ALSO HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL WALL BUFFER THAT RUNS ALONG

HERE AS WELL.

YOU ALSO SEE -- I'LL SHOW YOU AS WELL THAT THEY ALSO DO A

VINYL FENCING AROUND THE USE AS IT IS NEXT TO THE INTERIOR

UNIT.

THIS IS ON THE GROUND.

THIS WOULD BE THE UNIT HERE.

YOU CAN SEE THE SUBSTANTIAL WOOD BUFFER HERE, AGAIN, JUST

LOOKING A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN THAT BUFFER.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS THE SITE THAT IS BUILDABLE IN FUTURE,

AND THIS IS THE BUFFER BETWEEN THE TWO USES.

AND YOU'LL SEE THE WALL HERE, AND AGAIN, THIS IS LOOKING

ALONG THIS SAME BUFFER.
                                                             27



RESIDENTIAL ON THE OTHER SIDE.

THE UNIT WOULD BE LOCATED FURTHER OFF SCREEN FROM THIS

POINT HERE.

I WANTED TO GIVE YOU A GOOD LOOK AT THAT BUFFER, THE WALL,

AND THE TREES THAT ARE BETWEEN THE TWO.

THIS IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL.

I JUST DROVE AROUND, TOOK A QUICK SHOT.

YOU CAN SEE AGAIN THERE'S A WALL STRUCTURE AND SUBSTANTIAL

TREES AND VEGETATION.

>>STEVE LUCE: IF YOU COULD JUST ELABORATE, YOU DROVE AROUND

AND YOU ARE INSIDE THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOOKING

NORTH?

>> CORRECT.

THAT'S CORRECT.

THEN LOOKING NORTH AND SHOT THAT QUICK PICTURE THERE.

AGAIN, FOR ORIENTATION PURPOSES, I WAS SOMEWHERE BACK HERE

AND SHOWED YOU HOW THAT BUFFER LOOKED FROM INSIDE.

THIS OUTDOOR AREA DOES NOT HAVE ITS OWN ACCESS POINT.

THE ACCESS IS ONLY THROUGH THE INTERIOR UNIT.

NOW, BERMIE O'BRIEN'S HAD A LOCATION ON DALE MABRY FOR

QUITE A NUMBER OF YEARS.

THEY ARE MOVING TO THIS LOCATION.

THEY HAVE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

I WILL GO THROUGH THAT WITH YOU.
                                                            28



WITH THE SITE PROPOSED, THERE IS ALSO THIS VINYL FENCING

WHICH SERVES AS A FIRM ESTABLISHMENT BARRIER AROUND THE

USE.

O'BRIEN'S IRISH PUB, AS I SHOW YOU, HAS A GREAT BUSINESS

HISTORY.

THE MOTIF OF THEIR STYLE IS IRISH HOSPITALITY.

THEY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT MENU FROM PUB SNACKS AND APPETIZERS

AND SALADS, JUMBO WINGS, TO FULL DINNERS.

THEY HAVE A VERY LARGE KITCHEN.

THEY DO A LOT OF FOOD SERVICE.

THAT'S PART OF THEIR ESTABLISHMENT.

THEY HAVE MUM'S SHEPHERD'S PIE, WHICH IS QUITE GOOD, I

MIGHT ADD, AND THEN THEY MOVE INTO ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF

FOOD AND SPECIALTIES.

SO O'BRIEN HAS BEEN FOR TEN YEARS AT THAT OPERATING

LOCATION.

THEY ARE IN HILLSBOROUGH FOR 20.

THEY ARE RELOCATE TO GO THIS SITE.

THEY HAVE A GREAT PROVEN BUSINESS, ALCOHOL SALES.

THEIR OPERATION FOR ALCOHOL SALES IS AWARD WINNING FROM

SHERIFF GEE'S OFFICE.

THEY ALWAYS HAVE [INAUDIBLE]

THOSE WILL BE TWO TO THREE PERSONS.

A LOT OF THEM ARE WORKING FIREMEN WHO PROVIDE SECURITY.
                                                             29



THEY ARE ALL -- THE BUSINESS IS A PARTICIPANT OF THE STATE-

SANCTIONED RESPONSIBLE VENDOR PROGRAM, WHICH IS A ALCOHOL

SERVING VENDOR PROGRAM BY THE STATE WHICH THAT COMPANY IS

SANCTIONED BY THE STATE TO PROVIDE EDUCATION, TEACHING OF

EMPLOYEES, POLICIES TO OWNERS, HOW TO RUN A BAR, HOW TO

MAKE SURE YOUR ALCOHOL LICENSE IS FOLLOWING ITS PARAMETERS.

SO ALL THEIR EMPLOYEES ARE WELL TRAINED.

THEY ALL FOLLOW, AGAIN, THE STATE SANCTIONED PROGRAM, A

RESPONSIBLE VENDOR AT ALL THEIR LOCATIONS.

THEY HAVE AN OUTSTANDING HISTORY OF THIS TYPE OF SERVICE.

AS I MENTIONED TO YOU BEFORE, ACCESS TO THE PATIO IS

THROUGH THE INTERIOR ONLY, AND ON THE PATIO WILL ALSO BE

FULL-SERVICE FOOD ALONG WITH THE OTHER ITEMS.

WE HAVE ONE ITEM IN TERMS OF CONDITIONS.

THE CONDITION NOTES ASKING FOR QUIET, OUTDOOR MUSIC IS

OKAY, BUT WE'D LIKE TO ASK YOUR CONSIDERATION OF TWO

THINGS.

ONE, ALONG WITH THE VERY QUIET MUSIC, ALSO ALLOW A SINGLE

ENTERTAINER WITH A NONELECTRIC GUITAR.

WE FELT THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH IN LINE WITH WHAT'S PROPOSED.

AND WE DO WANT TO ASK FOR ONE DAY, ONE TIME A YEAR, OUTDOOR

EVENT ON ST. PATRICK'S DAY, WHICH FOR ONE DAY WOULD BE LIVE

MUSIC OUTSIDE, LIVE BAND, THAT SORT OF THING.

WE CONSIDER THAT TO BE SIMILAR TO A NEIGHBOR HAVING ONE
                                                             30



PARTY A YEAR.

BUT OBVIOUSLY, BEING O'BRIEN'S, ST. PATRICK'S DAY IS AN

IMPORTANT DAY FOR THEM, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOUR

CONSIDERATION FOR THAT AS WELL.

WE HAVE SOME FOLKS HERE TO SPEAK.

THAT WILL CONCLUDE MY COMMENTS.

I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU IF I MAY.

>>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>>STEVE LUCE: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.

MR. PRESSMAN, THESE FOLKS WANT TO SPEAK AS PART OF THE

APPLICATION OR --

>> THEY'LL SPEAK IN SUPPORT, SIR.

>>STEVE LUCE: IN SUPPORT?

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

>>SUSAN MARINER:    SUSAN MARINER, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE DISTANCE SEPARATION WAIVER

FOR 4-COP-X ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND THE

WAIVER'S REQUESTED FROM THE RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY

LOCATED 159 FEET SOUTH OF THE SITE, A 250-FOOT SEPARATION

IS REQUIRED, AND A DISTANCE WAIVER OF 91 FEET IS REQUESTED.
                                                             31



A 4-COP PERMIT ALLOWS FOR THE SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF BEER,

WINE, AND LIQUOR ON THE PERMITTED PREMISES ONLY.

THE USE IS FOR A 5,761-SQUARE-FOOT RESTAURANT THAT INCLUDES

A 1,485-FOOT SOUTH SIDE PATIO AREA.

I AM NOT GOING TO REPEAT THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATIONS.

HE CITED ALL OF THOSE.

STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED WET ZONING COMPARABLE WITH THE

CHARACTER OF THE COMMERCIAL CENTER AND POSES MINIMAL

ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE SURROUNDING AREA BEYOND THOSE

ALREADY PRESENTED BY THE NEIGHBORING COMMERCIAL USES.

BASED ON THE WET ZONE SURVEY SUBMITTED ON MARCH 16, 2011,

AND THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WAIVER, STAFF

FINDS THE JUSTIFICATION SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE REQUEST,

SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT NO LIVE MUSIC SHALL BE

PERMITTED ON THE PATIO WITH ONLY SMALL SPEAKERS SHOULD BE

PERMITTED ON THE PATIO.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANT HAS SHARED WITH YOU HIS

PROPOSED TWO ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS.

>>SUSAN MARINER:   I DIDN'T SEE THOSE, NO.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.
                                                             32



THANK YOU.

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

WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

YES, SIR.

>> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS SAM GREENWOOD.

I LIVE AT 4117 CYPRESS BAYOU DRIVE, TAMPA, FLORIDA, 33618.

I LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE OLD O'BRIEN'S IRISH PUB.

I'VE GONE TO O'BRIEN'S FOR 18 YEARS.

I FIND THE OWNERSHIP UNDERSTANDING, RESPECTFUL, AND A GOOD

NEIGHBOR.

I APPLAUD THEIR EFFORTS TO TAKE ON GOOD AND DESERVING

CAUSES, MEMORIAL GOLF TOURNAMENTS, TOY DRIVES, FOOD DRIVES,

SPONSORSHIP OF BELFAST TEAMS, CATHOLIC AND THE PROTESTANT,

TO VISIT AMERICA AND SEE AND EXPERIENCE PEACEFUL

COEXISTENCE; SPONSORSHIP OF GALA GAMES SO OLD-TIMERS CAN

ENJOY A LIVE TASTE OF HOME; SPECIAL EVENTS.

THEY DEVELOPED A CALENDAR TO PAY FOR THE MEDICAL BILLS OF A

DESERVING CHILD.

FOR 18 YEARS, MYSELF AND GOOD FRIENDS HAVE MET MOST FRIDAYS

FOR HAPPY HOUR.

WE'VE NEVER HAD A DISTURBANCE.

WE ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED THE OPPOSITE ARE A SOCIAL

ATMOSPHERE THAT FOSTERS CAMARADERIE AND TRANSCENDS THE
                                                             33



NOMENCLATURE BAR.

WE VIEW O'BRIEN'S TO BE A POSITIVE TO THE COMMUNITY, AND IF

GIVEN A CHANCE, I THINK THE NEW NEIGHBORS WILL TOO.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU, SIR.

>> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS FRAN DOWNS, AND I LIVE AT 11500 NORTH DALE MABRY

HIGHWAY, ZIP CODE 33618.

I CAME DOWN HERE TONIGHT TO SUPPORT THERESA AND BERMIE

O'BRIEN, PRIMARILY BECAUSE I AM A CLOSE NEIGHBOR OF THEIRS

AT THEIR OLD LOCATION.

I'VE LIVED THERE FOR THE LAST SIX YEARS.

I LITERALLY LIVE ABOUT 50 FEET ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE

FENCE FROM THE PUB.

I'VE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE BAR, ANY DISTURBANCE

ISSUES.

THEY ARE GREAT NEIGHBORS WHO RUN THEIR BUSINESS VERY

PROFESSIONALLY, AND THEY ARE VERY RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS

PEOPLE.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO PLEASE SUPPORT THEIR REQUEST.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU, MA'AM.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK
                                                             34



IN SUPPORT?

>> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS JOHN COSTELLO.

I LIVE AT 11508 NORTH GRADY AVENUE, 33618, WHICH IS

APPROXIMATELY, AS THE CROW FLIES, ABOUT A QUARTER OF A MILE

FROM THE OLD ESTABLISHMENT.

I'VE KNOWN BERNIE AND THERESA PERSONALLY FOR OVER 20 YEARS,

AND NOT ONLY ARE THEY GOOD PEOPLE, BUT THEY ARE EXTREMELY

RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS PEOPLE, GOOD NEIGHBORS, INVOLVED IN

THE COMMUNITY.

IN ADDITION, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, TODAY'S ECONOMY, I

THINK IT WOULD BE A SHAME TO DENY 30 TO 40 PEOPLE THE RIGHT

TO MAKE A LIVING.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, SIR.

>> HOW YOU DOING?

MY NAME'S DAVE CASS.

I LIVE AT 16015 HAMPTON VILLAGE DRIVE, TAMPA, 33618.

AND I FREQUENTED THE OLD LOCATION FOR ABOUT 16 YEARS, AND I

HAPPEN TO LIVE A FEW BLOCKS BEHIND WHERE THE NEW LOCATION

WOULD BE, AND I JUST WOULD WELCOME IT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I'VE EXPERIENCED A LOT OF -- MADE A LOT OF GREAT FRIENDS
                                                            35



OVER THE YEARS, AND JUST THE WAY THEY'VE SUPPORTED THE

COMMUNITY, I KNOW, ALONG WITH MY OTHER NEIGHBORS ON THE

STREET, WOULD SUPPORT THE MOVING OF THE PUB.

SO THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

>> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME'S PETE, LIVE CURRENTLY AT 200 7 KNOB OAK AVENUE.

I WAS A PRIOR RESIDENT OF CARROLLWOOD, CLOSE TO THE OLD

LOCATION.

I WAS A REGULAR PATRON OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND ALSO THE

OTHER BUSINESSES THAT SURROUND IT.

IT'S A VERY RESPONSIBLE, RESPONSIBLY RUN ESTABLISHMENT FROM

THE OWNERS TO THE STAFF TO THE SECURITY.

I'VE NEVER SEEN A PROBLEM THERE.

AS A POLICE OFFICER, I KNOW THEY SUPPORT A LOT OF EVENTS

FOR THE COMMUNITY, A LOT OF CHARITY EVENTS, AND IT'S AN

ESTABLISHMENT THAT GIVES BACK TO THE COMMUNITY, AND I ASK

THAT YOU APPROVE THE REQUEST.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU, SIR.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE?

>> GOOD EVENING.

ARTIE RICHARDS, 1600 1 GLENHAVEN DRIVE, TAMPA, 33618.

I AM A 20-YEAR PATRON OF O'BRIEN'S PUB.
                                                             36



FOR THE FIRST 10 YEARS, I LIVE WITHIN 500 OR 600 FEET OF

THE ORIGINAL LOCATION WITH NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER, AND I

CURRENTLY LIVE WITHIN FIVE TO SIX HUNDRED FEET OF THE NEW

LOCATION, IT JUST SO HAPPENS.

SO I AM ALL FOR HAVING THEM MOVE INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT JUST SO HAPPENS, TO ADD TO THIS, MY FATHER-IN-LAW MOVED

INTO THE HOUSE THAT I USED TO LIVE IN.

HE WAS A TEN-YEAR BOARD MEMBER FOR THAT PARTICULAR

NEIGHBORHOOD, AND HE WANTED ME, BECAUSE HE COULDN'T BE HERE

TONIGHT, TO TELL YOU THAT IN TEN YEARS THERE WAS NOT ONE

COMPLAINT.

TWO YEARS HE WAS THE PRESIDENT OF THAT BOARD, AND HE WANTED

TO REITERATE NO COMPLAINTS IN THOSE TEN YEARS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE?

I SEE NO ONE ELSE RESPONDING.

IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN

OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION?

YES, MA'AM?

YES.

>> YES, I'M ROBERT FERNANDEZ.
                                                             37



I LIVE AT 15436 EAST PALMWOODS DRIVE IN 33618, AND WE LIVE

IN THE CONDOMINIUMS, WHICH ALTHOUGH THESE PEOPLE THAT HAVE

SPOKEN IN FAVOR ARE VERY NICE PEOPLE, I'M SURE MR. O'BRIEN

IS HIMSELF, IT IS NOT A TRUE PICTURE.

WE ARE THE RESIDENTS THAT ACTUALLY LIVE WITHIN EYE SIGHT OF

THIS DEVELOPMENT.

TO PUT A PATIO OUT THERE IN OUR BACKYARD IS LUDICROUS.

AND TO SAY THEY'RE GOING TO PLAY QUIET MUSIC, IT IS A 4-COP

ZONING.

IT IS A BAR.

OKAY?

I HAVE A PICTURE IF IT WILL SHOW THE REALITY OF THE BUFFER

ZONE FROM OUR RESIDENCES.

MAYBE SOMEONE ELSE COULD SPEAK WHILE I'M TRYING TO GET THIS

UP.

>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH.

WE'LL GET START TO SEE IF SHE CAN HELP WITH THE ELMO.

IT COULD BE THAT WE ARE RUNNING SOME POWERPOINT SLIDES --

>> MR. PRESSMAN, YOU NEED TO COME TURN YOUR COMPUTER OFF

BECAUSE IT WON'T WORK BECAUSE YOU LEFT IT ON.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

WHY DON'T YOU GIVE IT A TRY NOW.

>> IT'S NOT A VERY GOOD PICTURE, BUT THERE'S THE BUILDING

IN QUESTION, AND I AM TAKING THIS PICTURE FROM OUR PROPERTY
                                                             38



LINE.

THAT'S MY WIFE.

ON THE BOTTOM PHOTO, THAT IS THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING TO

WHAT THEY COULD SAY IS A BUFFER.

IF YOU SEE THAT TELEPHONE POLE RIGHT THERE, THOSE ARE OUR

CONDOMINIUMS.

THESE ARE OUR HOMES.

THEY ARE NOT APARTMENTS SO THAT WHEN THINGS GET NOISY AND

OUT OF HAND AND PEOPLE ARE DRINKING AND HAVING A GOOD OLD

TIME, WE CAN'T JUST GIVE UP AND MOVE.

OUR PROPERTY VALUES ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO US.

THESE ARE OUR HOMES.

WE LIVE HERE.

WE PAY FOR IT.

AND WE THINK WE DESERVE A RIGHT FOR QUIET ENJOYMENT OF OUR

RESIDENCES.

AND SURELY THERE'S A BETTER PLACE.

I AM IN THE RESTAURANT BUSINESS.

I DON'T BEGRUDGE HIM.

BUT THIS IS LUDICROUS TO HAVE -- WOULD YOU WANT A TIKI BAR

IN YOUR BACKYARD?

I DON'T CARE WHAT THEY PUT AROUND IT.

IT'S UNFAIR.

IT'S UNEQUITABLE.
                                                             39



AND WE ASK FOR SOME JUSTICE FROM THIS COUNCIL.

AND THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU, SIR.

OKAY.

MA'AM?

>> HELLO.

MY NAME IS CAROL SPEAR.

I LIVE AT 15415 EAST PINEWOOD DRIVE.

I LIVE IN THE CONDOMINIUM THAT IS DIRECTLY FACING THE

OUTDOOR PATIO THAT THEY'RE DISCUSSING.

THEY HAVE SAID THERE'S A BUFFER, AND I UNDERSTAND WHY IT

LOOKS THAT WAY, BUT I LIVE THERE, AND FLORIDA BLOOD

SERVICES IS LOCATED CATTY-CORNER TO THIS RESTAURANT, AND I

CAN HEAR THE BUS DRIVERS ON THE BLOOD MOBILES, I CAN HEAR

THEIR MUSIC, I CAN HEAR THEIR KEYS RATTLING.

I CAN HEAR THEM TALKING IN THE MORNING AT 5:00 IN THE

MORNING.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A BUFFER, BUT I LIVE THERE AND I

CAN TELL YOU THERE ISN'T.

SO MAYBE THEY CAN PUT UP SOUND-PROOFING OR SOMETHING ELSE

THAT WOULD HELP.

IN ADDITION, THERE ARE NO WINDOWS TO OUR CONDOMINIUMS

EXCEPT THE SLIDERS IN OUR BEDROOMS, AND THE SLIDERS, WE ALL
                                                             40



HAVE L-SHAPED CONDOMINIUMS, THEY WILL FACE DIRECTLY AT THE

OUTSIDE PATIO.

THE RESTAURANT WILL HAVE AN OUTSIDE PATIO.

THE DOOR WILL GO FROM THE RESTAURANT TO THE OUTSIDE PATIO,

AND THE MUSIC WILL FACE RIGHT INTO OUR BEDROOMS, AND

THERE'S NO OTHER WAY WE COULD HAVE FRESH AIR IF WE HAVE TO

CLOSE OUR SLIDERS.

THAT'S JUST THE WAY THOSE CONDOS ARE BUILT.

THEY SAY IN THE APPLICATION THE CONDOS -- THE RESTAURANT

FACES DALE MABRY.

IT DOES, BUT THE PATIO FACES THE CONDOMINIUMS.

250 FEET WOULD BE CLOSE ENOUGH TO OUR PROPERTY LINE.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD NECESSARILY ALLOW 100 FEET CLOSER

OR 90 FEET CLOSER.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO ALLOW IT, I THINK YOU SHOULD LIMIT THE

PATIO HOURS.

THE BAR -- AND I'VE BEEN TO O'BRIEN'S.

I'VE BEEN TO O'BRIEN'S, BUT WHEN I WAS THERE AT 2:00 IN THE

MORNING, I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT BEING 150 FEET FROM MY PATIO.

WE SHOULD LIMIT THE PATIO HOURS, THE LIVE MUSIC, WHICH

WOULD BE FRIDAY, SATURDAY, AND MAYBE SUNDAY NIGHT, I'M NOT

SURE.

THE RESTAURANT SHOULD HAVE SOUND-PROOFING.

I DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE OUTDOOR EVENTS.
                                                             41



WE ARE ALL WORKING-CLASS PEOPLE.

WE WORK.

THERE'S CHILDREN.

WE CAN HEAR GAITHER HIGH SCHOOL BAND REHEARSING FROM THREE

MILES AWAY, SO WHATEVER BUFFER THAT SHOULD BE THERE IS NOT

EXISTING.

SO I AM ASKING YOU TO PLEASE HAVE SOME COMPASSION FOR THOSE

OF US WHO HAVE HAD PROPERTY VALUE DECREASES, ASSESSMENTS AT

OUR CONDOS.

WE ARE TRY TO GO SURVIVE.

I F THIS OCCURS -- I AM ASKING YOU TO AT LEAST PUT SOME

RESTRICTIONS ON IT, IF NOTHING ELSE.

THANK YOU FOR TAKING YOUR TIME.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU, MA'AM.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK

IN OPPOSITION?

>> HERB C. RAM.

I LIVE AT 15427 EAST PONDWOODS DRIVE.

I AM ALSO RIGHT DIRECTLY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, AS THEY

CALL IT, A BUFFER.

IF YOU LOOK AT THAT POLE RIGHT THERE, I THINK THAT'S MY

CONDO, AND THE THING IS IT IS VERY, VERY CLOSE.

AS THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER MENTIONED, WE CAN HEAR GAITHER HIGH

SCHOOL THREE MILES AWAY PRACTICING.
                                                             42



THOSE WALLS WE HAVE THERE ARE NOT EXACTLY BUFFERS.

THEY ARE MORE TO KEEP TRESPASSERS OUT, WHICH DON'T EXACTLY

WORK TOO WELL, AND ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS ALSO IF WE HAVE

THE FOOT TRAFFIC COMING FROM THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES

DIRECTLY BEHIND US, THEY ARE ALREADY JUMPING OUR WALLS.

THEY ARE ALREADY BREAKING INTO OUR CARS.

THEY ARE ALREADY VANDALIZING OUR WALLS WITH SPRAY PAINT,

OUR DUMPSTERS WITH SPRAY PAINT.

WE ALREADY HAVE NUMEROUS TIMES -- I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY

TIMES THE CORNER OF ZAMBITO AND DALE MABRY, THERE'S A GREEN

FENCE THAT GOES AROUND A RETAINING POND, I DON'T KNOW HOW

MANY TIMES THOSE SIGNS REASON TAKEN OUT FROM DRUNK DRIVERS.

JUST RECENTLY THIS PAST WEEKEND, THE FENCE WAS TAKEN OUT

AGAIN BY ANOTHER DRUNK DRIVER.

NOW, ARE WE GOING TO REALLY WANT TO BRING SOMETHING LIKE

THAT INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD?

I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE CHILDREN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE NOISE.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT MY PROPERTY VALUES, ESPECIALLY BEING

RIGHT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT RETAINING WALL.

AND I PLEASE ASK THE COUNCIL TO PLEASE TAKE THAT INTO

CONSIDERATION FOR US HOMEOWNERS THAT LIVE THERE.

THANK YOU.
                                                            43



>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU, SIR.

SIR, I NEED YOU TO SIGN IN.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK?

YES, MA'AM.

>> HI.

MY NAME IS JOBETH FERNANDEZ.

I LIVE AT 15456 EAST PONDWOODS DRIVE, TAMPA, 33618, AND I

LIVE ADJACENT TO THIS.

THE 91-FOOT VARIANCE, I JUST THINK THAT'S -- PLEASE, BOARD,

THINK ABOUT THIS.

THIS IS OUR HOME.

I HAVE A CHILD AT GAITHER.

I HAVE 20 NAMES OF PEOPLE -- OVER 20 NAMES -- THAT SIGNED

THIS PETITION THAT COULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT, SO I'LL GIVE

THIS TO YOU.

ALSO, O'BRIEN'S, THERE'S ANOTHER OPENING IN THAT CENTER

THAT WOULD BE FARTHER AWAY FROM OUR HOMES.

I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY CAN'T CONSIDER LOOKING AT ANOTHER

PLACE THAT WOULD BE FURTHER AWAY.

THERE'S A PLACE ACROSS THE STREET THAT'S OPEN THAT'S NOT

ANYWHERE NEAR ANY RESIDENCE.

