CAPTIONING OCTOBER 19, 2009 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. >>JAMES SCAROLA: GOOD EVENING. PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. [PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] THANK YOU, AND GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY. WELCOME TO THE OCTOBER 19th, 2009, MEETING OF THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY LAND USE HEARING OFFICER. MY NAME IS JAMES SCAROLA, AND I'LL BE ONE OF YOUR HEARING OFFICERS TONIGHT, ACTUALLY FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE CASES; HOWEVER, THE FIRST PETITION THIS EVENING WILL BE HEARD BY HEARING OFFICER STEVE LUCE, WHO'S SITTING TO MY RIGHT. WHAT WE'LL DO TO GET THINGS UP AND RUNNING TONIGHT, FIRST WE'LL LOOK THROUGH OUR AGENDA WITH STAFF, SO PLEASE LISTEN CAREFULLY IN CASE THERE'S ANY CHANGES TO THE PETITION THAT YOU'RE INTERESTED IN. FOLLOWING THAT, I'M GOING TO OUTLINE FOR YOU A SET OF PROCEDURES ON WHICH WE'LL CONDUCT OUR HEARINGS THIS EVENING. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE MR. BRIAN GRADY OF THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. GOOD EVENING, BRIAN. >>BRIAN GRADY: GOOD EVENING, MR. SCAROLA. AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, BRIAN GRADY, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. BEFORE I GO THROUGH THE WITHDRAWALS AND CONTINUANCES, JOINING US AT THE DAIS TONIGHT ARE, TO MY LEFT, MR. LOUIS WHITEHEAD WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND, TO HIS LEFT, MS. KRISTA KELLY WITH THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CITY- COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. WE HAVE NO CHANGES ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, SO I'LL GO THROUGH THE WITHDRAWALS AND CONTINUANCES ON PAGE 1 OF THE AGENDA. THE FIRST ITEM IS ITEM 1-A, MAJOR MOD 09-0016. THIS PETITION IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE NOVEMBER 16th, 2009, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. ITEM 1-B, REZONING APPLICATION 09-726. THIS PETITION IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE NOVEMBER 16th, 2009, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. ITEM 1-C, MAJOR MOD APPLICATION 09-0951. THIS PETITION IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE NOVEMBER 16th, 2009, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. ITEM 1-D, MAJOR MOD 09-0950. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE TO THE DECEMBER 14th, 2009, ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING. THIS CONTINUANCE IS A MATTER OF RIGHT AND HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. AND ITEM 1-E, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 09-1037. THIS PETITION IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE DECEMBER 14th, 2009, HEARING MASTER HEARING. THAT'S ALL THE WITHDRAWALS AND CONTINUANCES. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT, MR. GRADY. NOW, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, TONIGHT THERE'S GOING TO BE TWO TYPES OF HEARINGS ON YOUR AGENDA. IF YOU'LL LOOK CLOSELY, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT SEVERAL OF THEM START WITH THE INITIALS SU, AND THEN THERE'S THE REZONINGS AND THE MAJOR MODIFICATIONS. SPECIAL USES ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE REZONINGS AND MODIFICATIONS TO ZONINGS IN THAT I'LL BE LISTENING TO THE HEARING THIS EVENING, CONDUCTING THE HEARING, AND THEN WITHIN 15 WORKING DAYS I'LL BE RENDERING A DECISION BASED ON THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TONIGHT; HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF THE REZONINGS, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE CONDUCTED BY A LAND USE HEARING OFFICER PRIOR TO A FINAL DECISION BY THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER DOES NOT MAKE THE FINAL DECISION BUT INSTEAD RENDERS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD, WHO MAKES THE DECISION AT THEIR PUBLIC HEARING. SO TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF HEARINGS. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THAT, A LITTLE BIT LATER IN THIS DISCUSSION WE'LL HAVE OUR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY DIRECT YOU ON THE PARTICULARS OF EACH OF THESE HEARINGS. BUT IN GENERAL, THE HEARINGS TONIGHT WILL BE INFORMAL. QUESTIONING WILL BE CONFINED AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE TO THE SCOPE OF DIRECT TESTIMONY. THAT MEANS YOU SPEAKING TO ME, NOT TO OTHER PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE. AS THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER, I'LL CALL AND QUESTION WITNESSES AS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE, AND I'LL BE DECIDING ALL QUESTIONS ON PROCEDURE. IRRELEVANT, IMMATERIAL, OR UNDULY REPETITIOUS EVIDENCE WILL BE EXCLUDED. ANY PART OF THE EVIDENCE MAY BE RECEIVED IN WRITTEN FORM, AND ALL TESTIMONY SHALL BE UNDER OATH TONIGHT. HEARSAY EVIDENCE MAY BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLEMENTING OR EXPLAINING OTHER EVIDENCE, BUT IT SHALL NOT BE SUFFICIENT IN ITSELF TO SUPPORT A FINDING BY ME UNLESS IT WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE OVER OBJECTIONS IN A CIVIL ACTION. NOW, HAVING SAID THAT, BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS THIS: I'M GOING TO TURN TO STAFF, WHO'S GOING TO BRIEFLY OPEN EACH PETITION, SO THE PETITION NUMBER WILL BE CALLED. LISTEN CAREFULLY. THE APPLICANT AND ANY OF THEIR WITNESSES WILL BE ABLE TO COME FORWARD TO THE LECTERN IN FRONT OF ME, AND YOU'LL HAVE 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT YOUR TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE. NOW, PLEASE, FOR ANYBODY THAT SPEAKS TONIGHT, WHEN YOU COME FORWARD, JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FIRST FOR THE RECORD. I'M THEN GOING TO TURN AND ASK FOR THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT TO -- TO TELL US THEIR DEPARTMENTAL FINDINGS FOR ANY OF THE REQUESTS THAT ARE HERE TONIGHT. THEY'LL HAVE ABOUT FIVE MINUTES TO DO THAT. THEN I'M GOING TO LOOK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THEY WILL PROVIDE A STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE OR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. A SIMILAR FIVE MINUTES WILL BE AFFORDED FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AT THAT POINT I'M GOING TO ASK FOR ANY PROPONENTS, THAT'S ANYBODY IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION WHO IS NOT THE APPLICANT. SO IF THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY SPOKEN, WHEN I ASK FOR PROPONENTS, IT WILL BE SOMEONE ELSE, AND THEY'LL HAVE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY OF 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT ANY SUPPORTING TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE. I'LL THEN ASK FOR ANY OPPOSITION. OPPOSITION WILL ALSO BE AFFORDED AN EQUAL 15 MINUTES FOR ANY OPPOSING TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE. I'LL THEN TURN TO OUR STAFF AGAIN AND ASK FOR ANY CHANGES ON THE REPORTS BASED ON THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE RECEIVED. AND LASTLY, THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE THE FINAL REBUTTAL OPPORTUNITY FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE MINUTES. NOW, HAVING SAID THAT, WHAT I'VE OUTLINED FOR YOU IS THOSE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AFFORDED TIME FRAMES FOR EACH OF THOSE PORTIONS OF OUR HEARING. DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO FILL THEM UNNECESSARILY. WE HAVE A LOT OF PETITIONS TONIGHT, AND I KNOW EVERYBODY WANTS TO BOTH GET TO THEIRS AND ALSO WANTS TO LEAVE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, SO PLEASE, KEEP YOUR TESTIMONY CONCISE. BY ALL MEANS YOU CAN HAVE UP TO THOSE TIMES AFFORDED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, BUT PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL OF THE OTHERS THAT HAVE THEIR HEARINGS TONIGHT AS WELL. NOW, SINCE WE'LL BE DOING THE SPECIAL USE HEARINGS FIRST, I'M GOING TO TURN TO OUR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY, MR. LOUIS WHITEHEAD, AND HE'S GOING TO EXPLAIN TO YOU THE ABILITY TO APPEAL DECISIONS MADE AS A RESULT OF TONIGHT'S HEARING. GOOD EVENING, LOUIS. >>LOUIS WHITEHEAD: GOOD EVENING, MR. SCAROLA. GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. LOUIS WHITEHEAD, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING OFFICER ON SPECIAL USES HEARD TONIGHT WILL BE FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON NOVEMBER THE 12th. THE CODE PROVIDES THAT ANYONE WHO DESIRES TO RECEIVE A COPY OF THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION BY MAIL MUST FURNISH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD WITH THEIR NAME, ADDRESS, THE CASE NUMBER, AND A STAMPED SELF-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE. DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER ON SPECIAL USES MAY BE APPEALED TO THE LAND USE APPEALS BOARD. AN APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE DATE THAT THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION IS FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD. THE FOLLOWING PERSONS OR ENTITIES SHALL HAVE STANDING TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER OR TO INTERVENE IN AN APPEAL: FIRST THE APPLICANT, AND SECOND ANY PERSON OR ENTITY THAT IS, "A," PRESENT OR REPRESENTED AT TONIGHT'S HEARINGS AND PRESENTS EITHER TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE; OR "B," SUBMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THEMSELVES OR THROUGH ANOTHER PRIOR TO OR DURING TONIGHT'S HEARING; AND "C," IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER. THE EVIDENCE THAT THE APPEALS BOARD CAN CONSIDER IS LIMITED TO THE EVIDENCE THAT IS PRESENTED TONIGHT. THIS MEANS THAT AT THE END OF TONIGHT'S HEARING ON EACH SPECIAL USE THE CASE RECORD CLOSES, AND NO NEW EVIDENCE MAY BE SUBMITTED THEREAFTER. IN ADDITION TO THE CASE RECORD, THE APPEALS BOARD SHALL CONSIDER THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION AND ORAL ARGUMENT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, THE APPELLANT, AND ANY PERSON OR ENTITY WHO HAS STANDING TO APPEAL OR TO INTERVENE IN AN APPEAL, EACH OF WHOM MAY BE REPRESENTED BY LEGAL COUNSEL. IT IS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S ROLE TO ENSURE THAT NO NEW EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY IS ALLOWED BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD IN CONNECTION WITH THIS DECISION. THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WILL ADVISE THE APPEALS BOARD TO DISREGARD EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY THAT IS NOT IN THE RECORD. THEREFORE, PLEASE BE SURE THAT ALL INFORMATION THAT YOU MAY DESIRE THE APPEALS BOARD TO CONSIDER IS PLACED INTO THE RECORD TONIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR THAT. NOW, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF YOU PLAN TO PROVIDE ANY TESTIMONY OR ANY EVIDENCE TONIGHT, I'D LIKE YOU TO RISE WITH ME RIGHT NOW AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE. [PARTICIPANTS SWORN IN] THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE'RE READY FOR OUR FIRST HEARING, WHICH IS GOING TO BE MR. LUCE'S. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE FIRST ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS AGENDA ITEM 2. IT'S SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 09-0807. THE APPLICANT'S WORLD OF BEER. THIS IS REGARDING A SPECIAL USE FOR WAIVERS FOR AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE 2-COP PERMIT. MR. LUCE, THIS IS A RECONSIDERATION ITEM. THIS WAS HEARD BY YOU AT A PRIOR HEARING. YOU HEARD THAT HEARING, CLOSED THE HEARING, AND SUBSEQUENTLY SUBMITTED A RECOMMENDATION WITH CONDITIONS. THIS RECONSIDERATION HAS TO DO WITH THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS REGARDING OPERATING HOURS FOR OUTDOOR MUSIC. THAT'S THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE US TO BE DISCUSSED IS AGAIN THAT CONDITION REGARDING THE HOURS OF OPERATIONS FOR OUTDOOR MUSIC, AND WITH THAT, SUSAN MARINER WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE REGARDING THAT MATTER. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. THE APPLICANT, PLEASE. >> [MICROPHONE NOT ON] I HAVE BEEN SWORN. MR. LUCE, AS MR. GRADY INDICATED, THIS IS A LIMITED USE HEARING, RECONSIDERATION. I PROMISED HIM I WOULD BE NO MORE THAN 60 SECONDS. I'LL TRY TO KEEP THAT TIME LIMIT IN MIND HERE. THIS WAS A HEARING JULY 27th. WE PROVIDED CONDITIONS IN THE RECORD FOR YOU AS WELL AS TRANSCRIPT WHICH CLEARLY STATES A MIDNIGHT CLOSING, BUT I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION BETWEEN 12 P.M. VERSUS A.M. IN FACT, IRONICALLY, I LOOK AT THE STAFF REPORT TONIGHT AND I STILL SEE 12 P.M., SO WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR TONIGHT THE HOURS OF OPERATION SOUGHT BY WORLD OF BEER IS 10:00 P.M. TO MIDNIGHT. IT MIGHT BE EARLIER, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY LATER THAN MIDNIGHT, AND I'M GOING TO READ AND FILE THIS IN THE RECORD. IT'S PAGE 19 OF THE JULY 27th TRANSCRIPT, LINES 13 THROUGH 21, AND I'M QUOTING MYSELF SPEAKING TO YOU. SO WE PROCEEDED ON AND DECIDED LET'S TAKE IT UPON OURSELVES, OFFER CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS INTO THE RECORD, AND THOSE RESTRICTIONS ARE THAT WE WILL HAVE NO OUTSIDE LIVE MUSIC IN THE ESTABLISHMENT, THAT, IN FACT, ALL LIVE MUSIC WILL BE TERMINATED BY 11:30 TO 12:00. IN THIS CASE 12:00 MIDNIGHT WILL BE THE ABSOLUTE ENDING PERIOD, BUT WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THE BANDS ONLY PLAY -- A COUPLE ACOUSTIC PLAYERS -- FROM MAYBE 9:30 TO 11:30 OR 10:00 TO 12:00 TOPS. IT'S ONLY A TWO-HOUR WINDOW. WE AGREE EVERYTHING STOPS AT MIDNIGHT. I THINK THAT SAYS IT ALL. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR EARLIER PRIOR APPROVAL. WE WOULD ASK IF YOU CAN FILE AN EXPEDITED TURNAROUND ON THIS DECISION, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL SINCE WE'RE CLOSE TO OPENING, AND I'LL FILE THIS INTO THE RECORD. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>STEVE LUCE: NOT AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: STAFF, PLEASE. >>SUSAN MARINER: SUSAN MARINER, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO -- >> [INAUDIBLE] >>SUSAN MARINER: SUSAN MARINER, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUESTED CHANGE. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. >>SUSAN MARINER: THANK YOU. >>STEVE LUCE: ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH 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. OH, I'M SORRY, SIR. PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> I BEG YOUR PARDON. I WAS LATE FOR THE MEETING, SO I WASN'T SWORN IN. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. PLEASE RISE -- RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. REPEAT AFTER ME. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD. >> I DO. >>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, SIR. >> MY NAME IS RICHARD KOLHOFF, 2283 REPUBLIC DRIVE, DUNEDIN, FLORIDA 34698. AS I UNDERSTAND FROM THE NOTICE, THE EXEMPTION WAS GRANTED, AND THIS HEARING WAS ONLY TO DEAL WITH THE HOURS OF THE LIVE MUSIC? >>STEVE LUCE: CORRECT. >> AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD, THAT WAS -- THE LIVE MUSIC WILL STILL BE INSIDE AND NOT OUTSIDE? >> YES. >> I DON'T THINK WE CAN OBJECT TO THAT, SO I'LL LET GO. I WAS TO THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE LIVE MUSIC WAS GOING TO BE OUTSIDE. >>STEVE LUCE: NO. >> AND WE OBJECT TO THAT. WE STILL OBJECT TO THE EXEMPTION, BUT WE HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. AND YOU'RE REPRESENTING THE CHURCH? >> I REPRESENT THE DIOCESE OF ST. PETERSBURG AND ST. PAUL'S PARRISH. >>STEVE LUCE: OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, SIR. AT THIS POINT, STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER? COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, JUST QUICKLY JUST FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS AN APPLICATION WHICH WAS HEARD PREVIOUSLY BY ME, A DECISION WAS RENDERED, THE APPLICANT NOTICED AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE TESTIMONY, WHAT HE SUBMITTED IN TERMS OF EXHIBITS, AND MY FINAL DECISION REFLECTED A 10:00 P.M. TIME LIMIT ON THE HOURS OF OUTSIDE LIVE MUSIC. I THINK THAT WAS THE SUMMATION OF WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE. THE REQUEST WAS FOR A RECONSIDERATION. SO THE ONLY ISSUE TONIGHT IS THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE REGARDING THE HOURS OF OPERATION, AND THIS WILL PROVIDE FOR A CLEAN SORT OF CONCLUSION TO THIS APPLICATION? DO YOU CONCUR WITH THAT SORT OF -- >>LOUIS WHITEHEAD: RIGHT. LOUIS WHITEHEAD, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. YOU CAN ALSO COMBINE THAT WITH AN ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND MAYBE A RESTATED ORDER -- >>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT. >>LOUIS WHITEHEAD: -- THAT ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS AND MAYBE A COUPLE OF RECITALS THAT PLACES IT IN CONTEXT. >>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT. AND SPECIAL USE 09-0807 WAS A PRIOR APPROVAL, AND THE DECISION THAT I MAKE AFTER TONIGHT'S CONCLUSION WILL BE BASED ON THAT SPECIFIC APPLICATION? >>LOUIS WHITEHEAD: MOST DEFINITELY. >>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, APPLICANT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. >> NO FURTHER TESTIMONY. THANK YOU, MR. LUCE. >>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, SIR. THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 3. IT'S SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 09-1056. IT'S FOR A -- SPECIAL USE FOR WAIVERS FOR -- IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A 2-COP ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT. ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR SPECIAL USE 09-1056? GOOD EVENING, SIR. >> GOOD EVENING, SIR. MY NAME IS CARLOS OSORNO. I'M THE OWNER OF THE BUSINESS LOCATED ON 7730, AND THE REASON WHY I'M HERE IS BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO GET YOUR APPROVAL TO EXPAND MY CURRENT 2-APS ALCOHOLIC PERMIT TO A 2-COP PERMIT, WHICH IS GOING TO ALLOW ME TO SERVE BEER AND WINE IN THE ESTABLISHMENT. MY BUSINESS IS COMMONLY LOCATED ON A -- WITHIN A SMALL SHOPPING CENTER RIGHT NOW WHICH HAS ENOUGH PARKING LOT FOR MY CLIENTS. THE PROPERTY ZONING IS COMMERCIAL GENERAL, AND IT'S ADJACENT TO THE -- TO OTHER COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS WITH THE SAME ZONING. AN IMPORTANT FACTOR FOR THE SUCCESS OF MY BUSINESS IS TO ALLOW THE CONSUMPTION OF BEER AND WINE INSIDE THE BUSINESS. AND BASICALLY I HAVE TWO WAIVERS, WHICH IS A 500 FEET AND 200 FEET. I HAVE A LIBRARY AND RESIDENTIAL INSIDE THE 250 FEET. AS YOU SEE RIGHT THERE ON THE PHOTOGRAPH, THE WALKING DISTANCE BETWEEN THE LIBRARY IS MORE THAN 1500 FEET AND TO THE RESIDENTIAL IT'S ALMOST 1200 FEET, SO -- AND PALM RIVER ROAD IS A VERY TRAFFIC ROAD WHICH SERVES AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE LIBRARY AND MY BUSINESS. THAT'S ALL. >>JAMES SCAROLA: IS THAT IT, SIR? >> YES. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. >> THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. AND THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. GOOD EVENING. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: GOOD EVENING. ISABELLE ALBERT, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THIS REQUEST IS FOR A 2-COP TO ALLOW BEER, WINE FOR SALE AND CONSUMPTION ON AND OFF THE LICENSED PREMISES. THIS IS TO OCCUPY A 5,500-SQUARE-FOOT SITE FOR A GROCERY STORE AND A RESTAURANT. THE SITE CURRENTLY HAS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A 2-APS, AND THEY WISH TO AMEND THAT FOR A 2-COP, SO THEREFORE, THE 2-APS SU 09-1056 WILL BE RESCINDED. THE APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST DOES REQUIRE A WAIVER THAT THERE BE NO RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTIES WITHIN 200 FEET FROM THE SITE, AND THERE IS -- RIGHT TO THE REAR, TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE AT ABOUT 132 FEET FROM THE SUBJECT SITE, SO THEY'RE REQUESTING A WAIVER OF 117 FEET, AND THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN A SHOPPING CENTER FACING PALM RIVER ROAD, AND THE REAR OF THE BUILDING IS ACTUALLY INACCESSIBLE DUE TO A SIX-FOOT CHAIN-LINK FENCE WITH PADLOCK, AND THE REAR PROPERTY ALSO IS BORDERED BY A CHAIN-LINK FENCE AND A WOOD FENCE. THE ACTUAL TRAVEL DISTANCE, AS THE APPLICANT EXPLAINED, WAS OVER A THOUSAND FEET. THEY'RE ALSO REQUESTING WAIVER TO DISTANCE REQUIREMENT FOR THE COMMUNITY USE, AND THERE'S A LIBRARY ACROSS THE STREET AWAY FROM THEM, AROUND 339 FEET FROM THEM, SO THEY'RE REQUESTING A WAIVER OF 161 FEET, AND AGAIN, THIS PROPOSED - - THE SHOPPING CENTER, THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER WITH THE LITTLE RESTAURANT IS WITHIN A -- A PLAZA, AND THE ACTUAL DISTANCE IS GREATER THAN 1,500 FEET, AND WITH THAT, STAFF FINDS THIS SUPPORTABLE AND APPROVABLE. I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >>JAMES SCAROLA: MS. ALBERT, THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE A LITTLE CLARIFICATION FOR THE RECORD, AND I'M GOING TO ASK THESE FOR SEVERAL OF THE -- THE ABs TONIGHT, BUT THIS IS AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR WHICH A SPECIAL USE WAIVER IS REQUESTED FOR THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS; IS THAT CORRECT? >>ISABELLE ALBERT: I DIDN'T HEAR A THING YOU SAID. IT'S REALLY NOT LOUD. