Zoning hearing master



Download 0.81 Mb.
Date27.05.2021
Size0.81 Mb.


CAPTIONING

APRIL 21, 2014

ZONING HEARING MASTER

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


>>STEVE LUCE: GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WELCOME TO THIS EVENING'S ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

MY NAME IS STEVE LUCE.

I'LL BE CONDUCTING TONIGHT'S HEARINGS.

TO MY RIGHT YOUR LEFT IS JAMES SCAROLA.

HE IS HERE FOR THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME WOULD YOU ALL PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

YOU MAY ALL BE SEATED.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SEATED AT THE DAIS AND TELL US IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES TO THIS EVENING'S EVENING.

>>BRIAN GRADY: GOOD EVENING.

BRIAN GRADY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION.

AT THE DAIS TO MY LEFT IS CAMERON CLARK WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND RANDY WITH THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION.

WE HAVE ONE CHANGE ON TONIGHT'S PUBLISHED AGENDA.

IT'S AN ITEM ON PAGE 5.

ITEM A11 SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 14-0431.

THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT.

IT'S BEING WITHDRAWN FROM THE ZONING HEARING MASTER PROCESS.

THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE TO THE AGENDA.

I'LL GO THROUGH THE PUBLISHED WITHDRAWALS AND CONTINUANCES.

FIRST ITEM A5.

SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 14-0330.

THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT FROM THE ZONING HEARING MASTER PROCESS.

ITEM A6 REZONING APPLICATION 14-0189.

THIS APPLICATION IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND BEING CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 2ND, 2014 ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

ITEM A7 REZONING APPLICATION 14-0268.

THIS APPLICATION IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 2ND, 2014 ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

ITEM A8 REZONING APPLICATION 14-0324.

THIS APPLICATION IS BEING CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT TO JUNE 2ND, 2014 ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

ITEM A9 SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 14-0421.

THIS APPLICATION IS BEING CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT TO THE JUNE 2ND, 2014 ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

ITEM A10 REZONING APPLICATION 14-0425.

THIS APPLICATION IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND BEING CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 2ND, 2014 ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

ITEM A11 WE DEALT WITH IN CHANGES AND IT'S BEEN WITHDRAWN.

ITEM A12 REZONING APPLICATION 14-0462.

THIS APPLICATION IS OUT OF ORDER TO BE HEARD AND BEING CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 2ND, 2014 ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

ITEM A13 SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 14-0500.

THIS APPLICATION IS OUT OF THE ORDER TO BE HEARD AND BEING CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 2ND, 2014 ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

ITEM A14 REZONING APPLICATION 14-0157.

THIS APPLICATION IS BEING CONTINUED BY STAFF TO THE JUNE 23RD, 2014 ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

ITEM A15 MAJOR MOD APPLICATION 14-0323.

THE APPLICATION IS BEING CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT TO THE SEPTEMBER 22ND, 2014 ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

THAT CONCLUDES ALL WITHDRAWALS AND CONTINUANCES.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU MR. GRADY.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I HAVE A FEW INSTRUCTIONS TO READ INTO THE RECORD ABOUT HOW TONIGHT'S HEARING WILL PROCEED. THEN THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WILL HAVE INSTRUCTIONS TO READ INTO THE RECORD AND THEN WE'LL GET STARTED WITH THE FIRST ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. THIS HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. FIRST STAFF WILL INTRODUCE THE ITEM THEN THE APPLICANT AND ANY WITNESSES OF THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.

NEXT THE STAFF OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND IF APPLICABLE THE STAFF OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL PRESENT THEIR REPORTS AND FINDINGS AND THEY HAVE FIVE MINUTES A PIECE FOR THAT PURPOSE.

THEN THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE PROPONENTS WHO ARE IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST ARE NOT CONNECTED DIRECTLY WITH THE PETITION WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT.

FOLLOWING THAT THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE OPPONENTS WHO ARE AGAINST THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS IN OPPOSITION.

PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THAT IT'S A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES FOR ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO MAY WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION.

SO IF THERE'S A LARGE GROUP, YOU MAY WANT TO ORGANIZE YOUR STATEMENTS SO THAT ALL THE TIME DOES NOT GET USED UP BEFORE EVERYONE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

THEN IF EITHER STAFF HAS ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR REVISIONS TO THEIR REPORTS TO BE MADE FOLLOWING THE TESTIMONY, THEY WILL BE NEXT AND BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THE LAST PERSON TO SPEAK WILL BE THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE UP TO FIVE MINUTES OF TIME TO REBUT ANY STATEMENTS MADE IN OPPOSITION TO THEIR REQUEST AND TO SUMMARIZE THEIR APPLICATION.