I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY ARE PICKING THIS.

IT'S JUST TOO CLOSE.

IT'S MY HOME.
                                                             44



I DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT.

I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO GET UP IN THE MORNING, NOT BE ABLE

TO SLEEP.

AND PLEASE, BOARD, THINK ABOUT THIS.

I'LL GIVE YOU THESE NAMES, AND ALSO I HAVE PICTURES OF THIS

OTHER END OF THE CENTER THAT'S OPEN.

I MEAN, WHY CAN'T O'BRIEN'S THINK ABOUT MAYBE GOING THERE?

THERE'S ALREADY TWO OTHER PLACES IN THIS CENTER THAT HAVE

ALCOHOL.

THIS WILL BE THE THIRD ONE.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, MA'AM.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK?

>> MY NAME IS GRACE.

I LIVE AT 15205 WEST PINEWOODS DRIVE, TAMPA, 33618.

I DO AGREE WITH ALL THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS WHO SPOKE BEFORE

ME AGAINST HAVING O'BRIEN'S RESTAURANT IN -- NEXT TO OUR

CONDOMINIUMS.

I DO ALSO REPRESENT OUR BOARD FOR QUAIL RUN, AND MY -- THE

BOARD'S -- THE MAIN PROBLEM WHAT WE HAVE WITH THE

ESTABLISHMENT IS THAT THIS FENCE -- AND I DON'T WANT TO

REPEAT WHAT THE OTHER SPEAKERS HAVE SAID PREVIOUSLY, BUT IT

IS THE DISTANCE.
                                                             45



THE BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN THE TREES AND THE WALLS, IT IS NOT

HIGH ENOUGH TO HIDE THE NOISE, ESPECIALLY DURING THE HOURS

ON THE WEEKENDS.

ALSO, OUR COMMUNITY HAS FAMILIES WITH KIDS AND ELDERLY

PEOPLE LIVING IN OUR AREA.

IT'S A -- WE HAVE VARIOUS FAMILIES LIVING THERE.

FOR THAT REASON, WE WOULD LIKE, IF THE BOARD AGREES, TO

HAVE THE RESTAURANT NEXT TO OUR CONDOMINIUMS, IF MAYBE WE

COULD WORK WITH THE RESTAURANT TO PROPOSE MAYBE THEY COULD

SOMEHOW WORK WITH US TO BUILD A HIGHER WALL TO -- TO WORK

AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THEIR ESTABLISHMENT AND OUR

CONDOMINIUMS.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH, MA'AM, YOU SAID ON THE RECORD THAT YOU

WERE REPRESENTING THE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION?

>> YES.

>>STEVE LUCE: DO YOU HAVE A POSITION WITH THE CONDOMINIUM

ASSOCIATION?

>> AS OF RIGHT NOW, I AM BOARD MEMBER.

I AM NEW TO THE BOARD.

>>STEVE LUCE: YOU ARE NEW TO THE BOARD?

>> YES, UH-HUH.

>>STEVE LUCE: WHEN YOU SAY YOU REPRESENT THEM, YOU JUST

TALKED TO A COUPLE OF THE MEMBERS ON THE PHONE?
                                                             46



>> NO, EVERYONE.

WE HAVE EXCHANGED EMAIL, AND I DO HAVE RECORDS OF THE

EMAILS THAT WE EXCHANGED BETWEEN ALL OF US.

AND I CAN LEAVE IT HERE IF YOU WANT TO.

>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH, JUST CLARIFY ON THE RECORD TO WHAT

EXTENT YOU'VE HAD COMMUNICATION WITH THE OTHER BOARD

MEMBERS OR THE GENERAL POPULATION WITHIN THE CONDOMINIUM.

>> YES, AND I ALSO SPOKE TO THE OTHER RESIDENTS.

THEY DID TALK TO OTHER RESIDENTS TO SIGN UP THE PETITION

FOR NOT HAVING THE RESTAURANT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

BESIDES JUST COMMUNICATION, YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE A MEET

TO GO DISCUSS THIS?

>> WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY -- WE ARE GOING

TO HAVE A MEETING THIS WEDNESDAY, THIS COMING WEDNESDAY, AT

OUR PROPERTY.

THE LAST TIME IT WAS A MONTH AGO WHEN WE HAD THE MEETING,

WE JUST RECEIVED THE LETTERS, SO THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH TIME

TO HAVE EVERYONE DISCUSS THE SITUATION.

>>STEVE LUCE: THAT'S FINE.

I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT KIND OF FEEDBACK YOU HAD

FROM YOUR COMMUNITY.

ALL RIGHT.
                                                             47



VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

SIR, LET ME SEE IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE WHO HAS ALREADY

SPOKEN.

ALL RIGHT.

UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY BEYOND WHAT YOU'VE

ALREADY GIVEN OR ANY OF YOUR NEIGHBORS HAVE ALREADY GIVEN.

ALL RIGHT.

I'LL GIVE YOU A COUPLE MORE MINUTES.

>> IT WAS BROUGHT UP ABOUT MAYBE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE

CENTER.

THAT IS STILL WET ZONED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CENTER, A

CLOSED RESTAURANT.

IT'S GOT A BIG, OPEN PROPERTY IF HE WANTS TO PUT A PATIO.

THE OWNER OF THE SHOPPING CENTER LIVES BEHIND THAT BUFFER,

SUPPOSEDLY.

MAYBE HE JUST DOESN'T WANT A TIKI BAR IN FRONT OF HIS

HOUSE.

YOU KNOW?

AND PUTTING IT AT THE OTHER END, WHERE IT'S NOT REALLY VERY

PRESENTABLE.

THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM MAYBE HASN'T BEEN DISCUSSED, THE EXIT
                                                             48



TO THAT MALL GOES ON DALE MABRY, YOU HAVE TO CROSS FIVE

LANES OF OPEN TRAFFIC TO GET IN THE TURNING LANE TO MAKE A

U-TURN GOING SOUTH.

SO ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO LEAVE THE CENTER WILL NOT GO TO

THAT EXIT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GET ACROSS THE FIVE LANES.

THEY WILL ALL BE DIRECTED DOWN ZAMBITO ROAD, WHICH IS A

SMALL TWO-LANE LITTLE PASS-THROUGH, AND IT'S GOING TO

CREATE A NIGHTMARE FOR US AS RESIDENTS.

AND THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK AGAIN.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

ALL RIGHT.

WITH THAT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

>>BRIAN GRADY: JUST A CLARIFICATION QUESTION THAT I'D LIKE

MR. PRESSMAN TO RESPOND TO IS FOR YOUR DELIBERATION, SINCE

THEY ASKED FOR SOME ALLOWANCES WITH RESPECT TO A ONE-TIME

TEMPORARY EVENT ON ST. PATRICK'S DAY.

THE CLARIFICATION IS IS IT THE INTENT TO -- TYPICALLY THOSE

TYPE OF EVENTS ARE USUALLY DONE OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDARIES

OF THE AB, USUALLY LIKE IN THE PARKING LOT OR THE ADJACENT

PROPERTY, WHICH THAT'S REGULATED SEPARATELY FROM THIS AB

PERMIT.

THAT'S A TEMPORARY AB PERMIT THAT'S DEALT DIFFERENTLY
                                                             49



WITHIN OUR CODE THAN THIS AB PERMIT.

AGAIN, IF THAT WAS THE ALLOWANCE HE WAS ASKING FOR, REALLY,

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AS PART OF

THIS AB PERMIT BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE HANDLED DIFFERENTLY.

BUT SO I THINK WE NEED THAT CLARIFICATION FROM MR.

PRESSMAN.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

BEYOND THAT CLARIFICATION, WHAT ABOUT THE PROPOSED

CONDITIONS THAT HE'S ASKED FOR?

HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THEM?

>>BRIAN GRADY: WELL, I THINK ONE CONDITION THAT COULD BE

ADDED, BASED ON THE FACT THAT HE'S SHOWN A PHOTO, I GUESS,

PROBABLY OF ONE OF THE EXISTING O'BRIEN'S, IS ADDING A

REQUIREMENT OF A SIX-FOOT OPAQUE VINYL FENCE AROUND THE

PATIO WITH ACCESS ONLY INTERNALLY THROUGH THE

ESTABLISHMENT.

I'M NOT INCLINED TO MODIFY OUR CONDITION WITH RESPECT TO

ISSUES ON THE PATIO WITH RESPECT TO LIVE MUSIC.

SO WE DON'T SUPPORT ANY OTHER CHANGE TO THAT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR

REBUTTAL.

>> MR. HEARING OFFICER, AS YOU ARE AWARE, THIS IS A
                                                             50



COMMERCIAL CENTER WHICH HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE A LONG TIME,

AND IT COEXISTS WITH RESIDENTIAL NEXT DOOR.

THAT'S A REALITY.

THE OTHER REALITY IS THAT THIS UNIT OR ANY OTHER OF THESE

UNITS COULD BE RUNNING A 24-HOUR-A-DAY RESTAURANT, POPULAR

RESTAURANT.

THEY COULD HAVE AN OUTDOOR PATIO AREA, AND THAT COULD BE

RUNNING 24 HOURS A DAY.

AND THEY COULD HAVE ALL TYPES OF ENTERTAINMENT.

THAT'S A REALITY.

I DON'T KNOW WHICH WAS HERE FIRST, THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG.

THE FACT IS IT'S HERE, IT'S BEEN HERE A LONG TIME.

REALLY WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS ONE ADDITIONAL ITEM IN

TERMS OF THESE DISCUSSIONS TODAY.

AND THE FACT IS IN RESTAURANTS AND OPERATIONS LIKE THIS,

PEOPLE TYPICALLY GO OUTSIDE, SMOKERS, AND THEY'LL SMOKE

OUTSIDE.

SO THERE'S CERTAINLY PLENTY OF ALLOWANCE FOR MUCH LOUDER

ACTIVITIES TO BE DONE AT THIS ENTIRE SHOPPING CENTER.

WE SAW TO RESTRICT THAT BY HAVING NO EXTERNAL ACCESS TO

THAT PATIO AREA, BY HAVING A VERY DEFINED PATTERN, AND I

WON'T GO THROUGH THE SEPARATE POINTS AGAIN.

SECONDLY, IN REGARD TO FOOT TRAFFIC, WHICH I PERSONALLY

DON'T AGREE -- THE FOLKS THAT SPOKE HERE, I HAVE GREAT
                                                             51



RESPECT FOR THEM.

THEY CAME DOWN HERE TODAY OUT OF CONCERN FOR THEIR

NEIGHBORS OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE ACCESS TO THIS SUBDIVISION IS WAY DOWN THE STREET HERE.

IT'S VERY SNAKING TO GET IN HERE.

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO GET IN HERE.

I WOULD JUST ABSOLUTELY DOUBT THERE'S BEEN ANY MAJOR

INTERACTION BETWEEN THE TWO.

THIS IS A SOLID BUFFER BETWEEN THESE TWO.

THERE IS NO FOOT ACCESS UNLESS YOU'RE CUTTING THROUGH THESE

TREES AND CLIMBING OVER WHAT HAS BEEN SAID TO ME IS A NINE-

FOOT WALL.

I DIDN'T MEASURE IT.

SIX-FOOT WALL, NINE-FOOT WALL ALONG THIS AREA.

TRAFFIC, ACCESS POINT HERE.

THERE'S ANOTHER ACCESS AT HOYT AND A TRAFFIC LIGHT AT HOYT.

SO NO ONE IN THE STAFF HAS RAISED TRAFFIC ISSUES.

I SIMPLY DISAGREE ENTIRELY THERE WOULD BE ANY FOOT TRAFFIC

OR ELEMENT.

BUT AGAIN, YOU'VE HEARD THAT EXAMPLE.

I WOULD SAY TO YOU THAT IF YOU WANT TO CONSIDER HOURS OF

OPERATION AT THIS SITE, WHAT WE CAN LOOK AT IS WE CAN LOOK

AT LIMITING THE ACTUAL BAR SERVICE ON THE PATIO.

AGAIN, FOOD SERVICE AND PEOPLE BEING OUTSIDE IS AN
                                                             52



ALLOWABLE USE.

WE COULD LOOK AT SUNDAY, MONDAY, TUESDAY, AND WEDNESDAY NO

LIVE MUSIC -- I DO WANT TO CLARIFY THE RECORD THERE'S NO

LIVE MUSIC PROPOSED EXCEPT FOR ONE DAY.

I THINK THE CONDITION READS [INAUDIBLE]

I DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE ANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS THERE.

WE ARE ASKING THE CONDITION, ONE DAY, REGARDING MR. GRADY'S

COMMENT, WE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE AN INCONGRUENCE SAYING

THERE'S ONLY THAT ENTERTAINMENT ALLOWED OUTSIDE AND THEY

COME IN FOR ONE DAY.

WE ARE HOPING, ON THE RECORD, SO HAVE ONE DAY LIVE

ENTERTAINMENT OUTSIDE.

WE DIDN'T WANT ANY INCONGRUENCE WITH THAT CONDITION STATED.

SO WE SUGGEST SUNDAY, MONDAY, TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, NO MUSIC

AT ALL AFTER 11:00 P.M. AND CLOSING BAR SERVICE ON THE

PATIO AT 12:00 A.M.

THURSDAY, FRIDAY, SATURDAY, NO MUSIC, AGAIN, THE SIX-INCH

SPEAKERS AT 1:00 A.M. AND CLOSING BAR SERVICE AT 2:00 A.M.

THE OTHER CONDITION --

>>STEVE LUCE: COULD YOU REPEAT -- I GOT SUNDAYS, MONDAY,

TUESDAY, AND WEDNESDAY.

NO MUSIC AT 11?

AND THEN NO BAR SERVICE OUTSIDE AFTER 12?

>> CORRECT, SIR.
                                                             53



>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

AND THEN THE NEXT --

>> THURSDAY, FRIDAY, AND SATURDAY.

>>STEVE LUCE: YEP.

>> NO MUSIC AFTER 1 A.M.

AND NO BAR SERVICE AFTER 2 A.M.

>>STEVE LUCE: NO MUSIC AFTER --

>> WE ARE PROPOSING 2 A.M.

I AM SORRY.

I APOLOGIZE.

NO MUSIC AT 1 A.M., NO BAR SERVICE AT 2 A.M.

AND WE STILL HAVE A REQUEST IN TO YOU FOR THE CONDITION TO

ALLOW A ONE-MAN ACOUSTIC GUITAR, NO ELECTRONIC, JUST

ACOUSTIC GUITAR, ALONG WITH THE SIX-INCH SPEAKERS, ONE OR

THE OTHER.

>>STEVE LUCE: THE ACOUSTIC GUITAR, WOULD IT COMPLY WITH THE

TWO PROPOSED CONDITIONS YOU JUST OFFERED REGARDING HOURS OF

OUTDOOR MUSIC?

NO MUSIC AFTER 11 WOULD APPLY TO IT?

>> YES, SIR.

>>STEVE LUCE: NOT ONLY IF IT'S THE SPEAKERS BUT ALSO IF

IT'S A PERSON PLAYING?

>> YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT.

THE LAST POINT I WANT TO MAKE TO YOU I'M SURE YOU RECOGNIZE
                                                             54



A CRITICAL FUNCTION HERE IS ALTHOUGH THE SURVEY MEASUREMENT

AS REQUIRED UNDER CODE BETWEEN THE USE OF THIS NATURE AND

RESIDENTIAL IS TO THE PROPERTY LINE AT 195 FEET, YOU WILL

SEE THAT THE ACTUAL DISTANCES START TO RIVAL WHAT'S

ACTUALLY CALLED FOR BY CODE, THE 250-FOOT SEPARATION, WE

BELIEVE ACTUALLY DOES EXIST WHEN YOU TAKE A AS THE CROW

FLIES DIRECT MEASUREMENT TO THOSE RESIDENTIAL USES.

WE THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO.

IN REGARD TO THE DIFFERENCE OF THE BUFFER, I KNOW YOU VISIT

THE SITES, YOU'LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

I SHOWED YOU A NUMBER OF PHOTOS.

THE ONLY COMMENT I WOULD SAY BACK TO THE NEIGHBORS -- AND

AGAIN, I SAY THIS WITH RESPECT -- THAT ONE OF THE PHOTOS

WAS CLEARLY TAKEN FROM EITHER THE INSIDE PART OF THE

BUFFER, WHERE THERE IS NO RESTRICTION OF ANY OF THE

BUFFERING ELEMENTS WHATSOEVER, AND I'M SURE THAT YOU

RECOGNIZE IT.

YOU'LL VISIT THE SITE, LEAVE THAT TO YOUR DECISION OR YOUR

REVIEW.

BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WE CAN FOR YOU, SIR.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THE PATIO APPLICATION,

MR. GRADY, DID NOT SHOW -- OR YOU GUYS -- APPLICANT AND

STAFF DIDN'T DISCUSS A VINYL FENCE AROUND THE PATIO?

I WASN'T CLEAR ON THAT POINT.
                                                             55



>>BRIAN GRADY:   I'D HAVE TO ASK MS. MARINER.

GIVEN THE FACT THAT HE OFFERED THAT UP, THAT'S SOMETHING

THAT WE COULD ADD AS A CONDITION AS I WROTE THAT, WHICH

PROVIDED FOR THE VINYL FENCE AROUND THE PATIO, SIX FEET

HIGH.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS DISCUSSED OR NOT, MR. PRESSMAN, THAT

IS SOMETHING THAT YOU PUT IN YOUR PRESENTATION, AND YOU ARE

NOT OPPOSED TO IT?

>> NO, WE'RE SUGGESTING IT.

JUST MINOR CLARIFICATION, AND I THINK SOMEWHAT CLEAR MR.

GRADY REFERRED TO OPAQUE FENCE.

WE SHOWED A FENCE.

IT WOULD NOT BE A COMPLETELY BLOCK FENCE.

IT WOULD BE ONE OF THE NICE VINYL FENCES WE SLOWED IN THE

PROPOSAL.

I HAVE A COPY OF THIS FOR YOU TO PUT IN THE RECORD.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

IS THAT IT?

>> YES, SIR.

>>STEVE LUCE: WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION,

AND MR. GRADY, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

>>BRIAN GRADY: MR. LUCE, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THAT WE'RE

AT OUR -- THAT OUR MONITORS ARE WORKING.
                                                             56



I'M NOT SURE IF HTV NEEDS TO COME DOWN HERE AND CHECK THE

LAPTOP, BUT WE'RE HAVING NO VISUAL AT THIS POINT.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

SO WE'RE NOT SURE WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS BEING BROADCAST

EITHER?

WE'RE JUST NOT SURE.

>>BRIAN GRADY: YEAH, WELL, I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE'RE --

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

I KNOW HTV IS LISTENING, SO MR. GRADY, MAYBE WE SHOULD TAKE

A TEN-MINUTE BREAK AND SEE IF WE CAN'T GET THE AUDIOVISUAL

RESOLVED.

>>BRIAN GRADY: LET'S JUST SAY FIVE MINUTES, THEN IF IT

TAKES LONGER --

>>STEVE LUCE: I'LL COME BACK ON THE AIR AND ANNOUNCE

ANOTHER CONTINUANCE.

I APOLOGIZE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN IN THE AUDIENCE.

WE ARE HAVING SOME MINOR TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES.

WE'RE GOING TO ASK HTV TO COME DOWNSTAIRS AND HELP US WITH

THIS ISSUE.

THEY DO A VERY GOOD JOB WITH THAT, SO HOPEFULLY WITHIN THE

NEXT FIVE MINUTES, WE'LL GET IT FIXED AND WE'LL PROCEED

WITH TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

SO AT THE MOMENT, WE ARE ON RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES.
                                                             57



THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[RECESS TAKEN]

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'VE GOT THE

TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES RESOLVED, AND IF WE COULD ALL HAVE A

SEAT, AND WE'LL GET STARTED AGAIN.

MR. GRADY, IS IT NOT BEING BROADCAST?

>> [OFF MICROPHONE]

>>STEVE LUCE: MR. GRADY, ARE YOU READY TO GO TO THE NEXT

ITEM?

>>BRIAN GRADY:   BEFORE WE DO THAT, I'VE BEEN ASKED BY THE

APPLICANT FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 12 THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO

REQUEST A CONTINUANCE.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO COME TO THE PODIUM TO

EXPLAIN THEIR REASON FOR THE REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE.

WE ARE CHECKING WHEN THEIR HEARING WAS SUBMITTED.

IF THEY CONTINUE OUT TO THE DATE THEY HAVE TO BASED ON

NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WOULD BE THE JULY HEARING, THAT

THEY CAN DO THAT.

WHILE WE'RE DOING THAT, IF THE APPLICANT COULD COME TO THE

PODIUM AND EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE CONTINUANCE REQUEST,

I CAN CONFIRM THE HEARING DATES.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING.
                                                             58



MY NAME IS SAYED [INDISCERNIBLE].

I REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTER.

WE --

>>STEVE LUCE: LET'S JUST CLARIFY UP FRONT FOR THE RECORD.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AGENDA ITEM 12, REZONING 11-007 4;

CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

PLEASE PROCEED.

>> YES.

WE HAVE A PARCEL OF 7 ACRES WITH APPROVED PD WITH MOBILE

HOME PARKS FOR 25 MOBILE HOME PARKS TO BE THERE, AND THEN

THE INTENTION WAS TO DIVIDE THAT INTO TWO, LEAVE THE 12

MOBILE HOME PARKS AND ONE PARK TO BE UTILIZED FOR FUTURE

DEVELOPMENT FOR A HALL.

I WAS GOING OVER WITH SOME OF THE CONDITIONS THE STAFF HAS

RECOMMENDED, SUCH AS 7, 8, AND 9, AND I BRIEFED THIS WITH

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, WHO HAPPENS TO BE HERE.

THEY HAVE SOME ISSUES, AND THEY WANT TO THINK ABOUT THOSE

CONDITIONS, THE IMPLICATIONS, AND TRY TO CONTACT THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO SEE WHAT THESE CONDITIONS

WERE DICTATING, HOW IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THEIR FUTURE

DEVELOPMENT COST-WISE.

AND IN LIGHT OF THAT -- I WAS TALK TO GO MR. GRADY I THINK
                                                             59



I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE ON THIS.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

MR. GRADY, DO WE HAVE A DATE YET?

>>BRIAN GRADY: THEY CAN CONTINUE TO 7/25.

I BELIEVE THERE ARE CITIZENS HERE THAT WANT TO SPEAK TO

THEIR REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE THAT WERE IN OPPOSITION, BUT

THEY CAN CONTINUE TO THE JULY 25th ZHM HEARING.

>>STEVE LUCE: JULY 25th.

ALL RIGHT.

LET ME SEE, SIR, IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT

WISHES TO SPEAK TO CONTINUANCE ONLY.

SIR, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

>> HELLO.

MY NAME IS ALFORD PLAT.

I LIVE AT 5520 BAPTIST CHURCH ROAD, TAMPA, FLORIDA, 33610.

THE REASON I WANT TO OBJECT TO THIS IS I'VE BEEN HERE TWICE

NOW, AND THIS HAS BEEN CONTINUED I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY

TIMES FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT ALL THE REASONS WERE, BUT FOR AN EXAMPLE,

TONIGHT, I TOOK OFF THREE HOURS OF WORK TO BE HERE FOR

THIS, AND YOU KNOW, IT'S GETTING RIDICULOUS.

YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT CAN'T BE TAKEN

FORWARD AND RESOLVED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
                                                             60



LET ME JUST GET ON THE RECORD, MR. GRADY, DO YOU KNOW WHEN

THIS ITEM WAS FILED?

>>BRIAN GRADY: THE ORIGINAL HEARING DATE FOR THIS WAS IN

FEBRUARY.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND WHAT IS THE CODE PROVISION STATE

REGARDING CONTINUANCES?

>>BRIAN GRADY: IT'S BASICALLY SIX MONTHS FROM THE ORIGINAL

HEARING DATE, SO THAT'S WHY I WAS CHECKING, SO THEY ARE

WITHIN THE TIME FRAME FOR ALLOWED CONTINUANCES.

I THINK JULY WOULD PROBABLY BE THE LAST ONE THEY CAN GO TO.

AND IF THEY WENT BEYOND THAT, THEY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO

REFILE THE APPLICATION PER OUR CODE.

BUT THAT BASICALLY PUTS THEM AT THE END OF THE NUMBER OF

CONTINUANCES THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE PER THE CODE.

>>STEVE LUCE: THE APPLICANT IS PUTTING THE ADJACENT

PROPERTY OWNER AT A SORT OF AN INCONVENIENCE.

HE DID TAKE OFF WORK TO BE HERE TONIGHT.

HE HAD NO PRIOR WARNING THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE

CONTINUED.

YOUR APPLICATION FOR THE STAFF REPORT WAS FILED A WEEK IN

ADVANCE.

I'M SURE THE APPLICANT, PRIOR TO YOUR FILING A REPORT, HAD

WORKED WITH YOU AND YOUR STAFF IN TRYING TO WORK OUT THE

PROPOSED CONDITIONS.
                                                             61



SIR, MY CONCERN IS THAT THE ZONING HEARING PROCESS

REGARDING ZONINGS, SPECIAL USES, AND MAJOR MODIFICATIONS,

THIS IS A PROCESS THAT TRIES TO GIVE PROPERTY OWNERS EVERY

OPPORTUNITY THAT'S REASONABLE TO TRY TO WORK WITH COUNTY

STAFF AND THEN THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS TO WORK

ALL THESE ISSUES OUT.