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S JUST ME -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: YEAH -- NO, NO. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: -- BUT I CAN'T HEAR YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: I ACTUALLY NOTICED THE SAME THING. THIS IS AN ALCOHOL BEVERAGED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR WHICH THE APPLICANT NEEDS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A WAIVER TO THE DISTANCE CRITERIA; IS THAT CORRECT? >>ISABELLE ALBERT: CORRECT, YES. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST? I SEE NONE. IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST? NO. ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE APPLICANT, SIR, BEFORE I CLOSE THAT? >> NO. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE'LL CLOSE 09-1056. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 4, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 09-1064. THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHILD-CARE FACILITY. SUSAN MARINER WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? >> GOOD EVENING. FOR THE RECORD, STEVE ALLISON REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER. >>JAMES SCAROLA: GO AHEAD, MR. ALLISON. >> OKAY. UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION OR STAFF HAS ANY OBJECTION, I'LL TRY AND BE BRIEF. THE APPLICATION IS FOR A VERY SMALL DAY CARE IN A CONVERTED RESIDENTIAL FACILITY. WE'RE FINE WITH STAFF REPORT OF BOTH STAFFS AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE IN REGARD TO ANY OF THAT. THE ONE ISSUE -- AND I SPOKE WITH MR. GRADY ABOUT IT THIS AFTERNOON, THE APPLICANTS ARE IN THE PROCESS OF RENOVATING THIS STRUCTURE. IT WAS IN RELATIVELY POOR CONDITION. WHEN THEY STARTED THOSE EFFORTS, I HAD INDICATED TO THEM PLEASE DON'T DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD NOT -- DON'T DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD UNDERMINE ITS POSSIBILITY TO BE STILL USED FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, YOU KNOW, ADVISING THEM, UNTIL YOU HAVE AN APPROVAL, DON'T DO ANYTHING BASED UPON YOUR ANTICIPATION OF THAT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: WISE ADVICE. >> I WAS OUT THERE THIS WEEKEND, AND IF YOU NOTICE ON THE SITE PLAN -- I'LL GO TO ELMO IF NECESSARY -- WE'VE PROVIDED AN ALTERNATIVE FORM OF ACCESS IN THE FRONT YARD WITH A CIRCULAR DRIVE, WHICH IS THE PREFERRED MEANS OF DOING THIS BY STAFF. I WAS OUT THERE JUST THE OTHER DAY, AND INDEED THEY WENT AHEAD AND BUILT THE CIRCULAR DRIVE. I SAID, WELL, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT, BUT THEY SAID, WELL, ACTUALLY WE THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID, AND THE DEAL IS EVEN IF -- IF WE'RE DENIED, THIS DOESN'T HURT IT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY THE WAY THAT THEY'VE CONSTRUCTED IT, AND I DO CONCUR WITH THEM ON THAT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: DID THEY OBTAIN A DRIVEWAY PERMIT? >> I DON'T KNOW. THEY HAVEN'T ACTUALLY CONNECTED TO THE ROADWAY. THERE'S STILL A SPACE, SO THEY HAVE SOME MORE WORK TO DO. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. >> I BRING IT UP BECAUSE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THERE IS A STANDARD THAT SAYS THESE TYPE OF DRIVEWAYS FOR DAY CARES ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A MINIMUM 20-FOOT INSIDE RADIUS. THIS ONE DOES NOT. AND I SPOKE WITH BRIAN PROCEDURALLY WHETHER THAT'S SOMETHING YOU COULD CONSIDER. OBVIOUSLY STAFF IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO COMMENT ON IT TONIGHT, BUT I DO THINK IT'S JUSTIFIABLE FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. FIRST -- AGAIN, THIS IS AN EXTREMELY SMALL FACILITY. IT'S A MAXIMUM 25 KIDS. WHEN I SPOKE TO THEM INITIALLY, I SAID WHAT IS THE LARGEST NUMBER YOU WOULD EVER IMAGINE? THEY SAID PROBABLY ABOUT 20. I SAID, WELL, LET'S GO 25 JUST TO COVER IT. WE DON'T ANTICIPATE EVEN THAT MANY. >>JAMES SCAROLA: MR. ALLISON, I'M LOSING TRACK. WHEN YOU SAID APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO CONSIDER, WHAT AM I CONSIDERING? THERE'S ALREADY A CONDITION PROPOSED BY STAFF THAT SAYS IT'S THEIR PREFERENCE -- >> YES. >>JAMES SCAROLA: -- IF PERMITABLE. >> WELL, BUT THE FIRST CONDITION IN THE STAFF REPORT SAYS, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF 6.11.24. >>JAMES SCAROLA: RIGHT. >> AND SO I HAVE AMENDED THAT BECAUSE 6.11.24 IS WHERE THE 20-FOOT -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: RIGHT. >> -- RADIUS IS AT TO ADD LANGUAGE TO RELAX THAT PART OF THE STANDARD. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OH. >> AND I WILL DISTRIBUTE THAT CONDITION AT THE CONCLUSION OF MY REMARKS. >>JAMES SCAROLA: SO YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT CONDITION NUMBER ONE AND THE FACT THAT IT CITES 6.11.24 -- >> RIGHT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: -- WHICH GOES BACK TO THE 20-FOOT RADIUS? >> CORRECT. AND I TRIED TO ALSO THINK IN MY OWN MIND WHY WOULD -- WHY - - FIRST OF ALL, WHY IT WAS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN THAT PLACE, I DON'T KNOW -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: IT'S BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME. >> -- WHY YOU WOULD WANT THAT ANYWAY, AND THE ONLY REASON I CAN THINK OF IS THAT IF THIS WERE ON A BUSY STREET, YOU'D WANT TO HAVE A PRETTY EASY MOVEMENT INTO THE SITE. THIS IS ON A LOCAL DEAD-END STREET. THERE'S NO -- YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY NO TRAFFIC ON THE THING, IT'S NOT GOING -- YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE TO MAKE A SHARPER TURN TO GET IN THERE, YOU'RE NOT SLOWING DOWN THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC, AND I THINK THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE THING. >>JAMES SCAROLA: WELL, ACTUALLY, I DON'T BELIEVE -- I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TURNING RADIUS FROM THE STREET TO THE DRIVEWAY, AND I BELIEVE IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE INSIDE DIAMETER OF, IN EFFECT, A CUL-DE-SAC WITHIN THE PROPERTY. >> YEAH. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT APPLIES TO BOTH OF THOSE SITUATIONS. I COULD BE WRONG. BUT ANYWAY, AS I SAY, BECAUSE OF THE SCALE OF THIS FACILITY, I THINK IT BECOMES LESS IMPORTANT. THE OTHER THING -- AND WHEN YOU GO TO THE SITE, YOU WILL NOTICE THAT IF IT -- IF THE CIRCULAR DRIVE WERE ACTUALLY BUILT THE WAY THAT WE HAD SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN, THAT'S GOING TO RUN SMACK DAB ON THE SOUTH SIDE INTO A UTILITY POLE, SO THEY PROBABLY COULDN'T HAVE FINANCIALLY DONE THAT ANYWAY BECAUSE OF THE COST TO RELOCATE THAT POLE, SO THEY TIGHTENED IT UP, AND ALL I'M ASKING IS THAT IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS THAT YOU CONSIDER THAT. I'LL PASS OUT THE -- THE CONDITION TO STAFF AND THE CLERK AND TO YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: FAIR ENOUGH. >> THEY DO HAVE OTHER CONCRETE TO POUR IF YOU AREN'T COMFORTABLE WITH IT. THEY'VE GOT SIDEWALKS THERE THAT ARE NOT WIDE ENOUGH. THEY HAVEN'T BUILT THEIR PARKING YET. THEY'VE GOT OTHER SITE DEVELOPMENT WORK TO DO, SO IT'S NOT ALL THAT BIG A DEAL. WE'LL LIVE WITH IT EITHER WAY, BUT I THINK -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: MR. ALLISON, YOU KNOW I'M NOT A CODES ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, BUT THIS INFORMATION IS RIPE FOR CODES ENFORCEMENT WITHOUT HAVING ANY SORTS OF PERMITS, WHICH ARE ALL PART OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, SO I'D BE REMISS FOR NOT HAVING MENTIONED THAT ON THE RECORD. >> YEAH, AND I -- I DIDN'T ASK THEM THAT QUESTION. MY GUESS IS THEY PROBABLY DID NOT IN TERMS OF A DRIVEWAY PERMIT TO POUR THAT CONCRETE, BUT I CAN'T STATE THAT FOR A FACT. THEY VERY WELL MAY HAVE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. >> BUT THEY'RE AWARE OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DAY CARE ITSELF AND WILL COMPLY WITH -- WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE COUNTY ORDINANCE. OTHERWISE, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OPPOSITION. AGAIN, WE SUPPORT THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY STAFF WITH THAT CAVEAT AND RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT TESTIMONY. AND THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>SUSAN MARINER: SUSAN MARINER, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE REQUEST IS FOR A CHILD-CARE CENTER SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO SECTION 6.11.24 FOR A MAXIMUM OF 25 CHILDREN IN AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO SEEKING A VARIANCE TO SECTION 6.06.06, THE TEN-FOOT TYPE "A" BUFFERING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENT ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY. THEIR JUSTIFICATION IS THAT THE OWNER OF THIS SITE ALSO OWNS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. IT'S ANTICIPATED THAT THERE WILL BE A FUTURE NONRESIDENTIAL USE IN THAT LOCATION, THAT IT WOULD BE SELF-IMPOSED BECAUSE THEY ARE THE APPLICANT, AND STAFF FINDS THE JUSTIFICATION SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THAT PARTICULAR VARIANCE. BASED ON THE FACT THAT THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT USE, STAFF FINDS IT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AREA. I DON'T AT THIS POINT SUPPORT THE -- ANY WAIVERS TO -- OTHER VARIANCES OR WAIVERS TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS. IT IS A REALLY TIGHT SITE. THEY HARDLY EVEN HAVE A FRONT YARD, AND I DON'T THINK THE ROADWAY ITSELF -- I THINK IT'S 30 FEET. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. BUT YOU ALSO, SUSAN, DID NOT REVIEW A TURNING RADIUS VARIANCE, DID YOU? >>SUSAN MARINER: I DID NOT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANKS FOR THE TESTIMONY. >>SUSAN MARINER: THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: AND PLANNING COMMISSION. >>KRISTA KELLY: THANK YOU. KRISTA KELLY WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE SITE IS DESIGNATED RESIDENTIAL-4 ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORY THAT ALLOWS RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT USES SUCH AS DAY CARES PROVIDED THAT THE SITE IS DESIGNED IN A SENSITIVE MANNER TO THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY, PROVIDING CHILD CARE TO A COMMUNITY. BASED UPON THESE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. >>KRISTA KELLY: THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST? I SEE NO ONE IN SUPPORT. IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST? NONE. MR. ALLISON, ANYTHING ELSE? >> I'D JUST RESPOND BRIEFLY. IN TERMS OF THE CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY, ONE OF THE THINGS MENTIONED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER. THE WAY THAT THEY'VE CONSTRUCTED THIS I THINK IS ACTUALLY VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. IT'S NOT AN OBTRUSIVE DRIVEWAY, IT'S NOT COMMERCIAL IN FEEL LIKE YOU WOULD GET I THINK MORE SO WITH THE CODE-PRESCRIBED RADIUS. IT LEAVES WITHIN THE CONFINES OF -- OF THE DRIVEWAY ITSELF TOWARD THE STREET A VERY NICE SPACE TO PUT LANDSCAPING IN, AND I THINK IT COULD BE VERY ATTRACTIVE AND SENSITIVELY DONE. AGAIN, SPEAKING JUST TO THE SCALE OF THIS THING, WE'RE TALKING A MAXIMUM OF 25 KIDS. THE FIRST TWO OF THOSE ARE GOING TO BE MY CLIENT'S TWO TODDLER CHILDREN, WHICH KIND OF GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT. SHE'S IN THE PROCESS RIGHT NOW OF GOING THROUGH A NUMBER OF COURSES TO BE A CERTIFIED DAY CARE OPERATOR. SHE'S BEEN AT THAT FOR SEVERAL MONTHS. SHE'S VERY CONSCIENTIOUS ABOUT IT. WE THINK IT'LL BE AN ASSET TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND AGAIN - - >>JAMES SCAROLA: YOU KNOW THIS BEGS THE QUESTION, SINCE SUSAN DIDN'T REVIEW IT, IS THIS A -- WOULD YOU CONSIDER THE RADII A WAIVER OR A VARIANCE? >> I DON'T KNOW -- >>BRIAN GRADY: SINCE IT'S IN 6.11, IT'S A WAIVER. >>JAMES SCAROLA: IT'S A WAIVER? >>BRIAN GRADY: YEAH. IF IT WERE NOT IN 6.11, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT VARIANCE. THAT'S WHY THE BUFFER IS A VARIANCE, AND WITHIN MR. ALLISON'S APPLICATION, HE DIDN'T ANSWER THE SIX QUESTIONS FOR THE VARIANCE, BUT THIS -- SINCE IT IS IN 6.11, YOU CAN DEAL WITH IT AS A WAIVER AND TREAT IT BASED ON THAT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANKS FOR THAT. DO YOU BELIEVE THE PUBLIC PURPOSE IS SATISFIED TO AN EQUIVALENT DEGREE? >> I CERTAINLY DO. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT, MR. ALLISON. >> THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: AND OUR NEXT PETITION. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT PETITION IS AGENDA ITEM 5. IT'S SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 09-1069. THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE FOR SEPARATION WAIVERS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A 4-COP ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT. ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. YES, SIR. >> GOOD EVENING. >>JAMES SCAROLA: GOOD EVENING. HOW ARE YOU? >> MY NAME IS EDGAR -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: PULL THAT MICROPHONE DOWN TO YOU. YES, SIR. >> MY NAME IS EDGAR VALLEJO. MY ADDRESS IS 6307 BRIDGECREST DRIVE, LITHIA, FLORIDA 33547, AND I'M HERE TONIGHT TO REQUEST AN APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE APPLICATION FOR MY RESTAURANT LOCATED ON 434 EAST BRANDON BOULEVARD, BRANDON, FLORIDA THAT HAS A CAPACITY OF ABOUT 60 PEOPLE. I'VE BEEN AT THIS PLACE FOR THE LAST SIX YEARS. THE PROPERTY INCLUDES ENOUGH PARKING FOR MY CLIENTS. THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE WILL BE A COMPLEMENT TO MY RESTAURANT. MY CLIENTS FREQUENTLY ASK FOR -- YOU KNOW, FOR A BEER, WINE, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND WE DON'T HAVE A LICENSE, SO THIS WILL COMPLEMENT THEIR MEAL. APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST WILL BENEFIT MY BUSINESS AND ALSO THE COMMUNITY. THE CODE REQUIRES THREE CONDITIONS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT OR AN APPROVAL FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE. IN MY CASE, ONLY ONE WAS NOT MET. THAT IS RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTY WITHIN 250 FEET, WHICH I WANT TO POINT TO THIS MAP. >>JAMES SCAROLA: YES. SIR, THERE'S A MICROPHONE THERE IF YOU WANT TO PICK UP THE MIKE. >> I HAVE TO GET MY NOTES. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. NO PROBLEM. YOU'LL HAVE TO TURN IT ON ONCE YOU PICK IT UP. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >>JAMES SCAROLA: NOT YET. TRY AGAIN. >> NOW? >>JAMES SCAROLA: YES, I CAN. >> OKAY. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS PICTURE, THERE ARE FIVE [INCOMPREHENSIBLE] PROPERTIES WITHIN 250 FEET OF THE PARCEL WHERE MY BUSINESS IS LOCATED. TWO OF THEM, NUMBER 1 AND 2, ARE VACANT. THEY ARE SITUATED BEHIND THE PROPERTY. PARCEL NUMBER 3 IS [INCOMPREHENSIBLE] BY THE 250 FEET RADIUS. THAT INCLUDES SOME CONDOMINIUMS WHERE THE WALKING DISTANCE FROM MY BUSINESS IS -- TO THE MAIN ENTRANCE IS 900 FEET. THE OTHER TWO RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTIES, NUMBER 4 AND 5, INCLUDES A HOUSE ON EACH ONE, LOCATED ON MONTCLAIR AVENUE, WHICH SERVES AS A BUFFER TO THOSE HOUSES. >>JAMES SCAROLA: CAN YOU POINT TO THAT, MONTCLAIR AVENUE? >> 4 AND 5. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ON MONTCLAIR AVENUE? >> MONTCLAIR, YEAH. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SHOWS HOW MUCH BUSINESS AS WELL AS THE FIVE RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTIES WITHIN 250 FEET ARE WITHIN THE OFFICE COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY SHOWN IN RED, WHICH DISCOURAGES RESIDENTIAL USE AND ENCOURAGES OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USES. THEREFORE, MY PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. THE ZONING MAP ALSO INDICATES THAT MY PROPERTY, ALONG WITH OTHER PROPERTIES IN MY AREA ON BRANDON BOULEVARD, ARE ZONED COMMERCIAL GENERAL, WHICH IS COMPATIBLE WITH MY RESTAURANT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE BUSINESS. MY BUSINESS OPERATES EVERY DAY FROM 7:00 TO 10:00, AND -- HOWEVER, SELLING ALCOHOL ON SUNDAYS WILL START AT 11:00. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOTHING MORE TO SAY. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. IS THAT IT? >> YEP. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT -- I'M SORRY. THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. IS THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT HERE TONIGHT? >>ISABELLE ALBERT: I'LL BE QUICK. ISABELLE ALBERT, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THIS REQUEST IS FOR A 4-COP-X TO ALLOW BEER, WINE, AND LIQUOR FOR SALE AND CONSUMPTION ON THE LICENSED PREMISES IN CONNECTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT. NO AGENCIES OBJECTED TO THIS REVIEW. THE SUBJECT SITE IS FACING BRANDON BOULEVARD, AND THEY'RE ACTUALLY REQUESTING A WAIVER TO THE RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTIES JUST TO THE NORTH, AND SO THEY'RE REQUESTING A WAIVER OF 178.8 FEET. AND THE SUBJECT SITE IS FACING BRANDON BOULEVARD IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF THESE RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTIES, WHICH ARE, IN FACT, VACANT, AND THERE'S ALSO SUFFICIENT BUFFER AND SCREENING BETWEEN BOTH USES, SO WE FIND THIS APPROVABLE. I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >>JAMES SCAROLA: NO. BUT THANK YOU FOR THAT. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST? NO? IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST? ANYTHING ELSE, SIR? >> THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE SPECIAL USE 09-1069. BRIAN. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 6, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 09-1073. THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE FOR DISTANCE WAIVERS FOR A 2-COP ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT. SUSAN MARINER WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: GOOD EVENING. >> HI. MY NAME IS DIXIE LIBERTY. I'M AT 5719 TANAGERLAKE ROAD, LITHIA, FLORIDA. I'M REQUESTING A 2-COP-X. LICENSED PREMISE IS 1200 SQUARE FEET. IT'S IN THE SUMMERFIELD AREA. I DO HAVE SOME PICTURES I WANT TO SHOW YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> OH, AND I ALSO GOT AN APPROVAL LETTER FROM THE DAY CARE. [INAUDIBLE] THAT'S THE APPROVAL LETTER FROM THE DAY CARE. YOU SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF THAT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. >> THIS IS -- THIS IS SUMMERFIELD SHOPPING PLAZA. IT'S WHERE THE OLD CHERRY'S USED TO BE, AND THE DAY CARE IS RIGHT ABOUT HERE, AND MY CLIENT IS ABOUT RIGHT THERE, SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF DISTANCE, BUT THE DAY CARE HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH THEM COMING IN. THIS IS THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, AND YOU CAN SEE ALL THE TREES THAT'S DIVIDING THE RESIDENTIAL FROM THAT, AND ALSO THERE'S LIKE A LITTLE POND. THIS IS THE DAY CARE. I'M SORRY IT'S A LITTLE DARK. THIS IS WHERE MY BUSINESS IS -- WELL, NOT MINE, MY CLIENT'S, WHERE THIS WHITE CAR IS. AND THIS IS LOOKING FROM THE END OF THE PLAZA THAT YOU HAVE TO GO OVER THE STREET. THIS IS PART OF THE STREET, AND THEN THERE'S A DIVIDING RIGHT HERE AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER STREET RIGHT THERE, AND THIS IS LOOKING TO THE NORTH, SO THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH OF THEM. AND THE LAST ONE, WHICH IS BEHIND THE ALLEYWAY -- WELL, THE BACK OF THE BUILDING THAT I SHOWED YOU THAT HAD ALL THE TREES. THESE ARE THE TREES, THIS IS THE POND, AND WAY OVER HERE IS RESIDENTIAL. BUT THERE IS SOME RESIDENTIAL TO THE WEST AREA. THAT IS ALSO SEPARATED FROM THE STREET AND A SIX-FOOT CONCRETE WALL, AND THE MAJORITY OF THOSE PEOPLE HAVE A LOT OF TREES ON -- WHERE YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THE HOMES. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. >> THE HOURS OF OPERATION IS MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY, 11:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M. THEY ARE CLOSED ON SUNDAY FOR FAMILY DAY. >>JAMES SCAROLA: DO YOU KNOW THE DAY CARE OPERATING HOURS BY ANY CHANCE? >> THEY OPEN LIKE AT 7:00 IN THE MORNING TO 5:00 IN THE AFTERNOON. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. >> ANY QUESTIONS? >>JAMES SCAROLA: THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION. >> OKAY. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ANYTHING ELSE? >> NO. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. AND THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>SUSAN MARINER: SUSAN MARINER, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE REQUEST IS FOR A 2-COP-X ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF BEER AND WINE ON THE PERMITTED PREMISES ONLY. IT DOES REQUIRE A WAIVER, A DISTANCE WAIVER FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF THE SITE AND FROM THE COMMUNITY USE, A CHILD-CARE CENTER, LOCATED SOUTH OF THE SITE. STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED WET ZONING COMPATIBLE WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE SHOPPING CENTER AND POSES MINIMAL ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT. ADDITIONALLY, THERE'S NO DIRECT ACCESS TO THE CHILD-CARE CENTER. BASED ON THE WET ZONE SURVEY AND THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION, STAFF SUPPORTS THE REQUEST. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU, MS. MARINER. >>SUSAN MARINER: THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST? NOBODY IN SUPPORT? IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST? I SEE NONE. MS. LIBERTY, ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, WE'LL CLOSE SPECIAL USE -- >> SHE NEEDS TO SIGN IN. >>JAMES SCAROLA: MS. LIBERTY. OH, OKAY. SHE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 7, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 09-1074. THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER. ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. LAURALEE WESTINE ON BEHALF OF T-MOBILE. I ALSO HAVE WITH ME THIS EVENING BRIAN WARD WHO IS A RADIO FREQUENCY ENGINEER WITH T-MOBILE. WE ARE -- AS A HOUSEKEEPING MATTER, I JUST PROVIDED THE CLERK THE ENTIRE PACKAGE OF EVERYTHING I WILL BE SHOWING YOU THIS EVENING ON THE ELMO. WE ARE PROPOSING FOR YOU A 155-FOOT FLAGPOLE TOWER. WE ARE SOMEWHAT MODIFYING OUR REQUEST THIS EVENING BASED UPON A PHONE CALL WE RECEIVED IN THAT WE ARE -- AND BASED UPON ONE OF STAFF'S CONDITIONS -- IN THAT WE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO NOT FLYING A FLAG. STAFF HAS REQUESTED THAT -- STAFF HAS REQUESTED THERE BE NO LIGHTING. IN ORDER TO FLY A FLAG IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNITED STATES CODE AND THE FLAG RULES, WE DO HAVE TO UPLIGHT IT. AS SUCH, WE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO IT. I'M NOT SURE THAT I NECESSARILY WANT TO, QUOTE, MODIFY MY APPLICATION IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT ASKING FOR A CAMOUFLAGE WAIVER NO LONGER PUTS MY -- PUTS MY APPLICATION I THINK IN GOOD STEAD MORE OR LESS, BUT WITH THAT SAID, WE CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT. THIS TOWER WILL SUPPORT A TOTAL OF FOUR CARRIERS. IT IS CURRENTLY SUPPORTING T-MOBILE AND ITS ANTENNAS, AND ALSO YOU'LL FIND IN THE RECORD A LETTER FROM CLEARWIRE, WHICH IS A WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE -- PARDON ME -- THAT IS INTENDING ON COLLOCATING AS WELL ONCE THIS TOWER IS APPROVED AND BUILT. THESE TOWERS ARE NOT UNFAMILIAR TO THIS AREA. THERE'S CURRENTLY A FLAGLESS FLAGPOLE TOWER AS WE CALL THEM IN THE INDUSTRY AT THE YMCA ON WATERS AND THERE'S ALSO ONE AT THE TIMBERLAND PARK AT THE BALL FIELDS THERE. THAT IS ALSO A FLAGLESS FLAGPOLE. I AM BEFORE YOU WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS; ADDITIONALLY, A FINDING OF CONSISTENCY FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE -- ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT REQUIRED, T-MOBILE DOES HOST COMMUNITY MEETINGS PRIOR TO -- PRIOR TO COMING BEFORE YOU. THIS WAS HELD ON OCTOBER 7th. WE HAD 15 ATTENDEES. A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE SEFFNER CIVIC ASSOCIATION WAS PRESENT. WE USED THE 300-FOOT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BUFFER RADIUS TO SEND THOSE NOTICES. IN THOSE FOLKS THAT WERE NOTICES, THERE WERE EIGHT OTHER CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS WITHIN A ONE-MILE RADIUS THAT GOT NOTICED. TOTAL MAILINGS WERE 19 -- IN ADDITION TO THE EIGHT CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS, 19 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. AT THAT MEETING ONE OF THE -- THERE WERE SEVERAL CONCERNS EXPRESSED, BUT ONE OF THE CONCERNS WAS WHETHER OR NOT T- MOBILE COULD COLOCATE ON A TOWER LOCATED A LITTLE OVER A MILE AND A HALF NORTHWEST. BASICALLY T-MOBILE ENGINEERS REVIEWED THAT. THAT TOWER IS ACTUALLY LOCATED ABOUT 1.3 MILES FROM THE CENTER OF THE COVERAGE DEFICIENCY. I DO HAVE BRIAN WARD, THE ENGINEER, PRESENT TO TESTIFY TO THAT, BUT WE -- WE DID TAKE A LOOK AT THAT BASED ON THEIR - - THEIR REQUEST. SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WERE ADDRESSED WERE -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: WHAT DOES THAT TELL ME, THOUGH, THAT IT'S 1.3 MILES FROM THE CENTER OF THE DEFICIENCY? WHAT'S THE CONCLUSION FROM THAT? >> THAT T-MOBILE CANNOT COLOCATE ON THAT TOWER. >>JAMES SCAROLA: BECAUSE IT'S TOO FAR FROM THE CENTER OF DEFICIENCY? >> IT'S TOO FAR FROM THE CENTER OF THE DEFICIENCY. IT WOULD STILL LEAVE ANOTHER AREA -- ANOTHER TOWER WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO SERVE THAT AREA. SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP WERE LIGHTNING. AT THAT POINT I DISCUSSED WITH THEM THE FACT THAT THESE TOWER SITES, NOT ONLY THE COMPOUND ITSELF, BUT EACH SET OF EQUIPMENT AND THE TOWER ARE -- HAVE A GROUND RING AROUND IT THAT THE LIGHTNING IS DRAWN TO. WE ALSO DISCUSSED THE WIND LOADING OR WHAT COULD HAPPEN IN A HURRICANE. THIS TOWER IS -- IS DESIGNED FOR 105 MILES PER HOUR AND THEN FOR 120 MILES PER HOUR WITH THREE-SECOND GUSTS. >>JAMES SCAROLA: WHAT'S THE FAILURE MECHANISM? IS IT STRAIGHT DOWN OR IS IT SIDEWAYS? >> THERE IS A HINGE. THIS TOWER WAS DESIGNED WITH A 75-FOOT HINGE, SO AT 155 FEET, THE TOP 75 FEET HINGES. THE PARENT TRACT HOUSES THE BRANDON YMCA. THE UNDERLYING ZONING IS ASC-1. IT'S APPROXIMATELY 4.5 ACRES. A FLAGPOLE TOWER IS PRESUMED BASED UPON -- PRESUMED COMPATIBLE IN AN ASC-1 ZONING DISTRICT BASED UPON YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AT A SPORTS AND RECREATION FACILITY, WHICH THIS CERTAINLY IS. THERE ARE BALL FIELDS. >>JAMES SCAROLA: WHAT'S THE BASIS FOR THE PRESUMPTION OF COMPATIBILITY? DO YOU KNOW THE CODE PROVISION? >> IT'S A CODE PROVISION? IT IS -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: DO YOU KNOW IT? >> IF YOU LOOK AT THE TABLE WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE CAMOUFLAGE STRUCTURE AND GO TO FLAGPOLES, IT SAYS ALSO, "A," "AR," "AS." GO TO AS-1 -- ASC-1-ZONED PROPERTIES DEVELOPED WITH SPORTS/RECREATION FACILITIES, AND THEY ARE PRESUMED COMPATIBLE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: IT USES THE WORDS "PRESUMED COMPATIBLE"? >> THE TABLE BELOW IDENTIFIES THE ZONING DISTRICTS IN WHICH SPECIFIC CAMOUFLAGE STRUCTURE TYPES ARE PRESUMED COMPATIBLE. THIS TOWER -- THIS TOWER EXCEEDS ALL THE REQUIRED SETBACKS. AS YOU'RE AWARE, A NONRESIDENTIAL SETBACK IS 20% OF THE TOWER HEIGHT, A RESIDENTIAL SETBACK IS 33% OR A THIRD OF THE TOWER HEIGHT OR IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE 52 FEET. TO THE NORTH OF US, WHICH IS THE BALL FIELD -- AND I'LL SHOW AN AERIAL IN A MOMENT -- IT'S 91 FEET, TO THE SOUTH IT'S 200, TO THE EAST IT'S 505, TO THE WEST IT'S 215, ALL OF WHICH EXCEED THAT 52-FOOT REQUIREMENT, AND AGAIN, IT WAS DESIGNED WITH THE 75-FOOT COLLAPSE POINT OR HINGE. THE COMPOUND IS PROPOSED TO BE SURROUNDED BY A WHITE PVC FENCE. YOU'LL NOTE AS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OR NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT ON THE NORTH SIDE, WHICH IS WHERE THERE IS AN ENTRANCE, WE HAVE ASKED THAT THE PVC FENCE BE THE ONLY BUFFER. THAT IS AS A RESULT OF THE EXISTING BUFFERING -- AND I AM GOING TO MOVE OVER, IF YOU DON'T MIND. >>JAMES SCAROLA: NO PROBLEM. >> THIS IS AN AERIAL SHOT. YOU'LL SEE THE BLUE IN THE MIDDLE. THAT'S THE -- THIS IS THE YMCA BUILDING, THIS IS THE YMCA SWIMMING POOL, AND YOU'LL SEE A VERY ENGINEERINGLY DRAWN RECTANGLE BEHIND IT, AND THAT IS MY -- MY CHICKEN SCRATCH AS TO WHERE THIS TOWER IS PROPOSED. YOU'LL NOTE TO THE NORTH IS -- ARE THE BALL -- ARE THE COUNTY BALL FIELDS, A SUBSTANTIAL DISTANCE TO THE SOUTH THERE'S A CHURCH AND A SCHOOL HERE, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT RESIDENTIAL PAST THERE. TO THIS NORTH THERE IS AN ENTRANCE TO GET BACK TO THESE FIELDS. IF THE ENTRANCEWAY TO THE "Y" IS HERE, IT GOES STRAIGHT BACK. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS NOT IMPACT THAT ACCESS BEING ABLE -- WE CERTAINLY HAVE THE ROOM. IF YOU WERE TO ORDER THAT, WE CERTAINLY WOULD COMPLY WITH IT, BUT WITH THAT SAID, WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO IS MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF COLOCATOR SPACE WE HAVE WITHIN THE TOWER WITHIN THE EXISTING COMPOUND. WHAT THAT WILL MEAN IS WHEN WE'RE FULL, THEN WE IMPACT THE BALL FIELDS AT THE YMCA. AT THIS -- SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS BASED UPON THE EXISTING BUFFERING THERE AND THE SOLID FENCE, WE WOULD ASK FOR THAT MODIFICATION OF THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. >> GOING TO THE CONDITIONS THAT STAFF HAS PUT FORTH -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, IS THERE A LIGHT SWITCH ON THAT ELMO? ALL THESE EXHIBITS HAVE BEEN PRETTY DARK. >> IS THAT BETTER? >>JAMES SCAROLA: FOR A SECOND SOMETHING HAPPENED. TRY IT AGAIN. NO? >> IF WE COULD HAVE THE TECH FOLKS COME AND HELP BECAUSE I'M -- I'M AFRAID TO PUSH MORE BUTTONS, SIR. I'M JUST GOING TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: WELL, THAT'S ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF THERE WAS SOMETHING SIMPLE. >> THERE ARE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS. I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY THIS EVENING TO TALK WITH GLEN SHOPMYER, WHO IS HERE ON BEHALF OF TRANSPORTATION, AND CONDITIONS 11 THROUGH 15 CAN BE DELETED. THEY ARE -- THEY WILL BE REVIEWED AT A -- AT A SEPARATE TIME IF THEY ARE APPLICABLE, BUT AT THIS TIME IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THEY ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT. HE'S AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT IF YOU SO -- SO ASK. >>JAMES SCAROLA: THAT'S 11 THROUGH -- >> 11 THROUGH 15. AND THEN JUST QUICKLY GOING THROUGH, NUMBER 6 WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO, WHICH IS THE NO LIGHTING OF THE FLAGPOLE. THE FAA HAS BEEN RECEIVED. THERE IS A DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION IN YOUR PACKAGE, AND IT IS NOT REQUIRING LIGHTING. NUMBER 7, WHICH IS THE SHARED USE LETTER TO THE CLERK, WAS SUBMITTED ON AUGUST 13th. AND THEN NUMBER 8 IS RECEIVING HCAA APPROVAL AND FAA APPROVAL, BOTH OF THOSE OF WHICH ARE IN YOUR PACKAGE AS WELL AND HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. WITH THAT SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. WARD QUICKLY TO COME UP AND ADDRESS THE INABILITY TO COLOCATE ON THE TOWER UP AT PARSONS AND ALSO TO JUST ADDRESS THE NEED IN THIS AREA. >>JAMES SCAROLA: GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. HOW ARE YOU? >>JAMES SCAROLA: GOOD. >> MY NAME IS BRIAN WARD. I LIVE AT 528 2nd SOUTHWEST AVENUE IN LUTZ. >>JAMES SCAROLA: MR. WARD, COULD YOU PULL THAT MICROPHONE JUST UP A LITTLE BIT. >> SURE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU. >> YEAH. THE -- LIKE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, THE REASON WHY THAT TOWER AT WHEELER AND PARSONS WOULD NOT WORK FOR US IS IT JUST WON'T MEET OUR -- OUR NEEDS AS FAR AS THE COVERAGE DEFICIENCY IN THE AREA, YOU KNOW, IN OUR COVERAGE MAPS. >>JAMES SCAROLA: WHAT ARE YOUR NEEDS? >> IN-BUILDING RESIDENTIAL COVERAGE, RELIABLE IN-BUILDING RESIDENTIAL COVERAGE FOR 911, AND -- EVERYBODY WANTS TO USE THEIR MOBILE PHONE INSIDE THEIR HOUSE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: AND WHAT KIND OF DISTANCE DOES THAT TAKE FROM A CENTER OF A TOWER? >> IT'S A COMPLICATED QUESTION. >>JAMES SCAROLA: THAT'S WHY YOU'RE HERE. >> I'LL ANSWER IT AS SIMPLY AS I CAN. DEPENDING ON THE LANDSCAPE, THIS AREA IS VERY, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN WITH TREE COVER, ABOUT 7/10 OF A MILE, TO BE -- TO HAVE -- FROM THE CENTER OF THE SITE TO HAVE RELIABLE IN-BUILDING COVERAGE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: SO ARE YOU -- ARE YOU ROUGHLY 6/10 SHORT OF WHERE YOU NEED TO BE WITH THAT OTHER TOWER? >> NO. FROM THE CENTER OF THE COVERAGE DEFICIENCY WAS 1.3 MILES, SO -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: SO YOU WANT TO BE WITHIN .7 OF THAT CENTER OF DEFICIENCY, OR DOES THAT NOT WORK LIKE THAT? >> WELL, NO, WE WANT TO BE IN THE CENTER OF THAT DEFICIENCY OR AS CLOSE TO THE CENTER AS WE COULD. >>JAMES SCAROLA: SO THERE'S A RADIAL AREA AFFECTED FROM THE CENTER OF DEFICIENCY, IS THAT -- DO YOU MEASURE IT FROM WHERE THE CENTER IS? >> YES. IT'S -- WE HAVE COVERAGE PREDICTION MODEL MAPS THAT INDICATE THAT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. AND WHERE ARE OTHER CELL TOWERS IN THE AREA THAT WERE EVALUATED WITH THIS PROPOSAL? >> WELL, THE ONLY OTHER ACTUAL TOWER IN THE AREA WAS, YOU KNOW -- ACTUAL TOWER IN THE AIR WAS THAT ONE ON PARSONS AND WHEELER. >>JAMES SCAROLA: WELL, NOW, AGAIN, I'M ASSUMING THAT IF THERE'S A CENTER OF DEFICIENCY, THEN ACROSS FROM WHERE THE ONE TOWER IS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT EXISTS THERE MUST BE ANOTHER THAT CREATES THE CENTER AT THE POINT WHERE IT IS. >> I'M HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING. >> I MAY BE ABLE TO HELP WITH SOME PICTURES. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. >> I AM PUTTING ON WHAT IS -- THIS IS BASICALLY THE CURRENT T-MOBILE DEFICIENCY. THIS MAY LOOK A LITTLE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU HAVE ALREADY IN YOUR APPLICATION. THIS WAS DONE TODAY TO ACTUALLY SHOW THE -- WHERE IT SAYS A SUGGESTED SITE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. >> THIS IS, IN ESSENCE, THE CENTER OF THE DEFICIENCY. YOU'LL SEE THE GREEN BLOBS. >>JAMES SCAROLA: YES. >> AND YOU'LL SEE THE BIG WHITE HOLE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: YES. >> THAT IS THE CENTER OF THE -- THIS, IN ESSENCE, IS THE CENTER OF THE DEFICIENCY. >>JAMES SCAROLA: I GOT IT. >> IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO COVER THAT EFFICIENTLY, TO BASICALLY COVER IT WITH ONE TOWER INSTEAD OF MULTIPLE TOWERS, YOU'VE HEARD MY SPIEL BEFORE ABOUT HOW EVERYTHING HAS TO KIND OF MESH TOGETHER, THE HONEYCOMB EFFECT. CAN'T PUT A TOWER TOO CLOSE TO ANOTHER TOWER AND YOU CAN'T PUT ONE TOO FAR AWAY. THEY, IN ESSENCE, HAVE TO MESH. THIS -- LOOKING AT THIS SUGGESTED SITE AND LOOKING AT OUR OTHER EXISTING SITES, WHICH WE CALL BY AN ALPHA AND THEN A NUMBER, BUT G493, AND THEN YOU CAN LOOK UP HERE, THERE'S ANOTHER SITE UP HERE THAT HAS -- FROM THE NORTH THAT'S PROVIDING COVERAGE SOUTH. THIS IS -- AND I'M GOING TO READ THIS INTO THE RECORD FOR APPELLATE PURPOSES. CURRENT T-MOBILE COVERAGE DEFICIENCY NEAR SOUTH KINGSWAY ROAD AND CACTUS ROAD. THIS IS THE NEXT -- THE SECOND PAGE I'M SHOWING IS T-MOBILE COVERAGE ENHANCEMENT WITH PROPOSED SITE NEAR SOUTH KINGS ROAD AND CACTUS. THIS IS WITH THE PROPOSED YMCA SITE, AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE THAT COVERAGE DEFICIENCY IS NO LONGER -- NO LONGER SHOWN. FLIPPING TO THE THIRD PAGE, THIS IS WITH THE THIRD -- THIS IS WITH THE SUGGESTED SITE, AND WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS YOU SEE OVERLAPPING COVERAGE UP HERE TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST, AND WHAT YOU SEE IS WE STILL HAVE A HOLE -- AND I'M SORRY BECAUSE I'M LOSING -- WE STILL HAVE -- THANKS -- QUITE A BIT OF DEFICIENCY OVER HERE TO THE EAST, WE HAVE A GAP OVER HERE, AND THEN MORE TO THE SOUTH AS WELL. >>JAMES SCAROLA: WHERE IS THAT DEFICIENCY TO THE EAST ON THE SECOND MAP? >> WHERE IS THE DEFICIENCY TO THE EAST? IT GOES ACTUALLY PAST THIS -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. >> -- LAKE. HOLD ON A MINUTE. IF YOU'LL LOOK -- LOOK AND SEE WHERE IT SAYS SANDHILL POINT LANE -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: YES. >> -- AND THEN GO TO THE LAKE, IT ACTUALLY FILLS MOST OF THAT GAP. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. AND SO TO MY -- TO MY ORIGINAL QUESTION, WHICH YOU PRETTY MUCH ANSWERED, BUT YOU DIDN'T POINT TO THE INDIVIDUAL CELL SITES THAT ARE THE WORKING SITES, WHERE ARE THEY AT ON THE FIRST MAP, I GUESS? >> ON THIS MAP HERE? >>JAMES SCAROLA: ON THE ORIGINAL MAP. THAT'S THE ONE THAT FILLS THE DEFICIENCY. >> OKAY. >> THERE WE GO. SORRY. >> WE HAVE ONE HERE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: RIGHT. >> AND THEN IT'S -- YOU CAN'T SEE THE NAME OF IT LIKE THIS ONE, THE NAME'S RIGHT ABOVE THE SQUARE, BUT IT'S RIGHT HERE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: AND ABOUT WHAT STREET IS THAT ON? CAN YOU TELL FROM THAT MAP? >> [INAUDIBLE] AND THEN IT STARTS WITH AN SC. >>JAMES SCAROLA: CAN YOU READ THE NUMBER OF THE TOWER? >> NO. THE TOWER'S CUT OFF. >> ED SCANTON? >>JAMES SCAROLA: CAN YOU READ THE NEXT BIGGEST STREET SOUTH OF IT THAT I CAN REFER TO IN THE RECORD LATER? >> NORTH OF CEDAR AVENUE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. GOOD ENOUGH. WHERE ELSE? >> ON THIS MAP THAT'S ALL YOU CAN REALLY SEE. THERE IS ANOTHER ONE OVER HERE TO THE SOUTHEAST, BUT YOU CAN JUST KIND OF SEE THE EDGE OF ITS COVERAGE ON THIS MAP. >>JAMES SCAROLA: HOW ABOUT TO THE NORTHWEST? >> TO THE NORTHWEST THERE IS -- AGAIN, IT'S -- YOU KNOW, THE CENTER OF THE SITE IS OFF THE MAP. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. >> IT'S A ZOOMED-IN VIEW. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. ANOTHER QUESTION. LIGHTNING PROTECTION. >> YES. >>JAMES SCAROLA: IS IT A LIGHTNING ATTRACTANT OR IS IT A DISPERSANT OF LIGHTNING? >> I'M GOING TO -- I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, I AM A LAWYER, SO I'M GOING TO START WITH THAT PREFACE, BUT ANYTHING TALL WILL ATTRACT LIGHTNING. WHAT THIS IS IS THIS IS GROUNDED SO THAT IF IT IS A LIGHTNING ATTRACTOR, IT TAKES THE HIT AS OPPOSED TO ANYTHING ELSE AROUND IT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LAST QUESTION. IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU COMPLY WITH ALL CRITERIA OF SECTION 6.11.29 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE? >> YES. THE STAFF HAS FOUND THAT, AND WE'VE ALSO BEEN FOUND CONSISTENT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: I UNDERSTAND THE STAFF REPORTS. HOW ABOUT YOURSELF? >> YES. YES, SIR. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANYTHING ELSE? >> THE ONLY OTHER ITEM THAT I NOTICED THAT I MISSED WAS 911 CALLS. ONE OF THE THINGS I LIKE TO DO IS GIVE THE MOST RECENT 911 STATISTICS FOR WIRELESS CALLS. AN E-MAIL FROM THE 911 SERVICE IS ACTUALLY IN YOUR PACKAGE, AND AT THIS POINT YOU HAVE OVER 65% OF ALL CALLS COMING IN TO 911 FROM WIRELESS PHONES, AND THAT'S SPECIFICALLY TO HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: GOOD EVENING. ISABELLE ALBERT, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THIS REQUEST IS TO DEVELOP AN UNMANNED CAMOUFLAGE FLAGPOLE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SUPPORT STRUCTURE WITH A HEIGHT OF 155 FEET ON A PROPERTY OWNED BY THE TAMPA METROPOLITAN AREA OF THE YMCA. THE STRUCTURE WILL BE LOCATED AT THE REAR OF PROPERTY AND WILL BE CAMOUFLAGED AND DESIGNED AS A FLAGPOLE, AND THE APPLICANT DID GO THROUGH -- THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE GAVE HER EXPLANATION FOR THE REDUCED BUFFER AND SCREENING REQUIREMENT, AND STAFF HAS NO OBJECTIONS TO THAT. AND STAFF DOES AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT TO ELIMINATE CONDITIONS 1 THROUGH 15, AND WITH THAT, STAFF DOES FIND THIS APPROVABLE, SUBJECT TO THE REVISED CONDITIONS. >>JAMES SCAROLA: I DON'T THINK IT WAS 1 THROUGH -- IT WAS 11 -- >>ISABELLE ALBERT: SORRY, 11 -- YES, 11 THROUGH 15. >>JAMES SCAROLA: -- THROUGH 15. [LAUGHTER] AND HAVE YOU CONSULTED WITH THE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW SECTION IN THE DELETION OF THE -- >>ISABELLE ALBERT: YES, I DID, AND IT WAS CONFIRMED BY THEM THAT IT WAS OKAY. >>JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR THAT. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: AND PLANNING COMMISSION? YES, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION. >>KRISTA KELLY: THANK YOU. KRISTA KELLY, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE REQUEST TO ALLOW A 155-FOOT TELECOMMUNICATION CAMOUFLAGED AS A FLAGPOLE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE AREA CONSISTS OF A MIXTURE OF RESIDENTIAL, RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT, AND RECREATIONAL USES. THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE TOWER ON THE REAR PORTION OF THE YMCA PROPERTY IS BUFFERED BY THE YMCA BUILDING TO THE EAST AND THE HEAVILY WOODED PROPERTY TO THE WEST. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO CAMOUFLAGE THE TOWER AS A FLAGPOLE, WHICH WILL FURTHER ENHANCE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. BASED UPON THESE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>KRISTA KELLY: THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST? OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANY, BUT I'M GUESSING THAT THERE'S OPPOSITION IN THE AUDIENCE. NOW LET ME ADD THIS. YOU-ALL HAVE DEFINITELY HEARD THE INSTRUCTIONS AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS HEARING. WE HAVE 15 MINUTES FOR OPPOSITION TESTIMONY, JUST AS WE DID FOR THE APPLICANT. SO USUALLY WHAT I TRY TO DO IS IF THERE IS A PRIMARY SPEAKER, IF -- IF WE COULD DEFAULT TO THAT PRIMARY SPEAKER, BUT IF SOMEBODY NEEDS TO GIVE TESTIMONY, THAT PERSON NEEDS TO BE RESPONSIVE FOR WATCHING FOR THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT NEED TO SPEAK AS WELL. SO IS THERE A PRIMARY SPEAKER? >> ACTUALLY NOT. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF -- WE'RE BOTH OPPOSING IT, BUT I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF [INAUDIBLE] AND THEY'RE HERE ON BEHALF OF HOMEOWNERS [INAUDIBLE] >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST? ALL RIGHT. YES, SIR. HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED, SIR? >> I WILL TRY TO BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. IF I CAN DO IT IN LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES, I -- THAT'S REALLY WHAT I'M SHOOTING FOR. >>JAMES SCAROLA: IS THAT GOING TO BE FAIR FOR THE REMAINING OPPOSITION? THAT WOULD LEAVE ABOUT TEN MORE MINUTES. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>JAMES SCAROLA: COME ON UP, MA'AM. NOW, I -- NO, NO, GO AHEAD AND COME UP TO THE PODIUM HERE. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>JAMES SCAROLA: YES, MA'AM. NAME AND ADDRESS FIRST. >> IF WE -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: NAME AND ADDRESS. >> JOAN ZAWLOCKI, 3101 APRICOT STREET, SEFFNER. >>JAMES SCAROLA: YES, MA'AM. >> I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF WE SUBMIT OUR INFORMATION, THAT'S THE SAME AS PRESENTING IT? >>JAMES SCAROLA: YES, IT IS, AND IT'S A VERY GOOD WAY TO DO IT. >> OKAY. GOOD. THAT WAS THE QUESTION. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY. YES, SIR. >> MY NAME IS ERIC THORN. I'M HERE ON BEHALF -- LIKE I SAID, FOR NEW JERUSALEM CHRISTIAN ACADEMY. THEY'RE LOCATED AT 3101 SOUTH KINGSWAY ROAD IN SEFFNER. THEY'RE ACTUALLY SOUTH -- IF YOU LOOK AT THE APPLICATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED HERE, THEY'RE ACTUALLY LOCATED SOUTH. THEY'RE A SCHOOL THAT HAS BEEN AROUND FOR ABOUT 15 YEARS. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ABOUT HOW FAR SOUTH? >> I'M NOT SURE IN FEET, BUT THEY'RE ABUTTING RIGHT NEXT TO THE YMCA ON THE SOUTH END, SO THEY'RE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH END FOR THE YMCA. HAVE 150 STUDENTS, AND THE PURPOSE FOR ME BEING HERE -- AND I'M GOING TO TRY TO MAKE IT BRIEF -- IS I REALLY WANT TO FIRST KIND OF ADDRESS SOME OF THE RECENT CHANGES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE RECORD PRIOR TO THIS, AND THE FIRST THING IS THE VIOLATIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 6.11.9. I KNOW WE HAVE TESTIMONY HERE SAYING THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO VIOLATION, BUT I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN ASC-1 PROPERTY, AND PURSUANT TO 6.11.29, THE DESIGN CRITERIA, THEY HAVE TO BE CAMOUFLAGED, AND THE TABLE THAT WAS REFERENCED BEFORE LISTS, YOU KNOW -- STATES FLAGPOLES, CLOCK TOWERS, PARKING LOTS, PARKING LOT LIGHTS, AND TREE TYPE CAMOUFLAGE. IF I UNDERSTAND THE TESTIMONY TODAY BY THE APPLICANT, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO FLY A FLAG, AND IF THEY DON'T FLY A FLAG, THEN ALL YOU HAVE IS A POLE, OKAY, BECAUSE THERE'S NO FLAG TO PUT ON THAT POLE, SO YOU CAN'T CALL IT A FLAGPOLE BECAUSE THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A FLAG FLOWN ON THE POLE. AND -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. SO IT'S -- IF YOU HAD A -- LET'S DISCUSS JUST A FLAGPOLE. IF THERE'S NOT A FLAG ON THE FLAGPOLE, IS IT NOT A FLAGPOLE? >> WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING IT'S NOT BECAUSE A FLAGPOLE IS ONE WHICH A FLAG IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE HUNG ON THE POLE, AND WHAT THEY'RE SAYING HERE TONIGHT IS WE DON'T HAVE A FLAGPOLE. IT'S BASICALLY GOING TO BE A POLE, A TOWER. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. >> AND THE WHOLE POINT OF THE POLICIES HERE IS THAT YOU DON'T WANT AN EYESORE, OKAY, AND THAT'S WHY THEY DEVELOPED THE FLAGPOLES TO TRY TO CAMOUFLAGE IT. YOU HAVE TREE TYPE CAMOUFLAGING, AND THE REALITY IS IF YOU DON'T PUT A FLAG ON THAT POLE, IT'S JUST A POLE. IT DOESN'T MAKE IT A FLAGPOLE BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO KNOW THAT THERE'S SUPPOSED TO BE A FLAG IF A FLAG IS NEVER GOING TO BE FLOWN. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. CAN I CONCLUDE THEN FROM YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOUR PREFERENCE IS THAT A FLAG BE FLOWN? >> NO. I'M OBJECTING. THAT'S ONE OF THE GROUNDS. I'M JUST ADDRESSING ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS HERE TONIGHT. I'M SAYING THEY DON'T COMPLY WITH 6.11.29 FOR THE FACT THAT -- IT STATES IN SUBSECTION "E," A NEW WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SUPPORT STRUCTURE SHALL BE APPROVED UNLESS IT CAN BE DOCUMENTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR THE NEW -- AND IT'S WCSS, THE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SUPPORT STRUCTURE -- THAT CAN'T BE MET BY EXISTING OR APPROVED SITES, AND UP UNTIL NOW THE RESPONSE IN THE APPLICATION TO ADDRESSING THAT POINT WAS -- AND I QUOTE ON PAGE 7 OF THE APPLICATION -- THERE ARE NO EXISTING TOWERS IN T-MOBILE'S SEARCH AREA ON WHICH TO COLOCATE ITS ANTENNAS. COMING HERE TONIGHT THAT'S WHAT WE HAD. WE HEARD TESTIMONY NOW SAYING THAT THERE MIGHT BE ONE -- AND IF I QUOTE IT RIGHT -- IN THE PARSONS LOCATION; HOWEVER, DOING A PUBLIC RECORDS SEARCH AND USING DIFFERENT -- A WEB SITE CALLED WWW.ANTENNASEARCH.COM/SITE MAP, IT APPEARS THAT T-MOBILE OWNS OTHER LOCATIONS. ONE LOCATION IS AT 705 NORTH TAYLOR ROAD IN SEFFNER, FLORIDA. THEIR LICENSE NUMBER IS L01106613. THE DISTANCE FROM THE PROPOSED SITE APPEARS TO BE 3.5 MILES. THE HEIGHT OF THAT STRUCTURE IS 165 FEET. THE OTHER STRUCTURE THAT CAME UP THAT T-MOBILE IS ACTUALLY THE OWNER IS LOCATED AT 527 WILBUR STREET IN BRANDON, FLORIDA. >>JAMES SCAROLA: WHAT'S THE NAME OF THE STREET? >> WILBUR, W-I-L-B-U-R, STREET, BRANDON, FLORIDA. THAT DISTANCE FROM THE PROPOSED SITE IS 2.26 MILES AND HAS A REGISTRATION NUMBER 1235040. THE REGISTRATION NUMBER FOR THE 705 NORTH TAYLOR ROAD ADDRESS IS 1014542. I HAVE -- AND I WILL SUBMIT WITH THE PANEL AND WITH THE CLERK HERE TONIGHT BASICALLY THE MAPQUEST WHICH DETAILED, YOU KNOW, THE DISTANCE. THE ONE -- THE 705 NORTH TAYLOR ROAD ADDRESS I BELIEVE IS LOCATED SOUTH OF THE SITE, AND THE 527 WILBUR STREET LOCATION IS LOCATED NORTH. ONCE AGAIN BOTH WITHIN LESS THAN FOUR MILES OF THE PROPOSED SITE HERE TONIGHT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: IS IT ANY CLOSER THAN THE ONES THAT WERE ALREADY OUTLINED? >> I WISH I COULD ANSWER THAT, SIR, BUT THE REALITY IS I'M NOT SURE WHICH SITE -- IF IT WAS ONE OF THE SITES THAT THEY'RE REFERRING HERE TO TONIGHT AS THE PARSONS LOCATION. I'M NOT SURE. THE EXACT ADDRESS WHEN THEY WERE REFERRING TO IT BEFORE, THE APPLICANT WAS REFERRING TO IT BEFORE -- AND I WOULD ASK THAT THEY PLEASE CLARIFY THAT FOR YOU AND FOR EVERYONE HERE BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE WHAT SITE THEY'RE ACTUALLY REFERRING TO. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH. >> AND THEY SHOWED MAPS, AND ONCE AGAIN, THE PROBLEM WITH THE MAPS IS, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT SITES OR DIFFERENT SITES, I THINK CLARIFICATION NEEDS TO BE MADE WHAT SITES ARE AVAILABLE, WHY AREN'T THEY BEING USED IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 6.11.29, AND -- AND ESPECIALLY SUBSECTION "E," BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THEY CAN SHOW NEED. ADDITIONALLY, I'D LIKE TO SAY ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT, NEW JERUSALEM CHRISTIAN ACADEMY, WE BELIEVE THAT POLICY 16.3, OBJECTIVE 46, OBJECTIVE 46.1, AND OBJECTIVE 46.2, ARE ALSO BEING VIOLATED AND DON'T COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, SPECIFICALLY IN 16.3, SUBSECTION "C." THAT IS -- THE MAIN POINT IS TO MITIGATE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THE PERCEIVED HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH CELL TOWERS HAS CAUSED NUMEROUS PARENTS AND EVEN STAFF TO RAISE ADAMANT OBJECTIONS AND TO POSE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO WITHDRAW THEIR STUDENTS FROM THE SCHOOL. WE ALSO HAVE STAFF THAT ARE CONCERNED, AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE RULINGS ARE REGARDING HEALTH RISKS, BUT IT IS THE PERCEIVED HEALTH RISK THAT IS BEING DISADVANTAGEOUS TO MY CLIENT IN THAT THEY WILL HAVE ENROLLMENT THAT IS CURRENTLY APPROXIMATELY 150 STUDENTS BE REDUCED, AND WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT IS -- LIKE ANY OTHER SCHOOL, THEY HAVE COMPETITION WITH OTHER SCHOOLS. IF THEY CAN'T GET THE STAFF IN OR THEY CAN'T GET THE STUDENTS INVOLVED, IT COULD HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THEM. >>JAMES SCAROLA: HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE PRESUMPTION OF COMPATIBILITY ARGUMENT? >> WELL, THAT WAS MY OTHER THING. I DON'T THINK WE ARE COMPATIBLE BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT POLICY 1.4, IN IT IT SAYS THEY HAVE TO BE IN HARMONY WITH ONE ANOTHER, AND I DON'T THINK YOU CAN FIND HARMONY WITH ONE ANOTHER IF PARENTS ARE ALREADY COMING OUT TO THE SIGNS, TO THE NOTICE BASICALLY STATING THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO WITHDRAW MY CHILD. I DON'T FEEL -- YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF PERCEIVED HEALTH RISKS. SO I DON'T THINK IT CAN BE COMPATIBLE AT THIS STAGE BECAUSE THE REALITY IS IS THAT WHETHER IT GOES IN OR -- YOU KNOW, IF IT GOES IN, THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE STUDENTS, THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE STAFF, AND HAVE A PROBLEM IN TRYING TO RECRUIT STAFF. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. WELL, THAT WAS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY, BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TABLE WITH THE PRESUMPTION OF COMPATIBILITY, HAVE YOU REVIEWED IT? DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? >> THE COMPATIBILITY I'M REFERRING TO, SIR -- AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BE COY WITH YOU -- WAS THE POLICY 1.4, WHICH DEFINES COMPATIBILITY. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S THE SAME THING YOU'RE REFERRING TO. >>JAMES SCAROLA: NO. IN SECTION 6.11.29 THERE'S A CHART, AND THE CHART REFERS TO ASC-1. >> YES, I'VE SEEN THE CHART, SIR. I'VE REVIEWED THE CHART, AND MY RECOLLECTION IS IT REFERS TO POLICY 1.4 FOR COMPATIBILITY, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS APPLICATION WILL MEET THE -- THE COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH THEREIN. WITH THAT BEING SAID, SIR, I WANT TO GIVE THE REMAINDER OF TIME TO MY CONSTITUENTS HERE, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR TAKING MORE TIME. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. I AM DENISE VERRILL. I LIVE AT 3110 CLOVEWOOD PLACE IN SEFFNER. I HAVE COPIES IN TRIPLICATE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THAT'S FINE. >> I AM A RESIDENT OF BRANDON GROVES, AND I AM HERE TONIGHT IN OPPOSITION OF THE PROPOSED CELL TOWER AT THE YMCA. FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT A T-MOBILE COVERAGE SURVEY, AND IT IS MY CONTENTION THAT THE COVERAGE IN THE AREA OF KINGSWAY AND CACTUS IS ADEQUATE AS PROVIDED BY LAW. I MADE CALLS FROM A T-MOBILE PHONE AT 24 DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AROUND THE VICINITY OF THE YMCA LOCATED AT KINGSWAY AND CACTUS. BARS, TIMES OF CALL, LOCATION ARE ALL NOTED IN THE CHART. A CD WITH A SIGNED AFFIDAVIT FROM ALL FOUR PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE SURVEY IS ALSO INCLUDED. AT NO TIME DURING THE SURVEY DID I RECEIVE ANY -- DID I RECEIVE A NO SERVICE MESSAGE. APPROXIMATELY A ONE-SQUARE-MILE AREA WAS SURVEYED. AT ALL TIMES THE CALLS WERE CLEAR WITH NO STATIC. I'M ALSO SUBMITTING A COVERAGE MAP PRINTED FROM T-MOBILE'S OWN WEB SITE CLEARLY INDICATING WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE GOOD AND BEST COVERAGE IN THE VICINITY OF THE YMCA. >>JAMES SCAROLA: AND JUST -- JUST FOR MY OWN UNDERSTANDING, YOU DROVE AROUND IN YOUR CAR? >> I DROVE AROUND IN MY CAR WITH A T-MOBILE PHONE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. AND SO ALL THOSE READINGS WERE TAKEN WHILE YOU WERE DRIVING? >> YES. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. >> I ALSO OBJECT TO T-MOBILE'S CLAIM THAT ALL EXISTING TOWERS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED AS POSSIBLE TOWERS ON WHICH TO COLOCATE THEIR ANTENNA. NINE TOWERS EXIST IN THE AREA, AND I CONTEST THE LACK OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE NEED FOR ANOTHER TOWER. NO MENTION OF WHICH TOWERS WERE ANALYZED OR REASONS GIVEN TO PROVE THERE IS NO SPACE ON EXISTING TOWERS WAS INCLUDED IN THE TECHNICIAN'S AFFIDAVIT. I SPOKE WITH WELL OVER A HUNDRED PEOPLE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, AND REPEATEDLY I HEARD, I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH MY CELL PHONE SERVICE. THAT'S MULTIPLE CARRIERS. THE NEIGHBORHOOD T-MOBILE WISHES TO ADD COVERAGE TO IS A STABLE COMMUNITY WITH LITTLE TO NO NEW DEVELOPMENT; THEREFORE, NO SIGNIFICANT NEW CUSTOMERS SHOULD BE ANTICIPATED. I AM NOT OPPOSED TO CELL TOWERS IN GENERAL. THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT LOCATION FOR ONE. DEVELOPMENT OF A CELL TOWER IS INCONSISTENT WITH ADJACENT LAND USE. IT WILL BE LOCATED ON LAND THAT IS USED FOR A NON-FOR- PROFIT RECREATIONAL FACILITY. A T-MOBILE CELLULAR TOWER IS PURELY A COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USE THAT IS IN STARK CONTRAST TO RECREATIONAL USE. THE TOWER WOULD ABUT A BALL FIELD WHERE FAMILIES GATHER TO PARTICIPATE IN COMMUNITY EVENTS SUCH AS T-BALL AND FOOTBALL. I CANNOT SEE HOW T-MOBILE'S PROFITABLE VENTURE TO LEASE SPACE TO MULTIPLE CELLULAR COMPANIES CAN EVER BE INTEGRATED INTO A -- INTO COMMUNITY EVENTS THAT ALREADY EXIST ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS POLICY 1 -- AS POLICY 16.3 SUGGESTS. A CELL TOWER WILL BE AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE TO THE YOUNG PEOPLE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADJACENT RECREATIONAL PROPERTIES. IF A TEEN SEES A TOWER TO CLIMB, A FENCE TO SCALE, AND A COLLECTION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT TO INVESTIGATE, SURELY THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN THIS SITUATION WILL PRESENT ITSELF AND THE OUTCOME MAY BE TRAGIC. THE NEW DEVELOPMENT OF A TOWER WILL NOT MITIGATE THE ADVERSE VISUAL IMPACT THAT THE TOWER WILL HAVE ON MY ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD. I BELIEVE AND HAVE BROUGHT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT THE DETRIMENTAL VISUAL AESTHETIC BROUGHT BY A CELL TOWER WILL HAVE A 2% TO 20% NEGATIVE IMPACT ON MY AND MY NEIGHBORS' HOME VALUES. NO ONE WILL EVER EXCLAIM, OH, LOOK, YOU'RE SO CLOSE TO A CELL TOWER IN A POSITIVE WAY. I DISAGREE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REPORT INSOFAR AS THE PROPOSED CELL TOWER IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH AND DOES NOT MEET OBJECTIVE 46. THE TOWER WILL NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH A POOL, A PLAYGROUND, A BALL FIELD, OR WITH RESIDENTIAL HOMES. THERE WILL BE NO WAY TO BUFFER, SCREEN, OR CAMOUFLAGE SUCH A MASSIVE STRUCTURE. IT WILL STICK OUT LIKE A PROVERBIAL SORE THUMB. IT WILL BE LOCATED NEXT TO TWO-LANE KINGSWAY AVENUE, WHICH IS SLATED NOT TO EVER BE WIDENED, AND AMONGST QUIET WINDING STREETS DOTTED WITH SMALL, OLDER HOMES. I SINCERELY ASK THE HEARING MASTER TO GREATLY CONSIDER THE TESTIMONY OF THE PEOPLE WHO WILL MOST -- WHO WILL BE MOST AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSAL AND DENY THE SPECIAL USE VARIANCE. I ALSO AM SUBMITTING A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE FCC, WHICH - - WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ? DEAR -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: WELL, ACTUALLY -- HOW MUCH TIME DO WE HAVE LEFT ON -- >> [INAUDIBLE] >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. YOU'VE TAKEN UP A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME. YOU CAN SUBMIT THAT LETTER INTO THE RECORD. YOU'RE WELCOME -- >> I CAN SUBMIT IT INTO THE RECORD, AND I ALSO HAVE A LETTER FROM -- WITHIN THAT WOODED AREA IS OUR TWO RESIDENCES, AND THAT AREA MAY BE DEVELOPED AT SOMETIME. THIS -- AND I ALSO -- SO I HAVE A WOMAN WHO IS 75 YEARS OLD WHO LIVES AT THAT RESIDENCE WHICH IS 287 FEET TO HER -- TO HER FOUNDATION IT IS, YES. AND I ALSO HAVE A PETITION WITH SEVERAL -- WITH OVER A HUNDRED NAMES ON IT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. YOU'RE GOING TO SUBMIT THE PETITION INTO THE RECORD AND THE LETTER FROM THE FCC? >> AND THE COVERAGE SURVEY. >>JAMES SCAROLA: AND THE COVERAGE SURVEY. ANYTHING ELSE? >> EVIDENCE OF THE REAL ESTATE 2% TO 20% DECREASE DUE TO CELL TOWERS IN THE AREA. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. YES, MA'AM. >> FROM THE -- I'M JOAN ZAWLOCKI. I GUESS I DON'T HAVE TO SAY THAT ALL AGAIN. AND IN THE ORDER OF BREVITY, I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL MY WHOLE PRESENTATION. >>BRIAN GRADY: OKAY. MA'AM, COULD YOU PUT YOUR -- >> I JUST WANTED TO -- >>BRIAN GRADY: -- ADDRESS ON THE RECORD. YOUR ADDRESS ON THE RECORD. YOUR ADDRESS ON THE RECORD, PLEASE. >> I DID. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ONE MORE TIME. >> 3101 APRICOT STREET, SEFFNER, FLORIDA. >>JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU. >> I'M SUBMITTING MY EVIDENCE TO THE RECORD, BUT THERE'S THREE THINGS THAT I DO ADDRESS THAT I DON'T THINK THE ACCESS TO THE INTERNAL -- ACCESS -- THEY STUDIED THE ACCESS, THE ROAD ACCESS, BUT THEY DIDN'T MENTION OR ADDRESS THE INTERNAL ROADS OF THE YMCA, AND AS A LONG-TIME RESIDENT AND MEMBER OF THE YMCA, I THINK THAT'S INADEQUATE, AND THAT IS MENTIONED IN MY REPORT. ALSO, I HAVE -- THERE'S THE LIGHTNING, ESPECIALLY INDIRECT HITS. THEY TALK ABOUT THE GROUNDING, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THEY DON'T ADDRESS IT. AND MY FINAL OBJECTION IS I KNOW OF AT LEAST ONE ACTIVE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION WITHIN A ONE-MILE RADIUS WHICH WASN'T NOTIFIED, AND I HAVE PROOF OF THAT SUBMITTED WITH MY MATERIAL. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> SIGN IN, PLEASE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: YES, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A TOTAL OF THREE SPEAKERS LEFT? TWO SPEAKERS LEFT. OKAY. HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED, MA'AM? >> JUST A MINUTE OR TWO. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. GO AHEAD. >> HI. MY NAME IS MARGARET TURCHIARELLI. I LIVE AT 3106 CLOVEWOOD PLACE IN SEFFNER, AND I'M REALLY HERE TO TALK TO YOU AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY THAT IS -- RESIDES DIRECTLY BEHIND THE YMCA. I HAVE LIVED IN SEFFNER FOR ALMOST 25 YEARS, AND I HAVE LIVED IN MY HOME IN THE BRANDON GROVES SUBDIVISION FOR APPROXIMATELY 17 YEARS. I BOUGHT INTO THAT AREA AND THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT'S A BEAUTIFUL PLACE TO RAISE YOUR CHILDREN AND YOUR FAMILY, AND IT'S DIRECTLY LOCATED BEHIND THE YMCA, NEXT TO A BALLPARK, AND NEAR -- AND VERY CLOSE TO SEFFNER ELEMENTARY. THE "Y" IS LOCATED IN A QUIET RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. PEOPLE IN THAT AREA ARE JUST MIDDLE-CLASS FOLKS WHO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO THAT LOCAL SCHOOL AND WHO USE THE "Y." THE "Y" -- I'M FURIOUS WITH THE "Y." I'M A MEMBER. I GO THERE. THE WOMAN REFERRED TO THE COMMUNITY MEETING. AS A MEMBER OF THE "Y," THEY DIDN'T NOTIFY ANYBODY ABOUT THE PROPOSAL, ABOUT THE COMMUNITY MEETING THAT ONLY 15 PEOPLE ATTENDED, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO NOTIFICATION OTHER THAN WHAT THEY WERE ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED TO DO, YOU KNOW, SO THEIR INFORMATIONAL MEETING WAS INFORMATION FOR PRACTICALLY NO ONE. OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS OR OVER SEVERAL YEARS IT'S GOTTEN INCREASINGLY MORE DIFFICULT, AS EVERYONE KNOWS, TO MAINTAIN YOUR PROPERTY VALUE. WE DON'T HAVE A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, SO I'M ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO'S VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE TO TRY AND MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY VALUES IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND IN MY SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. YOU KNOW, IN ADDITION, WE -- YOU KNOW, OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS WE'VE SEEN OUR PROPERTY VALUES DECLINE BECAUSE OF THE HOME INDUSTRY, AND NOW, AS A NEIGHBORHOOD, AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGHT -- WE HAVE TO FIGHT A CELL PHONE TOWER, WHICH, AS THE SPEAKER BEFORE ME INDICATED, HAS SHOWN TO REDUCE PROPERTY VALUES ANYWHERE FROM 2% TO 20%. NOW, I HAVE A -- OWN A CELL PHONE. I OWN SEVERAL OF THEM, AND I ALSO AM NOT ANTI CELL PHONE TOWERS OR ANTI CELL PHONE, BUT AS A MEMBER OF YMCA, WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSING TO PUT A CELL PHONE TOWER DIRECTLY NEXT TO A SWIMMING POOL, GROUNDED OR NOT GROUNDED, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE, TO PUT A 155-FOOT POLE DIRECTLY NEXT TO A SWIMMING POOL THAT'S USED BY CHILDREN ALL YEAR LONG, NEXT TO A BALLPARK THAT'S USED BY HUNDREDS OF CHILDREN ALL YEAR LONG, DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, AND DIRECTLY SURROUNDED BY SEVERAL LARGE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, AND I'M HERE JUST TO SAY THAT I OBJECT TO THE CELL PHONE TOWER, AND WE REALLY WOULD APPRECIATE IF THIS WAS NOT ALLOWED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. AND THE LAST SPEAKER. I'M SORRY. DID I SEE THERE WAS OTHER SPEAKERS THAT NEEDED -- >> HI. MY NAME IS CARRIE GRIMAIL, AND I LIVE AT 4423 WEST ESTRELLA STREET IN TAMPA, FLORIDA 33629, AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT TO YOU THAT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 911 COVERAGE, JUST BECAUSE T-MOBILE SAYS THEY CANNOT, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE SERVICE TO THE INSIDE OF SOME HOMES IN THAT AREA DOES NOT MEAN THAT THOSE HOMES DON'T HAVE 911 COVERAGE BECAUSE IT'S A REQUIREMENT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT ALL CELL COMPANIES CARRY -- PICK UP 911 CALLS, SO FOR INSTANCE, IF VERIZON HAS COVERAGE IN THAT AREA AND THERE WAS A 911 PHONE CALL MADE BY A T-MOBILE PHONE, VERIZON IS LEGALLY REQUIRED TO CARRY THAT CALL, SO THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION REGARDING 911 FOR PUTTING THIS TOWER IN. NUMBER TWO, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT T-MOBILE HAVE 100% COVERAGE ALL OVER HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER CARRIERS THAT HAVE COVERAGE, AND IF THIS WAS NOT A RECREATIONAL USE, IF THIS WAS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, T-MOBILE COULDN'T PUT A TOWER HERE, SO THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT EVERY TELECOM IS GOING TO HAVE 100% COVERAGE EVERYWHERE. OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TOWERS ALL OVER OUR COMMUNITY. THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO POINT -- WHICH IS AN INCOMPATIBLE USE. THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT IS THAT ALTHOUGH THIS TOWER IS GOING TO BE 155 FEET, THE STRUCTURE HEIGHT, THE SITE ELEVATION IS 74 FEET, SO THIS THING IS GOING TO BE 229 FEET. THAT IS AN INCOMPATIBLE USE. THAT IS THE TOTAL HEIGHT. THAT'S ON THE RECORD. IT -- IT DOES NOT BELONG IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. WHY DON'T THEY HAVE TO PROVE THERE'S A DEFICIENCY? JUST BECAUSE THERE'S AN ENGINEER WHO SAYS THERE'S A DEFICIENCY, WHERE'S THE AFFIDAVIT THAT SHOWS THEY MADE THE PHONE CALLS LIKE THE -- WHAT THE RESIDENTS HAVE SUBMITTED? SO YOU HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT THAT THE RESIDENTS WENT OUT, THEY MADE THESE CALLS, AND THEY SIGNED THEIR NAME AND SWORE THAT THIS WAS TRUE. WHY -- WHY ISN'T T-MOBILE REQUIRED TO DO THAT? AND SO IF YOU HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT THAT SAYS, YES, THERE'S SERVICE FROM THE RESIDENTS AND ONE THAT SAYS, YES, THERE'S SERVICE FROM T-MOBILE, WHY DON'T YOU DO AN INDEPENDENT STUDY? WHY DON'T YOU ASK THE COUNTY TO DO AN INDEPENDENT STUDY? WOULDN'T THAT BE THE FAIR THING TO DO? THE REASON THAT T-MOBILE, IN MY OPINION, WANTS TO PUT A CELL PHONE TOWER IN THIS LOCATION IS BECAUSE IT GIVES THEM AN IN TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT BECAUSE THERE'S A NEED BUT BECAUSE THEY WILL MAKE MONEY OFF THE LEASES THAT THEY'RE GOING TO LEASE THIS TO OTHER CARRIERS, AND THAT'S WHAT -- THAT'S THE MOTIVATING FACTOR IN MY OPINION. WHEN I DID AN ANTENNA SEARCH WITHIN A FOUR-MILE RADIUS OF THIS ADDRESS IT CAME UP WITH 66 TOWERS AND 174 ANTENNAS WITHIN A FOUR-MILE RADIUS OF THIS LOCATION. SO T-MOBILE DOESN'T HAVE TO PUT AN ANTENNA ON A T-MOBILE TOWER. THEY CAN COLOCATE AT SOMEONE ELSE'S TOWER. THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEY'D HAVE TO PAY THAT OTHER COMPANY LEASE, WHICH IS -- THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. THEY'RE TRYING TO GET A TOWER IN SO THEY CAN CHARGE OTHER PEOPLE MONEY. SO IT JUST DOES NOT BELONG, AND THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS TO DENY IT, SO PLEASE DO. >>JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. NOW, AND I TRIED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE -- WENT OVER TIME A LITTLE BIT TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE GOT EVERYBODY, BUT DID EVERYBODY THAT NEEDED TO SPEAK SPEAK? OKAY. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE OPPOSITION TESTIMONY. COMMENTS FROM STAFF. >>BRIAN GRADY: YES. I WANT TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE ISSUE OF THE FLAG AND -- FLAGPOLE WITH OR WITHOUT A FLAG. IF -- HOW WE'VE HANDLED THIS IN THE PAST IS THAT IF THE FLAGPOLE IS NOT GOING TO HAVE A FLAG FLOWN AT ANY POINT, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE THAT HAS REQUIRED A WAIVER OF THE CAMOUFLAGE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE NOT FLYING A FLAG. IT'S BASICALLY A FLAGLESS FLAGPOLE, AND WE'VE HANDLED THAT AS A WAIVER. FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, OUR CONDITION IS DEALING WITH THE FLYING A FLAG AT NIGHT. IT WAS PERFECTLY -- WE WERE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT IF A FLAG IS FLOWN AT NIGHT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE LIGHTING, AND GIVEN THE PROXIMITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE DIDN'T WANT LIGHTING BECAUSE WE FELT THAT WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I WAS NOT AWARE AND IT WAS NOT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU COULD [INAUDIBLE] FLY THE FLAG DURING THE DAY. THE INTENT OF THIS CONDITION BASICALLY WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE FLAG TO BE TAKEN DOWN AFTER -- DURING THE -- DURING THE TIME SO THAT IT WOULD NOT BE FLOWN AT NIGHT, SO THAT IT WOULD BE FLOWN DURING THE DAY AND WOULDN'T BE FLOWN AT NIGHT. THAT WAS THE INTENT OF OUR CONDITION. >>JAMES SCAROLA: IS THE STAFF'S PREFERENCE THAT THE FLAG FLY DURING THE DAY? >>BRIAN GRADY: WELL, AGAIN, THE REQUEST WAS TO HAVE THE FLAG WITH A FLAGPOLE, SO I DON'T THINK WE SPECIFICALLY LOOKED AT THE ISSUE OF NO FLAG ON IT. I MEAN, AGAIN, THE CAMOUFLAGE WAIVER REQUIREMENTS DEAL WITH A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT -- IT SHOULD BE WAIVED AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPOSED CAMOUFLAGE WOULD BE MORE VISUALLY OBTRUSIVE, WHICH MEANS -- PRESENTS A WIDER PROFILE, ATTRACTS ATTENTION MORE THAN COLOR PATTERN, MOVEMENT, OR OTHER CHARACTERISTICS THAT WOULD BE MORE OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE AREA IN WHICH THE CELL TOWER IS LOCATED AND THE PROPOSED DESIGN, SO -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: BUT THE CONCERN WAS FOR LIGHT? >>BRIAN GRADY: OUR CONCERN WAS ABOUT THE LIGHTING, AND SO THAT'S WHY -- THAT WAS OUR CONCERN AND THAT'S WHAT WE LOOKED AT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: SO THE VISUAL OBTRUSIVENESS WOULD BE THE LIGHTING RESULTING -- [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >> -- FROM THE FLAG? >>BRIAN GRADY: YEAH. WE WERE LESS CONCERNED ABOUT THE FLAG DURING THE DAYTIME. CERTAINLY IF -- AGAIN, GIVEN THE ISSUES AND THEIR CONCERN THAT THEY'VE EXPRESSED, IF YOU WANT TO CONSIDER NO FLAG, YOU NEED TO PROBABLY LOOK AT THAT -- YOU WOULD NEED TO MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, THE FLAG WOULD BE MORE OBTRUSIVE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE, BRIAN? >>BRIAN GRADY: NOTHING FURTHER. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ANYTHING? >>KRISTA KELLY: PLANNING COMMISSION, KRISTA KELLY. OUR REVIEW WAS BASED ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WOULD BE A FLAG FLOWN ON THE FLAGPOLE, AND THAT'S HOW WE DETERMINED COMPATIBILITY. >>JAMES SCAROLA: AND SO HOW DOES THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEEL ABOUT THE LIGHT AT NIGHT THAT'S REQUIRED TO BE -- THE FLAG WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE LIT? >>KRISTA KELLY: I UNDERSTAND THAT'S A -- IS THAT A STATE REGULATION OR -- BRIAN? >> IT'S A FEDERAL LAW. >>KRISTA KELLY: YEAH. IT'S PART OF SOME LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS. >>JAMES SCAROLA: IT CERTAINLY IS, BUT THEN HOW DOES THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEEL ABOUT COMPATIBILITY WITH THAT LIGHT AT NIGHT? >>KRISTA KELLY: WE'D HAVE TO RECONSIDER THIS APPLICATION. YOU KNOW, I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO THAT RIGHT NOW. WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT AS A FLAGPOLE MODIFIED REQUEST, SO -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. AND REBUTTAL TESTIMONY. >> LET ME SEE IF I CAN -- LET ME SUBMIT THIS DISK [INAUDIBLE] LET ME START AT THE END AND WORK MY WAY UP. AS TO THE FLAGPOLE, THERE WAS A -- THERE IS A REASON THAT I HAVE NOT ASKED FOR A CAMOUFLAGE WAIVER. I -- MY APPLICATION WAS FOR A FLAGPOLE -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: YOU MENTIONED THAT. >> -- WITH -- MY APPLICATION IS FOR A FLAGPOLE THAT FLIES A FLAG. T-MOBILE IS NOT REQUESTING A CAMOUFLAGE WAIVER IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. WHAT WE HAVE SAID IS BASED UPON A PHONE CALL THAT CAME IN TO MY OFFICE LATE LAST WEEK AND THEN A COMMENT THAT WAS MADE AT THE COMMUNITY MEETING WHERE WE HAD A MEMBER SUGGEST THAT THEY THOUGHT A FLAG BROUGHT -- THREW MORE ATTENTION TO IT, THAT WE CERTAINLY WOULDN'T OPPOSE NOT FLYING A FLAG, BUT WITH THAT SAID, OUR APPLICATION STANDS AS IS, AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED IT AND AS STAFF HAS REVIEWED IT. AND I'M GOING TO START FROM -- AS TO -- ANSWERING THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A LIGHT HAS TO BE FLOWN. THE UNITED STATES CODE HAS WHAT ARE CALLED BASICALLY FLAG ETIQUETTE OR FLAG RULES. THEY ARE NOT A STATUTE AS SUCH. THERE'S NOT A VIOLATION WHERE -- IT'S NOT A CRIME, IT'S NOT A CIVIL CASE, IT'S A MATTER OF SHOWING PROPER RESPECT TO THE FLAG. WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST IS IN SITUATIONS WHERE LIGHT HAS BECOME A QUESTION, WE HAVE -- WE ALWAYS PUT A SHIELDED SPOT AT THE BOTTOM, AND WE HAVE BASICALLY PLAYED WITH THE LIGHTING SO THAT IT IS THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM JUST TO UPLIGHT THE FLAG SO THAT WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH -- WITH THOSE FLAG ETIQUETTE RULES. THERE IS NOT -- THE COMPOUND ITSELF ISN'T LIGHTED, NOTHING LIKE THAT, BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE WOULD ASK THAT WE BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE FLAG ETIQUETTE RULES. >>JAMES SCAROLA: SO YOUR PREFERENCE IS TO NOT HAVE THE WAIVER? >> WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR THE CAMOUFLAGE WAIVER. WE ARE -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: NO, THE QUESTION WAS IS YOUR PREFERENCE TO NOT HAVE THE WAIVER? >>BRIAN GRADY: I THINK THE INTENT OF HER REQUEST WOULD BE TO REMOVE OUR CONDITION REGARDING NO LIGHTING OF THE FLAGPOLE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: WELL, THAT CERTAINLY WOULD THEN BE A RESULT -- >BRIAN GRADY: YES. >>JAMES SCAROLA: -- OF WHAT YOU'RE ASKING; IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. MY ORIGINAL REQUEST IS THAT THAT CONDITION BE REMOVED AND THAT I BE ALLOWED TO FLY THE FLAG AND LIGHT IT IN THE EVENING. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. >> AND AGAIN, I'M GOING TO MOVE BACKWARDS. I'M GOING TO HAVE MR. WARD COME UP AND ADDRESS SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE -- THAT WERE BROUGHT UP. AND I'M JUST GOING TO BE VERY SPECIFIC SO WE CAN MOVE MORE QUICKLY. MR. WARD, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A WEB SITE CALLED ANTENNA SEARCH? >> I BECAME FAMILIAR WITH IT TODAY, YES. >> AND ARE THOSE -- DOES ANTENNA -- DOES THE ANTENNA SEARCH WEB SITE REFLECT TOWERS THAT ARE ACTUALLY IN THE AIR, OR DOES IT REFLECT BOTH APPLICATIONS FOR TOWERS OR APPLICATIONS TO THE FCC OR THE FAA AS WELL AS TOWERS THAT ARE BUILT? >>JAMES SCAROLA: ONE MOMENT BEFORE THE ANSWER. MR. COUNTY -- ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY, ANY PROBLEM WITH THE NONDIRECT TESTIMONY? >>LOUIS WHITEHEAD: LOUIS WHITEHEAD, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. NO, MR. HEARING MASTER. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. >> WHEN YOU -- WHEN T-MOBILE'S RADIO FREQUENCY ENGINEERS ARE DETERMINING HOW TO -- HOW TO REQUEST A NEW SITE, IS IT BASED ON CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS, DO YOU REVIEW YOUR NETWORK AS IT STANDS, DO YOU HAVE COMPUTERS THAT MONITOR THE NETWORK? BRIEFLY DESCRIBE HOW A NEW SEARCH AREA IS DEVELOPED. >> WE USE ALL OF THOSE -- ALL OF THOSE THINGS. WE USE CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS, YOU KNOW, ALSO OUR COMPUTER MODELING SOFTWARE LIKE WE SHOWED YOU ON THE -- ON THE MAP THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN IDENTIFY THE AREAS WHERE WE HAVE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL IN-BUILDING COVERAGE, AND WE PLACE THE -- THE SEARCH AREA IN THE -- YOU KNOW, WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE IN RELATION TO THAT IN-BUILDING COVERAGE DEFICIENCY. >> IS -- THERE WAS DISCUSSION EARLIER ABOUT THE -- ABOUT THE T-MOBILE WEB SITE AND THE COVERAGE MAP ON -- ON THE SALES WEB SITE. IS -- IS THE LEVEL OF SERVICE SHOWN ON THE SALES WEB SITE EQUIVALENT TO WHAT -- TO WHAT THE ENGINEERING SIDE IS MAKING AN EFFORT TO PROVIDE THEIR CUSTOMERS? >> NO, IT'S NOT. THOSE -- THAT WEB SITE SHOWS US WHERE YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO USE THE PHONE IF YOU WERE OUTDOORS OR IN A VEHICLE, IT'S NOT IN-BUILDING COVERAGE. >> WOULD THAT EXPLAIN WHY ONE OF THE LADIES THAT PREVIOUSLY SPOKE WAS ABLE TO MAKE THOSE PHONE CALLS? >> I WOULD BELIEVE SO, YES. >> IF I CAN HAVE A MOMENT, I JUST WANT TO FIND ALL HIS QUESTIONS. THEN I CAN LET HIM SIT DOWN. I THINK WE'RE DONE. THAT'S IT. AND I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THINGS VERY BRIEFLY. ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED WAS THAT THE REASON THIS TOWER IS PROPOSED IS SO THAT T-MOBILE DOESN'T HAVE TO COLOCATE ON OTHER TOWERS AND IT CAN, IN ESSENCE, MAKE MONEY OFF THE LEASES. TWO THINGS. ONE, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES ANY CARRIER OR ANY TOWER BUILDER TO ACTUALLY MAKE A TOWER SO THAT IT CAN BE COLLOCATED. THE INTENT OF YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS TO BUILD ONE TOWER THAT CAN SUPPORT AS MANY ANTENNAS AS IT CAN SO THAT THERE IS NOT -- THERE ARE NOT MULTIPLE TOWERS IN AN AREA. >>JAMES SCAROLA: AND YOU HAVE SOUGHT THOSE COLLOCATION OPPORTUNITIES? >> WE HAVE. THE ONLY -- THE CLOSEST TOWER IS THAT .56 TOWER, WHICH IS THE PARSONS AND WHEELER TOWER, AND MR. WARD PREVIOUSLY HAD ADDRESSED THAT THAT WOULD NOT MEET THE COVERAGE NEED IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. BEFORE WE GO ON, AS LONG AS WE'RE ON THAT SUBJECT, THE TAYLOR ROAD AND WILBUR STREET TOWERS, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THEM? >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THEM, BUT AS LONG AS WE'RE ON THAT, IF I CAN GO TO A MINUTE TO GET TO THOSE NOTES. THOSE TOWERS, THE GENTLEMAN HAD STATED, WERE 3.5 MILES AWAY AND 2.26 MILES AWAY. IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT WE CAN'T USE A TOWER THAT IS .56 MILES AWAY, THOSE TWO TOWERS ARE WELL OUTSIDE OF ANY -- ANY AREA IN WHICH COULD SERVE THIS PARTICULAR AREA, AND IF THEY ARE, IN FACT, REGISTERED TO T-MOBILE, THOSE ARE PROBABLY OUR SURROUNDING TOWERS THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO GET US TO LABEL THAT WERE JUST OUTSIDE THE MAP. WE ADDRESSED THE PARSONS TOWER BEING .56 MILES AWAY, WE ADDRESSED THE WILBUR TOWER, THE SEFFNER TOWER. WE ADDRESSED THAT. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME WITH REGARD TO THE CAMOUFLAGE WAIVER FOR THE FLAGPOLE? >>JAMES SCAROLA: NO. >> THE ONLY -- THE ONLY OTHER SUGGESTION OR THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT I WOULD MAKE IS THAT THAT POLE STILL HAS INSIDE IT ALL YOUR ANTENNAS AND ALL YOUR CABLES. THE POLE ITSELF, EVEN WITHOUT A FLAG, COULD BE DEEMED TO BE CAMOUFLAGED. THE CODE ISN'T SAYING THAT IT'S NOT CAMOUFLAGED. WHAT THE CODE IS SAYING IS TAKE A LOOK AT THESE CRITERIA. WILL THE FLAG DRAW MORE ATTENTION TO IT? IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE FLAGPOLE STRUCTURE -- AND I'M GOING TO SWITCH OVER HERE REAL QUICK. >>JAMES SCAROLA: UH-HUH. >> I'M PUTTING ON A FLAGPOLE THAT IS 150 FEET IN PINELLAS COUNTY, AND I WILL PROVIDE THIS TO THE CLERK BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE IF THIS MADE THE PACKET OR NOT, BUT YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE ARE -- OTHER THAN THE FLAG FLYING ON THE OUTSIDE, THERE ARE NO EXTERNAL APPURTENANCES. YOU DON'T SEE -- ALL THE ANTENNAS ARE LOCATED INSIDE AS WELL AS ALL THE COAXIAL CABLES. MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT BASED UPON THE CRITERIA OF MOVEMENT AND COLOR AND ATTRACTION THAT ACTUALLY A -- AND HAS BEEN IN THE PAST -- A FLAGLESS FLAGPOLE HAS BEEN DEEMED A CAMOUFLAGE STRUCTURE IN THE PAST. THE -- JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE NEW JERUSALEM CHURCH, THAT PROPERTY LINE IS 200 FEET FROM THE TOWER, WELL IN EXCESS OF THE NONRESIDENTIAL 20% OF THE TOWER HEIGHT, WHICH I CAN'T DO MATH THAT FAST, BUT IT'S LESS THAN 52 FEET, WELL IN EXCESS OF THAT. THERE WAS A DISCUSSION FOR SHOWING OF NEED. I WOULD DIRECT YOU TO FLORIDA STATUTE 365.172, SUBSECTION 11-B, AND THAT SECTION SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT -- AND I WILL PARAPHRASE AND NOT READ IT TO YOU -- A LOCAL GOVERNMENT BASICALLY CANNOT ASSIST OR TRY TO DIRECT A CARRIER'S OR A TOWER COMPANY'S BUSINESS DECISIONS; I.E., THE IN-BUILDING COVERAGE VERSUS IN-CAR COVERAGE. IT ALSO ADDRESSES THAT IT CAN'T DISCUSS -- IT CAN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT NEED. IT CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ZONING ISSUES, WHICH ARE THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER, BUT IT CANNOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OR CANNOT MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THOSE REQUIREMENTS. MOVING FURTHER, THE -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: WHILE YOU'RE ON THE LAW, WHAT ABOUT THE CURRENT STATE OF HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS AND TOWERS? IF YOU WOULD AT LEAST QUOTE ME. >> I AM -- I AM FLIPPING -- PARDON ME -- CITING THE TITLE 47, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 332 OF THE TELECOMMUNICATION ACT, AND I WILL READ C-7-B, LITTLE 7. NO STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR INSTRUMENTALITY THEREOF MAY REGULATE THE PLACEMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND MODIFICATION OF PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITIES ON THE BASIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH FACILITIES COMPLY WITH THE COMMISSION'S REGULATIONS CONCERNING SUCH EMISSIONS. YOU HAVE IN YOUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION AS WELL AS IN THE DUPLICATE PACKAGE A LETTER FROM THE RADIO FREQUENCY ENGINEERS STATING THAT THEY COMPLY WITH ALL THE FCC REQUIREMENTS AND EMISSIONS LEVELS. >>JAMES SCAROLA: HOW MUCH TIME DO WE HAVE ON THE REBUTTAL CLOCK? NONE. OKAY. HOW MUCH MORE TIME DO YOU NEED? >> TWO MINUTES. >>JAMES SCAROLA: I THINK THAT'S FAIR. LET'S PUT TWO MINUTES BACK ON THE CLOCK. THAT WILL BE IT. >> AS TO -- THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AS TO AN HOA NOT BEING NOTICED. THE NOTICE LIST THAT WE GET IS FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER. WE DON'T CREATE OUR OWN, WE DON'T GENERATE OUR OWN. EVERYTHING IS PROVIDED TO US FROM THE COUNTY. WE'VE ADDRESSED THE LIGHTNING. THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF THE ROAD WITHIN THE YMCA PROPERTY. THAT'S CALLED A DRIVEWAY. I DIDN'T ACTUALLY HEAR A SPECIFIC COMPLAINT, BUT THAT IS A DRIVEWAY, THAT'S NOT A ROAD. THESE SITES ARE KNOWN TO GENERATE ABOUT ONE TRIP PER CARRIER PER MONTH, WHICH IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WOULD BE FOUR TRIPS PER MONTH. AS TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER, THERE ARE FIVE PROPERTY APPRAISER REPORTS THAT ARE PROVIDED TO YOU IN THE DUPLICATE PACKAGE, WHICH DO NOT SHOW ANY IMPACT TO PROPERTY -- TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES OR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY VALUES FOR THAT MATTER. AND THE ONLY THING I WOULD LEAVE YOU WITH IS WHEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DRAFTED THIS CODE, THEY CAME UP WITH DISTANCES THAT AT THAT TIME THEY FELT RENDERED A TOWER COMPATIBLE OR MORE COMPATIBLE FOR AN AREA, AND WHAT THEY SAID AT THAT TIME WAS BASICALLY IF YOU'VE GOT A STEALTH TOWER -- THEY WENT STEALTH -- THEY SAID EVERYTHING'S GOT TO BE CAMOUFLAGED, BUT WHAT THEY LEFT IN PLACE WAS THE SETBACKS WHICH ARE FOR A NONRESIDENTIAL SETBACK 20% OF YOUR TOWER HEIGHT AND FOR A RESIDENTIAL SETBACK A THIRD OF YOUR TOWER HEIGHT. I THINK THEIR INTENT IS CLEAR IS THAT A TOWER THESE DAYS IS A NECESSITY. BEING A NECESSITY, THEY HAVE LAID OUT -- THEY HAVE LAID OUT WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE COMPATIBLE AND THOSE DISTANCES COMPATIBLE. THIS PROJECT EXCEEDS THOSE REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY'VE DEEMED COMPATIBLE, AND WE WOULD ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR EVERYBODY'S COOPERATION, AND WITH THAT, 15 WORKING DAYS I'LL RENDER A DECISION. WE'LL CLOSE SPECIAL USE 09-1074. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 8, SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 09-1075. THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE FOR DISTANCE WAIVERS FOR A 4-COP ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT. ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: GOOD EVENING. >> HI. DIXIE LIBERTY, 5719 TANAGERLAKE ROAD, LITHIA, FLORIDA. I'M HERE FOR TALLY HO PUB. THEY'RE TAKING -- THEY NEED AN EXPANSION OF THEIR BUILDING. THEY'RE JUST DOING PHENOMENAL. THERE IS A WAIVER THAT I NEED FOR RESIDENTIAL, 26.7 FEET. I DO HAVE A COUPLE PICTURES. I LIKE PICTURES. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT. >> THIS IS -- THIS IS THE WHOLE FRONT -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: MICROPHONE SWITCH. >> THIS IS THE WHOLE FRONT OF THE BUILDING THAT THEY ARE TAKING OVER. RIGHT HERE WHERE THIS POLE IS, THEY ARE -- AT THIS POINT THEY HAVE ALL OF THIS TO THE LEFT RIGHT HERE WHERE THE POLE IS, AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE ALL THE WAY TO THE RIGHT, SO THEY'RE TAKING THIS ONE WHOLE BUILDING OVER. THIS IS DIRECTLY TO THE RIGHT. IT'S JUST IN A COMPLEX. IT'S NOT VERY BUSY. >>JAMES SCAROLA: THAT'S TO THE NORTH? >> YES, SIR. AND THIS IS TO THE REAR. THIS IS WHERE THEY WANT TO ADD THE PATIO UP TO THIS DOOR. OOPS, SORRY. RIGHT HERE TO THE DOOR. THEY'RE GOING TO EXPAND FROM THIS RIGHT HERE OVER TO HERE. THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE THE SIDEWALK OUT A LITTLE BIT FROM THE BACK PATIO TO MAKE IT WHERE PEOPLE CAN STILL WALK. IT'S NOT THAT MUCH PATIO AREA. I BELIEVE IT'S LIKE A THOUSAND FEET TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: UH-HUH. >> THIS IS WHAT THE ACTUAL ONE LOOKS LIKE THAT WAS JUST APPROVED A COUPLE YEARS AGO. THEY KEEP IT NICE AND NEAT BACK THERE. AND THIS IS DIRECTLY BEHIND THEM WHERE THE WOODEN FENCE WAS. THIS GOES ON TOO BEHIND THEM. AND ONE MORE. THIS IS FROM -- LOOKING FROM THE REAR OF THE BUILDING OUT. OH, GOD, WHAT DID I DO? [LAUGHTER] I'M DONE. THAT'S JUST THE LAST ONE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: I DID SEE IT FOR A MOMENT. ARE YOU GOING TO SUBMIT THE PICTURES? >> YES, I'LL GIVE THEM TO YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> SORRY. SO AT THIS POINT THEY DO HAVE A 4-COP LICENSE. THEY'RE EXPANDING, AND WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND GET YOUR BLESSINGS. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. IS THAT IT? >> YEAH. >>JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: GOOD EVENING. ISABELLE ALBERT, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THIS REQUEST IS FOR A 4-COP TO ALLOW BEER, WINE, AND LIQUOR FOR SALE AND CONSUMPTION ON AND OFF THE LICENSED PREMISES IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE EXISTING TALLY HO. I BELIEVE IT'S AN EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING TALLY HO, AND IT'S ALSO GOING TO INCLUDE THE OUTDOOR PATIO AREA. THIS APPLICATION NEEDS A WAIVER TO RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTIES, AND THERE ARE SOME WITHIN 223 FEET EAST OF THE SITE, SO THEY'RE REQUESTING A WAIVER OF 26.7 FEET. THE SITE CURRENTLY HAS A SPECIAL USE FOR A 2-COP, AND THIS WILL BE RESCINDED BASED ON THE APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, AND THE APPLICANT STATED THAT THE PATIO IS LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE SUBJECT SITE, AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES. THEY ALSO STATED THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND SUBJECT SITE ARE SEPARATED BY A FOUR-LANE HIGHWAY, AND THE ACTUAL TRAVEL DISTANCE TO THE TALLY HO IS GREATER THAN 250 FEET. WITH THAT, STAFF FINDS THIS REQUEST APPROVABLE, AND I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >>JAMES SCAROLA: NO, BUT THANK YOU. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST? I DON'T SEE ANY. IS THERE ANYONE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST? NO? MS. LIBERTY, ANYTHING ELSE? >> NO, SIR. HAVE A GOOD NIGHT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT -- THANK YOU. WITH THAT, WE'LL CLOSE SPECIAL USE 09-1075. >>BRIAN GRADY: WE'RE NOW IN THE REZONING PORTION OF THE AGENDA, SO I THINK WE NEED TO HEAR FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REGARDING PROCEDURES GOVERNING -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, JUST SO YOU UNDERSTAND, WE'RE MOVING TO THE REZONING PORTION OF OUR AGENDA TONIGHT, AND OUR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY WILL EXPLAIN TO YOU ESTABLISHING YOURSELF AS A PARTY OF RECORD SO IF YOU NEED TO SPEAK BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, YOU CAN DO SO. MR. WHITEHEAD. >>LOUIS WHITEHEAD: THANK YOU, MR. HEARING MASTER. LOUIS WHITEHEAD, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. AGAIN, GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARING IS THE FIRST OF TWO STEPS IN THE COUNTY'S REZONING PROCESS. TONIGHT'S HEARING IS A TIME FOR APPLICANTS AND INTERESTED CITIZENS TO PRESENT TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE. THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TONIGHT WILL BECOME THE COMPLETE FACTUAL RECORD OF EACH CASE. THE RECORD OF EACH CASE WILL CLOSE AT THE END OF TONIGHT'S HEARINGS, AND NO EVIDENCE CAN BE INTRODUCED THEREAFTER. 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. THE HEARING MASTER WILL FILE A RECOMMENDATION FOR EACH PETITION HEARD TONIGHT ON NOVEMBER THE 12th. AFTER THE RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED, EACH INDIVIDUAL WHO DESIRES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AT THE PUBLIC MEETING MUST FILE AN ORAL ARGUMENT REQUEST NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON NOVEMBER THE 23rd. TONIGHT'S PETITIONS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD BY THE BOARD AT THE BOARD'S DECEMBER 8th LAND USE MEETING. THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER ONLY THE RECORD OF TONIGHT'S HEARING AND THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING MASTER IN RENDERING ITS DECISION. PLEASE NOTE THAT ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS MUST BE RESPONSIVE TO THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION. ACCORDINGLY, ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS SHOULD NOT BE FILED UNTIL THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO THE COUNTY. THE BOARD IS NOT REQUIRED TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT AT THE PUBLIC MEETING; HOWEVER, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE BOARD CAN ELECT TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT FROM A PARTY OF RECORD. A PARTY OF RECORD IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO FITS INTO AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR CATEGORIES: FIRST, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS PRESENT TONIGHT AND PRESENTS ORAL TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE; SECOND, AN INDIVIDUAL CERTIFIED BY THE 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 SUBMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THROUGH ANOTHER DURING TONIGHT'S HEARING. IN THE EVENT THAT THE BOARD ELECTS TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT, PARTIES OF RECORD WHO HAVE FILED RESPONSIVE, TIMELY REQUESTS WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT. ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS SHOULD CLEARLY INDICATE WHY ORAL ARGUMENT IS NECESSARY TO ADDRESS AT LEAST ONE OF FOUR OUTSTANDING ISSUES THAT ARE SPECIFIED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE SCOPE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE CONTENT OF THE TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED VERBALLY OR IN WRITING TO THE HEARING MASTER TONIGHT. THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S ROLE IS TO ENSURE THAT ONLY INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE MET THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE ALLOWED TO SPEAK BEFORE THE BOARD AND THAT NEW EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY IS NOT INTRODUCED OR ALLOWED AT THE PUBLIC MEETING. FOR THESE REASONS, PLEASE ENSURE THAT ALL INFORMATION THAT YOU DESIRE THE BOARD TO CONSIDER AT THE PUBLIC MEETING IS PLACED INTO THE RECORD TONIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. HEARING OFFICER. >>JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU, MR. WHITEHEAD. OKAY. BRIAN, I THINK WE'RE READY FOR OUR FIRST REZONING. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 9. IT'S REZONING APPLICATION 09-0808. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM RSC-6 TO RSC-6 WITH A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY. I'LL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR REZONING 09-808? YES. GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M KAREN BOZEMAN PIPPIN, REPRESENTATIVE FOR MR. ROY PIPPIN. THIS PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED SEVERAL YEARS AGO. THERE WAS AN EXISTING HOME ON THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME IN WHICH THERE WAS HURRICANE DAMAGE. WHEN -- PLANS WERE DRAWN UP TO REBUILD THE EXISTING HOME, BUT DURING THAT TIME ANOTHER STORM COME, AND WHEN THEY WERE DOING A CLEANUP FROM THE OAK TREE, THE -- ONE OF THE HEAVY EQUIPMENT ACCIDENTALLY KNOCKED DOWN ANOTHER PORTION OF THE HOUSE, SO THE WHOLE PROPERTY HAD TO BE DEMOLITIONED, ALL CLEANED OFF. WE DREW UP NEW HOUSE PLANS, ACTUALLY HAD CERTIFIED STAMPED DRAWINGS READY TO BUILD A NEW -- NEW HOUSE FROM SCRATCH, BUT AT THE TIME THE MARKET DROPPED, AND IT IS JUST ECONOMICALLY NOT FEASIBLE. THIS IS LESS THAN A THIRD OF AN ACRE. THERE IS AN EXISTING WELL AND SEPTIC ON THE PROPERTY. IT WAS GRANDFATHERED IN TO BE A LEGAL LOT, AND IT'S -- FINANCIALLY IT'S JUST NOT FEASIBLE TO ACTUALLY BUILD ANOTHER HOME ON THE PROPERTY, SO WE'D PREFER TO PUT A MOBILE HOME ON THE PROPERTY IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. MAINLY IT'S FOR THE FINANCIAL CONDITIONS THAT WE'RE ALL IN, AND THAT'S THE BASIC REQUEST. INSTEAD OF BUILDING A NEW HOME OR SOMETHING, WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO PUT A NEW MOBILE HOME ON THE PROPERTY AND HENCEFORTH THE REZONING. THERE ARE MOBILE HOMES IN THE AREA RIGHT NEARBY. WITHIN 150 FEET TO 175 FEET THERE'S A MOBILE HOME. THERE ARE -- AND THE INTENT IS TO HAVE IT SOMETHING NICE, BUT LIKE I SAID, BECAUSE OF THE PRIOR HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY, ECONOMICS, IT'S THE REQUEST THAT WE BE ABLE TO PUT A MOBILE HOME INSTEAD OF A HOME. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. >> THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: AND THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. MA'AM, COULD YOU SIGN IN OVER THERE. >>BRIAN GRADY: MA'AM, YOU NEED TO SIGN IN. >>JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU. >>BRIAN GRADY: FOR THE RECORD, BRIAN GRADY, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE AN APPROXIMATE .27-ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BETHLEHEM ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 450 FEET SOUTH OF GLEN HARWELL ROAD TO RSC-6 WITH A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY. THIS SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED RSC-6. THE CHANGE IN ZONING WILL NOT CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE PROPERTY OR THE PERMITTED DENSITY FOR THE PROJECT. AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS REQUEST WOULD MERELY ALLOW IN ADDITION TO CONVENTIONAL-BUILT HOMES MANUFACTURED HOMES TO BE ALLOWED ON THE PROPERTY. STAFF'S REVIEW FOUND THE REQUEST COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND NOTES THAT THE AREA CONTAINS A MIXTURE OF COMMERCIAL, MULTIFAMILY, AGRICULTURAL, AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, INCLUDING THOSE THAT PERMIT MANUFACTURED HOMES. THEREFORE, STAFF FOUND THE REQUEST APPROVABLE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION. >>KRISTA KELLY: THANK YOU. KRISTA KELLY, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED RESIDENTIAL-4 IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA TO THE NORTH, EAST, AND WEST. HIGHER RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES ARE DESIGNATED TO THE WEST ALSO. THE PROPOSED REZONING TO ALLOW THE PLACEMENT OF A MOBILE HOME ON THE PROPERTY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORY. THE SITE WITH A MOBILE HOME WOULD BE COMPARABLE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE AREA, WHICH CONSISTS OF A MIXTURE OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, MOBILE HOMES, AND MOBILE HOME PARKS. BASED UPON THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THE TESTIMONY. AND IS THERE ANYONE HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST? I DON'T SEE ANYBODY IN SUPPORT. IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST? I SEE TWO, THREE. GENTLEMEN, IS THERE A PRIMARY SPEAKER? >> [INAUDIBLE] >>JAMES SCAROLA: OH, TWO. SIR, ABOUT HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED? >> JUST A COUPLE MINUTES. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. >> MY NAME IS GEOFF EIGSTI. I LIVE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPERTY THAT'S IN QUESTION. I GOT THE STATEMENT THAT HE WAS PLANNING TO CHANGE HIS -- CHANGE HIS HABITANCE WHERE HE'S LIVING IN NOW TO DOWNSIZE THIS PROPERTY. JUST FOR ME THAT'S -- THAT'S TOTALLY LUDICROUS. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY HE'S TRYING TO DO THIS. ALL THE MOBILE HOMES ON THIS PROPERTY ARE BEHIND, OFF THE STREET, DOWN A DIRT ROAD. I WOULD BE LOOKING DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET TO THIS PROPERTY THEY HAVE NOW, AND RIGHT NOW IT'S A VACANT LOT, AND WE'RE FINE WITH THAT. WE ARE FINE WITH ANOTHER HOUSE BEING BUILT, BUT A MOBILE HOME IS JUST NOT -- NOT COMPATIBLE TO WHAT WE BUILT OR WHAT'S AROUND IT, DIRECTLY AROUND IT. THERE'S TWO HOUSES TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH FROM WHERE THEY'RE AT NOW. OUR HOUSE IS 1700 SQUARE FEET, AND WE JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE THIS IS COMPATIBLE TO THE ENVIRONMENT THAT IT'S IN. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. YOU'RE THE HOUSE THAT IS DUE WEST, DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET? >> DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, SO I LOOK OUT MY FRONT WINDOW AT THIS MOBILE HOME. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ARE THERE MOBILE HOMES IN THE VICINITY? >> BEHIND THE HOMES THAT ARE THERE NOW. >>JAMES SCAROLA: TO THE NORTH, TO THE SOUTH? >> TO THE -- DIRECTLY THE EAST. >>JAMES SCAROLA: I CAN'T ACTUALLY TELL FROM THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH, BUT IS THAT A MOBILE HOME ROUGHLY THREE LOTS TO THE NORTH? >> I'M NOT SURE. I DON'T BELIEVE SO. >>JAMES SCAROLA: YOU DON'T BELIEVE SO? OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE, SIR? >> NOPE. THAT'S IT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. >> THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: YES, SIR. GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ROGER WYATT. I LIVE AT 13858 U.S. HIGHWAY 92 IN DOVER. I LIVE RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER FROM WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS -- IS LOCATED. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ON EMERALD GLEN? >> NO, SIR, I LIVE ON U.S. HIGHWAY 92, 13858 U.S. HIGHWAY 92. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. ABOUT HOW FAR IN FEET IS YOUR HOUSE? >> MAYBE A HUNDRED YARDS. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT. >> IT'S JUST DOWN THE ROAD TO THE RIGHT, TWO LOTS DOWN. I'M AGAINST THIS REZONING THAT'S BEING REQUESTED. I ALSO AGREE WITH THE GENTLEMAN THAT WAS BEFORE ME THAT ROY PIPPIN'S EXPLANATION OF -- HIS WRITTEN STATEMENT THAT HE'S TURNED IN DOES NOT APPEAR IN ANY WAY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT HIS FINANCIAL MEANS ARE, AND THIS LEADS ME TO QUESTION -- HIGHLY QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE INFORMATION THAT HE'S PROVIDING FOR THIS REQUEST. I'M ALSO IN THE THOUGHT TO KEEP IT THE SAME. IF THEY WANT TO BUILD A CEMENT BLOCK HOME THERE, PLEASE DO, NO -- NO QUESTION THERE AS LONG AS IT MEETS ALL THE OTHER RULES AND REGULATIONS, BUT AS FAR AS PUTTING A MOBILE HOME OR ADDING A MOBILE HOME INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I DON'T AGREE WITH IT. I WOULD ALSO LIKE AT THIS TIME TO TURN IN APPROXIMATELY 25 SIGNATURES FROM NEIGHBORS AROUND WITHIN ONE MILE OF THIS LOCATION ALSO AGREEING WITH MYSELF THAT THIS IS NOT A GOOD DECISION TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. >>JAMES SCAROLA: APPRECIATE THE TESTIMONY. ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST? I DON'T SEE ANY. ANYTHING ELSE FROM STAFF? NO? ALL RIGHT. AND THE APPLICANT. MA'AM, ANYTHING ELSE IN REBUTTAL? >> [INAUDIBLE] >>JAMES SCAROLA: YES, MA'AM. FIVE MINUTES. >> I'M NOT CERTAIN WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT BY THE FINANCIAL STATUS. FINANCIALLY WE CANNOT AFFORD TO BUILD A HOME ON THAT PROPERTY. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT EVERYBODY'S PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT IS, BUT, I MEAN, I DON'T BELIEVE ANYONE SHOULD BE PRIVY TO MY PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT NOR MR. PIPPIN'S PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT, BUT I SWEAR TO YOU HERE HE CANNOT AFFORD TO BUILD A HOME ON THAT LOT. THAT IS LUDICROUS. >>JAMES SCAROLA: LET ME SAY THIS TO YOU. THAT IS OF LESS CONCERN TO ME THAN THE ISSUE OF COMPATIBILITY, SO TELL ME ABOUT COMPATIBILITY AND -- >> COMPATIBILITY, THERE'S ALMOST -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: MA'AM, WAIT HOLD ON. >> THERE IS MOBILE HOMES IN THE AREA. >>JAMES SCAROLA: HOLD ON. LET ME FINISH MY QUESTION, PLEASE. THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THERE NOT BEING MOBILE HOMES TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT? >> THERE ARE MOBILE HOMES TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY. I CANNOT TELL YOU EXACT SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT THERE ARE MOBILE HOMES TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY. AND ON HIGHWAY 92 WHERE THIS GENTLEMAN LIVES, THERE'S MOBILE HOMES ON 92 ALSO. SO I DO BELIEVE IT IS VERY COMPATIBLE IN THE AREA. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING NONCOMPATIBLE. THIS IS NOT AN UNREASONABLE REQUEST IN MY OPINION. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT TESTIMONY. AND WITH THAT WE'LL CLOSE -- MA'AM. >> IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL BE GLAD TO GO GET MORE EVIDENCE, MORE PICTURES, EVERYTHING, BUT THERE ARE MOBILE HOMES ON BOTH 92 AND BETHLEHEM ROAD. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT, WE'LL CLOSE 09-808. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 10, REZONING APPLICATION 09-0941. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AGRICULTURAL SINGLE-FAMILY CONVENTIONAL-1 TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY CONVENTIONAL-4 WITH A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY. SUSAN MARINER WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: YES, SIR. >> DARRELL COPELAND, 111 FLAMINGO DRIVE, APOLLO BEACH, FLORIDA 33572. WE'RE SIMPLY ASKING TO REZONE THIS TO RSC-4 WITH A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY. THIS PROPERTY ABUTS A LAKE, BUT IT DOES NOT GO DOWN TO THE LAKE. IN PAST TIMES IT PROBABLY HAS, BUT THE LAKE IS WAY DOWN FOR YEARS AND YEARS NOW, AND THERE'S NO REAL ACCESS TO THE LAKE ANYMORE. THE PROPERTY COMES TO A POINT OUT BY THE LAKE, AND THAT IS ALL CLAIMED BY EPC, AND WITH AN ADDITIONAL 30-FOOT BUFFER ADDED TO THE EPC, NO HOMES WILL EVEN BE CLOSE TO THE LAKE AT ALL. >>JAMES SCAROLA: IS THAT THE -- THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY? >> IT WOULD BE LIKE THE NORTHWESTERN PORTION. THERE'S A POINT. IT GOES OUT TO A LITTLE POINT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: WELL, THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH INDICATES THAT THE POINT, THE VERY NORTHWESTERN CORNER, HAS A LITTLE SPOT OF CLEAR AREA MAYBE ALONG THE BANK OF THE LAKE, BUT EVERYTHING LOOKS TO BE HEAVILY VEGETATED SOUTHEAST OF THAT. >> IT GOES OUT IN THE DIRECTION OF THE LAKE, BUT THE ACTUAL WATER IS A LONG WAYS AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY STILL. >>JAMES SCAROLA: IT IS? AND DOES THAT WETLAND LINE INTERSECT THE SOUTH BOUNDARY AT ALL? >> NO, IT GOES FROM THE WESTERN BOUNDARY, CROSSES TO THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY. >>JAMES SCAROLA: CROSSES TO THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY. >> CUTS OFF THAT POINT. IT'S SHOWN ON OUR SITE PLAN. >>JAMES SCAROLA: I DO SEE IT. >> ADDITIONALLY, WE'RE PROPOSING THAT WE ONLY PLACE NO MORE THAN TWO HOMES ON THAT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, ON THE LAKE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. >>JAMES SCAROLA: A MAXIMUM OF TWO HOMES? >> A MAXIMUM OF TWO HOMES ON THAT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THEY'LL STILL BE A SUBSTANTIAL DISTANCE FROM THE LAKE, BUT ON THAT PARTICULAR SIDE WE WOULD ONLY PUT A MAXIMUM OF TWO HOMES ON THAT SIDE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. IS THAT IT? >> THAT'S IT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU, MR. COPELAND. AND THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>SUSAN MARINER: SUSAN MARINER, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AN AGRICULTURAL SINGLE-FAMILY CONVENTIONAL ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY CONVENTIONAL, RSC-4, DISTRICT WITH A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY. THE 6.97-ACRE SITE'S CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED. IN 2005 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVED THE PREVIOUS REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL RURAL TO THIS CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT. NO WAIVERS TO ANY HAPPENED DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS WERE REVIEWED OR APPROVED. BECAUSE THEY COULD GET FOUR UNITS PER ACRE, WE DID ADVISE THE APPLICANT THAT IF THEY HAD WANTED TO HAVE MORE THAN HALF-ACRE LOTS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO CONNECT TO PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST COMPARABLE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, THEREFORE APPROVABLE. THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: SUSAN, DO YOU KNOW IF THERE IS PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER AVAILABLE? >>SUSAN MARINER: I DON'T KNOW WHERE -- WHERE THE CONNECTION'S LOCATED. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. SO IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICANT'S TESTIMONY THAT THEY WOULD BE PLANNING ON TWO UNITS, BUT THE WATER AND SEWER WOULD MAKE THE DIFFERENCE? >>SUSAN MARINER: I DIDN'T -- COULDN'T HEAR WHETHER HE SAID TWO UNITS ADJACENT TO THE LAKE. AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN I WOULD SAY THAT WOULD NEED TO BE A CONDITION THAT WOULD BE ADDED. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. HOLD ON ONE MOMENT. LET ME GET A CLARIFICATION OF THAT. MR. COPELAND. >> YES. >>JAMES SCAROLA: COULD YOU COME BACK UP. WITH REGARD TO YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU MENTIONED TWO UNITS. COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT. >> TWO UNITS ADJACENT TO THE LAKE. NO MORE THAN TWO HOMES ON THE LAKE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ON THE LAKE SIDE? >> YEAH. >>JAMES SCAROLA: WERE YOU PLANNING TO CONNECT TO PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER? >> THERE'S -- HE'S ALREADY BEEN WATERED THERE ALREADY AND THE SEWER'S AVAILABLE. HE RAN WATER, BUT HE DIDN'T PUT STUB-OUTS FOR THAT MANY LOTS, BUT -- WE'LL HAVE TO RUN SOME ADDITIONAL LINE, BUT THE LINE IS ALREADY IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY NOW. >>JAMES SCAROLA: HAVE YOU GOT AN IDEA OF THE ACTUAL YIELD? >> IT'S NOT GOING BE NOWHERES CLOSE TO WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE OF THE SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY. THAT I DON'T KNOW. >>JAMES SCAROLA: YOU DON'T KNOW? >> BECAUSE THE IRREGULAR SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO MAKE IT REAL HARD TO GET VERY MANY LOTS ON THERE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. MR. COPELAND, I'M SORRY, ONE MORE. ONE MORE QUESTION. AND IN TERMS OF ACCESS, HOW -- HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE HANDLED? >> THERE'S ACCESS ALONG SMALL OAK AVENUE, ALONG THE WHOLE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY. THERE'S A RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY BUT THERE'S NO EXISTING ROAD THERE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: SOUTH LAKE STREET ON THE SOUTH SIDE? >> RIGHT. SOUTH LAKE STREET, RIGHT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: WHAT DOES THAT CONSIST OF RIGHT NOW? >> IT'S A -- I BELIEVE IT'S A SHELL ROAD RIGHT NOW. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>SUSAN MARINER: DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >>JAMES SCAROLA: I DON'T THINK SO, SUSAN. THANK YOU, THOUGH. >>SUSAN MARINER: THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION. >>KRISTA KELLY: THANK YOU. KRISTA KELLY, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED RESIDENTIAL-4, WHICH PROVIDES FOR RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES OF FOUR UNITS PER ACRE. THE PROPOSED REZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORY AND FURTHER IMPLEMENTS FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 1.2. THIS POLICY REQUIRES THAT THE PROPERTY DEVELOP AT A MINIMUM OF AT LEAST 75% OF THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY BASED ON THE LAND USE CATEGORY. THE PROPOSED REZONING TO ALLOW FOR QUARTER-ACRE LOTS IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S LOCATED WITHIN A PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL AREA. THE LOTS RANGE FROM LARGE LOTS TO THE NORTH AND ADJACENT TO THE LAKE TO QUARTER-ACRE LOTS AND HALF-ACRE LOTS TO THE EAST AND SOUTH. THERE'S ALSO A MIXTURE OF HOUSING TYPES, INCLUDING MOBILE HOMES, SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, AND DUPLEXES. BASED UPON THESE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST? OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANY. CLEARLY WE HAVE OPPOSITION OUT THERE. AGAIN, YOU'VE HEARD ME SAY IT BEFORE. IS THERE A PRIMARY SPEAKER? AND IF NOT, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO DIVVY UP SOME TIME HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE 15 MINUTES. YES, SIR. SIR, HOW MUCH DO YOU NEED ONCE YOU GET UP AND TELL ME YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? >> [INAUDIBLE] >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. NAME AND ADDRESS. >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. TROY ALEXANDER, 6023 KESTREL POINT AVENUE, LITHIA. THE PROPERTY I OWN'S NEXT DOOR. IT'S TEN ACRES. >>JAMES SCAROLA: WHICH DIRECTION? >> TO THE -- TO THE RIGHT. TO THE NORTH. >>JAMES SCAROLA: THE NORTH, OKAY. >> TO THE NORTH BECAUSE THE OTHER WAY IS THE OTHER MOBILE HOME COMPLEX THAT SOMEHOW, SOME WAY GOT APPROVED SOMETIME AGO. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CRIME. I'VE HAD TOOLS, EQUIPMENT STOLEN FROM MY PROPERTY. THIS IS GOING TO REQUIRE QUITE A -- QUITE A DRASTIC CHANGE FOR MY TENANT THAT'S THERE NOW WITH A NURSERY. THE REASON THE LAKE'S LOW IS BECAUSE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY'S DOING A STUDY ON WHY THE WATER'S DROPPING, BUT WHEN THAT WATER IS UP, IT DEFINITELY BORDERS THIS PROPERTY THAT HE'S PROPOSING TO DO THIS. I'LL LET SOME OF THE OTHER FOLKS THAT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS MORE THAN I DO DESCRIBE, YOU KNOW, THE -- THE BEARING ON THE POLICE THAT HAVE TO BE CALLED IN TO WHAT'S THERE NOW, THE ROAD THAT IS -- SHOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED -- CALLED A ROAD THAT GETS THESE PEOPLE IN AND OUT OF HERE RIGHT NOW. THE OTHER ROAD THAT -- WHERE I THINK THE WATER LINE STOPS IS AT THE EDGE OF MY DRIVEWAY, AND THAT'S -- THAT'S A DEAD END RIGHT THERE, SO IT'S GOING TO COST THE COUNTY A LOT OF MONEY TO TRY TO DEVELOP WHAT'S GOING TO BE NEEDED TO DO THIS, AND THEN I'M NEXT. LET ME REZONE MINE BECAUSE THE VALUE THAT THIS IS GOING TO DO TO DESTROY WHAT I'VE GOT IS GOING TO -- I'M GOING TO ASK FOR MY TAXES TO BE REDUCED TREMENDOUSLY, AND I'M GOING TO BE NEXT, AND THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HATE ME BECAUSE I'M GOING TO NEED TO BAIL OUT AND PUT MOBILE HOMES ON MINE. THAT'S IT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. YES, SIR. HOW MANY TOTAL SPEAKERS DO I NEED TO HEAR TONIGHT? IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND UP SO I GET AN IDEA. >> FOUR OR FIVE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT. SO, YOU KNOW, A FEW MINUTES, SIR. >> MY NAME IS LLOYD SHERMAN, BETTER KNOWN AS BILL SHEARMAN, MY NICKNAME. >>BRIAN GRADY: SIR, COULD YOU -- >> I LIVE ON -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: SIR -- >>BRIAN GRADY: SIR, COULD YOU TAKE THE MICROPHONE A LITTLE CLOSER. >>JAMES SCAROLA: COULD YOU TAKE THE MICROPHONE -- YES. THANK YOU. >> MY NAME IS LLOYD SHEARMAN. MY NICKNAME IS BILL SHEARMAN, WHICH MOST PEOPLE DON'T EVEN KNOW MY NAME IS LLOYD. I LIVE AT 1102 WEST LAKE DRIVE. OUR PROPERTY FRONTS ON THE LAKE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: AND WHERE IN RELATION TO THIS PROPERTY? >> WE'RE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE LAKE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. >> WE HAVE A PETITION FROM ALL -- FROM THE RESIDENTS IN HERE. WE HAVE -- OVER A HUNDRED PEOPLE SIGNED THIS PETITION. I HAVE IT TO TURN IN WHEN I FINISH HERE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: YES, SIR. >> I WOULD LIKE TO READ THE PETITION AND MAKE SOME BRIEF COMMENTS BECAUSE THERE'S OTHERS THAT HAVE TO -- WANT TO SPEAK. THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE ENVIRONS OF LAKE -- OF LAKE WIMAUMA IN WIMAUMA, FLORIDA HEREBY REGISTER THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE REZONING APPROXIMATELY -- OF APPROXIMATELY SEVEN ACRES ADJACENT TO LAKE WIMAUMA TO R-4-MH, WHICH WOULD ALLOW HIGHER-DENSITY HOMES THAN IS CURRENTLY PERMITTED UNDER THE ASC-1 ZONING PROPERTY. THE REASON FOR THE OPPOSITION OF THE UNDERSIGNED INCLUDE THE REZONING IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE PLAN, WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF TEN ACRES FOR CLUSTER HOMES WITH A MINIMUM 40% OPEN SPACE. A COPY OF THE PLAN IS ATTACHED TO THIS PETITION. THE STAFF FINDINGS SAID THAT -- THAT IT IS COMPARABLE AND COMPATIBLE, BUT WE STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THIS. THE GENTLEMAN SAID THAT THEY DON'T HAVE LAKEFRONT PROPERTY. WELL, THEY DO HAVE LAKEFRONT PROPERTY. THE WATER IS DOWN RIGHT NOW, BUT A COUPLE HURRICANES IT'LL COME BACK UP AGAIN. OVER THE YEARS IT HAS COME DOWN AND UP, SO IT'LL BE UP AGAIN. BUT WE -- THERE'S -- THE HOMES AROUND THE LAKE ARE NICE HOMES ON TWO- TO THREE- TO FOUR-, EVEN SIX-ACRE LOTS, AND THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THAT. WHAT IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH IS THE -- THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S ALREADY THERE, WHICH -- I HATE TO SAY THIS -- IS REALLY A SLUM. IT HAS 14 MOBILE HOMES ON QUARTER-ACRE LOTS, AND THERE'S -- THERE'S JUST ALL KINDS OF PROBLEMS THERE. AND THEY'RE -- THEY'RE INCOMPATIBLE WITH -- WITH WHAT'S THERE, AND WE DO NOT WANT TO PERPETUATE THIS TYPE OF THING IN WIMAUMA. ALL RIGHT. THE PLAN TOOK THREE YEARS OF INTENSE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT TO COMPLETE. THE PROPOSED REZONING IS CONTRARY TO THE PLAN AND IS IN CONTRADICTION TO THE PROMISES OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY IN PROTECTING THE LIVABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY. THE ADJACENT HIGH-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT THAT THE PETITIONER PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED WAS GRANDFATHERED IN BEFORE THE PLAN WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND SHOULD NOT NOW BE USED TO BOOTSTRAP OTHER NONCONFORMING USAGE IN THE AREA. THIS IS THE POINT WHERE -- I WAS TRYING TO MAKE. WE DO NOT WANT TO PERPETUATE THIS TYPE OF A THING. LAKE WIMAUMA IS DESIGNATED AS A PRISTINE LAKE AND IS WORTHY OF PROTECTION FROM FURTHER DEGRADATION. HIGH-DENSITY USAGE RUNOFF WOULD FOUL THE WATER QUALITY OF THE LAKE. LAKE WIMAUMA IS USED BY WILDLIFE AS A SANCTUARY, AND HIGH- DENSITY DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE WILDLIFE. THE VILLAGE PLAN REQUIRES DEVELOPMENT IN SENSITIVE NATIVE HABITATS TO BE PROTECTED TO THE GREATEST DEGREE POSSIBLE. THE NOISE POLLUTION FROM HIGH-DECIBEL MUSIC, RADIO, AND GUNSHOTS ARISING FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTY DEVELOPED BY THE PETITIONER, THE GRANDFATHERED USAGE, IS WELL DOCUMENTED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT OF EVEN HIGHER DENSITY WILL SEVERELY IMPACT THE LIVABILITY OF ALL RESIDENTS NEAR THE LAKE BECAUSE THE NOISE TRAVELS FREELY ACROSS THE WATER. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD FURTHER REDUCE THE VALUE OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AS A DESIRABILITY OF LIVING IN WIMAUMA WOULD DIMINISH. >>JAMES SCAROLA: SIR, HOW MUCH EXTRA TIME DO YOU NEED? >> PARDON ME? >>JAMES SCAROLA: HOW MUCH MORE TIME DO YOU NEED? >> ABOUT A MINUTE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. >> THE PLAN PROVIDES ALLOWS FOR HIGH RESIDENTIAL -- FOR HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN OTHER -- IN ANOTHER SECTION -- SECTOR OF THE TOWN, AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS NOT NEEDED IN THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA SURROUNDING LAKE WIMAUMA. AND ADDITIONALLY, THE GENTLEMAN SAID THAT THE -- THE ROADS THEY THOUGHT WAS A SHELL ROAD. WELL, BELIEVE ME, IT'S NOT, NOT GRAVEL, NOT SHELL, IT'S JUST DIRT, AND IT IS TERRIBLE. ANOTHER GENTLEMAN HAS A PICTURE OF IT. THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR, FOR YOUR COMMENTS. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. ABOUT HOW MUCH TIME DO WE HAVE ON THE CLOCK? >> EIGHT MINUTES. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. ABOUT EIGHT MINUTES, SIR. WE'VE GOT HOW MANY MORE SPEAKERS? >> OKAY. I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF. I'VE GOT A LOT OF INFORMATION. OKAY. MY NAME IS -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: ABOUT TWO MINUTES APIECE. TWO, FOUR, SIX. >> WELL -- OKAY. >>JAMES SCAROLA: MAYBE THREE. THAT'S IT, SIR. >> OKAY. MY NAME'S WILLIAM GIBBS. >>JAMES SCAROLA: YES, SIR. >> I LIVE AT 5516 HILLSBOROUGH STREET, ABOUT 600 FEET FROM THIS PROPERTY. LAKE WIMAUMA, I'VE TALKED TO THE EPC AND I'VE TALKED TO SWFWMD IN THE PAST TWO OR THREE YEARS. IT'S ONE OF THE TWO CLEANEST LAKES IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. WILDLIFE, WE HAVE BALD EAGLES, WE HAVE RED FOX, BOBCAT, OSPREY. I'VE SEEN THESE WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS MYSELF. THE BIGGEST GOLDEN EAGLE I'VE EVER SEEN WAS OUT THERE ABOUT TWO OR THREE MONTHS AGO IN THE MORNING. WE'VE GOT -- I SAW THE FIRST GRAY FOX. I'VE LIVED IN FLORIDA ALL MY LIFE, BEEN IN THE WOODS HUNTING MANY TIMES. NEVER SAW A GRAY FOX. SAW ONE ON MY PROPERTY THE OTHER DAY. THE EAST SIDE OF OUR LAKE WHERE THIS IS GOING TO BE PROPOSED -- TRAILER PARK IS SUPPOSED TO BE PUT IS TOTALLY PRISTINE. THERE'S NO ENCROACHMENT ON THE LAKE. I KEEP MINE FENCED ABOUT 200 YARDS FROM THE LAKE. I HAVE A 200-FOOT DOCK, AND AS FAR AS THE LAKE BEING -- NOT BEING ON THAT PROPERTY, THAT'S BALONEY. THAT LAKE -- MY 200-FOOT DOCK RIGHT NOW -- A MONTH AGO THE LAKE WAS A HUNDRED FEET PAST THE END OF IT. TWO YEARS AGO IT WAS 20 FEET ON THE OTHER END OF IT. SO YOU HAD TO WALK THROUGH WATER 20 FEET TO GET TO THE DOCK, AND THE LAKE GOES UP AND DOWN WITH THE HURRICANES AND THE AQUIFER. THERE'S LOUD MUSIC OVER THERE. I'VE GOT POLICE REPORTS HERE. I'LL SUBMIT THEM AS EVIDENCE. GUNSHOTS, GUNSHOTS HAVE HIT MY HOUSE FROM OVER THERE. MY BARN, I CAN'T LET MY GRANDKIDS ON -- LIKE NEW YEAR'S AND HOLIDAYS LIKE THAT, WE DON'T GO OUT IN THE YARD WHEN THERE'S FIREWORKS BECAUSE YOU CAN HEAR THE GUNSHOTS PINGING OFF MY METAL ROOF ON MY BARN. I HAVEN'T SHOT BACK YET, BUT THAT'S AN OPTION. WE HAVE -- I CAME OUT THERE ONE DAY AFTER THEY -- AND ALL THIS STARTED WHEN HE BUILT THIS -- THIS ISN'T THE FIRST ONE HE'S BUILT. HE HAD -- THE ONE NEXT DOOR THAT HE'S USING RIGHT NOW AS A -- AS A REASON THAT -- THAT THE -- THE AREA HAS TRAILERS IS BECAUSE HE PUT THE TRAILERS THERE FOUR YEARS AGO, IN 2004. AND EVER SINCE THEN I HAD A $1200 GENERATOR STOLEN OFF MY DOCK RIGHT AFTER THAT, THINGS STARTED MISSING RIGHT AFTER THAT. ALL THE NEIGHBORS AROUND THERE STARTED MISSING STUFF. I HAVE A -- I WENT OUT THERE ONE AFTERNOON. I HAD 40 PEOPLE HAVING A PARTY ON MY DOCK. WELL, I JUST TOOK MY SHOTGUN OUT AND LAID IT ACROSS THE FRONT OF MY CAR, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY ALL SPOKE ENGLISH AND THEY LEFT. SO -- WE -- THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, TIM HIZNAY TOLD ME -- HE'S WITH PLANNING AND GROWTH. THEY HAVE AN INVESTIGATION INTO THAT RIGHT NOW. THAT MAY BE ILLEGAL. THE ONE HE HAS NOW COULD -- HE'S FOUND SOME LEGAL PROBLEMS WITH THAT. THE -- BILL LANGFORD IN CODE ENFORCEMENT IS ALSO LOOKING AT IT. I'VE TALKED TO HIM IN THE LAST TWO DAYS. HIZNAY AND HIM ARE WORKING ON THAT. THE -- LIKE I SAID, I'VE GOT THE POLICE REPORTS. TRAFFIC -- THE ROAD THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT, THERE IS NO ROAD THERE. I HAVE PICTURES HERE. I CAN SUBMIT THEM OR YOU CAN -- I CAN PUT THEM ON THE THING. THE -- THE ROAD -- NOW, SOMEBODY -- WHEN HE DEVELOPED THAT OTHER TRAILER PARK, EITHER HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY OR HIM, ONE, DROPPED THE BALL. EITHER HE WAS SUPPOSED TO MAINTAIN THE ROADS OR EITHER HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY WAS SUPPOSED TO, AND I'VE LIVED HERE ALL MY LIFE, AND YOU CAN BET HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY WASN'T GOING TO MAINTAIN THOSE ROADS, SO THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN MAINTAINED. THERE'S POTHOLES THREE AND FOUR FEET DEEP IN THEM, THEY'RE JUST SAND, AND THEN WHEN HILLSBOROUGH -- HILLSBOROUGH STREET GOES -- IT STOPS, DEAD ENDS, AND THEN THERE'S A FOREST THERE OF OAK TREES, AND THEN IT PICKS UP ABOUT ANOTHER HUNDRED YARDS OVER WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS. NOW, THAT'S WHAT HE'S TALKING IS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, YOU KNOW. NOW, THE COUNTY'S GOING TO HAVE TO -- AND AS FAR AS THE -- THE SEWER, WE JUST GOT WATER THERE LAST YEAR, AND AS FAR AS SEWER, I HAVE -- IF -- IT'S NEWS TO ME IF WE HAVE SEWER OUT THERE. SO THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF MISINFORMATION, I BELIEVE, HERE MAYBE, AND I'VE LIVED HERE ALL MY LIFE, AND I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE DOWN HERE. I GREW UP WITH A LOT OF JUDGES, A LOT OF POLICEMEN, AND EVERYBODY TELLS ME MR. PIPPIN IS WELL CONNECTED FOR WHATEVER THAT MEANS. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. >> OKAY. >>JAMES SCAROLA: APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY. YES. GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS WANDA BROUGHTON. I LIVE AT 1204 7th STREET, WHICH IS ONE STREET BEHIND HILLSBOROUGH STREET. WE ALSO HAVE A SECOND HOME, AND IT'S LOCATED AT 5515 HILLSBOROUGH STREET. MY DAUGHTER AND MY GRANDCHILDREN OCCUPY THAT HOME. WE BUILT OUR HOUSE IN 1980. WE'VE LIVED THERE OUR ENTIRE MARRIAGE. I WAS 16 YEARS OLD WHEN I BUILT THAT HOME, AND I STILL LIVE THERE TODAY. WE'VE SEEN THE PEOPLE COMING IN TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUILDING AROUND US. THIS LAST NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE'RE SPEAKING OF HAS BEEN IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. IT'S CAUSED INCREASE IN TRAFFIC, CRIME. I CORROBORATE EVERYTHING THAT THE GENTLEMEN BEFORE ME HAVE SAID. THERE'S NO ROADS, THERE'S NO ROAD SIGNS. IT'S JUST A BLIGHTED AREA. LAST CHRISTMAS WHEN WE PUT UP OUR CHRISTMAS LIGHTS, WE HAD THREE BULLET HOLES IN OUR ROOF, AND WE'RE A STREET AWAY. SO EVEN THOUGH I'M HOLDING A SIGN, I COMPLETELY BELIEVE SAVE LAKE WIMAUMA. I'M ALSO HERE FOR PURELY SELFISH REASONS, AND EVERYBODY THAT LEAVES HERE TONIGHT IS GOING TO GO HOME TO THEIR HOMES. WHEN I GO HOME TO MY HOME, I'M GOING TO LISTEN TO LOUD MUSIC, I'M GOING TO LISTEN TO GUNFIRE, I'M GOING TO LISTEN TO SIRENS, AND THAT'S BEEN MY QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS. I'M AGAINST THIS REZONING, AND I HOPE THAT MY PERSONAL TESTIMONY TONIGHT WILL AFFECT YOUR DECISION. THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT TESTIMONY. YES, SIR. GOOD EVENING. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. MY NAME IS HERB WILLIAMS. I LIVE AT 4406 WEST LEONA STREET IN TAMPA. I HAVE A SECONDARY PROPERTY, 2.3 ACRES DIRECTLY WEST OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. I THINK SOME THINGS HAVE BEEN CLARIFIED. WHEN THE GENTLEMAN MADE HIS PRESENTATION, HE TALKED ABOUT HOMES, AND THE FACT IS IT'S MOBILE HOMES, AND WHAT'S THERE EXISTING NOW IS AN EYESORE TO THE COMMUNITY, TO THOSE OF US WHO LIVE THERE. THE PETITION POINTED OUT SOME VERY VALID POINTS. THE -- THE LEGAL THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN HAPPENING THERE DESCRIBED THE MUSIC, THE RADIO, THE GUNSHOTS, ALL THESE THINGS. THEY ARE WELL DOCUMENTED, AND I THINK THIS COUNTY COMMISSION NEEDS TO ACT CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING ESTABLISHED USAGE. THEY MENTION MOBILE HOMES ON THE PROPERTY. I'VE OWNED MY PROPERTY FOR FIVE YEARS, AND I TAPPED A NEIGHBOR ON THE SHOULDER AND I SAID, HEY, OTHER THAN THIS MAN'S ONE DEVELOPMENT, ARE THERE ANY MOBILE HOMES OUT THERE BECAUSE I'VE NEVER SEEN ANY? AND HE SAID, YEAH, THERE'S SOME FAR BACK OFF THAT YOU CAN'T VIEW, BUT BEAR IN MIND THAT MOST OF THE PROPERTIES ON THIS LAKE ARE HOMES, THEY'RE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. EVERY PROPERTY IS SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. MOST OF THEM ARE -- ARE ONE OR TWO ACRES -- I OWN TWO ACRES -- SOME A HALF ACRE, BUT IT WOULD JUST BE GROSSLY INCONSISTENT TO ALLOW THIS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT TO CONTINUE, AND IF YOU CAN'T FEEL THAT, THEN -- THEN MOW DOWN SOME HOMES IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND PUT A MOBILE HOME, YOU KNOW, LOT THERE, AND THEN YOU'LL GET THE FEELING OF THESE PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN TAXPAYING, HARD-EARNED MONEY PEOPLE FOR YEARS, AND THEY'RE SEEING THEIR -- THEIR -- THEIR PRIVACY AND THEIR -- THEIR -- THEIR SANCTITY OF HOME JUST BEING ENCROACHED ON, AND HOPEFULLY THIS WILL STOP AT THIS POINT. IT'S JUST A -- A GROSS MISUSE OF -- OF THE PROPERTY AND WHAT'S EXISTING THERE ALREADY. >>JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR. OKAY. >>BRIAN GRADY: SIR, YOU NEED TO SIGN IN. SIR. >>JAMES SCAROLA: HOW MANY MORE TOTAL DO I HAVE? I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE LAST ONE. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>JAMES SCAROLA: ONE MORE. COME UP, SIR. >> I FORGOT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING. WILLIAM GIBBS. I OWN 15 ACRES 600 FEET FROM THIS GUY, THE NEIGHBOR NEXT TO ME OWNS TEN ACRES, THE NEIGHBOR NEXT TO HIM OWNS TEN ACRES, AND THEN THE LADY HERE THAT OWNS A PLANT NURSERY NEXT TO HIM OWNS TEN ACRES, SO WE'RE NOT SMALL LANDOWNERS. I HAVE A CATTLE FARM. I'VE RAISED 15, 20 COWS, AND SO, I MEAN, THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE AREA. IT'S NOT MOBILE HOMES UNTIL HE PUT THIS LAST ONE IN IN 2004, AND EVERYBODY WAS SLEEPING, YOU KNOW. NOBODY -- HEY, PROBABLY WANTS A TRAILER. SAW THE YELLOW SIGN, NOBODY GOT INTERESTED, AND SO THAT'S HOW THAT GOT IN THERE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO CLOSE OPPOSITION TESTIMONY. ANY STAFF COMMENTS? >>BRIAN GRADY: JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING REGARDING THE SEPTIC ISSUE AND PUBLIC UTILITIES. IF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE AND HE CANNOT EXTEND THEM, THIS PARCEL DID RECEIVE A VARIANCE TO DO A THIRD LOT ON SEPTIC. THEREFORE, THE MOST THEY COULD DO UNDER SEPTIC IF THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO EXTEND THE LINES WOULD BE THREE LOTS. >>JAMES SCAROLA: THREE LOTS? >>BRIAN GRADY: THREE LOTS. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION. >>KRISTA KELLY: YES. KRISTA KELLY, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ALSO REGARDING THE -- THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE COMMUNITY PLAN, THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT OF THE WIMAUMA PLAN. IT DOES NOT FALL INTO THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL-2 LAND USE CATEGORY THAT ONE OF THE PUBLIC HAD DESCRIBED. >>JAMES SCAROLA: WHAT IS IT UNDER THE VILLAGE PLAN? HOW IS IT SHOWN? >>KRISTA KELLY: IT'S JUST -- IT'S NOT A DISTRICT, IT'S JUST OUTSIDE OF THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. IT'S JUST AN AREA WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, RESIDENTIAL-4 LAND USE CATEGORY. >>JAMES SCAROLA: AND DOES THE VILLAGE PLAN HAVE ANY TEXTUAL DISCUSSION AT ALL ABOUT AREAS OUTSIDE THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT OR -- >>KRISTA KELLY: IT FOCUSES ON THE WIMAUMA VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL-2 AREA, WHICH IS RIGHT OUTSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AS A TRANSFER OF DENSITY LOCATION. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. >>KRISTA KELLY: THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT. AND THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FINAL REBUTTAL. >> MOST OF THE STUFF -- MOST OF THE STUFF THAT THEY ADDRESSED WILL BE ADDRESSED WHEN -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: ONE MORE TIME, MR. COPELAND, WITH YOUR NAME. >> DARRELL COPELAND. ADDRESS TOO? >>JAMES SCAROLA: SURE. >> 111 FLAMINGO DRIVE, APOLLO BEACH, FLORIDA 33572. >>JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU. >> THE ITEMS WITH THE WATER AND THE SEWER AND THE ROAD, ALL THOSE WILL BE ADDRESSED WHENEVER THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED. I'M SURE THAT THEY'LL MAKE, YOU KNOW, CRITERIA THAT IT HAS TO HAVE THE WATER, HAS TO HAVE THE SEWER, HAS TO HAVE THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. THESE ARE ITEMS THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED. >>JAMES SCAROLA: DO YOU KNOW WHERE THE NEAREST SEWER IS RIGHT NOW? >> IT FALLS WITHIN A LOW PRESSURE SEWER SYSTEM, AND IT'S NOT VERY FAR FROM THE PROPERTY. IT'S ALL -- IT WAS ALL ADDRESSED BEFORE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. >> AND LIKE I SAID, THE WATER LINE HAS ALREADY BEEN EXTENDED, HAD ENGINEERING DRAWINGS, AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN BUILT TO THE SITE ALREADY. >>JAMES SCAROLA: DO YOU KNOW THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH, IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH? WAS IT IN 2004? >> IT'S BEEN OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS. IT'S A BUNCH OF NARROW 70-FOOT-WIDE LOTS THAT -- >>JAMES SCAROLA: PLATTED A LONG TIME AGO? >> RIGHT, EXACTLY. THERE'S A LOT OF AREA SOUTH OF THAT THAT'S PLATTED THAT WAY. THIS PARTICULAR LOT WAS LEFT A BIG -- LIKE A -- IT WAS LEFT A PARCEL THAT WASN'T DIVIDED. >>JAMES SCAROLA: INCLUDING THOSE -- THOSE LOTS THAT LOOK LIKE THEY'RE THREE-QUARTER-ACRE OR SO THAT ARE IN THAT AREA, ARE THEY ALSO WITHIN THE SMALLER PLATTED AREAS, THE ONES THAT ARE DEVELOPED OUT AT THREE-QUARTERS, BUT DO THEY HAVE UNDERLYING -- >> A LOT OF THEM HAVE BEEN REZONED. LOTS TO THE SOUTH, A LOT OF THEM ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REZONED TO SMALLER PIECES. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ANYTHING ELSE? >> THAT'LL DO IT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE REZONING 09-941. THANK YOU FOR EVERYBODY'S COOPERATION. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 11, REZONING APPLICATION 09-0965. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AS-1 TO RSC-3 WITH A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY. ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: GOOD EVENING, SIR. >> MY NAME IS FRANK MURRAY. I LIVE AT 8819 WEST MILLPOINT ROAD. WELL, HOW THIS ALL STARTED IS I BOUGHT A MOBILE HOME TO PUT ON THIS PROPERTY -- IT'S ABOUT ONE AND A HALF ACRES -- AND IN THE PROCESS I HIRED A -- A LICENSED CONTRACTOR THAT I BOUGHT THE TRAILER FROM TO SET IT UP FOR ME, AND HE DID. THEN I HIRED A SEPTIC TANK MAN TO PUT IN A SEPTIC TANK. HE DID. THEN THE COUNTY WOULD NOT OKAY THE SETUP FOR ME BECAUSE I WAS ZONED AS-1. THE CONTRACTOR SET IT UP 33 FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH LEFT ME 17 FEET, SO I WENT TO GET A VARIANCE, AND DURING THE PROCESS OF GETTING THE VARIANCE, I FOUND OUT THAT -- WELL, I BOUGHT THE LAND IN 2002, TWO AND A HALF ACRES. I SOLD 8/10, THE HOUSE AND 8/10 OF LAND, WHICH I HIRED A LAWYER TO TAKE CARE OF THIS FOR ME, A TITLE LAWYER. COME TO FIND OUT THE COUNTY'S TOLD ME THAT I HAD TO GET -- THAT THAT LAND WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN REZONED AT THAT TIME, BUT THEY DIDN'T DO THAT, JUST LIKE THIS CONTRACTOR DIDN'T SET IT BACK 50 FEET. NOW I'M GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF ASKING TO GET THE 8/10 OF AN ACRE REZONED, AND DURING THE MEANTIME GET THE TWO PIECES -- ONE -- THERE'S ONLY ONE PIECE IN THE BACK. I WANT TO CUT IT IN HALF AND REZONE IT. THAT WAY IT SHOULD BRING MY TRAILER THAT I'VE GOT SET UP ILLEGALLY IN COMPLIANCE, AND ALSO THE OTHER -- MAKE TWO LOTS IN THE BACK INSTEAD OF ONE AND THE LOT IN THE FRONT, MAKE IT LEGAL AT THE SAME TIME, AND THAT'S -- AND DURING THE PROCESS -- I BOUGHT THIS LAND -- I MOVED ON THIS PROPERTY IN 1991. I BOUGHT THE -- I LEASED IT AND LIVED ON IT, AND I BUILT BUILDINGS ON IT. THERE WAS ALREADY A BUILDING ON IT AT THAT TIME WITH A MAN LIVING ON IT IN THE BACK THERE BEHIND THE HOUSE. OKAY. DURING THAT -- THIS TIME, I ALSO OWNED THE LAND THAT JOINS IT ON WEST MILLPOINT ROAD THAT JOINS THIS PROPERTY, SO I HAD MY SWIMMING POOL, I HAD MY RECREATION AND EVERYTHING ON THIS BACK LOT, WHICH IS -- JOINS THE ONE I'M LIVING IN. AND I'M JUST HOPING THAT WE REZONE AND EVERYTHING JUST GETS RIGHT. I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING WAS WRONG UNTIL I BOUGHT ANOTHER TRAILER. I ONLY BOUGHT ANOTHER TRAILER BECAUSE I'M GOING TO BRING MY MOTHER FROM NORTH CAROLINA, AND SHE'S GOING TO STAY HERE BECAUSE SHE'S 81 YEARS OLD. SHE WANTS TO GO WHERE IT'S WARM. >>JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU, SIR, FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. AND THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: GOOD EVENING. ISABELLE ALBERT, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THIS IS TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 2.34-ACRE FROM AN AGRICULTURAL SINGLE-FAMILY TO A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY CONVENTIONAL WITH A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY. NO AGENCIES REVIEWED TO THIS REQUEST -- OBJECTED TO THIS REQUEST, AND AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2002, SUBDIVIDED WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE COUNTY, AND WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF VARIANCE AND HAVE FOUND OUT THAT THEY DO NOT MEET THE SIZE REQUIREMENTS, SO THIS IS WHY THEY'RE REZONING IT TO A ZONING DISTRICT THAT WOULD ALSO BE COMPATIBLE WITH POLICY 1.2 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND I'LL LET THE PLANNING COMMISSION COVER THAT. AND THE APPLICANT WILL STILL NEED TO GO THROUGH FINAL SUBDIVISION THROUGH THE COUNTY, AND WITH THAT, WE FIND THIS APPROVABLE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION. >>KRISTA KELLY: THANK YOU. KRISTA KELLY, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE PROPERTY HAS A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF RESIDENTIAL-4. THE SUBJECT SITE IS REQUESTING AN RSC-3 ZONING WITH A MOBILE LAY -- I'M SORRY -- A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY. THIS MEETS THE MINIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE CATEGORY BY PROVIDING FOR A DENSITY CATEGORY CONTAINING AT LEAST 75% OF THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY. THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD BE WELL SUITED WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE SURROUNDING AREA. BASED UPON THESE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST? I DON'T SEE ANY. IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST? NO? MR. MURRAY, ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE I CLOSE THIS? >> [INAUDIBLE] >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, WE'LL CLOSE REZONING 09-965. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 12, REZONING APPLICATION 09-1002. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM ASC-1, TO "M," WHICH IS A MANUFACTURING ZONING DISTRICT. ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. SCAROLA. MY NAME IS JIM STUTZMAN. MY ADDRESS 3314 HENDERSON BOULEVARD, SUITE 108 IN TAMPA, AND I'LL ALSO TRY TO BE BRIEF. HOPEFULLY THERE'S NOT TOO MUCH OPPOSITION BACK HERE. AS BRIAN SAID, WE'RE TRYING TO REZONE THIS LITTLE ENCLAVE OF ASC-1 ZONING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FALKENBURG INDUSTRIAL AREA, AND THIS SITE -- THEY WERE OPERATING A CAR LOT WITH - - AND STORING CARS AND REPAIRING THEM ON THIS PROPERTY, AND THEY DID GET CITED, AND SO WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT ON THIS. THE COUNTY JAIL AND THE SOLID WASTE FACILITY AND OTHER COUNTY USES ARE ON THE WEST SIDE OF FALKENBURG ROAD, AND THEN ON THE EAST SIDE YOU HAVE CAR LOTS AND OTHER HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES. THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL AREA OF CAR LOT AND STORAGE AREA SOUTH OF THIS SITE, AND THEN THERE'S A CONTRACTOR'S OFFICE WITH OPEN STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS TO THE EAST, AND THEN TO THE NORTH THERE'S SOME OTHER HEAVY INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL USES, BUT WE FEEL THAT THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE AREA, AND THE USE WILL BE COMPATIBLE ALSO. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU, MR. STUTZMAN. PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>ISABELLE ALBERT: GOOD EVENING. ISABELLE ALBERT, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THIS REQUEST IS TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL SINGLE-FAMILY TO MANUFACTURING. THE APPLICANT RECEIVED A CODE VIOLATION FOR THE BUFFER AND SCREENING AND ALL OF THAT, AND THAT'S WHY WE'VE PUT SOME RESTRICTIONS ON THERE THAT THEY NEED TO COMPLY WITH -- THEY JUST NEED TO BRING THE -- THE SITE TO COMPLIANCE, SO I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >>JAMES SCAROLA: I DON'T HAVE ANY. THANK YOU. PLANNING COMMISSION. >>KRISTA KELLY: KRISTA KELLY, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE PROPERTY HAS AN URBAN MIXED USE-20 FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION. THIS REZONING WOULD ALLOW FOR THE USE OF THIS PROPERTY IN A MANNER THAT WOULD BE COMPARABLE TO THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND VISION UNDER THE URBAN MIXED USE-20 LAND USE DESIGNATION. GIVEN THE PATTERN OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL FOUND WITHIN THE SURROUNDING AREA, REZONING THE PROPERTY TO "M" WITH THE OBLIGATION TO BRING THE EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE UP TO CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE REZONING REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LONG-RANGE PLAN FOR THIS PORTION OF FALKENBURG ROAD. BASED UPON THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST? DON'T SEE ANY. IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST? NONE. MR. STUTZMAN? >> NO FURTHER COMMENT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. WITH THAT, WE'LL CLOSE REZONING 09-1002. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 13, REZONING APPLICATION 09-1050. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM RSC-2 TO ASC-1. SUSAN MARINER WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MOIRA HASBROUCK. I RESIDE AT 1006 BEAVER DRIVE, TARPON SPRINGS, FLORIDA. I'M A PROPOSED BUYER FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. I HAVE A COUPLE HORSES WHICH I BOARD, AND I'VE BEEN HELPING FOR MANY YEARS TO BE ABLE TO PURCHASE SOME PROPERTY, AND NOW SEEMS A GOOD TIME TO DO IT. WHEN I FIRST LOOKED AT IT, YOU KNOW, I WAS TOLD NO DEED RESTRICTIONS, YOU CAN HAVE HORSES. WELL, IT'S NOT. I CHECKED INTO IT FURTHER. IT'S RESIDENTIAL-2, SO WHAT I'M REQUESTING IS TO HAVE IT REZONED TO ASC-1. THERE IS A MANUFACTURED HOME ON THE PROPERTY. DOES EVERYONE HAVE THIS OR DO I NEED TO PUT THIS -- YOU'VE GOT THIS? >>JAMES SCAROLA: I HAVE THAT. >> I HAVE SPOKEN TO NEIGHBORS WITHIN VISUAL DISTANCE. THE GENTLEMAN NEXT DOOR LIVES IN LAKELAND. HE OWNS IT AS RETIREMENT PROPERTY. HE SAID HE HAD NO PROBLEM WITH IT. THERE'S A HOUSE BEING FORECLOSED NEARBY. AND THE OTHER NEIGHBORS SEEM TO HAVE NO PROBLEMS. I'VE STOPPED BY YARD SALES. THERE'S -- ACROSS THE STREET I THINK IS ASC-1. IT'S JUST WOODS. ACROSS THE STREET CATTY-CORNER THERE ARE SOME HORSES THERE. THERE'S A -- LAKE PARK WITHIN FIVE MINUTES WITH HORSE TRAILS, SO IT'S ACTUALLY A GOOD AREA. EVEN THOUGH IT'S BUILDING UP, IT'S STILL GOT A LOT OF RURAL ASPECT TO IT. HALF THE PROPERTY APPEARS TO BE WETLANDS. I'VE SEEN DEER THERE WHEN I'VE GONE OUT TO LOOK AT IT. I WOULD CERTAINLY RESPECT THOSE CREATURES. WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS TO JUST PUT SOME PADDOCKS IN THE CLEARED AREA, WHICH IS UPLAND, AND JUST KEEP MY FEW HORSES ON IT. ONE'S 20, ONE'S 25. WE'RE ALL RETIRING -- I WISH I COULD RETIRE. ANYWAY, WE'RE ALL AT A QUIET STAGE IN OUR LIFE. I DON'T INTEND TO DIRT BIKE OR DO ANYTHING CRAZY. I DON'T REALLY INTEND -- I'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GO TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S "L" SHAPED. THE WETLANDS AREA, IF THERE'S A FENCE TO THE BACK OF IT, I DON'T KNOW THAT. IT'S REALLY WET RIGHT NOW. SHOULD IT DRY OUT, I MIGHT WANDER BACK THERE BAREBACK, BUT I'D PROBABLY BE DUMPED IF A DEER JUMPED OUT FROM A TREE. SO ANYWAY, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF -- I DON'T MEAN TO BE HUMOROUS, BUT JUST A MATTER OF REALLY IT'S A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY AND I WOULD LOVE TO LIVE THERE, BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE ME GETTING IT REZONED SO I COULD KEEP A COUPLE HORSES THERE. ANY QUESTIONS? >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. NO. >> THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: AND THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. >>SUSAN MARINER: SUSAN MARINER, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY CONVENTIONAL-2 ZONING DISTRICT TO AN AGRICULTURAL SINGLE- FAMILY CONVENTIONAL, ASC-1, DISTRICT. NO WAIVERS TO ANY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS WERE REVIEWED OR APPROVED. I HAVE ADVISED THE APPLICANT ABOUT THE PROVISIONS FOR THE NUMBER OF -- OF HORSES THAT COULD BE ALLOWED ON THE SITE. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST COMPARABLE WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND COMPATIBLE WITH -- WITH THAT, THEREFORE APPROVABLE. THE MOBILE HOME IS NONCONFORMING NOW. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT'S BEEN THERE, AND IT WOULD CONTINUE TO BE RECOGNIZED AS LEGALLY NONCONFORMING AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T CHANGE. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU, SUSAN. >>SUSAN MARINER: THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION. >>KRISTA KELLY: THANK YOU. KRISTA KELLY, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE RESIDENTIAL-1 LAND USE CATEGORY IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE FOR RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL USES AND ALLOWS A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF ONE UNIT PER ACRE. THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD BE WELL SUITED FOR THE ADJACENT -- WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND SHOULD NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING AREA. FURTHERMORE, THE ASC-1 ZONING WILL BRING THE SITE INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WOULD BE COMPARABLE TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA HAVING SIMILAR ZONINGS. BASED ON THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THE TESTIMONY. AND IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST? I DON'T SEE ANY. IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST? NONE. WITH THAT, WE'LL CLOSE REZONING 09-1050. >>BRIAN GRADY: THE FINAL ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 14, MAJOR MOD APPLICATION 09-0952. THE REQUEST IS FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ADD OFFICE -- ADDITIONAL OFFICE USES INTO THE PROJECT. SUSAN MARINER WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M JUDY JAMES, 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD, AND I'M GLAD TO SAY THAT I DON'T HAVE BUSLOADS OF OPPOSITION AND SUPPORT WITH ME TONIGHT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: ME TOO. >> THIS PROJECT IS JUST -- [LAUGHTER] -- TO ADD 3500 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE USES TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL AREA. IT WAS PART OF AN OVERALL PD THAT WAS ZONED IN THE 1980s. THERE'S CN ZONING AND PD-C TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST -- EAST, EXCUSE ME. THE NEW OFFICE ZONING WILL BE NO CLOSER TO THE EXISTING APARTMENTS AND THE EXISTING RETAIL USES. WE'RE GOING TO USE THEIR SAME ENTRANCES. IT'S IN THE OC AND RSC-4, AND I ASK YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU. AND THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>SUSAN MARINER: SUSAN MARINER. I'M GLAD SHE LEFT HER BUSES HOME TOO. STAFF FINDS THIS REQUEST COMPARABLE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, THEREFORE APPROVABLE. THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU, SUSAN. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION. >>KRISTA KELLY: THANK YOU. KRISTA KELLY, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE MAJORITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED OFFICE COMMERCIAL-20 WITH A SMALL SLIVER ALONG THE WESTERN BOUNDARY DESIGNATED RESIDENTIAL-4. THE PROPOSED OFFICE USE WOULD BE LOCATED ON THE OC-20 PORTION OF THE SITE. THE OFFICE USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OC-20 FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, WHICH IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE FOR COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TYPE USES SUCH AS OFFICE USES, MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, AND COMPATIBLE RESIDENTIAL USES. THE SITE'S LOCATED IN AN AREA CHARACTERIZED BY COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE USES ALONG NORTH FLORIDA AVENUE AND HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE WEST AND SOUTHWEST. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION WOULD ALLOW FOR THE ADDITION OF AN OFFICE BUILDING SIMILAR IN SCALE FOUND IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE ADDITION OF A 3500-SQUARE-FOOT OFFICE WOULD PROVIDE A COMPLEMENTARY AND COMPATIBLE USE TO SUPPORT THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. BASED UPON THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED MAJOR MODIFICATION CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO ANY CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT? I DON'T SEE ANY. IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST? >> I FORGOT TO ADD I WOULD -- FOR THE RECORD THAT WE WILL BE PROVIDING PARKING AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS. THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL PARKING PROVIDED. THANK YOU. >>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. AND WITH THAT, WE'LL CLOSE MAJOR MOD 09-952. AND I THINK THAT'S IT FOR THE EVENING. THANK YOU FOR EVERYBODY'S HELP. 1