THERE'S A CHIME AT THE PODIUM THAT WILL SOUND ONCE WHEN THERE ARE 30 SECONDS REMAINING AND WILL SOUND THREE TIMES WHEN THE TIME IS EXPIRED FOR THE GIVEN SPEAKER AT THE PODIUM IF IT APPEARS ADDITIONAL TIME IS NEEDED FOR ANY OF THE PARTIES TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATIONS, ADDITIONAL TIME MAY BE GRANTED BY THE HEARING MASTER.

WHEN YOU COME TO THE PODIUM PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS CLEARLY FOR THE RECORD.

AFTER YOU PRESENT YOUR TESTIMONY, PLEASE SIGN IN WITH THE CLERK.

THERE'S A PAD DOWN AT THE END OF THE PODIUM GIVING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THE CLERK HAS THE PAD AND CLERK IF YOU CAN JUST SHOW FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE PAD AND PEN TO BE USED.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

THESE ARE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH MEANS THE DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION WILL BE BASED ON FACT BASED EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AND AS PRESENTED IN THE HEARING TONIGHT.

TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL THESE HEARINGS WILL BE INFORMAL.

ANY EVIDENCE PRESENTED MUST BE RELEVANT TO THE REQUEST BEING MADE BY THE APPLICANT.

AND BECAUSE THERE ARE TIME LIMITS I ASK YOU TRY NOT TO REPEAT TESTIMONY THAT'S ALREADY BEEN GIVEN.

IT'S REQUIRED THAT ALL TESTIMONY GIVEN REGARDING ANY APPLICATION BE GIVEN UNDER OATH.

SO AT THIS TIME TO EXPEDITE MATTERS I'LL GIVE THE OATH TO ALL PARTIES WHO THINK THEY WILL BE SUBMITTING TESTIMONY THIS EVENING.

SO THOSE OF YOU WHO BELIEVE YOU'LL BE PROVIDING TESTIMONY TONIGHT, PLEASE STAND UP AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD.

(UNANIMOUS I DO).

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

YOU MAY BE SEATED.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MR. SCAROLA HEARING THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM THEN WE'LL HEAR SPECIAL USE APPLICATIONS. WITH RESPECT TO SPECIAL USES THIS IS THE ONLY HEARING ON SPECIAL USE.

AS THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER I'LL RENDER THE DECISION THE DECISION WILL BE FILED WITHIN THE CLERK'S OFFICE WITHIN 15 WORKING DAYS OF THIS HEARING NOW THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING TONIGHT'S HEARING.

>>CAMERON CLARK: THANK YOU, MR. LUCE.

GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE, I'M CAMERON CLARK, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY.

I'M GOING -- I'LL BE TAKING ON THE USUAL ORDER TONIGHT. NORMALLY SPECIAL USES HAPPEN FIRST AND TONIGHT IT'S A REZONING APPLICATION FOLLOWED BY SPECIAL USE FOLLOWED BY THE REST OF THE REZONING.

SO THE APPLICANT ON ITEM I2 SPECIAL USE 14-0361.

IS THAT PARTY HERE.

>> YES, SIR.

>>CAMERON CLARK: WHAT I'M ABOUT TO READ DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU.

I'LL READ YOUR DATA SECOND AFTER THIS FIRST CASE.

ALL RIGHT. FOR ANYONE ELSE ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARING IS A TWO STEP ZONING/REZONING PROCESS. THIS IS FOR CITIZENS TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND OTHER TESTIMONY THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TONIGHT WILL BECOME THE COMPLETE FACTUAL RECORD OF EACH CASE THEREFORE THE RECORD WILL CONCLUDE AT THE END OF TONIGHT'S HEARING AND NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CAN BE INTRODUCED THEREAFTER THE SECOND STEP IS A PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT WHICH TIME THE BOARD WILL TAKE DECISION ON EACH APPLICATION.

TONIGHT'S APPLICATIONS ARE CURRENTLY SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD BY THE BOARD AT ITS JUNE 10TH 2014 LAND USE MEETING.

IN RENDERING ITS DECISION THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER ONLY THE RECORD OF TONIGHT'S HEARING AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE ZONING HEARING MASTER.