THAT'S WHY THEY'RE QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS.

>> RIGHT.

>>STEVE LUCE: TO TRY TO GET THESE ISSUES RESOLVED AT THE

STAFF LEVEL AND THEN AT THESE HEARINGS.

I SINCERELY APOLOGIZE FOR YOUR INCONVENIENCE IN COMING DOWN

HERE TONIGHT.

>> AND I SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME ON THE PHONE WITH AT

LEAST THREE OF THE COUNTY ZONING, SUSAN MARINER -- I FORGET

HER NAME.

ANYWAY, I TRIED TO FIND AS SOON AS LAST WEEK, TRIED TO

VERIFY THAT THIS WAS REALLY GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE I HAD

TO PLAN TO TAKE OFF WORK FOR THIS.

I COULDN'T JUST TAKE OFF.

I HAVE TO HAVE SOMEONE TO REPLACE ME WHEN I LEAVE WORK.

I CAN'T JUST WALK OFF THE JOB.

AND THE PROBLEM WITH THIS IS NOT -- IF IT DELAYED IT

ANOTHER MONTH, IT REALLY WOULDN'T CONCERN ME TOO MUCH

EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THE PROBLEM I AM HAVING WITH THIS
                                                             62



GROUP IS JUST GROWING BY THE MONTH.

I HAVE SOME PICTURES TO SHOW YOU OF WHAT ALL IS GOING ON

THERE, AND YOU KNOW, IT NEEDS TO STOP.

SOMEBODY NEEDS TO GET A GRIP AND A CONTROL ON THIS

SITUATION.

>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH, UNFORTUNATELY, IN AN ABUNDANCE OF

CAUTION, DEALING WITH DUE PROCESS AND GIVING APPLICANTS

THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO RESOLVE THINGS DURING THIS PUBLIC

HEARING PROCESS, AND WITHIN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE

TIMEFRAMES ARE CONTINUANCES TO GRANT A CONTINUANCE BASED ON

A TESTIMONY THAT THE APPLICANT GAVE THAT HE STILL WANTS TO

WORK WITH HIS CLIENTS TO MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTAND THE

CONDITIONS AND SO THAT HE CAN PROPERLY, I GUESS, GET

FEEDBACK FROM THEM AND PROPERLY REPRESENT THEIR POSITION.

>> I KNOW 40 OF THEM JUST SPENT THE LAST FIVE MINUTES IN

THE HALLWAY CONFERRING ABOUT THIS.

>>STEVE LUCE: AGAIN, STAFF, THE DATE OF THAT HEARING WOULD

BE ...

>>BRIAN GRADY: JULY 25.

>>STEVE LUCE: JULY 25.

SIR, IF YOU COULD GIVE YOUR NAME AND PHONE NUMBER TO MR.

GRADY, AND HE WILL DO EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER TO LET YOU

KNOW THAT THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED FOR THE NEXT

HEARING, AND THAT THE APPLICATION IS PROPERLY FILED, AND
                                                             63



MR. GRADY CAN'T PREDICT AN APPLICANT COMING FORWARD, JUST

LIKE HE HAS, AND ASKING FOR ANOTHER CONTINUANCE.

THAT'S OUTSIDE OF HIS CONTROL.

BUT HE CAN GIVE YOU ADVICE AS TO WHERE THEY ARE IN THE

PROCESS AND WHETHER OR NOT HE EXPECTS THE APPLICATION TO BE

HEARD.

>> RIGHT.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND AGAIN, ON BEHALF OF THE HEARING TONIGHT,

I APOLOGIZE FOR YOU HAVING TO TAKE OFF WORK TO GET HERE.

>> IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT.

THIS IS PART OF WHAT I'VE BEEN BATTLING FOR THE LAST THREE

YEARS WITH THAT PROPERTY.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

THIS ITEM WILL BE CONTINUED.

IT'S AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 12.

IT'S REZONING 11-007 4.

AND IT WILL BE CONTINUED TO JULY 25th, 2011, AT 6:00 P.M.

>>BRIAN GRADY: AND MR. LUCE, JUST FOR THE RECORD, I WANT TO

PUT ON THE RECORD THAT THE APPLICANT HAS A COMPANION MINOR

MODIFICATION KNOWN AS PERSONAL APPEARANCE APPLICATION,

BECAUSE THEY ARE REMOVING ACRES FROM A PD.

THIS CONTINUANCE IS GOING TO CAUSE THAT PRS APPLICATION TO

BE OUTSIDE OF ITS SIX-MONTH TIME LIMIT CONCURRENT WITH
                                                             64



THIS, SO I JUST WANT TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD AND ADVISE THE

APPLICANT THAT THIS CONTINUANCE ISN'T GOING TO CAUSE THAT

ONE TO RUN OUT OF TIME, SO THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO REFILE

THAT PRS APPLICATION SO THEY CAN RUN CONCURRENT WITH THIS,

SO I WANTED TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: WELL, MR. GRADY, LET ME FOLLOW THAT UP, THEN.

IF HE HAS TO REFILE HIS PRS, BY THE TIME THIS ITEM GOES TO

THE JULY 25 HEARING, AND THEN SOMETIME IN AUGUST, I SUPPOSE

IT WOULD GO TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

BY THE TIME HE REFILES, WILL HE BE ABLE TO GET TO THE BOARD

WITH BOTH ITEMS AT THE SAME TIME?

>>BRIAN GRADY: HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY A

60-DAY REVIEW PERIOD FOR THE PRS ITEM, SO THERE'S PLENTY OF

TIME TO REFILE AND GET ON TRACK WITH THAT.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND THE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDS YOU CAN DEAL

WITH PRS OUTSIDE OF THIS HEARING.

HOPEFULLY HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT'S REQUIRED OF HIM REGARDING

THE PRS.

VERY GOOD.

WITH THAT, THIS ITEM IS CONTINUED.

NOW, MR. GRADY, WE'LL GO BACK TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA.

>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS APPLICATION SPECIAL USE 11-

0424.
                                                             65



THE APPLICANT IS JUAN VASQUEZ.

ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER

PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS JUAN VASQUEZ, 1560 3 HUTCHISON ROAD, TAMPA,

FLORIDA, 336 25.

I AM REQUESTING TO ACQUIRE APPROVAL TO IMPROVE, EXPAND, AND

REOPEN AN EXISTING DAY-CARE FACILITY, WHICH WAS ZONED BACK

IN 1970.

SINCE THE DAY CARE HAS BEEN CLOSED FOR THREE YEARS, IT WILL

REQUIRE SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF UPDATES TO THE EXISTING

BUILDING, UTILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND CURRENT SAFETY AND

BUILDING CODES.

THE EXISTING BUILDING IS A SINGLE-STORY MASONRY UNIT WITH

FRAME STRUCTURE OF 1,66 5 FEET.

SQUARE FEET.

AT THAT TIME, THE DAY CARE WAS ZONED FOR 50 CHILDREN, WHICH

IS 25 SQUARE FEET PER CHILD.

BUT NOW WITH THE NEW FEDERAL, STATE, AND HILLSBOROUGH LAWS,

IT'S REQUIRED 35 SQUARE FEET PER CHILDREN, WHICH WILL MAKE

THE DAY CARE TOO SMALL IF IT WERE TO REOPEN AS IT IS RIGHT

NOW.

SO WE'RE REQUESTING ADDITION OF SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION FOR

2,360 SQUARE FEET FOR A BUILDING TOTAL OF 425 SQUARE FEET.
                                                             66



THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 7/8 OF AN ACRE.

THERE IS A PRIVATE WELL ON-SITE THAT IS USABLE, BUT THE

EXISTING SEPTIC TANK AND DRAIN FIELD MUST BE REPLACED,

SINCE THE SYSTEM HAS NOT OPERATED FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND IS

ALSO NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO HANDLE THE NEW LOAD.

THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN INDICATES IN GENERAL THE SIZE AND

LOCATION OF THE SYSTEM AND EXISTING BUILDING ON THE

NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE HAS TOILET FACILITIES ALSO,

WHICH WILL ALSO BE CONNECTED TO THE NEW SYSTEM.

ADDITIONAL PARKING AND DROP-OFF ZONES AND HANDICAPPED

SPACES WILL ALSO BE ADDED.

A MASONRY SECURITY AND PRIVATE WALL WILL BE PROPOSED ON THE

PROPERTY LINE ON HUTCHISON AND WALLS ROAD, AND A VINYL

FENCING ON THE OTHER PROPERTY LINE.

THE DESIGN OF THE WALL WILL BE KEPT IN SIMILAR WITH THE

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WALL STRUCTURE IN DESIGN AND

APPEARANCE.

IN THE AREA, THERE'S A BUNCH -- I MEAN THERE'S A COUPLE OF

DEED-RESTRICTED COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE SIX-FOOT WALLS.

THAT'S WHY WE ARE TRY TO GO KEEP THE SAME LOOK, SO

EVERYTHING LOOKS PRETTY AND SO ON.

RIGHT NOW THERE'S A FIRE MAIN RUNNING ALONG THE WEST WALL

ON HUTCHISON ROAD.

IT IS PROPOSED TO RUN A THREE-INCH-DIAMETER BRANCH MAIN
                                                             67



UNDER HUTCHISON ROAD TO THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE PIPE

VALVE TO ALLOW A FIRE HYDRANT AND ALSO CITY WATER OR COUNTY

WATER TO THE PROPERTY INSTEAD OF USING THE WELL.

A SECURITY LIGHTING SYSTEM WILL ALSO BE PROPOSED FOR

SEASONAL PERIODS OF DARKNESS DURING BUSINESS HOURS.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

SIR, IF YOU COULD CLARIFY FOR ME, YOU SAID THE DAY CARE WAS

APPROVED FOR THIS SITE IN ABOUT 1970?

>> YES.

>>STEVE LUCE: DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT WAS APPROVED FOR, HOW

MANY CHILDREN?

>> 50 CHILDREN.

>>STEVE LUCE: 50 CHILDREN?

AND DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG -- WAS IT IN CONTINUOUS OPERATION

UP TO THREE YEARS AGO?

>> I'M NOT SURE.

I TALKED TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, AND IF IT WAS

CONTINUALLY RUNNING UNTIL THREE YEARS AGO.

IT CHANGED OWNERS, BUT IT WAS ALWAYS IN OPERATION.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

AND SO YOU'RE NOW ASKING FOR HOW MANY CHILDREN?

>> WE ARE HOPING FROM 100 TO 130 CHILDREN.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

A MAXIMUM OF 130?
                                                             68



>> YES.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

AND BASED ON 130 CHILDREN, YOU DID THE MAST, AND YOU

CALCULATED WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING NEEDED

TO BE?

>> YES, AND I HAD AN ARCHITECT DESIGN HOW MANY TOILETS IT

WOULD REQUIRE, THE SIZE OF THE SEPTIC TANK THAT WOULD BE

NEEDED TO HANDLE THE LOAD.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

I UNDERSTAND.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, SIR.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>>STEVE LUCE: AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

STAFF?

>>ISABELLE ALBERT:    GOOD EVENING.

ISABELLE ALBERT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.

THIS REQUEST IS TO ALLOW A DAY CARE FOR A MAXIMUM OF 130

CHILDREN, AND THE DAY CARE INTENDS TO BE OPERATING MONDAY

THROUGH FRIDAY BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 6:30 IN THE MORNING TO

6:30 IN THE EVENING.

THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS FROM REVIEWING AGENCIES.

TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF DID RECOMMEND A NUMBER OF
                                                             69



CONDITIONS TO ADDRESS BOTH TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND CAPACITY

ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRAFFIC TO BE GENERATED BY THIS

USE.

THE SITE HAD A DAY CARE IN THE PAST, WHICH HAS SINCE

CLOSED.

THE APPLICANT WISHES TO REOPEN THE NEW DAY CARE WITH SOME

EXPANSION FROM 1665 SQUARE FEET TO 4024 SQUARE FEET.

OTHER IMPROVEMENTS WILL INCLUDE A SECURITY WALL, FENCED IN

RETENTION AREA, PARKING AREA, ET CETERA.

THE HEIGHT OF THE WALL IS NOT PART OF THIS APPROVED SPECIAL

USE, AND THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH SECTION 6.07.00.

THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA IS COMPRISED OF MOSTLY

SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, SOME COMMERCIAL USES TO THE NORTHWEST.

AND I DO HAVE A REVISED CONDITION FOR CONDITION NUMBER 1,

WHERE I HAVE TWO -- 108 CHILDREN, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A

MAXIMUM 130    CHILDREN.

I DO FIND THIS APPROVABLE, SUBJECT TO THESE REVISED

CONDITIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

>>DAVID HEY:    THANK YOU, MR. HEARING OFFICER.

DAVID HEY, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-4 FUTURE LAND
                                                            70



USE CATEGORY.

IT FALLS WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA.

THE PROPOSED EXPANSION TO ALLOW FOR THE ADDITIONAL 2360

SQUARE FEET OF NEW CONSTRUCTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY THAT ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL

SUPPORT USES, SUCH AS SCHOOLS, IN AREAS WHERE SAID

FACILITIES ARE COMPATIBLE VIA LOCATION AND DESIGN.

THE CHILD-CARE FACILITY DOES HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

USES TO THE NORTH, EAST, AND SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE, AND

A PLANT NURSERY WITH A CELL TOWER IS LOCATED TO THE WEST

ACROSS THE STREET ON HUTCHISON ROAD.

THE EXPANSION IN THE ADDITIONAL FACILITIES WILL ALLOW FOR

INCREASED ATTENDANCE OF STUDENTS.

OVERALL, THE EXPANDED DAY CARE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE

SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND WILL NOT HAVE ANY

ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE

AREA.

BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE CONSISTENT WITH THE

FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO

CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY'S DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.
                                                             71



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

WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE

APPLICATION?

>> GOOD EVENING, SIR.

STEVEN SUAREZ, 5224 RAWLS ROAD, TAMPA, FLORIDA, 33624.

I'M ABOUT TWO HOUSES DOWN FROM THIS PROPOSED ADDITION.

I HAVE BEEN OUT THERE FOR APPROXIMATELY 44 YEARS, EITHER

ONE STREET OFF FROM WHERE IT'S AT.

I REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS A RESIDENCE.

MY CONCERN IS, ALTHOUGH I WOULD WELCOME A CHILD CARE TO

COME BACK IN THERE, MY CONCERN IS THE EXPANSION OF GOING TO

THE 4,000 SQUARE FEET THAT THEY ARE WANTING TO DO TO

INCREASE FROM THE 50 STUDENTS OR CHILDREN THAT THEY HAD UP

TO POSSIBLY 130.

I KNOW YOU'VE DRIVEN OUT THERE BEFORE BECAUSE THERE WAS

SOMEBODY TRYING TO DO COMMERCIAL RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET

FROM WHERE THIS ADDRESS IS ONCE BEFORE.

MY CONCERN IS THE TRAFFIC.

AGAIN, I DID NOTICE ONE OF THE STIPULATIONS IN THE TRAFFIC

CONSIDERATIONS TO HAVE A SOUTHBOUND LANE TO BE ABLE TO TURN

INTO THE PROPERTY.

THE OTHER CONCERN IS RAWLS ROAD, THAT I LIVE ON, IS IT
                                                             72



BACKED UP WHEN IT WAS 50.

MY CONCERN IS YOU HAVE 130 CHILDREN NOW, YOU KNOW, IS IT

GOING TO BACK UP ONTO RAWLS ROAD, START CREATING -- NOW

THAT THERE IS A TRAFFIC LIGHT THERE, IF THERE'S A BACKUP IN

THE MORNING OR IN THE EVENING WHEN PEOPLE ARE PICKING UP,

HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET THROUGH THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS WITHOUT

GOING INTO OPPOSING TRAFFIC?

THERE IS NO TURN LANES THERE WHATSOEVER.

IT'S TWO LANES THERE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.

MY OTHER CONCERN IS -- AND THEY PROBABLY WON'T -- MY OTHER

CONCERN IS LATER ON DOWN THE ROAD I NOTICE THAT MRS. ALBERT

HAD PUT ON THERE SOME COMMERCIAL.

THAT PLANT NURSERY IS AGRICULTURE.

IT'S ZONED AGRICULTURE.

IT HAS BEEN THERE FOREVER.

IT IS NOT COMMERCIAL.

THERE'S ALSO A GARAGE ACROSS THE STREET THAT A LOT OF

PEOPLE MAY THINK IS COMMERCIAL.

I LOOKED IT UP.

IT WAS A STAND-ALONE GARAGE PUT IN FOR A RESIDENCE OFF OF

RAWLS ROAD.

THAT IS NOT A COMMERCIAL BUILDING EITHER.

>>STEVE LUCE: LET THE RECORD REFLECT, IT'S ASC-1 ZONING

ACROSS THE STREET.
                                                             73



IT'S AGRICULTURE ZONING.

>> I DIDN'T THINK IT'S CHANGED.

BEEN OUT THERE A LONG TIME.

AGAIN, I WANT TO SEE THE BUSINESS THRIVE.

I QUESTION THE NUMBERS.

AND MY OTHER CONCERN IS IF THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT, YOU NOW

HAVE A 4,000-SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING.

MY CONCERN IS THEY ARE GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU AND WANT

TO ZONE IT COMMERCIAL LIKE THE OTHER GUY TRIED TO DO ON HIS

RESIDENTIAL.

YOU KNOW, I MAY BE THE ONLY ONE HERE SPEAKING AGAINST IT.

I DON'T KNOW WHY THE ZONING MASTER WAS FOR CHILD CARE, YET

HIS APPLICATION SHOWS CHILD CARE/PRIVATE SCHOOL.

NOW I GUESS WITH MR. GRADY -- NOT MR. GRADY -- -- IS

CONSISTENT SINCE IT'S A SCHOOL AND A RESIDENCE.

I DON'T KNOW IF I AGREE WITH IT.

AGAIN, 130, MY CONCERN IS THE TRAFFIC.

AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ON THIS.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK

IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?
                                                             74



>>BRIAN GRADY: JUST TO CLARIFY REGARDING DAY CARE AND

SCHOOL, THE APPROVAL AND REQUEST IS FOR A DAY CARE, NOT A

SCHOOL.

IF THEY WANT TO DO A SCHOOL, WHICH WOULD BE A COMPULSORY K-

6 OR 12 OR WHATEVER, THEY WOULD HAVE TO REQUEST THAT, AND

MY UNDERSTANDING, AGAIN, THEY PUT DAY CARE PRESCHOOL, WHICH

PRESCHOOL IS, FOR OUR PURPOSES, A DAY CARE, SO I'M NOT

AWARE OF THIS BEING REQUESTED FOR A SCHOOL, AND WE'VE NOT

CONDITIONED IT FOR A SCHOOL, SO IT IS ONLY FOR A DAY CARE.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

AND THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

>> YES, WELL, THE DAY CARE IS FOR DAY CARE/PRESCHOOL.

WE'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION --

>>STEVE LUCE: HOLD ON A SECOND.

LET ME JUST GET HIS RESPONSE.

>>BRIAN GRADY: A PRESCHOOL IS DAY CARE.

A PRESCHOOL IS PRE-K, WHICH IS DAY CARE.

IN OUR CODE WE DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION FOR PRESCHOOL.

IT'S CHILD CARE.

>>STEVE LUCE: YOU ARE NOT ASKING FOR SOMETHING ANY MORE

THAN WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, JUST TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.

>> YES.
                                                            75



I UNDERSTAND THE TRAFFIC PROBABLY BUILDING UP AND STUFF.

THAT'S WHY I'M HOPING I CAN WORK OUT SOMETHING WITH

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

RIGHT NOW, THERE'S TWO ENTRANCES TO THE DAY CARE, ONE TO

RAWLS ROAD, AND THE OTHER ONE THROUGH HUTCHISON ROAD.

BUT I HAVE TO SEE WHAT THE ZONING -- I MEAN, WHEN THE

PAPERWORK GETS TURNED IN FOR PERMITTING, WHAT THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WILL ALLOW.

IF I COULD EXPAND AND OPEN THE ENTRANCE TO THE DAY CARE

MORE TO ALLOW EASY ACCESS TO BE ABLE TO GET IN AND OUT OF

THE DAY CARE.

>>STEVE LUCE: I AM NOT CLEAR ON WHAT YOU ARE STATING.

YOUR PROPOSED SITE PLAN SHOWS AN ACCESS ON HUTCHISON AND AN

ACCESS ON RAWLS ROAD.

>> RIGHT.

WHAT I AM HOPING IS -- WELL, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A PLAN WHERE

THEY COME IN THROUGH RAWLS ROAD AND EXIT OUT TO HUTCHISON

ROAD.

>>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT.

>> REALLY, I'M NOT SURE.

I UNDERSTAND HIS CONCERNS, BUT I AM GOING TO TRY EVERYTHING

IN OUR POWER TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING FLOWS SMOOTHLY AND FOR

EVERYTHING TO GO RIGHT.

>>STEVE LUCE: YOU ARE NOT OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSED
                                                             76



CONDITION REGARDING ACCESS; ARE YOU?

>> YES, NO.

>>STEVE LUCE: YOU'RE NOT?

>> NO.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

ANYTHING ELSE?

>> NO, I AM ALL SET.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION.

MR. GRADY, WE ARE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 6, SPECIAL USE

APPLICATION 11-0426.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR DISTANCE

SEPARATION WAIVERS FOR A 2-COP ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

SUSAN MARINER WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER

PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>> GOOD EVENING.

>>STEVE LUCE: GOOD EVENING.

>> MY NAME IS DIXIE SMITH, 1717 LAKE CHAPMAN DRIVE,

BRANDON, FLORIDA, 33510.
                                                             77



MY CLIENT IS REQUESTING A DISTANCE SEPARATION WAIVER FOR A

2-COP-AB FOR BEER AND WINE SALES AND CONSUMPTION ON AND OFF

LICENSED PREMISE.

WE ARE REQUESTING YOUR APPROVAL FOR TWO WAIVERS.

FIRST IS A COMMUNITY USE PARK LOCATED 346 FEET NORTH OF THE

SITE.

A 500-FOOT SEPARATION IS REQUIRED.

A DISTANCE WAIVER OF 15 4 FEET IS BEING REQUESTED.

THE SECOND IS THE NUMBER OF CERTAIN TYPES OF AB.

THIS PERMIT WOULD BE NUMBER 5.

THERE'S ALREADY FOUR EXISTING PERMITS.

 THE SITE ADDRESS IS 11106 BLOOMINGDALE AVENUE, RIVERVIEW,

FLORIDA.

THE BUILDING CONSISTS OF 1856 SQUARE FEET INSIDE AREA, 686

PATIO AREA, TOTALLING 2,542 SQUARE FEET.

THIS SITE IS GOING TO BE A FAMILY OWNED THAI RESTAURANT

WITH OPERATING HOURS OF MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY 11 A.M. TO

10 P.M. AND SUNDAY 11 A.M. TO 9 P.M.

A WAIVER IS NEEDED FOR THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENT OF 500

FEET BETWEEN THE SITE AND THE COMMUNITY USE PARK WHICH IS

LOCATED 346 FEET TO THE NORTH.

OTHER BUSINESSES AND INTERNAL TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ROAD AND

A SIX-FOOT WALL IS LOCATED BETWEEN THE PROPOSED SITE AND

THE PARK LOCATED TO THE NORTH.
                                                             78



THE SITE IS ORIENTED TOWARD BLOOMINGDALE AVENUE AND AWAY

FROM THE PARK.

THERE IS NO DIRECT ACCESS BETWEEN THE SHOPPING CENTER AND

THE PARK TO THE NORTH.

FOR THE SECOND WAIVER, THERE ARE CURRENTLY FOUR APPROVED AB

SPECIAL USE PERMITS WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF THE PROPOSED

SITE.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT NEGATE THE NEED FOR THE SPECIFIED

DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS ARE THE SITE IS LOCATED IN A ZONING

DISTRICT WHERE RESTAURANTS WITH AB SALES ARE ANTICIPATED TO

BE LOCATED.

I HAVE A PICTURE OF THE SITE, IF I MAY SHOW IT.

>>STEVE LUCE: YES.

>> OKAY.

HERE IS THE PROPOSED SITE.

THIS IS THE PROPOSED PATIO.

HERE IS -- THIS IS THE SUNTRUST BANK, WHICH IS A

FREESTANDING BUILDING, AND IT'S LOCATED TO THE WEST,

OBVIOUSLY.

HERE IS LUNAS, WHICH IS PREVIOUSLY WET ZONED AS WELL.

AND THEN HERE IS THE PARKING AREA AND THE SIX-FOOT WALL

HERE WOULD BE, OBVIOUSLY, NORTH WHERE THE PARK WOULD BE

LOCATED.

THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT FOR THAT.
                                                             79



IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.