THE HEARING MASTER WILL FILE RECOMMENDATION FOR EACH APPLICATION HEARD TONIGHT MAY 12TH AFTER RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED EACH INDIVIDUAL WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AT THE PUBLIC MEETING MUST FILE AND EXECUTE A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT FORM NO LATER THAN CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON MAY 22ND.

PLEASE NOTE THAT ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS MUST BE RESPONSIVE TO THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION. ACCORDINGLY SUCH REQUESTS SHOULD NOT BE FILED UNTIL AFTER THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO THE COUNTY ON MAY 12TH.

THEREFORE, IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD PLEASE BE SURE TO FILE YOUR ORAL ARGUMENT REQUEST BETWEEN MAY 12TH AND CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON MAY 22ND.

REQUESTS NEED TO BE FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON THE 12TH FLOOR OF THIS BUILDING. THE BOARD IS NOT REQUIRED TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT AT ITS PUBLIC MEETINGS 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 WHO WAS CERTIFIED BY THE US POSTAL SERVICE AS HAVING BEEN MAILED NOTICE OF THIS HEARING.

THIRD, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO SUBMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO THE MASTER FILE AT LEAST TWO BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO TONIGHT'S HEARING.

THE FOURTH, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO SUBMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BY PROXY AT TONIGHT'S HEARING.

IN THE EVENT OF THE BOARD ELECTS TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT PARTIES OF RECORD WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD IF THEY MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS AS PREVIOUSLY STATED EACH INDIVIDUAL WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD MUST FILE AND EXECUTE A PROPERLY COMPLETED REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT FORM IN A TIMELY MANNER.

A PROPERLY COMPLETED REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT FORM MUST BE RESPONSIVE TO THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION AND MUST CLEARLY SET FORTH WHY ORAL ARGUMENT IS NECESSARY TO ADDRESS AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR OUTSTANDING ISSUES.

ONE IS TO RESOLVE AMBIGUITIES IN THE RECORD OF TONIGHT'S HEARING.

TWO IS TO UNDERSTAND A REQUEST TO ENTER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD.

THREE, TO ADDRESS A MISTAKE IN THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION.

FOUR TO ADDRESS THE MATTER THAT WAS INTRODUCED IN THE RECORD TONIGHT BUT IS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION.

IF THE BOARD ELECTS TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT THE CONTENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE AND OTHER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED VERBALLY AND IN WRITING TO THE HEARING MASTER TONIGHT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS TO ENSURE ONLY INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE MET REQUIREMENTS ARE ALLOWED TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD AND ENTER NO NEW EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY IS INTRODUCED OR ALLOWED AT THE PUBLIC MEETING FOR THESE REASONS WE MAKE SURE ALL THE INFORMATION YOU WISH TO BE RECEIVED TONIGHT IS PLACED IN TONIGHT'S RECORD.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU MR. CLARK AT THIS POINT IN TIME I'LL TURN THE HEARING OVER TO MR. SCAROLA FOR THE FIRST ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

>>BRIAN GRADY: THE FIRST ITEM IS I1. REZONING APPLICATION 13-0939 BRANDON SPORTS & AQUATIC CENTER THIS IS A REZONING FROM RES-6 TO RSC-6 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING BRANDON SPORTS & AQUATIC CENTER.

MR. SCAROLA, YOU HEARD THIS AT THE MARCH 17TH HEARING AND CONTINUED IT TO GIVE STAFF AND APPLICANT TIME TO HAVE TIME FOR DISCUSSIONS ON THE NATURE OF ALLOWED USES ON THE PROPERTY FOR APPROVAL.

THE REVISED STAFF REPORT SUBMITTED INTO THE RECORD REFLECTS THE OUTCOME OF DISCUSSIONS WITH COUNTY STAFF TO PROVIDE THE AVAILABILITY TO RESPOND TO THAT AFTER HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT.

>>JAMES SCAROLA: IS THE APPLICANT HERE?

NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.

>>FOR THE RECORD TIMOTHY H. POWELL. POST OFFICE BOX 1016 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33601.

>>JAMES SCAROLA: BEFORE YOU GO ON, THIS WAS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC ISSUES AND WE'VE TAKEN SUBSTANTIAL TESTIMONY SO YOU'RE GOING TO LIMIT IT TO THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAPPENED.

>>I'LL MAKE IT EVEN MORE BRIEF YOU HAVE THE CHANGES IN FRONT OF YOU.