>>SUSAN MARINER:   SUSAN MARINER, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE DISTANCE SEPARATION WAIVER

FOR A 2-COP ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

REQUIRES WAIVERS FROM THE COMMUNITY USE, THE PARK, LOCATED

NORTH OF THE SITE, AND FROM THE NUMBER OF EXISTING

ALCOHOLIC DEVELOPMENT PERMITS.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A RESTAURANT THAT INCLUDES AN OUTSIDE

PATIO AREA.

STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED WET ZONING COMPARABLE AND

COMPATIBLE WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMERCIAL CENTER.

IT POSES MINIMAL ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE SURROUNDING AREA.

BASED ON THE WET-ZONED SURVEY SUBMITTED MARCH 2 2, 2011,

AND THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WAIVER, STAFF

FINDS THE JUSTIFICATION SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE REQUEST.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

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

WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?
                                                             80



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?

APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

APPLICANT WAIVES REBUTTAL.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION.

MR. GRADY, WE ARE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 7, SPECIAL USE

APPLICATION 11-0430.

THE APPLICANT IS FREEDOM VILLAGE OF SUN CITY CENTER.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR DISTANCE

SEPARATION WAIVERS FOR A 4-COP ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER

PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS PETE BUDZINSKI, 1950 PROMENADE WAY, CLEARWATER,

FLORIDA, 33760.

JUST FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION, B-U-D-Z-I-N-S-K-I.

I AM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT FREEDOM PLAZA SUN CITY
                                                             81



CENTER, ALSO KNOWN AS FREEDOM VILLAGE, WHICH IS THE LEGAL

NAME OF IT, FREEDOM VILLAGE OF SUN CITY CENTER.

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DO NOT KNOW THIS, FREEDOM VILLAGE OF

SUN CITY CENTER IS A CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY

FOR SENIOR RESIDENTS.

WE OPERATE 427 INDEPENDENT LIVING APARTMENTS, 113 -- I'M

SORRY -- 112 ASSISTED LIVING APARTMENTS, AND 113-BED HEALTH

AND REHABILITATION CENTER.

THIS IS ALL LOCATED ON 142 ACRES OF A NATURE PRESERVE.

WE WERE OPENED ABOUT 18 YEARS AGO THROUGH THE RETIRED

OFFICERS CORPORATION, WHICH ALLOWED US AT THAT TIME TO

PRESENT OUR APARTMENTS TO RETIRED MILITARY OFFICERS.

WE STILL DO THAT, WHICH OVER 60% OF OUR CURRENT POPULATION

IS RETIRED OFFICERS -- RETIRED MILITARY OFFICERS.

THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THIS MEETING TODAY IS OUR VERY

FIRST RESIDENTS 18 YEARS AGO WHO MOVED IN THE DOOR ARE

SITTING RIGHT HERE BACK IN THIS ROW IN THE SECOND FLOOR,

JOHN AND MARGARET GARBET.

WITHOUT THEM AND WITHOUT THE WORK THAT THEY DID, WE WOULD

NEVER BE IN THE POSITION WE ARE TODAY.

SO I THANK THEM AND I THANK RETIRED OFFICERS CORPORATION.

THE ISSUE THAT TOOK PLACE IS 18 YEARS AGO, WHEN THEY OPENED

THIS COMMUNITY, THEY ENVISIONED THE FIVE DINING ROOMS, THE

THREE PRIVATE DINING ROOMS, AND THE PUB TO BE THE
                                                             82



CONGREGATING AREAS FOR PEOPLE TO DINE, FOR PEOPLE TO ENJOY

MEETING AND GREETING EVERYBODY, AND THAT'S WHERE MOST OF

THE FULL LIQUOR SERVICE TOOK PLACE THROUGHOUT THE YEARS.

OVER TIME, WE DEVELOPED MORE AND A LARGER BASE OF

ACTIVITIES FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

SOME OF THESE THINGS WERE MIX-AND-MINGLES, VARIOUS HAPPY

HOURS, BIG PARTIES, KENTUCKY DERBY PARTIES, ET CETERA.

AND THEY'RE VERY WELL ATTENDED BY OUR RESIDENTS.

WE UNCOVERED -- THROUGH MEANS WE DON'T NEED TO GET INTO --

THAT ABOUT SIX MONTHS AGO, WE HAD THE WRONG LICENSURE.

WE ARE A 4-COP-RX, WHICH ALLOWED FOR TO US HAVE THAT FULL

LIQUOR SERVICE IN OUR DINING ROOMS, PRIVATE DINING ROOMS,

AND PUBS ONLY.

SO WE ARE PETITIONING TO GET A REZONING TO ALLOW US TO HAVE

A 4-COP LICENSE THAT WILL ALLOW US TO HAVE THE BEER, THE

WINE, THE LIQUOR CONSUMPTION ALL THROUGHOUT OUR SEVEN-STORY

BUILDING AT FREEDOM PLAZA SUN CITY CENTER.

THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL I HAVE.

>>STEVE LUCE: I GOT IT.

THANK YOU.

>> OKAY?

>>STEVE LUCE: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF?

>>ISABELLE ALBERT:   GOOD EVENING.

ISABELLE ALBERT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
                                                             83



THIS REQUEST IS FOR A 4-COP ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE DEVELOPMENT

PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR BEER, WINE, AND LIQUOR FOR SALE ON AND

OFF THE LICENSED PREMISES.

PETITIONER INTENDS TO OCCUPY THE 2.48-ACRE SUBJECT SITE FOR

THE EXISTING FREEDOM PLAZA SENIOR LIVING FACILITY.

NO AGENCIES OBJECTED TO THE REVIEW, AND THE SITE DID

CURRENTLY HAVE AN EXISTING 4-COP-RX, WHICH WILL BE

RESCINDED UPON APPROVAL OF THIS SPECIAL USE.

THE SITE IS OCCUPIED BY THE FREEDOM PLAZA SENIOR LIVING

FACILITY AND IS REQUESTING A SENIOR USE 4-COP FOR SENIOR

LIVING FACILITY TO SERVE ON AND OFF-SITE RESIDENTS AND

THEIR GUESTS.

THE EXISTING FREEDOM PLAZA IS SURROUNDED BY A GOLF COURSE

AND WILL SERVE THE RESIDENTS AND THEIR GUESTS.

THE APPROVAL WAS BASED ON THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS RECEIVED,

AND IT IS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.

IN THIS CASE, WE DID APPROVE IT WITH A CONDITION THAT

SPECIFIED THE LIMIT OF THE ALCOHOL, SALES OF ALCOHOL TO THE

RESIDENTS OF FREEDOM PLAZA AND THEIR GUESTS ONLY.

>>STEVE LUCE: HAVE YOU SHARED THAT CONDITION WITH THE

APPLICANT?

>> I SPOKE WITH HIS ASSISTANT AND EXPLAINED TO ME THE ON

AND OFF, AND SO THEREFORE, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE WE

DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE, JUST LIKE ME, GO OVER AND START
                                                             84



DRINKING.

>>STEVE LUCE: JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE APPLICANT CONCURS

WITH THE CONDITION?

ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT:    THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: YOU'RE WELCOME.

ALL RIGHT.

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

WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

NO ONE RESPONDING.

YES, WE DO.

WE HAVE SOMEBODY IN SUPPORT.

GOOD EVENING.

>> HI.

MY NAME IS KAREN, 1191 OVERCAST DRIVER, DUNEDIN, FLORIDA,

34698.

I AM THE DINING SERVICES DIRECTOR FOR FREEDOM PLAZA.

I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH BRIAN AND JOHN AND A LOT OF THE

TERRIFIC MEMBERS OF THEIR STAFF TO GET TO THIS POINT WHERE

WE ARE TODAY.

I HAVE A PRESIDENT OBAMA WRITTEN BY ONE OF MY RESIDENTS WHO

IS WITH US TODAY, IF I COULD READ IT.

IT'S NOT LONG.
                                                            85



>>STEVE LUCE: GO AHEAD.

>> TO THE LIQUOR BOARD FROM A FREEDOM PLAZA RESIDENT.

OUR AVERAGE AGE IS 86.

SOME ARE HALF BLIND AND CANNOT HEAR.

MANY CLING TO CANES AND WALKERS, AND NIGHTTIME DRIVING IS

OUR FEAR.

WE ENJOY OUR LITTLE PARTIES IN THIS VERY PROTECTED PLACE,

WHERE WE CAN TAKE THE HALLWAYS HOME AND NEVER BRAVE THE

HIGHWAY RACE.

WE DON'T WANT TO LEAVE OUR BUILDING TO ENJOY A COUPLE OF

DRINKS.

IT'S SAFER FOR ALL IF WE STAY HERE.

THAT IS WHAT MOST EVERYONE THINKS.

WE TAKE A LOT OF MEDICINES AND ARE OFTEN SORT OF SPACED.

DO YOU REALLY WANT US ON YOUR ROADS?

WE MIGHT BE THE WORST NIGHTMARE YOU'VE FACED.

   [LAUGHTER]

BY BETTY WINN-FULLER.

   [APPLAUSE]

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

VERY NICE.

>> THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.
                                                            86



THAT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST UNIQUE TESTIMONIES I'VE

HAD -- [LAUGHTER] -- IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK

IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

YOU SPEAK FOR EVERYONE, I PRESUME?

>> YES.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

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

WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION?

SEEING NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

>>BRIAN GRADY: NOTHING FURTHER AT THIS POINT.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

NOTHING FURTHER.

APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FINAL COMMENT OR REBUTTAL?

>> WE'RE GOOD.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

APPLICANT WAIVES REBUTTAL.

WITH THAT, MR. GRADY, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION.

WE ARE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING DOWN TONIGHT.

>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 8, SPECIAL USE
                                                             87



APPLICATION 11-0437.

THE APPLICANT IS CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL OF COLORADO.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR DISTANCE

SEPARATION WAIVERS FOR A 2-COP ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

SUSAN MARINER WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER

PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>> GOOD EVENING, MR. HEARING OFFICER.

MY NAME IS GRACE YANG.

I AM WITH GRAY ROBINSON, 201 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 2

200, TAMPA, FLORIDA, HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT,

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL.

THIS APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 2-COP USE IN CONJUNCTION

WITH A NEW CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL RESTAURANT THAT HOPES TO

OPEN AT 7002 GUNN HIGHWAY LATER THIS SUMMER.

THIS PARCEL IS LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF CITRUS PARK DRIVE -

- EXCUSE ME -- CITRUS PARK HIGHWAY AND GUNN HIGHWAY, AND

THE FOUR ADJACENT LAND USES ARE CPV-U-2 TO THE NORTH, CN

COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH, CPV-D-3 COMMERCIAL TO THE EAST,

AND A PD TO THE WEST.

CITRUS PARK MALL IS ALSO LOCATED TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE

SUBJECT SITE.

THIS APPLICATION REQUIRES ONE DISTANCE WAIVER FOR YOUR

CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THERE IS RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY
                                                             88



WITHIN 250 FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE.

SPECIFICALLY, THERE IS RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY TO THE

NORTHEAST APPROXIMATELY 219 FEET AWAY, SO WE ARE LOOKING

FOR A DISTANCE WAIVER AND A REDUCTION OF 31 FEET.

WE HAVE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE SQUARE FOOTAGE BEING REQUESTED

FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE.

IT'S A 2684-SQUARE-FOOT RESTAURANT, AND OF THAT SQUARE

FOOTAGE, 437 SQUARE FOOT OF THAT IS FOR AN OUTDOOR DINING

AREA.

WE FEEL THAT THIS IS APPROVABLE.

YOUR STAFF REPORT FINDS IT APPROVABLE.

IT'S LOCATED IN A GENERALLY COMMERCIAL AREA IN THE CITRUS

PARK AREA.

IT WILL BE INCIDENTAL TO THE RESTAURANT USE.

THE SURROUNDING AREA SEEMS TO BE COMPATIBLE.

THE ACTUAL DOOR-TO-DOOR TRAFFIC FROM THE STORE TO THE

RESIDENTIAL -- NEAREST RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREA WOULD BE

BEYOND 250 FEET, AND THE CPV-D-2 DISTRICT DOES INCLUDE CN

AS A PERMITTED USE, SO THERE IS CONSIDERATION AND

CONTEMPLATION THAT THERE WILL BE COMMERCIAL USES IN THIS

AREA.

RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL.

>>STEVE LUCE: LET ME JUST ASK YOU ABOUT IN THE BACKUP,

THERE'S A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS A BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND
                                                            89



PARKING LOT AND DRIVEWAY CONNECTIONS TO THE ADJACENT

ROADWAYS.

>> UH-HUH.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING IS -- SEEMS

TO BE MUCH LARGER THAN THE FOOTPRINT FOR THE REQUESTED

SPECIAL USE.

IS THAT INTENTIONAL?

THERE'S NO INTENT TO WET ZONE THE ENTIRE RESTAURANT?

>> WE ARE -- WE ARE REQUESTING A ZONING FOR THE ENTIRE

RESTAURANT.

I AM TRYING TO FOLLOW YOUR QUESTION.

THE ENTIRE RESTAURANT, THERE'S INTERIOR SQUARE FOOTAGE AS

WELL AS EXTERIOR.

>>STEVE LUCE: DO YOU HAVE A GRAPHIC?

MAYBE YOU CAN SHOW IT ON THE ELMO?

>> I CAN TRY TO SHOW THAT TO YOU, UH-HUH.

>>STEVE LUCE: THE SHAPE OF THE BUILDING LOOKS DIFFERENT

THAN THE SHAPE OF THE SPECIAL USE.

THE ENTIRE BUILDING VERSUS A SUBSET, WHICH IS A SPECIAL

USE.

>> THIS IS THE ENTIRE BUILDING YOU ARE REFERRING TO.

THE CHIPOTLE STORE -- LET ME THINK.

WHAT'S MY GEOMETRY SHAPE?

IT'S A TRAPEZOID?
                                                            90



THIS AREA IS THE INTERIOR SQUARE FOOTAGE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> AND THEN THERE CONNECTS OUTDOOR TO A SQUARE FOOT -- THIS

OUTDOOR PATIO AREA OVER HERE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> SO FOR POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THIS IS THE ENTIRE

BUILDING.

>>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT.

>> HOWEVER, THE WET ZONE THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR IS THIS

SHAPE HERE PLUS THE PATIO AREA HERE.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

I'LL ATTRIBUTE THAT TO THE SCALE OF MY DRAWING.

SO THE BALANCE OF THAT SITE IS -- IT'S LIKE A VERY SMALL

STRIP CENTER?

>> IT'S A SMALL STRIP CENTER.

>>STEVE LUCE: THERE ARE OTHER USES FURTHER TO THE WEST OF

THE CHIPOTLE GRILL?

>> CORRECT.

THE CHIPOTLE IS ONLY OCCUPYING THIS CORNER PORTION OF THE

STRIP CENTER.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

GOT IT.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
                                                             91



DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF?

>>SUSAN MARINER:   SUSAN MARINER, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE DISTANCE SEPARATION WAIVER

FOR A 2-COP ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

A WAIVER IS REQUESTED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ZONE

LOCATED 219 FEET NORTHEAST OF THE SITE.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A RESTAURANT THAT INCLUDES AN OUTSIDE

PATIO AREA.

STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE WAIVER BASED ON THE

APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATIONS.

IN ADDITION, THE TAMPA BAY TRAIL IS LOCATED BETWEEN THIS

SITE AND THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY -- RESIDENTIALLY

DEVELOPED PROPERTY NORTHEAST OF THIS SITE.

STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED WET ZONING COMPATIBLE WITH THE

CHARACTER OF THE COMMERCIAL CENTER AND POSES MINIMAL

ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE SURROUNDING AREA.

BASED ON THE WET ZONE SURVEY SUBMITTED MARCH 23, 2011, AND

THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION, STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST

APPROVABLE.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

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

WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?
                                                            92



SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE

APPLICATION?

NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL?

>> [OFF MICROPHONE]

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

APPLICANT WAIVES REBUTTAL.

WE ARE ALL SET.

THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION.

MR. GRADY, WE ARE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 9, SPECIAL USE

APPLICATION 11-04 41.

THE APPLICANT IS EMERGEC AND CROWN CASTLE.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE FOR A COMMUNICATION TOWER

FOR REPLACEMENT.

SUSAN MARINER WITH COUNTY STAFF WILL PROVIDE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>> GOOD EVENING AGAIN, LAURALEE WESTINE, TARPON WOODS

BOULEVARD.

I HAVE WITH ME [INDISCERNIBLE] -- KEITH LEG AND MARY GUY.

KEITH LEG IS WITH EMEGC, THE OTHER PARTIES ARE WITH CROWN

CASTLE.
                                                             93



I DO HAVE A DUPLICATE PACKAGE THAT I WILL POP OVER TO THE

CLERK WHEN I STEP OVER THERE:   THIS IS A SITE WHERE

THERE'S -- PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ON THIS SITE WAS A 400-FOOT

GUIDE TOWER.

IT WAS WHAT WE CALL IN THE INDUSTRY DESTACKED, MEANING WE

TOOK SOME PORTIONS OF IT DOWN FOR STRUCTURAL REASONS DOWN

TO 240 FEET.

WE ARE NOW REQUESTING TO BUILD IT BACK TO ACTUALLY LOWER

THAN THE ORIGINALLY APPROVED 400 FEET BUT UP TO 340 FEET.

THE NEW TOWER WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN 30 FEET OF THE

EXISTING TOWER.

I AM BEFORE YOU WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH

CONDITIONS AND A -- BLAH -- AND A FINDING OF CONSISTENCY

WITH YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

CONDITION 3 WAS COMPLIED WITH ON [INAUDIBLE]

AND -- WITHIN THE DUPLICATE PACKAGE.

CONDITION NUMBER 5 WAS COMPLIED WITH.

FAA WAS APPROVED ON 11/10 OF '10, AND FHA VARIANCE WAS

APPROVED ON 3/3/11.

THE PARCEL IS ZONED AR AND CONSISTS OF THREE ACRES,

ACTUALLY OWNED BY CROWN CASTLE.

A LOT OF TIMES I COME BEFORE WITH YOU LEASED AREAS.

THIS ENTIRE PARCEL IS ACTUALLY THE CLIENTS.

A LITTLE HISTORY.
                                                             94



THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY FILED AS SU 10-070 7.

WE WITHDREW IT SO WE COULD GET A VARIANCE, AND THAT

ACTUALLY REQUIRES TWO HEARINGS, BUT THAT APPROVAL WAS

RECEIVED ON 3/11, AND THAT IS IN YOUR DUPLICATE PACKAGE.

>>STEVE LUCE: IF YOU COULD, WHAT WAS THE VARIANCE FOR?

>> THE VARIANCE WAS FOR HEIGHT, BUT THEY, TOO, RECOGNIZED

THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN APPROVED AND PREVIOUSLY BUILT

TO 400 FEET, AND THEY WERE FINE WITH IT GOING UP TO THE

340.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> THIS IS, IN ESSENCE, A HYBRID APPLICATION.

ANYTHING OVER 200 FEET HAS TO GO THROUGH YOUR RADIO AND

TELEVISION TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING FACILITY, WHICH IS

6.11.79, AS WELL AS YOUR 6.11.29, WHICH IS YOUR TOWER CODE.

WE ARE A HYBRID IN THAT A LOT OF THESE REQUIREMENTS REALLY

DON'T APPLY TO US.

WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS TRIED TO DO OUR VERY BEST TO SHOW YOU

WHY THE REPLACEMENT IS NECESSARY.

TOWER MEETS THE SETBACKS OF BOTH SECTIONS, WHICH IS A THIRD

OF THE TOWER HEIGHT, TO THE NORTH 310, TO THE SOUTH 199, TO

THE EAST 219, TO THE WEST 337.

THIS NEW TOWER WILL BE DESIGNED WITH A COLLAPSE POINT OF

160 FEET, WELL IN EXCESS OF THE REQUIRED 114 FEET, WHICH IS

A THIRD OF THE TOWER HEIGHT.
                                                             95



WE ARE ALSO LOCATED MORE THAN 200 FEET FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL

ZONING DISTRICT.

WE ARE REQUESTING LIKE FOR LIKE, A GUIDE TOWER IS GOING TO

BE REPLACING A -- THE EXISTING GUIDE TOWER THAT'S OUT

THERE.

A BIT OF A CHALLENGE.

YOUR CODE REQUIRES CAMOUFLAGE.

340 FEET CANNOT BE CAMOUFLAGED AS ANYTHING, MORE OR LESS,

SO WE ARE REQUESTING A CAMOUFLAGE WAIVER PURSUANT TO

SECTION C OF 6.11.29.

AS YOU ARE AWARE, THE PRESUMED COMPATIBLE TYPE TOWERS IN

THE AR DISTRICT ARE A TREE TOWER, A BELL, OR A CLOCK TOWER,

AND OBVIOUSLY, THEY WOULD ALL PRESENT A MUCH WIDER PROFILE,

AND I AM GOING TO QUOTE THE CODE HERE -- A WIDER PROFILE

AND ATTRACT MORE ATTENTION THAN JUST A STANDARD GUIDE

TOWER.

A FLAGPOLE IS STRUCTURALLY INCAPABLE OF BEING BUILT THAT

TALL.

ADDITIONALLY, THE CURRENT TENANTS THAT ARE ON THERE,

SWFWMD, THE FBI, AND SPRINT, ARE UNABLE TO LOCATE THEIR

ANTENNAS WITHIN THE CANISTER.

WE'VE TALKED BEFORE ABOUT HOW THE CANISTERS, THERE'S A

SPINE IN THE MIDDLE.

IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, ALL THOSE ANTENNAS CANNOT BE
                                                             96



LOCATED WITHIN THAT CANISTER APPLICATION.

THIS PROPOSED GUIDE TOWER WILL ACTUALLY BE 60   FEET SHORTER

THAN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED.

WITHIN THE DUPLICATE PACKAGE -- AND I WON'T GO THROUGH

HERE -- WE WERE ABLE TO SHOW STAFF, GOING THROUGH LOTS AND

LOTS OF MICROFICHE, THAT, IN FACT, WE WERE APPROVED ONCE AT

400.

WE DID SHOW BUILDING PERMITS AND OTHER COLLOCATIONS AT 400.

THAT MATERIAL IS IN THERE FOR TO YOU REFERENCE IF YOU NEED

TO.

WE ARE PROPOSING TO COMPLY WITH THE 20-FOOT TYPE B BUFFER

AND A REPLACING THE EXISTING FENCE WITH A PVC FENCE.

COLLOCATION LETTERS WERE SENT TO ALL THE CARRIERS OPERATING

IN THIS MARKET.

ONE OF THE OTHER CRITERIA IS WILL THE REPLACEMENT TOWER

HAVE ANY DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS TO THE EXISTING OR PROPOSED

USE OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

IT WILL NOT.

IT, IN ESSENCE, IS THE EXACT SAME TYPE OF TOWER LOCATED 30

FEET FROM WHERE THE EXISTING TOWER.

NOR WILL IT UNREASONABLY RESTRICT THE FREE FLOW OF LIGHT,

SUNLIGHT, OR AIR TO THOSE PROPERTIES.

AGAIN, THE BIT TALLER, BUT IT'S THE EXACT SAME TOWER TYPE.

MY OFFICE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY CALLS ON THIS.
                                                             97



I COUNTY DID, IN FACT, RECEIVE ONE LETTER FROM AN ILLINOIS

FIRM THAT OWNS THE PROPERTY THAT SURROUNDS IT, AND I'LL

SHOW IT ON AN AERIAL IN A MOMENT, REQUESTING THAT WE BE

REQUIRED TO FENCE THE ENTIRE PROPERTY BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE

RIDING MOTORCYCLES OR BIKES AND FOUR-WHEELERS ON THE

PROPERTY.

FENCING OF THE PROPERTY IS OBVIOUSLY NOT SUPPORTED NOR

REQUIRED BY THE CODE.

OBVIOUSLY, FENCING THE COMPOUND IS, AND WE PLAN TO DO THAT.

WITH THAT SAID, THOUGH, WE UNDERSTOOD WHAT THEIR CONCERN

WAS, AND WHAT I DID WAS ACTUALLY CONTACTED THE HILLSBOROUGH

COUNTY'S OFFICE AND FILED A NO TRESPASS ZONE.

WE WENT TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND FILED THE TRESPASS

FORM.

I HAVE A COPY THAT HAVE IN THE DUPLICATE PACKAGE FOR YOU.

WHAT IT DOES IS IT ALLOWS FOR A DEPUTY -- A CROWN

REPRESENTATIVE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THERE TO TRESPASS

SOMEONE.

A DEPUTY, IF SOMEONE HAS A PROBLEM, THEY CAN SAY THERE'S A

TRESPASSER THERE, DEPUTY CAN SHOW UP, AND THEY CAN GET THE

PERSON OFF OR ARREST THEM IF THEY NEED TO.

IN YOUR DUPLICATE PACKAGE, YOU HAVE COPIES OF -- I'M SORRY.

THAT WAS DATED 5/12/11.

IN YOUR PACKAGE YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S COPIES OF SPRINT'S
                                                             98



RF MAPS, AND I WILL SHOW THEM ONCE I GET UP THERE.

THIS SITE IS OBVIOUSLY ON AIR, SO I AM USUALLY USED TO

SHOWING YOU THERE'S BEFORE AND THEN THERE'S COVERAGE.

NOW I AM SHOWING YOU LOOK, THERE'S COVERAGE AND THERE WILL

BE NO COVERAGE IF WE TOOK THE SITE DOWN.

WITH THAT SAID, I WILL GO TO THE ELMO AND PUT A FEW THINGS

UP, BUT I WILL RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL.

GOING TO THE ELMO, THIS IS A -- THIS IS ACTUALLY THE

PROPERTY APPRAISER CARD FOR THE FOLKS THAT SENT THE LETTER

IN.

THEY OWN THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, WHICH KIND OF HAS THE

NOTCH OUT OF IT.

THE TOWER IS ACTUALLY LOCATED ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY,

WHICH WE DID GET THE TRESPASS AUTHORIZATION FORM ON.

THIS IS THE ACTUAL TRESPASS AUTHORIZATION THAT WAS FILED

WITH THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE BY CROWN

CASTLE.

AND THE ONLY OTHER THING I WANT TO ADD ... PUTTING ON THE

ELMO THE -- THIS IS, IN ESSENCE, WHAT WE HAVE NOW.

THIS IS THE SITE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S COVERAGE IN THE AREA.

IN THE EVENT THAT THIS REPLACEMENT TOWER COULD NOT BE

BUILT, WE WOULD GO BACK TO THIS MUCH BEING UNCOVERED.

AND THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF NOT THE ACTUAL TOWER THAT'S OUT
                                                             99



THERE, BUT THIS IS A GUIDE TOWER THAT I HAD A PICTURE OF IN

MY SERVER.

AND YOU CAN SEE THE THINNER PROFILE THAN HAVING A -- WELL,

A FLAGPOLE SIMPLY CAN'T BE CONSTRUCTED, BUT HAVING SOME

KIND OF BELL TOWER OR TREE TOWER AT 340 FEET.

WITH THAT SAID, THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD ADD TO THIS

IS, IS THAT ON CONDITION 4, CROWN HAS AGREED TO REMOVE THE

EXISTING TOWER 60 DAYS FROM THE FINAL ANTENNA BEING MOVED

OVER TO THE NEW SITE.

WITH THAT SAID, I AM HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

SO ARE THE CROWN REPRESENTATIVES AS WELL AS THE PROJECT

MANAGER.

>>STEVE LUCE: REPEAT THAT, PROPOSED CONDITION NUMBER 4 IS -

- THE ORIGINAL TOWER SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE

FINAL TENANT'S ANTENNA BEING RELOCATED TO THE NEW TOWER AND

RECEIVING ITS FINAL INSPECTION?

>> YES, SIR.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND YOU ARE OKAY WITH THAT CONDITION?

>> WE ARE FINE WITH THAT.

I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT WE HAD PUT SOMETHING IN THE

CONDITIONS FOR REMOVAL, THAT THERE WOULD ONLY BE ONE TOWER

LEVEL ON THE PREMISES AT THE END.

>>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT.

LET ME ASK YOU, THE ORIGINAL TOWER THAT WAS APPROVED WAS
                                                            100



FOR 400 FEET?

>> YES.

>>STEVE LUCE: WHY ARE WE REFILING?

WHY ARE YOU HERE TONIGHT?

>> I -- WELL, THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL WAS FOR 400 FEET.

WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO SHOW IS THAT THERE WERE BUILDING

PERMITS THAT WERE ISSUED ON A 400-FOOT GUIDE TOWER BACK IN

1978, SO YOU CAN IMAGINE THE CHALLENGE WE HAD TRYING TO

RECONSTRUCT THE APPROVALS.

IT WAS THEN DESTACKED FOR STRUCTURAL REASONS.

IT WAS LOWERED SO THAT, OBVIOUSLY, IT COULD BE STRONGER.

IN ORDER FOR ME TO COME BACK HERE AND BUILD IT BACK TO

WHERE WE NEED TO, I NEED TO COME BACK KIND OF AS THE HYBRID

APPLICATION THAT I AM IN FRONT OF YOU TO BRING IT BACK UP.

>>STEVE LUCE: THEN IF YOU COULD PROVIDE JUSTIFICATION FOR

THE HEIGHT.

>> WELL, THAT'S WHERE I BECOME A HYBRID.

I HAD 400 FEET.

I AM ACTUALLY ASKING FOR 60 FEET LESS THAN WHAT I HAD.

THE HEIGHT -- AND I DO HAVE A LETTER, AND YOU HAVE IT IN

YOUR DUPLICATE PACKAGE -- FROM ONE OF THE -- IN ESSENCE,

FROM ALL THE TENANTS, ALL THE TENANTS WANT TO GO BACK UP TO

THEIR ORIGINAL LOCATION.

SO EVERYBODY WANTS THEIR HEIGHT BACK.
                                                           101



EVERYBODY WANTS THIS TOWER REPLACED.

BUT BECAUSE THEY'RE SIMPLY NOT GETTING THE COVERAGE THAT

THEY NEED AT THIS 240-FOOT LEVEL.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

I UNDERSTAND THE JUSTIFICATION FROM A ZONING POINT OF VIEW.

BUT IF YOU COULD, FOR THE RECORD, WHY DO THEY NEED A --

SUCH A TALL TOWER TO BEGIN WITH?

WHY ISN'T IT 100 TO 150 FEET TALL?

>> I CAN ONLY TELL YOU THAT IS WHERE THESE FOLKS -- I SEE

KEVIN WATTS WALKING UP TO SAVE ME -- I CAN ONLY TELL YOU

THAT FROM WHERE THE FBI'S ANTENNAS NEED TO BE, THESE ARE

THE REQUESTED HEIGHTS THAT THEIR ANTENNAS HAVE BEEN

DESIGNED AT.

SO SWFWMD'S ANTENNAS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED UP AT THE 335

LEVEL.

FBI'S IS UP THERE SUBSTANTIALLY AS WELL.

I AM GOING TO -- WOULD YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND GIVE YOUR

ADDRESS AND STATE WHETHER YOU'VE BEEN SWORN.

>> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS KEVIN WATTS.

I AM WITH CROWN CASTLE.

ADDRESS 6306 BENJAMIN ROAD, NUMBER 604, TAMPA, FLORIDA,

33634.

AND BY TRADE, I AM A RADIO FREQUENCY ENGINEER AND HAVE
                                                            102



SPENT 19 YEARS IN THIS INDUSTRY.

I AM CURRENTLY THE DISTRICT MANAGER FOR CROWN CASTLE.

AND THE QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED IN REGARDS TO COVERAGE

SPEAKS TO THEIR BASIC NEED TO COMMUNICATION IN BOTH

DIRECTIONS FROM THEIR MOBILE DEVICES BACK TO THE TOWER AND

FROM THE TOWER TO THEIR MOBILE DEVICES.

THE HEIGHT DIRECTLY AFFECTS THEIR COVERAGE.

AND BECAUSE THIS TOWER WAS DESTACKED, WE ARE TRYING TO GO

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL HEIGHT OF -- WELL, TO THE ORIGINAL

HEIGHT OF THE TENANT THAT WE HAVE REMAINING.

ONE OF THE TENANTS WHO WAS ON THE TOWER COULD NOT LOWER

THEIR ANTENNAS, AND THEREFORE, WE'RE NOT REQUESTING TO GO

BACK AT 400 FEET.

WE ARE ONLY REQUESTING TO GO BACK TO THE HEIGHT OF THE

TALLEST TENANT THAT REMAINS, AND THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE

DIFFERENCE IN THE HEIGHT.

IF WE ARE NOT ABLE TO GET THIS HEIGHT, WE ARE NOT ABLE TO

MAINTAIN THE LEASE THAT WE HAVE WITH THE TENANTS ON THE

TOWER, AND THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE COVERAGE

THAT THEY HAVE.

AND WE ARE SUPPORTING GOVERNMENT AGENCIES HERE, AS ALSO

NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: THE TENANTS THAT WANT THE HEIGHT, ARE THEY

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES?
                                                            103



>> YES, SIR, AND WE ALSO HAVE A LETTER IN THE PACKET FROM

SWFWMD STRESSING THAT THEY NEED ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> THEY WERE LOWERED DURING THE PROCESS.

>>STEVE LUCE: BUT WOULD A GENERAL ANSWER BE THAT THE TALLER

THE TOWER IS, THE LONGER DISTANCE, MORE COVERAGE --

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>>STEVE LUCE: -- THAT COULD BE OBTAINED?

>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND THE -- WOULD IT BE -- WOULD I BE RIGHT IN

PRESUMING THAT THESE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES THAT MS. WESTINE

TESTIFIED TO NEED GREATER COVERAGE?

>> THAT IS CORRECT, SPECIFICALLY --

>>STEVE LUCE: TO DO THEIR JOBS?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

SWFWMD, AGAIN, HAS A LETTER IN HERE REQUESTING ADDITIONAL

HEIGHT, GOING BACK TO THE HEIGHT THEY WERE ORIGINALLY

BEFORE WE LOWERED THE TOWER.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

THAT'S HELPFUL.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> IF I CAN JUST QUICKLY ADD, PAGE Z-2 OF THE PLANS YOU

HAVE SUBMITTED REFLECT AN ELEVATION.
                                                            104



IT SHOWS THE SWFWMD ANTENNAS AT THE REQUESTED HEIGHT OF

335.

IT SHOWS THE FBI AT THEIR REQUESTED HEIGHT OF 310.

THEN THE ACTUAL WIRELESS CARRIER, WHICH IS SPRINT, DOWN AT

200 FEET.

ADDITIONALLY, THERE'S A LETTER FROM SWFWMD REQUESTING TO GO

BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL HEIGHT, WHICH IS THE 335.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.

>>SUSAN MARINER:   SUSAN MARINER, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A 340-FOOT-HIGH

GUIDE TOWER TO REPLACE A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 400-FOOT-HIGH

TOWER THAT HAS SINCE BEEN LOWERED TO 240    FEET.

THE TOWER EXCEEDS THE REQUIRED SETBACK OF 113 FEET FROM ALL

PROPERTY BOUNDARIES.

PETITIONER HAS SUBMITTED A STATEMENT FROM A RADIO FREQUENCY

ENGINEER STATING THE NEED FOR THE PROPOSED TOWER AND THAT

IT CANNOT BE SERVED BY OTHER WIRELESS COMMUNICATION

FACILITIES OR STRUCTURES WITHIN THE AREA.

STAFF SUPPORTS THE REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED

CONDITIONS AND BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S WAIVER STATEMENT.

THANK YOU.
                                                            105



>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

>>DAVID HEY:   THANK YOU, MR. HEARING OFFICER.

BEFORE I BEGIN WITH THE SUMMARY, WE PROVIDED FOR YOU AN

AMENDED REPORT THAT CORRECTED AN ERROR REGARDING THE

WAIVER.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR FOR THE RECORD.

THE PROPOSED SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL

ESTATE, 1 TO 2.5 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY.

IT IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE RURAL AREA AND IS LOCATED

WITHIN THE THONOTOSASSA COMMUNITY PLAN.

THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR A 350-FOOT

TELECOMMUNICATIONS GUIDE TOWER STRUCTURE, THE SURROUNDING

AREA IS COMPOSED OF AGRICULTURAL RURAL, VACANT LAND ARE,

AND SCATTERED RURAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS ON LOTS

AVERAGING AROUND 2.5 ACRES OR LARGER.

THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO SOUGHT A CAMOUFLAGE WAIVER FOR THE

PROPOSED TOWER.

DUE TO THE UNIQUE TYPE OF TOWER PROPOSED AND THE PREVIOUS

APPROVAL FOR A 400-FOOT TOWER, A CAMOUFLAGE WAIVER IS

JUSTIFIED, AS IT WOULD NOT AFFECT THE OVERALL COMPATIBILITY

WITH THE SURROUNDING USES THAT ARE PLANNED OR EXISTING IN

THE SURROUNDING AREA.
                                                            106



THE PLACEMENT AND DESIGN OF THE TOWER, INCLUDING EXISTING

BUFFERING AND SCREENING AT THE BASE, WILL PROVIDE FOR AN

APPROPRIATE TRANSITION TO THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL USES.

STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER TO BE

CONSISTENT.

BASED ON ALL THAT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE

PROPOSED SPECIAL USE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF

HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO ANY CONDITIONS

PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

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

WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE -- YES, SIR.

SORRY?

GOOD EVENING.

>> HI.

MY NAME IS BRENT AZZARELLI, NORTH RIVER SHORE DRIVE.

I AM REPRESENTING AZZARELLI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THE

PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SOUTH AND WEST OF THE PARCEL.

I WAS NOT SWORN.

I DON'T KNOW IF I NEED TO BE.

>>STEVE LUCE: HOLD ON.

DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND
                                                            107



NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD?

>> I DO.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

>> THE LETTER THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY WAS ACTUALLY

FROM THE SECRETARY WHO RESIDES IN ILLINOIS.

THE CORPORATION IS A FLORIDA CORPORATION BUT HAS OFFICES IN

FLORIDA AND ILLINOIS.

AND I AM HERE REPRESENTING THEM TODAY.

I THINK THE QUESTION WE HAD -- WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE

APPLICATION.

WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE HEIGHT.

WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE CAMOUFLAGE WAIVER.

WE HAD REQUESTED A DIVISION, IT DID NOT HAVE TO BE THE TYPE

OF PVC FENCE THAT WAS MENTIONED BY THE APPLICANT.

IT WAS THE THREE-STRAND TYPE OF WIRE THAT SURROUNDS THE

REST OF OUR PROPERTY AND I BELIEVE SURROUNDS THE EAST AND

NORTH SIDE OF THE APPLICANT PROPERTY.

WE HOPE THE APPLICANT WOULD PROVIDE THAT.

WE ARE NOW USING THAT PROPERTY FOR AGRICULTURE USE.

>>STEVE LUCE: YOU DON'T HAVE A FENCE ON THE SHARED PROPERTY

BOUNDARY?

>> CURRENTLY THERE IS NO FENCE ON THE SHARED PROPERTY

BOUNDARY.
                                                            108



I BELIEVE -- AND I AM SPEAKING -- WE WERE ALL MUCH YOUNGER

IN 197 2 OR '78, BUT I BELIEVE AZZARELLI DEVELOPMENT WAS

THE INITIAL PERMIT HOLDER FOR THE TOWER, WHICH WAS SOLD

PROBABLY IN THE EARLY TO MID-80s, SO THERE WAS ORIGINALLY

NEVER A DIVISION.

>>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT, IT WAS UNDER UNIFIED CONTROL.

ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

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

WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

>>BRIAN GRADY: SIR, I THOUGHT I HEARD SOMEONE SAY YES.

>>STEVE LUCE: DOES ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN

OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

>>BRIAN GRADY: NOTHING FURTHER.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

>> NO, JUST TO AGREE TO PUT UP THE THREE-STRAND BARBED-WIRE
                                                            109



FENCE.

MY CLIENT IS HERE AND HAS GIVEN ME PERMISSION TO AGREE TO

PUT THAT UP.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION.

MR. GRADY, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

>>BRIAN GRADY:   NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 10, SPECIAL USE

APPLICATION 11-044 3.

THE APPLICANT IS SHOGUN SUSHI, INCORPORATED.

DISTANCE SEPARATION WAIVERS FOR A 2-COP ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE

PERMIT.

ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER

PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>> GOOD EVENING AGAIN.

DIXIE SMITH, 1717 LAKE CHAPMAN DRIVE, APARTMENT 201,

BRANDON, FLORIDA, 33510.

MY CLIENT IS REQUESTING A DISTANCE SEPARATION FOR A 2-COP-

AB FOR BEER, WINE, SALES, AND CONSUMPTION ON AND OFF

LICENSE PREMISES.

THE SITE ADDRESS IS 15213 NORTH DALE MABRY HIGHWAY, SUITE 2

2, TAMPA, FLORIDA.

THE BUILDING CONTAINS 190 3 SQUARE FEET.
                                                            110



THE SITE IS GOING TO BE A RESTAURANT, OPERATING HOURS OF

11:30 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M. SEVEN DAY AS WEEK.

THE RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES LIE 165 FEET OF THE SITE

WITH A WALKING DISTANCE TO THE RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTY

OF 485 FEET.

THEREFORE, WE ARE REQUESTING A WAIVER OF 85 FEET TO

SPECIFIED DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL USE.

THE SITE IS LOCATED IN A PUBLIX AND WAL-MART STRIP PLAZA ON

NORTH DALE MABRY HIGHWAY.

THE RESIDENTIAL AREA IS LOCATED BEHIND THE SITE, SEPARATED

BY A SIX-FOOT WALL, VEGETATION, AND A PARKING AREA.

BASED ON THESE FACTORS, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE

REQUESTED DISTANCE WAIVER WOULD HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON

THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

AGAIN, I HAVE A SITE IF YOU ALLOW ME TO SHOW IT.

OKAY.

HERE IN THE YELLOW IS THE PROPOSED SITE.

BEHIND HERE IS THE PARKING, THE VEGETATION, AND THE SIX-

FOOT WALL.

TO GET TO THE PROPERTIES, WOULD YOU HAVE TO EXIT FROM HERE

ALL THE WAY DOWN.

THERE'S A -- LIKE A FORK IN THE ROAD.

THIS IS THE ACTUAL ENTRANCE TO THE CONDOS.

THEN HERE ARE THE ONES LOCATED DIRECTLY BEHIND IT.
                                                            111



SO THE RESTAURANT DOES FACE NORTH DALE MABRY HIGHWAY.

SO THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT:    GOOD EVENING.

ISABELLE ALBERT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THIS REQUEST IS FOR A 2-COP TO ALLOW BEER AND WINE FOR SALE

AND CONSUMPTION ON AND OFF THE LICENSED PREMISES.

THE PETITIONER INTENDS TO OCCUPY THE 1,903-SQUARE-FOOT

SUBJECT SITE FOR A RESTAURANT.

AND A WAIVER IS NEEDED FOR THE 250-FOOT RESIDENTIAL ZONING,

WHICH LIES 65 FEET EAST OF THE SITE, SO THEREFORE, THEY ARE

ASKING FOR A WAIVER OF 85 FEET.

THERE CURRENTLY IS NO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT ON-SITE,

AND THE SITE IS SEPARATED BY A SIX-FOOT WALL, VEGETATION,

PARKING AREA, AND DRIVE AISLE, AND WE DO FIND THIS

SUPPORTABLE AND APPROVABLE, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

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

WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE

APPLICATION?
                                                            112



NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

DOES STAFF HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER?

APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL?

NO.

APPLICANT WAIVES RIGHT TO REBUTTAL.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION.

MR. GRADY, I THINK THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE SPECIAL USES.

>>BRIAN GRADY: CORRECT.

WE ARE NOW INTO THE REZONING PORTION, SO I THINK WE NEED TO

HEAR FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH, I HAVE A FEW INSTRUCTIONS TO READ INTO

THE RECORD.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS A FEW INSTRUCTIONS.

THEN WE WILL GET INTO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, REMAINING ITEMS ON THE AGENDA ARE

REZONINGS AND MAJOR MODIFICATIONS.

THESE ARE HANDLED SEPARATELY, DIFFERENTLY THAN THE SPECIAL

USES.

THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT

THERE BE A HEARING BEFORE THE ZONING HEARING MASTER ON ALL

REZONING AND MAJOR MODIFICATION REQUESTS PRIOR TO A FINAL

DECISION BY THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS.
                                                            113



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 A LAND

DEVELOPMENT REQUEST IS MADE AT THEIR OWN PUBLIC MEETING.

MY RECOMMENDATION ON EACH APPLICATION HEARD WILL BE

RENDERED WITHIN 15 WORKING DAYS, AND THEN THE

RECOMMENDATION IS SENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS.

AT THIS POINT, WE'LL HEAR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

>> THANK YOU, AGAIN, MR. HEARING MASTER.

AGAIN, SHERI MURPHY, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY.

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

REZONING PROCESS.

THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TONIGHT WILL BECOME THE COMPLETE

FACTUAL RECORD OF YOUR REZONING.

THEREFORE, THE RECORD WILL CLOSE AFTER TONIGHT'S HEARINGS,

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 TIME THE

BOARD WILL MAKE A DECISION ON EACH PETITION HEARD TONIGHT.

TONIGHT'S PETITIONS ARE CURRENTLY SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD BY

THE BOARD AT THE BOARD'S JULY 19th LAND USE MEETING.

THE HEARING MASTER WILL FILE A RECOMMENDATION FOR EACH
                                                            114



PETITION HEARD TONIGHT.

AFTER THE RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED, EACH PERSON WHO

WISHES TO SPEAK BEFORE THE BOARD AT THE PUBLIC MEETING MUST

FILE AND EXECUTE A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT NO LATER THAN

THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON JUNE 17th.

REQUESTS SHOULD BE FILED WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD OF

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 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 ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE;

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

HAVING BEEN MAILED NOTICE OF TONIGHT'S HEARING; THIRD, AN

INDIVIDUAL WHO SUBMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO THE MASTER

FILE AT LEAST TWO BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO TONIGHT'S HEARING;

AND FOURTH, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO SUBMITS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

THROUGH ANOTHER PERSON TONIGHT.

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

THE ARGUMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE

PRESENTED TONIGHT.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
                                                            115



THANK YOU.

MR. GRADY, INTRODUCE THE NEXT ITEM.

>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 11, REZONING

APPLICATION 10-080 9.

THE APPLICANT IS SAM REIBER, TRUSTEE.

THE APPLICANT IS TO REZONE FROM AR TO CG AND BPO.

YOU HEARD THIS PREVIOUSLY.

THIS ITEM WAS REMANDED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

TO GET MORE INFORMATION REGARDING LOCATIONS OF WETLANDS ON

THE PROPERTY.

ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER

PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>STEVE LUCE: MR. GRADY, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE

YOU MIGHT PROVIDE ME REGARDING A REMAND, REGARDING WHAT THE

FOCUS OF TONIGHT'S HEARING WOULD BE?

>>BRIAN GRADY: AGAIN, THE SPECIFIC REMAND ISSUE WAS THERE

WAS DISCUSSION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AT THE BOARD

HEARING, AND THE BOARD REMANDED IT SPECIFICALLY TO GET

INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE EXTENT OF WETLANDS ON THE

PROPERTY, SO THAT WAS THE GENERAL FOCUS OF THE REMAND WAS

REALLY MORE INFORMATION REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

THAT THIS PROJECT MAY HAVE ON EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL

SITUATION OUT THERE, AND THEY WANTED MORE INFORMATION ABOUT

THE EXTENT OF WETLANDS ON THE PROPERTY.
                                                            116



>>STEVE LUCE: LET ME ASK A DIFFERENT WAY.

REGARDING THE -- SORT OF THE HISTORY OF THE APPLICATION, IF

WE HEARD IT ONCE AND WE HAVE ALL THAT TESTIMONY ON RECORD,

IT WENT TO THE BOARD AND IT'S BACK AS A REMAND AND THE

FOCUS WAS REGARDING YOUR TESTIMONY ABOUT WETLAND ISSUES --

>>BRIAN GRADY: YES.

>>STEVE LUCE: -- IS YOUR SORT OF GUIDANCE TO US TONIGHT, TO

ME, AS A HEARING OFFICER, THAT THE FOCUS OF TONIGHT'S

TESTIMONY SHOULD BE WITH RESPECT TO THE WETLAND ISSUE?

>>BRIAN GRADY: YES, BECAUSE AGAIN, ALL PREVIOUS TESTIMONY

REGARDING OTHER ISSUES REGARDING COMPATIBILITY ARE IN THE

RECORD.

THEY ARE STILL IN THERE.

YOU ARE RIGHT, THERE'S REALLY NO NEED TO GO OVER THAT

INFORMATION AGAIN BECAUSE THAT IS IN THE RECORD AND

AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AND WILL BE DULY CONSIDERED BY THE

BOARD AS PART OF HEN THIS GOES BACK TO THEM, SO THERE'S

REALLY -- IT'S REALLY NOT NECESSARY TO REPEAT THAT

TESTIMONY BECAUSE IT IS IN THE RECORD AND WILL BE REVIEWED

AS PART OF THE ULTIMATE DECISION BY THE BOARD.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE STAFF, DO YOU CONCUR WITH THAT

ADVICE?

>>SHERI MURPHY:   YES, SIR, I DO CONCUR, YES.
                                                            117



>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE APPLICANT, PLEASE.

>> MR. HEARING OFFICER AND STAFF, MY NAME IS TODD PRESSMAN,

PO BOX 615 IN PALM HARBOR, FLORIDA.

WE, OF COURSE, AGREE WITH THE STAFF ON DIRECTION FOR THIS

EVENING.

I SUBMITTED A POWERPOINT AT THE PRIOR HEARING.

THAT'S A PART OF THE RECORD, WILL CONTINUE TO BE SO.

I AM NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THAT ALL AGAIN.

WE WERE DIRECTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO

TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THE WETLANDS, WHICH WE DID.

AND I HAVE MR. STEVE BOGGS WITH ME.

MR. BOGGS IS AN ENGINEER.