THEY HAVE BEEN AGREED TO BY US AND STAFF AND THEREFORE YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND LISTEN TO THE STAFF AND WE DO CONCUR.

>>JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

>>GOOD EVENING.

>>GOOD EVENING TOM BISNAY. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF I'M MOST PLEASED TO REPORT THAT THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT HAVE MANAGED TO WORK OUT THE FEW REMAINING ISSUES THAT THERE WERE.

I WILL BRIEFLY ADDRESS THOSE AS FOLLOWS.

ONE OF THE ISSUES AT THE MARCH 17TH MEETING WAS WITH REGARD TO A VARIATION THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT TO ALLOW TWO OF THE PROPOSED BASEBALL MULTIPURPOSE FIELDS TO ENCROACH ABOUT TEN FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT BUFFER AREA AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY.

AT THE TIME STAFF DID NOT SUPPORT THE REQUEST BECAUSE OF A LACK OF DOCUMENTATION ON THE NEED FOR THE VARIATION.

THE APPLICANT THEN BROUGHT IN A MUCH MORE DETAILED REPORT ANALYSIS OF THE NEED FOR THE VARIATION.

OF COURSE THIS IS AN -- I WILL HAND YOU A COPY OF THIS.

WE RECEIVED THIS MARCH 25TH I PARTICULARLY DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE NARRATIVE PROVIDED BY BRAD DESIGN AND ENGINEERING.

IN VIEW OF THIS NEW INFORMATION, STAFF HAS CHANGED OUR POSITION ON THE VARIATION AND WE NOW RECOMMEND ITS APPROVAL TO THE DEGREE -- THE APPROXIMATE DEGREE THAT'S SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN FOR THE TWO FIELDS.

I'LL HAND THIS TO YOU.

>>JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU.

>>ANOTHER ISSUE CONCERNED ONE OF OUR CONDITIONS.

THAT WE WERE IN AGREEMENT WITH FROM THE BEGINNING WITH THE APPLICANT REGARDING TOURNAMENTS AND LEAGUE PLAY.

AND THE CONDITIONS STATED THAT THOSE ACTIVITIES WOULD BE LIMITED TO WEEKENDS ONLY AT THE LAST HEARING THE APPLICANT RAISED SOME QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER WEEKENDS INCLUDED FRIDAYS SO WE SAID WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SPECIFICALLY MENTION THE DAYS IN THE CONDITION RATHER THAN SIMPLY USING THE TERM WEEKEND.

WE HAD OUR TRANSPORTATION STAFF REVIEW THE ISSUE TO SEE IF ADDING FRIDAYS TO THE TOURNAMENT AND LEGAL PLAY SCHEDULE WOULD HAVE ANY IMPACT ON TRAFFIC.

THEIR ANSWER WAS THAT IT REALLY WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OR THE REPORT SO WE ARE HAPPY TO CHANGE THE CONDITION TO SPECIFICALLY SAY THE TOURNAMENTS AND LEAGUE PLAYS WOULD BE ALLOWED ON FRIDAY, SATURDAY AND SUNDAY.

AND THEN THE FINAL ISSUE WAS WITH REGARDS TO AGE RESTRICTIONS THAT THE STAFF HAD RECOMMENDED FOR THE BASEBALL MULTIPURPOSE FIELDS.

DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE DISTANCE FROM HOME PLATE TO THE PROPERTY LINE ON TWO OF THE FIELDS IS APPROXIMATELY 210 FEET.

AND THIS DISTANCE COULD BE EASILY EXCEEDED BY FLY BALLS HIT BY OLDER PLAYERS.

AND AS YOU REMEMBER WE HAD A PARK STAFF REPRESENTATIVE HERE WHO PROVIDED EXPERT TESTIMONY ON THE NEED FOR AGE RESTRICTIONS THAT INDEED OLDER PLAYERS COULD HIT BALLS OUT.

HOWEVER, IT WAS NEVER OUR INTENT THAT THOSE RESTRICTIONS APPLY TO OTHER USES THAT MAY OCCUR ON THOSE FIELDS BUT JUST KICKBALL, THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO WE HAVE REVISE THE CONDITION TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE AGE RESTRICTIONS ONLY APPLY TO BASEBALL AND SOFTBALL USE AT A FIELD.