HE OVERSAW THE REVIEW OF THE WETLANDS ISSUES, AND THAT'S

BEEN STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

I DO HAVE A LETTER, WHICH I'LL PUT INTO THE RECORD.

I'M NOT SURE IF IT MADE YOUR RECORD BECAUSE IT'S RELATIVELY

NEW.

IT IS A LETTER, ACTUALLY DATED MAY 12, SUBJECT TITLE EPC --

AND THIS IS -- ACTUALLY, IF WE CAN GO TO THE OVERHEAD,

PLEASE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> I AM GETTING THE BUTTONS DOWN.
                                                            118



I'LL SUBMIT THIS HARD COPY TO YOU.

IT'S NOTED AS --

>>STEVE LUCE: JUST FOR THE RECORD, MR. PRESSMAN, STAFF

HANDED ME A COPY OF THE LETTER TONIGHT.

>> ALWAYS A STEP AHEAD OF ME.

THANK YOU.

NOTING EPC APPROVAL, WETLAND AND OTHER SURFACE WATER

SURVEYS, INDICATES THIS PROPERTY BY ADDRESS AND BY FOLIO.

COMMUNICATION -- ALLOWS THIS LETTER TO DOCUMENT THAT STAFF

OF EPC HAS ISSUED A FORMAL DETERMINATION AS TO EXISTENCE OF

WETLANDS AND OTHER SURFACE WATERS UPON LANDS WITHIN

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY FOR THE ABOVE-REFERENCED PROPERTY AS

REFLECTED ON THE CERTIFIED SURVEY.

THIS WAS ESTABLISHED USING THE METHODOLOGY DESCRIBED IN

CHAPTER 62-30, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.

GOES ON AND TALKS ABOUT THE WETLAND RULES AND THOSE SORT OF

ELEMENTS.

THIS IS JUST A BLOWUP OF IT.

AND THIS IS THE PLAN HERE.

OF COURSE, THIS WILL BE IN YOUR FILE, THE LARGE VERSIONS.

YOU HAVE THAT LETTER, AND IN REGARD TO DETAILS WITH THE

PLAN, ANY OTHER FEATURES -- I'M SORRY.

I ALSO -- I DO WANT TO POINT OUT IN THE FILE IS A COMMENT

FROM NATURAL RESOURCES, ALSO NOTING THAT THEY HAVE NO
                                                            119



OBJECTIONS TO THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU.

WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS TURN THIS OVER TO MR. STEVE BOGGS,

AND HE WILL WALK YOU THROUGH SOME OTHER FINER POINTS AND

GIVE YOU A LITTLE BETTER OVERVIEW.

THANK YOU.

IF I MAY.

>> GOOD EVENING.

STEVE BOGGS, PRINCIPAL, BOGGS ENGINEERING, 607 SOUTH

ALEXANDER STREET, PLANT CITY, FLORIDA.

THE PURPOSE OF MY INVOLVEMENT IN THIS PROJECT WAS TO OBTAIN

A WETLAND DELINEATION FOR THE SUBJECT PARCEL, AND WE

CONTRACTED WITH NICK NICHOLS AND ASSOCIATES, WHO ARE AN

ENVIRONMENTAL FIRM, WHO WENT OUT AND HAD A WETLAND

DELINEATION COMPLETED WITH HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY EPC, AND

THEN AFTER THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED.

THEY WENT AND HAD A JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION SURVEY THAT

WAS COMPLETED.

THE SURVEY THAT YOU SEE IS THAT SURVEY THAT WAS AND IS NOW

RECORDED AS AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT IN THE WETLAND LINE, AND

IF YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE, THE LINE I'M POINTING TO WITH

THE CURSOR, IS THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE, AND THEN THE

LINE THAT IS -- THE DASHED LINE THAT IS SLIGHTLY ABOVE IT,

AT SOMEWHAT OF A CONSISTENT OFFSET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE,

IS THE DELINEATED WETLAND LINE FOR THAT PROPERTY.
                                                            120



THE WETLAND LINE IS CONSISTENT MOST GENERALLY WITH THE TOP

OF THE BANK OF THE CREEK THAT -- OR DRAINAGEWAY THAT RUNS

NEAR THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE, AND THEN BESIDES THAT,

THERE IS IS WETLAND BUFFER THAT EPC AND SWFWMD PLACES ON

ANY WETLAND DELINEATION THAT COMES ACROSS THAT.

THAT IS THE ONLY WETLAND THAT IS CONSISTENT ON THAT

PROPERTY.

I DID PROVIDE MR. PRESSMAN, WHICH I'LL GIVE TO YOU TONIGHT,

A LETTER OF MY EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY, AND THAT THE

WETLAND LINE DOES NOT INHERENTLY PROHIBIT ANY TYPE OF

DEVELOPMENT ON THIS THING AND DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING THAT

WOULD BE ADVERSELY EFFECTIVE TO THE DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS

SITE.

AND IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY

TO ANSWER THEM FOR YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH, IF YOU COULD, YOU KIND OF POINTED TO

THE WETLAND LINE.

IF COULD YOU VERBALLY DESCRIBE IT FOR THE RECORD, SO IF YOU

COULD, HOW FAR IT OFFSETS OFF THE PROPERTY LINE IN YOUR OWN

DESCRIPTION.

>> IT'S OFFSET A LITTLE WAYS.

   [LAUGHTER]

IT VARIES, BUT IT'S APPROXIMATELY 30 FOOT OFFSET TO THE

NORTH OF THE PROPERTY LINE, AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THAT
                                                            121



PROPERTY LINE ACROSS THE ENTIRE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND THE SWFWMD AND HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY EPC

UPLAND SETBACK THAT'S REQUIRED?

>> IT'S A 30-FOOT SETBACK THAT IS INSTITUTED DURING ANY

TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

THEY WILL SHOW THAT.

IT HAS TO BE SHOWN ON DEVELOPMENT PLANS, AND YOU ARE NOT --

THERE ARE CERTAIN WAYS YOU CAN GET INTO IT, BUT IT'S

TYPICALLY A "DO NOT ENTER" INTO THAT 30-FOOT SETBACK.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND IF YOU CONSIDER THE 30-FOOT WETLAND

SETBACK, IF YOU'VE LOOKED AT THIS FROM A SITE DEVELOPMENT

POINT OF VIEW, THE ONE TRACT THAT'S AT THE NORTH, LEFT

PORTION OF THE OVERALL PROPERTY THAT HAS ACCESS TO THE MAIN

ROAD, MILLER MAC, WOULD THAT BE, IN YOUR OPINION, HAVE TO

BE INDEPENDENTLY DEVELOPED BECAUSE OF THE WETLAND AND THE

UPLAND SETBACK?

I THINK MR. PRESSMAN --

>> OKAY.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SECOND ONE, THEN; CORRECT?

THIS ONE OVER HERE?

>>STEVE LUCE: YES.

>> YES, FOR THE MOST PART, THAT WOULD BE INDEPENDENT

BECAUSE OF THE SPACE THAT IS ALLOWED THROUGH HERE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
                                                            122



>> THERE COULD BE A POSSIBILITY OF A CONNECTION THROUGH

THERE, BUT IT WOULD ONLY BE -- FROM WHAT I CAN TELL

PRELIMINARILY -- A ONE-WAY CONNECTION, AND THERE WOULD HAVE

TO BE SOME OFFSETS OF THAT BUFFER IMPACT ELSEWHERE TO MEET

THE REQUIREMENTS BY SWFWMD AND EPC.

SO FROM A TRUE DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT, IT IS POSSIBLE TO

MAKE THE CONNECTION, BUT IT'S PROBABLY NOT THE BEST OPTION.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

I'LL ASK YOU A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT SITE

DEVELOPMENT, THEN.

IF THAT TRACT IS INDEPENDENTLY DEVELOPED, HAVE YOU TALKED

WITH YOUR CLIENT ABOUT HOW YOU WOULD GET ACCESS TO THE SORT

OF EASTERN HALF OF THAT TRACT?

IF YOU ARE GOING TO DEVELOP THE OTHER HALF OF THE PROPERTY.

>> THE ONLY TRUE MEANS OF ACCESS WOULD BE A SECONDARY

CONNECTION TO MILLER MAC ROAD ON THE EASTERN PORTION.

NOW, I HAVE NOT HAD CONVERSATIONS AS FAR AS OVERALL

DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES.

REALISTICALLY, THE SITE -- GIVEN WHAT UNDERSTAND TO BE

OFFICE COMPLEX IS WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR, PARKING IS

GOING TO BE THE LIMITED CONDITION AS FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF

BUILDING SPACE THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY GET OUT THERE.

BUT THE ACCESS, REALISTICALLY, ON THE EASTERN PORTION IS

GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE ITS OWN ENTRANCE ONTO MILLER MAC
                                                            123



ROAD.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

YOU KIND OF GOT OUT IN FRONT OF ME ON DESCRIBING POSSIBLE

BUILD-OUT SCENARIOS, BUT THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION I WOULD -

- HAD IN MY MIND.

HOW WOULD YOU GO ABOUT DOING SITE CIVIL ON THIS SITE?

IN GENERAL, WHERE WOULD YOU PUT THE BUILDING, PARKING?

STORMWATER WOULD BE AT THE SOUTHERN END OF THE PROPERTY?

>> CORRECT, ON BOTH OF THEM IT WOULD BE ON THE SOUTHERN

END.

THE EASTERN SIDE, BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE THERE

AND THE NARROWNESS, IF YOU WILL, OF PARCEL NUMBER ONE

THERE, THAT WOULD VIRTUALLY BE AN ACCESS AND PROBABLY

SHARED PARKING BETWEEN IT AND THE BUILDING THAT'S TO THE

RIGHT, AND THEN THE NEXT BUILDING WOULD PROBABLY BE

SOMEWHERE ON THE SAME LINE, JUST SOUTH OF THAT EXISTING

BUILDING, THEN PARKING AND STORMWATER WOULD BE TOWARD THE

CREEK AREA.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

AND HAVE YOU -- ARE YOU UNDER CONTRACT TO DO ANY

PRELIMINARY LAYOUTS?

HAVE YOU DONE ANY?

>> I'VE LOOKED AT IT FROM A VERY CONCEPTUAL POINT OF VIEW.

UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T HAVE TOPOGRAPHY TO GO WITH THAT, BUT
                                                            124



YOU KNOW, WE HAVE LOOKED AT IT WITH TWO INDEPENDENT

BUILDINGS.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND IN YOUR OPINION, YOUR PROFESSIONAL

OPINION, THE TWO DIFFERENT PARCELS CAN BE DEVELOPED?

>> CORRECT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

>> MR. BOGGS WILL SUBMIT THAT INTO THE RECORD.

THE ONLY OTHER CLARIFICATION OR POINT THAT I'D LIKE TO

RAISE IS THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE REQUESTS HERE FOR THIS

FIRST PARCEL OR THIS FIRST AREA HERE AND THEN THE SECOND

AREA.

AND THERE WAS A QUESTION AT THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS AS TO WHETHER THEY COULD BE VOTED ON

SEPARATELY.

I HAVE HAD A COUPLE OF DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. GORMLY.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO TALK WITH MR. GORMLY OR

NOT, BUT OUR INTENT WAS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE BOTH THESE TWO

SEPARATE PARCELS, IF POSSIBLE, OR IF DESIRED, TO BE VOTED

ON SEPARATELY.

SO I JUST WANT TO PLACE IT ON THE RECORD.

AND I, OF COURSE, CAN'T SPEAK FOR MR. GORMLY.

THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WAS THE DIRECTION WE WERE
                                                            125



MOVING IN.

WITH THAT, WE BELIEVE THAT WE'VE ADDRESSED THE ISSUES

RAISED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE CAN.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.

MR. PRESSMAN, I THINK YOU WERE THE APPLICANT LAST TIME THIS

AUDIOVISUAL SHUTDOWN HAPPENED.

>> I JUST PUSHED THE BUTTONS I WAS DIRECTED TO.

>>STEVE LUCE: I'M NOT SEEING THE IMAGE ON MY SCREEN.

OKAY.

I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS GETTING PICKED UP BY HHTV OR NOT.

IN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION -- NEVER MIND.

WE ARE BACK.

ALL RIGHT.

SORRY FOR THAT ALMOST DELAY.

ALL RIGHT.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT:   GOOD EVENING.

ISABELLE ALBERT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

ON JANUARY 11, 2001 -- ACTUALLY, IT SHOULD BE 2011 -- TO

OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION ON POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT,
                                                           126



THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REMANDED THE APPLICATION

IN ORDER FOR THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN AN EPC WETLAND

DELINEATION SURVEY.

WE HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM EPC APPROVING THAT.

BUT OUR POSITION STILL REMAINS AS NOT SUPPORTED.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

>>DAVID HEY:   THANK YOU, MR. HEARING OFFICER.

THE SAME AS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, PLANNING COMMISSION

PROVIDED A REPORT THAT'S VIRTUALLY THE SAME AS WHAT WAS

PROVIDED PREVIOUSLY.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF IS FINDING THAT WITH THE

CONDITIONS INCLUDED WITHIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF

REPORT IN REGARDS TO TYPE OF ARCHITECTURE, THE NUMBER OF

BUILDINGS, THAT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF DOES FIND THAT

THE PROPOSED REZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF

HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

LET ME ASK BOTH STAFFS, SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU ARE

SPEAKING AT THE MOMENT, GIVEN THE WETLAND SURVEY DATA, I

THINK YOU'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED IT, IT HAS NOT AFFECTED YOUR

POSITION?
                                                            127



>>DAVID HEY:   IT HAS NOT.

IT REMAINS THE SAME, THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT CAN BE DEVELOPED

CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

MR. GRADY, FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES POINT OF VIEW,

GIVEN THE WETLAND INFORMATION, DOES THAT AFFECT YOUR

POSITION?

>>BRIAN GRADY: IT HASN'T CHANGED OUR POSITION.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

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?

YES, SIR.

>> GOOD EVENING, MR. HEARING OFFICER, STAFF.

I'M JERRY KELLY, 108 SILVER FALLS DRIVE, SOUTHSHORE FALLS,

APOLLO BEACH, 33572.

I WAS GOING TO -- I HAVE A SLIDE ALONG WITH A SCRIPT.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THE SCRIPT FIRST THEN SHOW THE

SLIDES BECAUSE I CAN'T DO IT FROM HERE.

THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO

REMAND RZ 10-0809 BACK TO THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER FOR
                                                            128



A HEARING TODAY.

THE REMAND REQUIRES THAT PROPERTY OWNERS PROVIDE

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION AND MILLER MAC ROAD IMPROVEMENTS.

THERE ARE OVER 1,000 TAXPAYING AND VOTING CITIZENS OPPOSED

TO THIS RZ 10-0809, A REZONING OF LAND FROM AGRICULTURAL

RURAL TO CG/PBO AND ABOUT 400 PROXIES WERE COLLECTED AND

PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED AGAINST THIS REZONING.

THE RECENT LAND SURVEY CONFIRMS OUR POSITION THAT IMPORTANT

WETLANDS ARE FOUND ON ABOUT HALF AN ACRE OF THE PROPERTY.

THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA IS RICH IN NATURAL

RESOURCES IN THE FORM OF MATURE OAKS, WILDLIFE SPECIES

INCLUDING BOBCATS, OSPREY, HAWKS, OWLS, AND EAGLES THAT

SHELTER AND FORAGE THROUGHOUT THIS CORRIDOR OF WETLAND AREA

FROM TWO SOUTHSHORE PD CONSERVATION AREAS EAST AND WEST OF

RZ 10-0809.

ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THE CENTER OF THE RESIDENTIAL

NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD INTRUDE INTO THE DESIGNATED

ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS AND DESTROY THE PREVIOUSLY

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OF VALUABLE CONSERVATION AREAS.

THAT HOMEOWNERS HAVE PAID PREMIUMS, THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS,

FOR AND, THUS, WOULD ALSO REDUCE THE ASSESSED VALUE AND TAX

BASE OF THOSE PROPERTIES.

DEVELOPMENT DAMAGING, DIVERTING, OR INCREASING STORMWATER

RUNOFF OF THE WETLANDS AND WATER FLOW FROM THE CYPRESS
                                                            129



CREEK AND BULLFROG CREEK WATERSHED WOULD CAUSE FLOODING,

EROSION, AND TRAFFIC PROBLEMS IN APOLLO BEACH.

AND SOUTHSHORE FALL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

IT WOULD ALSO WORSEN THE SILTING PROBLEMS OF THE APOLLO

BEACH CANAL SYSTEMS.

SOUTHSHORE FALL RESIDENTS BELIEVE THAT SINCE THERE IS

ALREADY A GLUT OF UNLEASED COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE, ANY

PROFESSIONAL BUILDING OFFICE PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER WILL

NOT ATTRACT TENANTS AND WILL REMAIN VACANT AND ATTRACT

VANDALISM AND CRIMINALS TO INVADE THE PROPERTY.

THIS SAME DEVELOPER HAS OTHER PROPERTIES IN APOLLO BEACH

THAT ARE VACANT AND HAVE SECURITY PROBLEMS.

THE CURRENT THICK VEGETATION OF THE LAND SERVES AS A

SECURITY BARRIER ALONG THE NORTHERN BORDER OF SOUTHSHORE

FALLS.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PROFESSIONAL BUILDING OFFICE ON THE

PARCEL WOULD BE A DISTURBANCE AND AN INTRUSION AND WOULD BE

A BREACH OF THE CURRENT SECURITY OF SOUTHSHORE FALLS

NEIGHBORHOODS.

APOLLO BEACH AREA HAS A LARGE AMOUNT OF VACANT COMMERCIAL

SPACE, WHICH IS LOCATED BETTER THAN THE MILLER MAC ROAD

SITE.

THE EXCESS COMMERCIAL SPACE FOR RENT IN APOLLO BEACH IS

PROJECTED NOT TO BE LEASED OR FILLED FOR THE NEXT FIVE
                                                            130



YEARS OR LONGER.

IT IS FOOLISH TO RISK DAMAGE TO THE DESIGNATED

ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS TO BUILD PROFESSIONAL

BUILDING OFFICE RENTAL SPACE ON A DANGEROUS BACK ROAD THAT

WILL NEITHER ATTRACT RENTERS NOR CUSTOMERS.

MILLER MAC ROAD IS NOW A FAILED ROADWAY.

IT IS NARROW, WAVY, WITH MINIMAL SHOULDERS AND DEEP

CULVERTS ON ITS ROADSIDES.

A PETITION WAS CIRCULATING IN 2004, GAINING MANY

SIGNATURES, TO PLACE A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERNATIONAL

OF U.S. 41 AND MILLER MAX ROAD.

THERE IS STILL NO TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION.

MILLER MAC ROAD ALREADY SERVES AS A SPECIFIC TRAVEL ROUTE

AT FIREFLY TO GOLF AND SEA BOULEVARDS FOR LOCAL RESIDENTS.

ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ON MILLER MAC WILL CAUSE MORE TRAFFIC

CONGESTION PROBLEMS ON MILLER MAC ROAD.

AS YOU MAY ALREADY KNOW, THERE WAS ANOTHER FATALITY AT THE

INTERSECTION OF U.S. 41 AND MULLER MACK ROAD ON FRIDAY, MAY

6.

PLEASE RECOMMEND TO DENY THE DEVELOPER'S REQUEST TO THIS

REZONING THE LAND IN RZ 10-0809.

I WILL GO AHEAD AND SHOW THE EXHIBITS NOW.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> [OFF MICROPHONE]
                                                            131



THAT JUST SHOWS THE AREA WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

THESE ARE ALL THE SOUTHSHORE HOMEOWNERS' PROPERTIES HERE

THAT I TALKED ABOUT.

THEY'LL HAVE A DECREASE IN PROPERTY VALUES AND A DECREASE

IN THE TAX BASES.

THIS IS A SLIDE OF THE SURVEY OF THE WETLANDS.

WE BELIEVE, IF YOU CAN LOOK AT THE LINE HERE, THERE WILL

NOT BE ANY ACCESS TO THAT PROPERTY IF YOU HAVE A 30-FOOT

BUFFER THERE.

THIS WAS A STUDY THAT WAS DONE BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION COMMISSION THERE FOR THE COUNTY, AND IT TALKS

ABOUT ALL THE DIFFERENT HABITATS IN THERE, AND THAT SEEMED

TO GET LOST IN THIS CONSIDERATION HERE.

THAT WAS DATED 7/13, AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE OAKS AND THE

DIFFERENT HABITAT AREAS THERE.

THIS IS WHERE THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS ARE

POSTED.

THIS IS AT THE INTERSECTION OF FORTUNE ROAD AND NEAR

HIGHWAY 41.

THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS

POSTED THERE, AND THAT'S ON MILLER MAC ROAD.

YOU CAN SEE HOW NARROW THAT ROAD IS.

IT'S PROBABLY ABOUT 25 FEET AND VERY WAVY AND BUMPY.

THIS IS WHERE THE END OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA
                                                            132



IS.

THAT'S HIGHWAY 41.

YOU ARE LOOKING NORTH.

YOU CAN SEE THE WATER TOWER IN APOLLO BEACH THERE.

 THE GENTLEMAN TALKED ABOUT THE CREEK, TRIED TO CORRECT IT

TO A DITCH.

THIS IS A CREEK.

THIS IS A WATERSHED FROM THE CYPRESS CREEK AND BULLFROG

CREEK TRIBUTARY, AND IT FLOWS UNDERNEATH HIGHWAY 41, GOES

RIGHT ALONG HERE, AND THIS IS A GOOGLE MAPPING OF IT.

AND YOU CAN SEE IT PRETTY MUCH PARALLELS WITH WHAT WE'VE

ALREADY HAVE BEEN SAYING, FLOWS RIGHT THROUGH THAT PROPERTY

THERE.

THAT'S A VERY BIG WATER FLOW.

AND I DON'T THINK PEOPLE HAVE APPRECIATED HOW DEEP IT IS.

DURING THE LAST RAINSTORM, IT WAS ALL THE WAY UP TO THE

BRIDGE OVER HIGHWAY 41.

I'M JUST TRY TO GO POINT OUT SOME OF THE WATER FLOW IN

HERE.

THIS IS ABOUT A HALF AN ACRE, RIGHT IN HERE.

SOME MORE WATER FLOW.

YOU CAN SEE IT FLOWING ALL THE WAY THROUGH HERE.

I WILL SUBMIT ALL THESE PHOTOGRAPHS FOR YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.
                                                            133



>> AND HERE'S WHERE THAT CREEK ENDS UP GOING INTO

FRENCHMEN'S CANAL IN APOLLO BEACH, AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT

OF DISCUSSION ABOUT SILTING, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I

WANTED TO MENTION TONIGHT.

THAT WILL INCREASE THE SILTING IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE

DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA.

THIS IS LOOKING TOWARDS HIGHWAY 41.

YOU CAN SEE THIS ROAD.

IT'S VERY BUMPY.

YOU CAN SEE ALL THE RUTS IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH RIGHT HERE.

VERY NARROW.

AND IF THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING ANOTHER ACCESS RIGHT

IN HERE, YOU'VE ALREADY GOT A DRIVEWAY THERE, A DRIVEWAY

HERE, VERY CONGESTED, AND THAT WILL INCREASE THE TRAFFIC ON

MILLER MAC ROAD.

AND SUBSEQUENTLY ON HIGHWAY 41.

THAT'S LOOKING TOWARDS THE CANAL SYSTEM ON MILLER MAC ROAD,

AND YOU CAN SEE THE RUTS AND THE BUMPS ON THIS ROAD.

IT'S ALREADY IN DISREPAIR RIGHT NOW.

SO ONCE AGAIN I WANT TO ASK YOU TO CONSIDER DENYING THIS

REQUEST.

WE DON'T FEEL AS THOUGH THE TRAFFIC WILL BE ACCOMMODATED ON

MILLER MAC ROAD, AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS

THAT THE COMMISSIONERS TALKED ABOUT WHEN THEY REMANDED IT
                                                            134



BACK TO YOU, SIR.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK

IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE ELSE RESPONDING.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

>>BRIAN GRADY: NOTHING FURTHER.

>>DAVID HEY:   JUST UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: NOW, LET ME JUST COME BACK TO THE TRAFFIC

BECAUSE IF THAT WAS ONE OF THE OTHER ISSUES AND THIS

HEARING IS ALSO ABOUT TRAFFIC AS WELL, WAS THAT A -- A

POINT OF THE REMAND?

>>BRIAN GRADY: MY REVIEW OF THE MINUTES OF THE REMAND

DIDN'T INDICATE THEY SPECIFICALLY REMANDED FOR THE SUBJECT

OF TRAFFIC.

THE MINUTES OF THE SUMMARY TALKED ABOUT THERE WAS A MOTION

MADE REGARDING ENVIRONMENT, THEY HAD CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS,

AND ONE OF THE ISSUES AS PART OF THE CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS

WAS ISSUES ABOUT TRAFFIC, AND THERE WAS, I GUESS, AGREEMENT

AMONGST THE BOARD TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT.
                                                            135



BUT MY READ OF THAT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT IS PART OF

THEIR FURTHER DELIBERATIONS ON THIS ISSUE, THEY ARE GOING

TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IT.