EXCLUDING SPECIAL NEEDS PARTICIPANTS WHO MIGHT BE PLAYING BASEBALL OR SOFTBALL OR OTHER ACTIVITIES SUCH AS KICKBALL WHICH MAY OCCUR ON THOSE FIELDS.

SO WE HAVE TO CLARIFY THE APPLICABILITY OF THE AGE RESTRICTIONS AND AGAIN AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT THEY ENTER IN FULL CONCURRENCE WITH THE CONDITIONS AS NOW WRITTEN AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

>>JAMES SCAROLA: THANK YOU FOR THAT.

I APPRECIATE IT.

ALL RIGHT.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, SO WE ALREADY TOOK PROPONENT AND OPPOSITION TESTIMONY LAST TIME.

IS THERE ANYBODY HERE THAT NEEDS TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO THESE PARTICULAR ISSUES?

SEEING NONE, MR. POWELL, ANYTHING TO CLOSE THIS AND MAYBE A CONCURRENCE WITH THAT TESTIMONY?

>>YES.

WE CONCUR WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.



>>JAMES SCAROLA: OKAY.

IS THAT IT WITH THAT WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE REZONING 13-939. THANK YOU MR. LUCE.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU MR. SCAROLA AND I THINK AT THIS POINT IN TIME WE HAVE ONE SPECIAL USE AND THAT IS AS MR. CLARK PROMISED HE HAS A FEW INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING THE SPECIAL USE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

>>CAMERON CLARK: GOOD EVENING AGAIN CAMERON CLARK.

I PROMISE THIS IS MUCH SHORTER.

THIS ONE ONLY APPLIES TO THIS NEXT APPLICANT THIS PORTION OF THE LAND USE FOR PUBLIC HEARING IS FOR SPECIAL USE REQUEST TODAY'S HEARING IS A TIME FOR ALL INTERESTED PARTIES TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY AND THIS EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY WILL BE THE ONLY EVIDENCE SUBJECT TO THE APPEALS BOARD. IF AN APPEAL IS FILED THAT MEANS THIS CLOSES AT THE END OF TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARING AND NO NEW EVIDENCE MAY BE SUBMITTED TO THE RECORD.

ANYTHING MAY BE APPEALED TO THE APPEALS BOARD AND THE BOARD WILL ONLY CONSIDER THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION AND TODAY'S PUBLIC HEARING IN REACHING DECISION ON FINAL PETITION.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

>>IS SOMEONE DOING THAT ON PURPOSE?

MY MIC CUT OUT FOR SOME REASON.

LET'S SEE. THE APPEALS BOARD WILL ONLY CONSIDER THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION AND TODAY'S YOU PUBLIC HEARING IN REACHING A PETITION IF THE APPEAL IS FILED THE HEARING SHOULD BE LIMITED TO TODAY'S HEARING AND CONSISTENT OF ORAL ARGUMENT BY COUNTY STAFF, THE PARTY APPEALING THE DECISION AND INTERVENERS EACH MAY BE REPRESENTED BY LEGAL COUNSEL THE FOLLOWING SHOULD HAVE A STANDING TO APPEAL THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER. ONE IS THE APPLICANT OR ANY PERSON OR ENTITY THAT APPEARED BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER PRESENTED TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE AND ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER. IT'S THE ROLE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO MAKE SURE NO NEW EVIDENCE IS ALLOWED.

THE COUNTY ATTORNEY RECOMMENDS THAT THEY YOU DISREGARD ANY EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY NOT IN TODAY'S RECORD ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE RECORD OF TODAY'S HEARING COULD JEOPARDIZE LEGALITY AND THE PRESENTER OF THAT EVIDENCE COULD HURT HIS OR HER OWN CAUSE.

THE SAFEST COURSE OF ACTION IS TO WRITE ANY COMMENTS YOU MAKE TODAY AND REPEAT THEM TO THE APPEALS BOARD THEREFORE PLEASE BE SURE THAT ALL INFORMATION THAT YOU WISH TO BE HEARD BY THE APPEALS BOARD IS CONTAINED IN TODAY'S RECORD.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

MR. GRADY IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE THE SPECIAL USE.

>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I2 SPECIAL USE APPLICATION 14-0361. THE APPLICANT IS HOPTIMISTIC BREWS.

THE REQUEST IS FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR SEPARATION OF WAIVERS FOR 2 COP FOR AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT.

STAFF WILL PROVIDE TESTIMONY AFTER THE APPLICANT.

>>I RESIDE IN LAKELAND.

THE ESTABLISHMENT OR PACKAGED STORE IS AT BRANDON 1937 WEST BRANDON BOULEVARD.

BASICALLY JUST BACKGROUND, WE'RE A SMALL PACKAGE ALCOHOL BEER STORE AND WE SPECIALIZE IN CRAFT BEER ONLY MICROBREWERIES AND IMPORT.

AND WE LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THE LOCAL BREWERIES AND THE FLORIDA BREWERIES AND WE HAVE ONE SECTION IN OUR STORE THAT'S JUST FOR FLORIDA BEER.

AND WE CURRENTLY HAVE A 2 APS LICENSE FOR PACKAGE AND WE WOULD LIKE TO -- WE'RE APPLYING TO BE ABLE TO GET A 2 COP ZONING SO WE CAN MAINLY -- MAIN REASON IS TO HAVE TASTINGS SO WE CAN HAVE SMALL EVENTS AND MOSTLY LOCAL BREWERIES BUT YOU KNOW THE OTHER ONES, AS WELL, FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY COME IN.

AND THE REPRESENTATIVES WILL HANDLE THE TASTINGS.

THEY PROVIDE THE BEER.

TASTINGS ARE TYPICALLY THREE OUNCES OR LESS.

IT'S NOT A HUGE DRINKING EVENT.

IT'S JUST TO EXPOSE PEOPLE TO THE DIFFERENT BEERS AND HOPEFULLY GET THEM INTERESTED IN IT.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

AND THE WAIVER THAT'S REQUESTED I BELIEVE IT'S BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER 2 COP TYPE USES.

>>YEAH APPARENTLY WITHIN THE ZONE THERE'S I THINK FIVE.

ONE OF THEM IS A FURNITURE STORE FOR SOME REASON.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

WHICH WAS AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE USE AND NOW IT'S FURNITURE.

>>THAT'S WHAT I'M GUESSING, YEAH IT'S BEEN A FURNITURE STORE SINCE I'VE LIVED HERE FOR 18 YEARS.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

ANYTHING ELSE.

>>I THINK THAT'S IT, SIR.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU, AND STAFF, PLEASE.

>>COLLEEN MARSHALL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THE APPLICANT STATED THE REQUEST TONIGHT IS FOR A SEPARATION WAIVER FOR 2 COP ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT FOR BEER AND WINE FOR SALE AND CONSUMPTION ON AND OFF PERMITTED PREMISES THE WET ZONE AREA WILL COMPRISE OF 1866 SQUARE FEET THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A WAIVER TO THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THERE BE NO MORE THAN THREE APPROVED SPECIFIC ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSES WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE.

PER THE WET ZONE SURVEY RECEIVED, THERE ARE FOUR SUCH APPROVED ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMITS STAFF CONCURS WITH THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WAIVER.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: I THINK YOUR STAFF REPORT AND THE APPLICANT REFERENCE THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 2 APS.

>>IT DOES.

>>STEVE LUCE: DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS BY CHANCE BECAUSE I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO REFERENCE THAT.

IF I'M GOING TO CONSIDER IT AND IF I RECOMMEND -- OR APPROVE THE AB I MAY WANT TO RESCIND EXISTING 2 API.

BUT DON'T HAVE IT COULD YOU PUT IT IN OPTICS AND I CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

>>I BELIEVE IT'S 13-0399, BUT I'M NOT POSITIVE.

I HAVE IT SCRATCHED IN MY NOTES.

>>STEVE LUCE: MAKE A NOTE OF IT AND CONFIRM IT AND PUT IT IN OPTICS. VERY GOOD THANK YOU AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

SIR?


>>I'M LEE NASH.

3629 COPPER TREE CIRCLE BRANDON, FLORIDA BEER ENTHUSIAST AND CUSTOMER OF THE ESTABLISHMENT MENTIONED NOW WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS IF YOU NOTICE BEER PARTICULARLY CRAFT BEER HAS GROWN TREMENDOUSLY IN THE LAST FEW YEARS TEN YEARS AGO THIS WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE ALL THE BEER TASTES THE SAME LOOKED THE SAME SMELLED THE SAME NOW THEY ARE VERY DISTINCT JUST LIKE WINE AND THIS IS JUST LIKE A WINE TASTING IN FACT TECHNICALLY EVEN LESS ALCOHOL IS BEING DRANK BECAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING AROUND 3 OUNCES AND THIS WILL BE HANDLED BY THE VENDORS COMING IN WHICH WOULD THEN CONTROL THE AMOUNT OF ALCOHOL BEING SERVED BECAUSE THEIR GOAL IS NOT TO HAVE PEOPLE DRINK.