YOU, CERTAINLY, AS THE HEARING OFFICER, HAVE THE ABILITY TO

TAKE ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY IF YOU WANT TO.

>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH, IF I COULD, LET ME ASK TRAFFIC STAFF

ABOUT THE LEVEL OF SERVICE OF MILLER MAC ROAD.

MR. SHOPMYER.

GOOD EVENING.

>>GLEN SHOPMYER:   GOOD EVENING.

GLEN SHOPMYER, TRANSPORTATION.

>>STEVE LUCE: IF YOU COULD PROVIDE A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON

WHAT THE LEVEL OF SERVICE OF MILLER MAC MIGHT BE TODAY,

WHAT IT MIGHT BE WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC.

>>GLEN SHOPMYER:   AT THIS POINT IN TIME, MILLER MAC IS NOT

CONSIDERED A REGULATED ROADWAY, SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY ACTUAL

TRAFFIC COUNTS ON THERE.

GIVEN THE -- WHEN I WENT OUT TO THE SITE, AERIALS, IT

APPEARS TO BE OPERATING AT AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE

TRAFFIC VOLUME WISE.

NOW, THE ROAD ITSELF, I WOULD CLASSIFY IT AS A 22-FOOT-WIDE

PAVEMENT, AND NORMAL STANDARDS NOW FOR A COLLECTOR ROAD

WOULD HAVE TO BE A MINIMUM 24 FEET, SO THERE MAY BE SOME

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED BY THE APPLICANT ADJACENT TO THIS SITE.
                                                            136



WE'RE SHOWING VARIATION IN THE LANE WIDTH VARYING FROM NINE

TO TEN FEET IN WIDTH, INDICATING THAT YOU'VE GOT, EVEN AT

THE BEST WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE TWO TEN-FOOT LANES ADJACENT

TO EACH OTHER, 22-FOOT-WIDE PAVEMENT, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE

A ONE-FOOT-WIDE SHOULDER ON EACH SIDE.

IT IS AN UNDULATING TYPE OF FACILITY, GIVEN THE AGE OF THE

ROAD AND THE SUBSTANDARD, SUBTERRANEAN FIELD THAT'S OUT

THERE.

THE NEED FOR SIGNALIZATION, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY STUDIES FROM

PUBLIC WORKS.

GIVEN THE HIGH-SPEED ABILITY OF TRAFFIC ALONG 41, THERE

COULD BE A SAFETY ISSUE THERE.

DURING CONCURRENCY, WHAT WE'LL HAVE THEM DO IS DO AN

ANALYSIS BASED ON WHAT THEY'RE COMING IN FOR.

WHAT THEY ARE APPLYING FOR AT THIS POINT IN TIME AS FAR AS

TRANSPORTATION IS REVIEWING IT ARE MAXIMUMS.

THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE ALL OF THOSE MAXIMUMS,

GIVEN THE WETLAND, THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAYS, AND

CONCURRENCY AT THE INTERSECTION.

THEY MAY BE REQUIRED TO DO A LEFT TURN LANE INTO THE SITE.

THEY MAY BE REQUIRED TO, BASED ON THEIR ANALYSIS, AGAIN,

DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING, TURN LANES AT THE

INTERSECTION.

AND IF WARRANTED, IF THEY DO MEET THE WARRANTS AND THEY MAY
                                                            137



BE REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT A SIGNAL THEMSELVES.

BUT AGAIN, THAT'S GOING TO BE BASED LATER ON DOWN WITH THE

BUILDING PERMITTING STAGE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR

REBUTTAL.

>> MR. HEARING OFFICER, TODD PRESSMAN, AGAIN, FOR THE

RECORD.

I THINK WE HAVE TO BE REAL SERIOUS HERE WITH GREAT RESPECT

TO THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE HERE, AND I HAVE RESPECT FOR

THEM, AS TO WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO ADDRESS THIS WITH FACTS

OR, UNFORTUNATELY, WE ARE GOING TO ADDRESS IT WITH FICTION.

MR. KELLY, WHO HAS CONCERNS ABOUT HIS VICINITY HERE, IS NOT

AN ENGINEER, NOR IS HE A HYDROLOGIST, NO IS HE A WILDLIFE

EXPERT, NOR IS HE A TRAFFIC ENGINEER.

IN FACT, MR. BOGGS INDICATED TO ME THAT THIS DOCUMENT HE

PUT UP HERE ABOUT WILDLIFE HABITATS IS, IN FACT, AN EPC

MAP.

SO WE HAVE AN EPC MAP THAT'S BEING CLAIMED TO BE WILDLIFE

HABITATS.

I'LL PUT THIS BACK IN THE RECORD, IF I MAY.

WE ARE TRYING TO WORK WITH THE FACTS ON THIS SITE, AND I
                                                            138



THINK YOU WINNOW THROUGH THE TRAFFIC ELEMENT.

THIS IS JUST EUCLIDEAN ZONING.

I THINK MR. SHOPMYER MADE CLEAR WHAT THE TRAFFIC SITUATION

IS AND THE ROADWAY SITUATION.

THERE'S BEEN NO WILDLIFE ANALYSIS DONE HERE.

THERE'S BEEN NO INSPECTION ON THE PROPERTY THAT I'M

FAMILIAR WITH.

OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE DIRECTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS.

WE MADE QUITE AN INVESTMENT TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES.

MR. BOGGS TRAMPED THROUGH THAT SITE, ALONG WITH THE EPC

PEOPLE.

I DON'T THINK MR. KELLY DID.

I THINK IT'S ALSO -- UNFORTUNATELY, I DO WANT TO SAY THIS -

- I THINK IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A YOU ARE WITH AWAY --

WATERWAY THAT AT ONE TIME SUPPOSEDLY CARRIES SILT TO THE

BAY AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CARRIES WATER TO 41.

WATER BODIES DON'T FLOW IN TWO DIRECTIONS.

THEY ONLY FLOW IN ONE.

AND AGAIN, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT MR. KELLY HAS STUDIED THE

WATERSHED FROM POINTS OF BEGINNING TO POINTS OF END.

SO THOSE CLAIMS, I BELIEVE AND I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY,

ARE UNSUBSTANTIATED.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE FIND OURSELVES IN A POSITION OF HAVING TO
                                                            139



CHASE THESE POINTS AND SITUATIONS AND CLAIMS THAT ARE MADE

ON A CONTINUAL BASIS.

WE HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR THE NEIGHBORS, AND WITHOUT GOING

THROUGH THE PRESENTATION AGAIN, WE DRASTICALLY PULLED BACK

ON WHAT WE ORIGINALLY REQUESTED, WHICH WAS A COMMERCIAL USE

OF THIS AREA.

THIS IS A SMALL, SIMPLE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT AS

PROPOSED.

AND AS YOU POINTED OUT, WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH WILL

ACTUALLY BE DEVELOPED THERE UNDER EUCLIDEAN.

WHEN WE COME IN, AS MR. SHOPMYER INDICATED, WE WILL HAVE TO

START LOOKING AT THE DETAILS AND START PUTTING THE PIECES

OF THE PUZZLE TOGETHER.

I THINK WE HAVE BEEN PATIENT.

WE HAVE BEEN HAPPY TO COME BACK HERE TONIGHT AND LOOK AT

THE ISSUES ON A VERY FACTUAL BASIS, AND WE'VE DONE THAT.

WE ASK YOU, OF COURSE, TO KEEP THE SAME RESULT OF YOUR

DECISION FROM THE LAST TIME, AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION

HAS, AND TO MOVE THIS FORWARD AND TO ALLOW THE SITE, IN A

FAIR AND TIMELY MANNER, MOVE FORWARD.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION AND THE STAFF'S, AND WE DO

APPRECIATE THE NEIGHBORS BEING HERE.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.
                                                            140



THANK YOU.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION.

AND MR. GRADY, WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

WHY DON'T WE JUST GIVE THE FOLKS HERE FOR THIS ITEM A FEW

MINUTES TO HEAD TOWARDS THE EXITS, THEN WE'LL GET STARTED

ON THE NEXT ITEM.

ALL RIGHT, MR. GRADY, I THINK WE'RE READY.

>>BRIAN GRADY:   THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 13, MAJOR

MODIFICATION APPLICATION 11-0256.

THE APPLICANT IS BAY CITIES BANK.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO ADD MULTIFAMILY

AND AN RV PARK AS AN ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION WITHIN

THE PD.

ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER

PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

APPLICANT?

GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, MY NAME IS JOEL TEW.

I AM WITH TEW AND ASSOCIATES, 7747 MITCHELL BOULEVARD, NEW

PORT RICHEY, FLORIDA, AND I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT, WHICH

ALSO IS THE PROPERTY OWNER.

THE MAJOR MODIFICATION BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS BASED
                                                            141



UPON A 1989 PD-H     REZONING THAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED NOW

OVER 20 YEARS AGO.

THE LAST MAJOR MODIFICATION IN 2005 BASICALLY CREATED A

PHASE TWO, AND THAT ALLOWED UP TO 78 TOWN HOMES IN THE

NORTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE.

THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS VERY LIMITED IN

TERMS OF THE GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE.

WE EXPRESSLY HAVE MADE CERTAIN THAT WE ARE NOT CHANGING ANY

OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PAD.

THE REQUEST IS SIMPLY TO ADD TWO ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVE

USES.

WE WOULD RETAIN THE POTENTIAL TOWN HOME USE APPROVED IN

'05, BUT WE ALSO ARE ASKING FOR APPROVAL, AS AN

ALTERNATIVE, TO HAVE MULTIFAMILY UNITS UP TO 131 OF THOSE,

WHICH IS BASED UPON THE DENSITY CALCULATION SET FORTH IN

THE APPLICATION BASED ON THE RES-6 PLAN CATEGORIES, OR

ALTERNATIVELY, UP TO 262 RV PARK SITES, WHICH, AGAIN, IS

BASED ON THE DENSITY CALCULATION BASED ON THE RES-6

CATEGORY.

NONE OF THE WETLAND DELINEATIONS CHANGE, GOING BACK TO THE

PREVIOUS APPLICATION.

THE SETBACKS DON'T CHANGE.

SIMPLY ASKING TO ADD TWO ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVE USES.

I POINT OUT THAT IN TERMS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA AND THE
                                                            142



QUESTION OF CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY, YOU WILL HEAR,

OF COURSE, FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF THAT THEY

HAVE DETERMINED THIS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN,

AS CONDITIONED OR PROPOSED TO BE CONDITIONED, AND YOU'LL

ALSO HEAR FROM STAFF THAT THEY BELIEVE IT IS COMPATIBLE

WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND, THEREFORE, SUPPORTABLE WITH

THE CONDITIONS.

I JUST POINT OUT FACTUALLY THAT YOU REALLY HAVE A MIXED BAG

OF APPROVED USES IN THE AREA.

WE HAVE EVERYTHING FROM MANUFACTURING OR INDUSTRIAL USE TO

THE NORTH ON THE TECO PROPERTY.

WE HAVE EXISTING RMC-16 MULTIFAMILY ZONING APPROVED ON THE

NORTH AND EASTERN CORNER OF US.

WE HAVE A VERY DENSE MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY TO THE SOUTH,

THE CARIBBEAN ISLES COMMUNITY.

BUT, OF COURSE, WE ARE SEPARATED BY THE NORTHERNMOST CANAL

AND A FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL WETLAND SYSTEM FROM THEM.

OUR ACCESS WILL NOT COME AT ALL THROUGH THEIR COMMUNITY.

THEY ARE A PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY.

THEY ACCESS, I BELIEVE, OFFER OF APOLLO BEACH BOULEVARD TO

THE SOUTH.

OUR ACCESS INTO OUR PARCEL WOULD REMAIN AS APPROVED

PREVIOUSLY, AND THAT IS AN EXTENSION OF ELSBERRY ROAD AT

DICKMAN COMING INTO OUR PROPERTY.
                                                            143



SO OUR ACCESS DOES NOT CHANGE FROM THE EXISTING APPROVAL

THAT WE HAVE FOR THE TOWN HOMES.

WE DID SUBMIT A DETAILED TRAFFIC STUDY, WHICH I PROVIDED TO

YOU, MR. LUCE, AT THE LAST HEARING WHEN WE WERE CONTINUED

THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE IN THE RECORD PREPARED BY LINCKS &

ASSOCIATES.

THAT TRAFFIC STUDY DEMONSTRATES THAT ALL THE ROADWAYS THAT

ARE AFFECTED ARE OPERATING CURRENTLY AT ACCEPTABLE LOS

LEVELS AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO AFTER THE ADDITIONAL OF

PROJECT TRAFFIC.

IT ALSO DEMONSTRATES THAT ACCORDING TO THE TAMPA BAY

REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MODEL FOR TRIP DISTRIBUTION, THAT

OVER 80% OF THE TRIPS WOULD BE PROJECTED TO COME AND GO

FROM THE NORTH ON DICKMAN AND LESS THAN 20% TO AND FROM THE

SOUTH, ACCORDING TO THE TBRPC MODEL.

WE ARE -- WE DO EXPECT, BASED UPON THAT ANALYSIS -- EVEN

THOUGH WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN TO CONCURRENCY OR SITE ACCESS

APPROVAL, AS MR. SHOPMYER INDICATED ON THE PREVIOUS

MATTER -- OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER INDICATES SOUTHBOUND ON

DICKMAN WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ADD A LEFT TURN LANE INTO

THE PROJECT TO ACCOMMODATE TRAFFIC, AND IF THAT'S THE WAY

IT TURNS OUT, WE, OF COURSE, HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT.

WE WILL CONSTRUCT WHATEVER SITE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS ARE

REQUIRED.
                                                            144



BUT I BELIEVE GIVEN THE DENSITY AROUND US, THE FACT THAT WE

HAVE INDUSTRIAL OR MANUFACTURING USE TO THE NORTH, WE HAVE

HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH AND EAST, AT LEAST

IT'S ZONED FOR THAT, WE BELIEVE THAT ANY OF THESE MIX OF

USES WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, AS BOTH STAFFS HAVE CONCLUDED.

SO WITH THAT SAID, THAT'S OUR REQUEST.

NO CHANGE IN DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT.

ALL OF THE CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY STAFF WE

AGREE 100% WITH THOSE.

WE HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO ANY OF THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

>>STEVE LUCE: NOW, LET ME JUST CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD,

THOUGH, I THINK THE APPLICATION'S CLEAR AND THE

PRESENTATION IS CLEAR, BUT IN THE AGENDA THAT WAS PRODUCED,

MR. GRADY, MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ME.

>>BRIAN GRADY: IT WAS INCORRECT.

IT'S INCORRECTLY STATED CURRENT APPROVAL.

I THOUGHT WE HAD CORRECTED THAT, BUT THE REQUEST IS AS

NOTED, AND WE REVIEWED IT AS SUCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY IS -- MY CHECK

OF THEIR SITE PLAN IS 36 ACRES, APPROXIMATELY, NOT 25.

>>BRIAN GRADY: UH-HUH.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND THEY ARE NOT ASKING FOR 28 TOWN HOUSES.
                                                            145



THEY ALREADY DID THAT.

>>BRIAN GRADY: THEY ARE ALREADY APPROVED FOR THAT.

>>STEVE LUCE: NOW THEY ARE ASKING FOR MULTIFAMILY OR RV

SPACES?

>>BRIAN GRADY: YES.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

>> AND WE DO HAVE THE AFFIDAVIT AND PROOF OF NOTICE, WHICH

WAS PROPERLY NOTICED, TO ADD TWO POTENTIAL ALTERNATE USES

UP TO 131 MULTIFAMILY UNITS OR UP TO 262-SPACE RV

RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>>STEVE LUCE: AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

STAFF.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT:    GOOD EVENING.

ISABELLE ALBERT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THIS REQUEST IS FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS MODIFICATION IS TO ALLOW A THIRD

DEVELOPMENT OPTION TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY OR RECREATIONAL

VEHICLE WITHIN PHASE TWO.

THIS REQUEST IS TO ALLOW BASICALLY TWO OTHER OPTIONS IN
                                                            146



PHASE TWO AND WHICH WOULD BE A TOTAL OF THREE DEVELOPMENT

OPTIONS.

THE FIRST ONE IS TO BE THE 78 TOWN HOMES WHICH WAS APPROVED

PREVIOUSLY, AND 131 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS OR 262

RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SPACES.

SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT IS A MIX OF MANUFACTURING TO

RESIDENTIAL, INCLUDING A MOBILE HOME PARK TO THE SOUTH, AND

STAFF DOES FIND THIS PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO BE IN KEEPING

WITH THE EXISTING MIX OF HOUSING TYPES IN THE AREA AND IS

COMPATIBLE WITH THE VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE

VICINITY.

WE DO FIND THIS APPROVABLE, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.

I AM AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

>>DAVID HEY:    THANK YOU, MR. HEARING OFFICER.

THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-6 FUTURE LAND

USE CATEGORY.

IT FALLS WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND IS ALSO LOCATED

WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE APOLLO BEACH COMMUNICATED

PLAN.

THE SUBJECT SITE FALLS WITHIN THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA

AS DEFINED IN COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT POLICY 6.1.
                                                            147



PURSUANT TO COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT POLICY 6.2, THE

APPLICANT MUST EVALUATE THE ADEQUACY OF CLEARANCE TIMES AS

RELATES TO THIS PROJECT.

PROPOSED PROJECT MUST ENSURE ADEQUATE SHELTER SPACE WILL BE

AVAILABLE PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ARE ISSUED.

REVIEW ANY ACTIONS WITH THE PROJECT'S DEVELOP TORE ENSURE

THEY WILL ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUES WITH REGARD TO

TRAFFIC AND SHELTER CAPACITY.

WETLANDS EXCEED 25% OF THE ENTIRE SITE.

IN CALCULATING DENSITY, BOTH OPTIONS COMPLY WITH POLICY

13.3 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH

THE DENSITY LIMITATIONS UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL-6 FUTURE LAND

USE CATEGORY.

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROMOTES THE INCLUSION OF FUNCTIONAL

RECREATIONAL USES IN DEVELOPMENTS EXCEEDING 50 DWELLING

UNITS.

THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH OBJECTIVE 14 AND THE

POLICIES 14.4 AND 14.5, BY PROVIDING A COMMUNITY POOL

FACILITY IN DEVELOPMENT POD C.

THE SURROUNDING AREA DOES CONTAIN A MIXTURE OF RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT TYPES.

THE SUBJECT SITE IS ALSO ISOLATED FROM ADJACENT PARCELS DUE

TO THE ADJACENT CANAL SYSTEM AND THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL

USES TO THE NORTH.
                                                            148



THE INTRODUCTION OF A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

OR A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK WOULD CONTINUE TO PROVIDE

FOR A DEVELOPMENT PATTERN THAT IS COMPATIBLE TO THE

DEVELOPMENT PATTERN FOUND WITHIN THE SURROUNDING AREA.

AND IN REGARDS TO THE APOLLO BEACH COMMUNITY PLAN, A

CONDITION HAS BEEN INCLUDED ON THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN THAT

WOULD LIMIT ALL DEVELOPMENT TO A MAXIMUM OF 50 FEET IN

HEIGHT, AS CALLED FOR WITHIN THE APOLLO BEACH COMMUNITY

PLAN.

BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED MAJOR MODIFICATION CONSISTENT WITH

THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO

THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

DEPARTMENT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

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

WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

NO ONE RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE

APPLICATION?

SIR?

GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE.
                                                           149



MY NAME IS FRANK SYLVIA.

I HAVE NOT BEEN SWORN.

>>STEVE LUCE: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND

NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD?

>> I DO.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

>> AS I SAID, MY NAME IS FRANK SYLVIA.

I LIVE AT 128 ST. THOMAS CIRCLE SOUTH IN APOLLO BEACH,

FLORIDA, 33572.

I AM HERE TO REPRESENT CARIBBEAN ISLES.

I HAVE SOME OF THE OTHER PEOPLE WITH ME.

CARIBBEAN ISLES IS A GATED COMMUNITY OF ABOUT A THOUSAND

RESIDENTS WHO PAY TAXES TO HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND MANY

VOTE HERE.

CARIBBEAN ISLES IS ACROSS THE ST. CROIX CANAL AND THE

CROCUS CANAL FROM THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, HEMINGWAY

LANDINGS.

WE TAKE PRIDE IN OUR CO-OP.

THIS IS EVIDENCED BY SPENDING ALMOST $6 MILLION IN

IMPROVING THE SEAWALLS AND DRUDGING OF OUR CANALS.

THE FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THAT THE MAP OF

THE PLAN THAT IS PRESENTED IS NOT REALLY ACCURATE.
                                                            150



IT DOESN'T PRESENT A REAL PICTURE OF THE AREA THAT WE'RE

TALKING ABOUT.

AS I POINTED OUT AT THE LAST HEARING, THE PLAN WITH THE ST.

CROIX CANAL AS BEING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HEMINGWAY

LANDINGS AND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CARIBBEAN ISLES, THAT IS

INCORRECT.

THAT CANAL IS CALLED COCUS CANAL.

THE ST. CROIX CANAL IS ACTUALLY A SHORT PIECE THAT'S ON THE

WEST SIDE OF CARIBBEAN ISLES AND ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE

HEMINGWAY LANDINGS.

I HAVE SOME PICTURES THAT I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU AND I AM

GOING TO LEAVE WITH YOU TO POINT OUT THE SECTION THAT WE'RE

TALKING ABOUT AND WHICH WILL FURTHER INCREASE -- SHOW YOU

THE REASONS FOR OUR OBJECTIONS, IF I MAY.

>>STEVE LUCE: YES, SIR.

>> THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE SITE TO THE WEST OF CARIBBEAN

ISLES.

IT'S LOOKING ACROSS -- THE BOTTOM PICTURES LOOKS ACROSS THE

ST. CROIX CANAL TO THE CANAL THAT GOES OUT TO TAMPA BAY.

THE TOP PICTURE LOOKS TO THE NORTH, AND THE WALL THAT YOU

SEE THERE IS ONE OF OUR SEAWALLS.

THE CANAL IS THEN SHOWN.

AND ACROSS THE CANAL IN THAT VEGETATED AREA, YOU CAN SEE

THAT'S WHERE THE HEMINGWAY LANDINGS PROPERTY IS.
                                                           151



THIS IS ANOTHER VIEW, GOING NORTH ALONG THAT SAME ST. CROIX

CANAL, AND AT THE VERY END IS THE -- WHAT WE CALL THE

LAGOON, WHERE THE COCUS CANAL THEN TURNS RIGHT THERE.

THESE TWO VIEWS OF THE LAGOON AND THE VEGETATION THAT

SURROUNDS IT, THE BOTTOM BEING, OF COURSE, THE CARIBBEAN

ISLES AREA, AND THE TOP BEING THE AREA FOR HEMINGWAY

LANDINGS.

THIS IS JUST A WIDER VIEW OF THE SAME AREA ACROSS THE

CROCUS CANAL, WHICH SHOWS THE TYPE OF STRUCTURE YOU SEE ON

THE OTHER SIDE.

AND THIS FINAL VIEW GOES DOWN THE COCUS CANAL.

ON THE RIGHT YOU WILL SEE THE DEVELOPMENT OF CARIBBEAN

ISLES WITH THE BOAT DOCKS, AND ON THE LEFT YOU WILL SEE THE

VEGETATION AREA, MANY DIFFERENT KINDS OF VEGETATION IN

THERE, SOME BRAZILIAN PEPPERS, AND SOME MANGROVES.

THERE ARE MANY MANGROVES IN THAT AREA ALSO.

NOW I'LL GO BACK.

THE PRESENT PLANNING IS APPROVED -- IS APPROVED FOR SINGLE-

FAMILY HOMES, FOR CONDOS, FOR TOWN HOUSES, FOR THESE

MULTIFAMILIES.

WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT.

IN FACT, WE WOULD WELCOME THAT.

OUR ONLY OBJECTION IS THE RV PARK.

WE'RE ASKING THAT THIS NOT BE APPROVED.
                                                            152



AND WE HAVE CONCERN FOR MANY THINGS IN OUR ASKING OF THIS.

FIRST THING IS THAT HOMEOWNERS HAVE PRIDE IN THEIR

PROPERTY.

SOME RVERS DO TOO.

BUT MANY OF THEM ARE WEEKEND, WEEK, OR JUST FOR A MONTH,

SHORT VACATIONS.

THEY'LL BE THERE ONCE OR TWICE, NEVER TO RETURN AGAIN.

THEY HAVE NO PRIDE IN THE AREA.

WHAT DO THEY CARE?

THEY LEAVE RUBBISH, CREATE NOISE AND OTHER DISTURBANCES.

THEY'RE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY.

I SHOWED YOU THE PICTURES OF WHAT THAT SHORE IS LIKE.

CAN YOU IMAGINE THE CHILDREN THAT ARE GOING TO COME IN

THESE RVs, PLAYING AMONGST THAT RESERVATION, JUMPING INTO

THE CANAL -- WHICH IS REALLY YOU CAN'T SWIM IN -- OR

SLIPPING INTO IT AND GETTING HURT OR EVEN DROWNED?

THERE ARE NO SEAWALLS ON THAT SIDE, NO BARRIERS AT ALL.

IT'S SHOWN ON THE MAP AS IF IT WAS A WETLANDS AREA.

IT CERTAINLY IS A WETLANDS AREA, COMPLETELY COVERED WITH

ALL KINDS OF TREES AND OTHER VEGETATION.

WE ARE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT OUR OWN PROPERTY, OBVIOUSLY.

AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE DONE A LOT TO IMPROVE OUR PROPERTY.

WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE POLLUTION OF THE CANALS.

AND WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE COMING OVER THERE,
                                                            153



CHILDREN PERHAPS, JUST BEING CURIOUS.

IT'S AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE.

THEY'LL COME OVER.

THEY'LL COME OVER ONTO THE DOCKS, AND THAT'S A LOT OF OUR

CONCERN.

WE'RE AN ADULT COMMUNITY, 55 AND OVER.

BUT MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE THERE ARE EVEN OLDER

THAN THAT.

WE'RE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT OUR LIABILITY IF THE KIDS GET

ONTO OUR DOCKS, AND ARE WE GOING TO BE LIABLE IF SOMETHING

HAPPENS TO THEM?

SO FOR THIS REASON, WE WOULD ASK THAT THE RECREATIONAL

VEHICLE USE BE DISAPPROVED.

WE WOULD ALSO SAY THAT WE WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO WELCOME

HEMINGWAY LANDINGS AS A NEIGHBOR, COOPERATE WHATEVER WE

CAN -- IN FACT, WE'RE DREDGING THE CANAL.

IT WILL MAKE IT EVEN BETTER FOR THEM ONCE WE GET IT DONE.

AND WE'D WELCOME THEM AS HOMES OR CONDOS OR WHAT HAVE YOU,

BUT PLEASE, DON'T LET IT HAVE ANY RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK

OVER THERE.

IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU, SIR.

SIR, I NEED YOU TO SIGN IN.
                                                            154



ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK

IN OPPOSITION?

NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

>>BRIAN GRADY: NOTHING FURTHER, UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF, YOU HAVE ANY

COMMENTS ABOUT RVs AND THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA?

>>DAVID HEY:   PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF LOOKS AT IT AS

ALMOST A MORE PREFERABLE USE BECAUSE YOU ARE ABLE TO --

DURING A COASTAL EVENT, WHEN THERE'S A HURRICANE,

BASICALLY, THEY ALL LEAVE, AND YOU ARE LEFT WITH A FIELD.

SO THAT'S HOW PLANNING COMMISSION INTERPRETS THE RV

SITUATION.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

>> THANK YOU, MR. LUCE.

JOEL TEW AGAIN, FOR THE APPLICANT.

JUST VERY BRIEFLY, ON THE SITE PLAN IN QUESTION, WE

INHERITED AND HAD TO RETAIN PAGES 1 AND 2 OF THE SITE PLAN.

ALL OF THE REFERENCES, WHETHER IT'S THE ST. CROIX CANAL OR

ANOTHER CANAL, THOSE ARE PREEXISTING, APPROVED PLANS FROM

THE 2005 MAJOR MODIFICATION.

THE IMPORTANT POINT, OF COURSE, IS WHAT'S THE LEGAL
                                                            155



DESCRIPTION, WHERE IS THE PROPERTY IN RELATION TO THE OTHER

PROPERTIES, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE CANALS ARE NAMED,

BUT WE INHERITED THE NAMES SOMEONE PUT ON THEM AND APPROVED

IN 2005.

THE ONLY THING WE ADDED TO THAT SITE PLAN WAS SHEET NUMBER

3, WHICH MR. HENRY PREPARED, WHICH, OF COURSE, SIMPLY USEs

THE PREEXISTING DEVELOPMENT PADS, RETAINS EXISTING

WETLANDS, EXISTING PROPERTY LINE, AND SIMPLY CALLS OUT THE

TWO ALTERNATIVE USES WITH THE DENSE AT THIS TIME

CALCULATIONS.

SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY REAL ISSUE ABOUT THE SITE

PLAN.

THE PICTURES THAT MR. SYLVIA SHOWED I THINK VERY ACCURATELY

AND HELPFULLY DEPICTS, REALLY, THE SUBSTANTIAL BUFFERING.

IS SHOWS THE TREMENDOUS DISTANCE FROM CARIBBEAN ISLES TO

THIS PROPERTY.

IT ALSO SHOWS HOW BEAUTIFUL THIS PROPERTY IS.

AND IRONICALLY, IN OUR DEVELOPMENT, WE UNDOUBTEDLY ARE

GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO RESPECT THAT 50-FOOT WETLAND

SETBACK.

WE WILL NOT BE DESTROYING THE SHORELINE.

WE WILL NOT HAVE THE DOCKS AND THE SEAWALLS THAT IRONICALLY

EXIST AT CARIBBEAN ISLES.

SO I SUBMIT THAT OUR DEVELOPMENT WILL BE MORE
                                                           156



ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY, WILL PRESERVE THAT BUFFER, AND

THEY WILL HAVE A MUCH PRETTIER VIEW OF OUR PROPERTY AS

THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOW HOW BEAUTIFUL IT TRULY IS, AND THAT

WILL BE RETAINED.

>>STEVE LUCE: MR. TEW, THAT BEARS REPEATING, IF YOU COULD.

SOME DEVELOPMENTS DON'T SHOW ANY KIND OF WATER-RELATED

MARINAS OR PRIVATE DOCKS BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO ON THE

SITE PLAN.

BUT IT'S YOUR INTENTION -- OR YOUR CLIENT'S INTENTION IS

NOT TO PUT ANY SORT OF COMMUNITY DOCK FACILITIES ON THIS

PROJECT?

>> NO, SIR, WE HAVE NOTHING PLANNED ON THE PROJECT OTHER

THAN THE ONE COMMUNITY RECREATION AREA.

THAT IS, OF COURSE, REQUIRED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

WE HAVE TO PROVIDE THE RECREATIONAL AMENITY, AND THAT IS

THE CURRENT PLAN.

SO THERE'S NOTHING, NO APPROVAL SOUGHT FOR THAT.

OF COURSE, THE RV PARK ALTERNATIVE, AS THE PLANNING

COMMISSION STAFF POINTED OUT, IN THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD

AREA, THE IRONY IS IS ACTUALLY THE PREFERRED USE OVER

EITHER TOWN HOMES OR APARTMENTS WOULD BE THE RV PARK

BECAUSE OF THEIR PORTABLE NATURE, AND THEY SIMPLY CAN

EVACUATE IN THE EVENT OF AN EVENT.

I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION ABOUT THE CHILDREN.
                                                            157



CARIBBEAN ISLES IS A 55 AND OLDER COMMUNITY.

BUT THEY ARE GATED.

THEY ARE SECURED.

I THINK THE PROSPECTS OF CHILDREN BEING UNSUPERVISED TO THE

POINT THAT THEY WOULD TRY TO SWIM THE CANAL TO INVADE THE

DOCKS IS DOUBTFUL.

WE CERTAINLY -- IF WE ARE AN RV PARK, IT WILL BE MONITORED,

AND IT WILL BE WELL KEPT.

AS YOU WELL KNOW, THE TREND TODAY ON RV PARKS ARE

PREDOMINANTLY LUXURY MOTOR COACHES, PEOPLE THAT HAVE

SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENTS RANGING FROM A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND

TO LITERALLY A MILLION-DOLLAR MOTOR COACHES IS CERTAINLY

MORE PREVALENT, AND THAT'S THE TYPE OF PROJECT THAT WE

WOULD ENVISION.

WE CERTAINLY DO NOT WISH TO PUT UPON OUR NEIGHBORS AND WILL

NOT POLLUTION OR SAFETY ISSUES OR UNWANTED CHILDREN.

WE PROMISE TO BE RESPONSIBLE PROPERTY OWNERS AND TO REQUIRE

OUR PURCHASERS TO DO THE SAME.

SO REALLY, I DON'T THINK -- I DON'T THINK THAT IS A SERIOUS

QUESTION OR SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CONTROL.

I BELIEVE THEY HAVE A SECURED COMMUNITY.

WE ALSO LOOK FORWARD TO BEING THEIR NEIGHBOR.

THEY CANNOT DREDGE THOSE CANALS WITHOUT MY CLIENT'S

PERMISSION BECAUSE WE HAVE FEE OWNERSHIP ON PART OF THOSE
                                                            158



CANALS.

I PREVAILED UPON THE BANK, AND THEY DID SIGN THEIR DREDGE

APPLICATION.

WE COOPERATED WITH THEM 100% ALONG THE WAY AND WILL

CONTINUE TO DO SO.

WITH THAT, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR RECOMMENDATION

HOPEFULLY FOR APPROVAL TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU, SIR.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION, AND MR. GRADY,

WE ARE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 14, MAJOR MOD

APPLICATION 11-0319.

THE APPLICANT IS JIM STUTZMAN.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO EXISTING PD TO

ADD CONTRACTOR'S OFFICE AND INDOOR REPAIR SERVICES TO THE

LIST OF APPROVED USES WITHIN THE PROJECT.

ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER

PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>> GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE.

MY NAME IS JIM STUTZMAN.

MY MAILING ADDRESS IS PO BOX 320323 IN TAMPA, AND THE ZIP

IS 33679.

AS BRIAN MENTIONED, OUR REQUEST REALLY IS TO ADD THE
                                                            159



CONTRACTOR'S OFFICE AND INDOOR REPAIR SERVICES TO THE

EXISTING LIST OF PERMITTED USES IN THIS PD.

THE SPECIFIC USE, WE FINALLY DO HAVE AN ACTUAL USER FOR

THIS PROJECT AFTER A FEW YEARS, AND THE NAME OF THE COMPANY

IS LIGHTNING BAY NEWDROLICS, AND WHAT THEY DO IS MARINE AND

INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE, AND MOST OF THE ACTIVITY IS ON THE

SITE OF THEIR CLIENTS.

THEY DO VERY LITTLE REPAIR ON-SITE, BUT THEY WILL HAVE TO

DO SOME.

SOMETIMES THEY HAVE TO BRING A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT BACK TO

THEIR PROPERTY AND DO THAT.

THAT'S WHY WE MADE THAT REQUEST.

I'D LIKE TO USE THE ELMO TO BRIEFLY GO OVER SOME OF THE

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AREA.

THIS IS A MIXED-USE AREA.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN THIS LOCATION.

AND THIS PROJECT IS ACTUALLY PART OF THE TRANSITION FROM

THE NONRESIDENTIAL USES.

ALONG PALM RIVER ROAD, WE HAVE INDUSTRIAL USES, SEMIPUBLIC

USES, COMMERCIAL USES, THEN THERE ARE RESIDENTIAL USES TO

THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY.

>>STEVE LUCE: CAN YOU DESCRIBE THOSE COLORS FOR ME, IF YOU

DON'T MIND?

>> YES.
                                                            160



THE BLUE IS PUBLIC OR SEMIPUBLIC.

THERE'S SOME SCHOOLS HERE.

THIS IS THE CHURCH PROPERTY.

THERE'S ACTUALLY A CHURCH HERE.

THESE -- I'M NOT SURE WHY THIS IS BLUE, BUT THIS IS AN

INDUSTRIAL AREA IN THIS LOCATION.

THE LIGHT GRAY IS INDUSTRIAL.

THE PURPLE, I BELIEVE, IS SOME KIND OF PUBLIC FACILITY.

THEN THERE IS SOME COMMERCIAL.

THE PINK LOCATIONS AND THE YELLOW WOULD BE SINGLE-FAMILY

HOMES.

THIS IS ZONING MAP, AGAIN, SHOWING THE MIXED-USE NATURE OF

THE AREA.

WE HAVE M, INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL.

THE GREEN ARE BOTH INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL.

THIS IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USE.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AGAIN, THIS LOCATION.

THIS IS RSC-9 FOR SINGLE-FAMILY USES.

IMMEDIATELY AROUND THE PROPERTY -- THE CHURCH PROPERTY

REMAINS ZONED AR.

THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

THE SITE IN THIS LOCATION.

YOU CAN SEE THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATION IN THIS AREA

ABOVE NORTH OF PALM RIVER ROAD.
                                                            161



OUR SITE ACTUALLY FALLS IN COMMUNITY MIXED USE 12, WHICH

WOULD PERMIT CONSIDERATION OF THE PROJECT WITH THE

REVISIONS.

AND THE WAY THE SITE'S DESIGNED -- AND I'LL SHOW YOU THAT

IN A MINUTE -- DOES PROVIDE A TRANSITION DOWN TO THE

RESIDENTIAL USES AND RESIDENTIAL CATEGORIES TO THE SOUTH.

THE PALM RIVER COMMUNITY PLAN, ONE OF THEIR PRIMARY

POLICIES IS TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR BUSINESS, GROWTH,

AND JOBS, AND WE FEEL WE ARE DOING THAT.

THIS IS A RENDERING OF THE SITE PLAN.

SIMPLY, NO CHANGES TO THE PLAN.

WE ARE JUST ADDING A USE.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE RESIDENTIAL USES TO

THE WEST ARE SEPARATED BY APPROXIMATELY 90 FEET SETBACK

UNTIL WE GET TO THE FIRST BUILDING ENVELOPE, AND WE'VE

SHOWN THAT AREA AS AN AREA FOR STORMWATER DETENTION.

TO THE SOUTH, THERE IS A 45-FOOT VACANT RIGHT-OF-WAY, THEN

TO THE SOUTH, A DRAINAGE EASEMENT SEPARATING OUR PROJECT TO

THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES TO THE SOUTH, AND THERE IS

SUBSTANTIAL VEGETATION THROUGHOUT THAT AREA.

WE HAVE REVIEWED THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY STAFF, AND

WOULD AGREE WITH THOSE CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS.

AND THIS PROPERTY DID GO THROUGH OWNERSHIP CHANGE AFTER WE

SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION, AND I'LL SUBMIT INTO THE RECORD
                                                            162



AN AFFIDAVIT AUTHORIZING ME AS AGENT WITH THE NEW OWNERS

ALSO.

BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: JUST CLARIFY, THE AERIAL INDICATES THE

PROPERTY IS STILL VACANT.

>> YES, IT IS.

>>STEVE LUCE: SO WHAT YOUR CLIENT WANTS TO DO IS MOVE

FORWARD WITH A DEVELOPMENT FOR A CONTRACTOR'S OFFICE?

>> YES.

CORRECT.

THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAD THE PROPERTY ON THE MARKET, AND THE

NEW OWNER IS THE ACTUAL USER THAT'S GOING TO DEVELOP THE

PROPERTY.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

GOT IT.

THANK YOU.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT:    GOOD EVENING.

ISABELLE ALBERT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.

THIS REQUEST IS FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A PLANNED

DEVELOPMENT.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS MODIFICATION IS TO ADD A CONTRACTOR'S

OFFICE AND INDOOR REPAIR SERVICES.

THERE'S BEEN THREE CHANGES SINCE THE ORIGINAL 2004.
                                                            163



THE MOST RECENT ONE WAS LAST YEAR TO ADD OPEN STORAGE USE

AND TO REDUCE SQUARE FOOTAGE.

BUT THIS PROPOSED MODIFICATION IS IN KEEPING WITH THE

EXISTING MIX OF USES IN THE AREA.

IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING.

AND WE DO FIND THIS APPROVABLE, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

>>DAVID HEY:   THANK YOU, MR. HEARING OFFICER.

THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE COMMUNITY MIXED USE-12

FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY.

IT FALLS WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND ALSO FALLS

WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE GREATER PALM RIVER AREA

COMMUNITY PLAN.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED

ADDITIONAL USES ARE COMPARABLE TO THE APPROVED LIST OF

ALLOWABLE USES CURRENTLY.

REPAIR SERVICES WILL OCCUR INDOORS AND, AS A RESULT, WILL

NOT HAVE ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

PROPOSED SITE DESIGN IS THE SAME AS THE APPROVED SITE PLAN.

THE APPROVED BUFFER AND SCREENING PLAN, IN CONJUNCTION WITH

THE PLACEMENT OF THE STORMWATER DETENTION AND BUFFER AREA
                                                            164



ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE SITE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL USES

WILL ENSURE COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING USES.

BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED MAJOR MODIFICATION CONSISTENT WITH

THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO

CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

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

WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

SEEING NO ONE RESPONDING, ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO

SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION?

SEEING NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

>>BRIAN GRADY: NOTHING FURTHER.

>>STEVE LUCE: APPLICANT, OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

>> NO, THANKS.

>>STEVE LUCE: APPLICANT WAIVES HIS RIGHT TO REBUTTAL.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION.

MR. GRADY, WE WERE REASON FOR OUR NEXT ITEM.

>>BRIAN GRADY: THE FINAL ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 15, MAJOR MOD

APPLICATION 11-037 7.

THE APPLICANT IS CLAYTON BRICKLEMYER.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING PD
                                                            165



TO ADD A THIRD DEVELOPMENT OPTION IN ORDER TO ADD A COLLEGE

OR UNIVERSITY USE TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

SUSAN MARINER WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER

PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE.

OH, THANK YOU.

CLAYTON BRICKLEMYER, BRICKLEMYER SMOLKER & BOLVES,

REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.

WE CONCUR WITH STAFF'S REPORT AND WE CONCUR WITH THE

PLANNING COMMISSION'S REPORT.

WE DID HAVE ONE CHANGE WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON WITH STAFF.

AS OF RIGHT NOW, OUR USE IS LIMITED TO LOTS ONE AND TWO,

THE COLLEGE UNIVERSITY USE THAT WE ARE PROPOSING.

WE ARE -- THERE IS NO AGREEMENT IN PLACE, AND THERE NEVER

WAS, AND WE APPLIED AS LOT TWO ONLY, SO WE ARE DUTY BOUND

TO REMOVE THE LOT ONE LIMITATION.

WE DO ACTUALLY HAVE THAT LOT UNDER CONTRACT AT THE MOMENT,

AND WE HOPE TO ADD IT IN THE FUTURE, BUT FOR NOW IT IS

APPROPRIATE ONLY TO RESTRICT THAT USE TO LOT TWO.

AND OTHER THAN THAT, WE AGREE WITH STAFF, AND WE'D HOPE

THAT YOU WOULD APPROVE IT.

THANKS.
                                                           166



>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

I JUST GOT HANDED AN EMAIL FROM CLAYTON --

>> YES, OH.

>>STEVE LUCE: -- BRICKLEMYER TO SUSAN MARINER.

>> OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF LED US TO THE POINT WHERE

STAFF SUGGESTED THAT WE USE F.A.R. TO CALCULATE SO THAT WE

COULD GET SOME SORT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE PENNED DOWN ON THE

SITE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> SO THIS WOULD BE YOUR F.A.R. CALCULATION SHOWING THAT ON

LOT TWO, THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WOULD BE

ALLOWED FOR THIS USE WOULD BE 192,470 SQUARE FEET.

THAT WILL ALSO BE ADDED TO THE TABLE.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

YOU WENT A LITTLE FAST FOR ME.

YOU NEED TO BACK UP.

>> OKAY.

>>STEVE LUCE: BECAUSE YOU SAID THAT YOU HAVE ONLY

CONTINGENT CONTRACT WITH ONLY ONE LOT AND NOT THE OTHER.

>> LOT ONE, YEAH.

LOT TWO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROCEED.

THAT'S THE LOT I AM REPRESENTING THEM ON.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY, BUT THE REQUEST IS TO PUT THE POTENTIAL

USE, THE COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY, ON BOTH LOTS?
                                                            167



>> NO, THAT'S THE CHANGE.

WE ARE LIMITED IT TO ONLY LOT TWO.

THE TABLE IN THE STAFF REPORT IF YOU'VE GOT IT.

>>BRIAN GRADY: WE WERE PLANNING ON MAKING REVISIONS.

AGAIN, THE HANDOUT IS TO SHOW THE REVISED CALCULATIONS, AND

WE PROVIDE REVISED CONDITIONS TO REMOVE LOT ONE FROM THE --

AS APPROVED FOR COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY JUST BE LIMITED TO

LOT TWO.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

MR. BRICKLEMYER, JUST LET ME MAKE SURE FROM THE SITE PLAN

POINT OF VIEW, KNOW WHERE LOT TWO IS.

>> YES.

IT IS IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER-ISH.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> IT IS NOT THE FURTHEST SOUTHEAST.

THERE IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THAT SITE.

I WAS LOOKING FOR A REDUCED ONE.

>>STEVE LUCE: I UNDERSTAND.

I'VE GOT AN 8.5-BY-11 SITE PLAN.

YOUR CLIENT YOU REPRESENT IS LOT TWO.

>> CORRECT.

>>STEVE LUCE: THERE IS AN EXISTING BUILDING THERE WHICH MAY

OR MAY NOT BE USED BY YOUR END USER?

>> YES, SIR.
                                                           168



CORRECT.

WE ARE ADDING THE OPTION OF DEVELOPING THAT OR ADJUSTING

THAT BUILDING SO THAT IT WORKS AS A COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY USE.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANY OPTION TO EXPAND INTO LOT ONE, OR IS THAT OFF

THE TABLE AT THIS POINT IN TIME?

>> RIGHT NOW, I DON'T BELIEVE IT WILL BE WRITTEN THAT THAT

OPTION EXISTS.

WE WILL JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT IN THE FUTURE.

ALL RIGHT?

>>STEVE LUCE: GOT IT.

>> THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF?

>>SUSAN MARINER:   SUSAN MARINER, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO PLANNED

DEVELOPMENT 99-0277 TO ADD A DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3 TO THE MIX

OF USES IN THE PD TO INCLUDE A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY IN LOT

TWO.

AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AS REVISED CONDITIONS NUMBER

ONE AS SUBMITTED IN THIS EMAIL DATED MONDAY, MAY 16th.

AND MR. BRICKLEMYER.

BASED ON THAT INFORMATION, STAFF DOESN'T OBJECT TO THE
                                                           169



SQUARE FOOTAGE INCREASES, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

CATEGORY ENCOURAGES MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT.

STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST COMPARABLE AND COMPATIBLE, SUBJECT

TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS, WITH THE SURROUNDING

DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.

>>STEVE LUCE: MS. MARINER, CONDITION 1.1 -- AND I'M NOT

SURE ANY OTHERS -- BUT THOSE -- THOSE PLACES IN THE

PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL WOULD BE MODIFIED?

>>SUSAN MARINER:   YES, SIR.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND THEY WILL BE AVAILABLE WITHIN THE NEXT

WEEK OR TWO?

>>SUSAN MARINER:   PROBABLY TOMORROW.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF?

>>DAVID HEY:   THANK YOU, MR. HEARING OFFICER.

THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN TWO FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES,

THE URBAN MIXED USE-20 AND THE COMMUNITY MIXED USE-12.

SPECIFICALLY, LOT 2 IS LOCATED WITHIN THE URBAN MIXED USE-

20 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY.

AND THE OVERALL SITE IS WITHIN THE GREATER PALM RIVER

COMMUNITY PLAN.
                                                            170



THE PROPOSED MAJOR MODIFICATION SEEKS TO ADD A THIRD

DEVELOPMENT OPTION FOR THE SUBJECT SITE.

OPTION THREE WOULD ALLOW A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY TO BE

LOCATED NOW WITHIN JUST LOT TWO.

THE COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY WOULD BE CAPPED AT 900 STUDENTS

OR A MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO OF .5.

THE COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY WOULD BROADEN THE MIX OF USES

WITHIN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AND OPTION THREE WOULD ALSO

ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES ABOVE WHAT IS

CURRENTLY PROVIDED FOR UNDER OPTION TWO.

THIS ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES

WOULD ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH OBJECTIVE 36 OF THE FUTURE

LAND USE ELEMENT.

OVERALL, THE INTRODUCTION OF A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY WITHIN

THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WILL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE FOR A

MIXTURE OF USES.

PROPOSED MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STUDENTS AND MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA

RATIO OF .5 ON PARCEL TWO OR LOT TWO WOULD CONTINUE TO

PROVIDE FOR A LOT PATTERN THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE

SURROUNDING USES, AND OPTION THREE WOULD ALSO PROVIDE

OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OVER WHAT IS

CURRENTLY APPROVED IN A PART OF UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH

COUNTY THAT IS IDEALLY SUITED FOR ADDITIONAL

INTENSIFICATION.
                                                            171



ALSO, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THAT THE INTRODUCTION

OF A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE

PALM RIVER COMMUNITY PLAN BY NOT ONLY PROVIDING ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, BUT ALSO PROVIDING

ADDITIONAL ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR STUDENTS AND NEARBY

RESIDENTS.

AND OVERALL, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE

PROPOSED MAJOR MODIFICATION CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF

HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

PROPOSED BY THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

DEPARTMENT.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

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

WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

NO ONE RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE

APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

>>BRIAN GRADY: NOTHING FURTHER.

>>STEVE LUCE: APPLICANT, OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

APPLICANT WAIVES REBUTTAL RIGHTS.

THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION, AND THAT CONCLUDES

TONIGHT'S ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.
                    172



WE ARE ADJOURNED.

				
DOCUMENT INFO