THEIR JOB IS TO GET PEOPLE TO BUY SIX PACKS OR CASES OF BEER SO I WOULD STAND IN SUPPORT TO THAT -- THIS VARIANCE BE ACCEPTED.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD THANK YOU SIR ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT?

NO ONE RESPONDING ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?

NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

OKAY.


AND SIR, ANY FINAL COMMENTS ON REBUTTAL.

NO NEED FOR REBUTTAL.

WITH THAT THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION MR. GRADY WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I3 REZONING APPLICATION 14-0418 THE APPLICANT IS LUCY POLSON. THIS IS A REQUEST FROM RES-4 TO BPO WITH RESTRICTIONS TO COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CN WITH RESTRICTIONS.

TOM BISNAY WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THE APPLICANT, PLEASE.

>>HELLO I'M TERESA CANFIELD I RESIDE AT 9640 WYDELL STREET FLORIDA.

JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MYSELF I GREW UP IN WASHINGTON STATE AND SPENT EIGHT YEARS WORKING IN COFFEE SHOPS RELOCATED TO FLORIDA IN 2008 AN RN THAT WORKS AT BRANDON REGIONAL HOSPITAL IT'S MY CAREER BUT MY REAL PASSION IS MAKING COFFEE DRINKS AND OWNING MY OWN BUSINESS I OPENED MY BUSINESS MUGSHOTS IN RIVERVIEW BACK IN JANUARY OF 2012 I HAD IT IN OPERATION FOR ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF BEFORE I DECIDED TO RELOCATE TO THE CORNER OF CARR ROAD AND BOYETTE REQUESTING A REZONING FROM BPO WHICH HAS FOUR PERMITTED USES, DANCE STUDIO, HEALTH PRACTITIONERS OFFICE, PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL SERVICES TO A COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE SAME RESTRICTIONS WITH THE ADDED USE OF THE RETAIL SERVICES SELLING COFFEE AND OTHER NON-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.

LIMITED TO A BUILDING WITH 120 SQUARE FEET IN NATURE AND WITH HOURS OF MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY FROM 6 A.M. TO 5 P.M, SATURDAY AND SUNDAY FROM 7 A.M. TO 3 P.M.

MY SOLE INTENTION IS TO PRESERVE THE COMMUNITY APPEAL AND NOT INITIATE ANY BIG TRANSFER OF COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES IN THE AREA.

I WANT TO SERVE THE DAILY PUBLIC NEEDS AND I'M ASKING FOR CONSIDERATION THAT MY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY IS ON SUCH A MINOR SCALE IN COMPARISON TO LIKE A STARBUCKS OR GAS STATION OR SOMETHING ELSE WERE TO COME INTO THE AREA.

FROM MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WHEN I TRAVEL OUT OF TOWN OR VISIT FRIENDS AND FAMILY, I LOVE TO GO TO WHATEVER THEIR LOCAL EATERY IS OR DRINK ESTABLISHMENTS RATHER THAN AN OLIVE GARDEN OR SOMETHING BIG BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT MAKES -- IT GIVES YOU PRIDE IN YOUR COMMUNITY THAT YOU HAVE SOMETHING UNIQUE TO OFFER.

I ASKED SOME OF MY CUSTOMERS AT MUGSHOTS WHO COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY TO WRITE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE FOR WHY THEY THINK YOU GUYS SHOULD GIVE ME THE CONSIDERATION OF THE ZONING.

MISS EDIE SAYS MUGSHOTS IS A GREAT COFFEE PLACE THE COFFEE IS THE BEST AROUND ALSO IT'S A SMALL BUSINESS WHICH I WOULD RATHER SUPPORT A COMMUNITY FEEL MS. NANCI SAYS RIVERVIEW NEEDS MORE MOM AND POP BRICK AND MORTARS THAT OFFER FRIENDLY CUSTOMER SERVICE AND THIS ONE FITS THE BILL WE MISS IT AT THE OLD LOCATION AND ANXIOUSLY WAITING REOPENING IT'S EXACTLY WHAT OUR TOWN NEEDS MS. ROBINSON WROTE MUGSHOTS ROCKS IT'S BEEN CLOSED FOR FAR TOO LONG.

MR. COFFEE IN THE SOUTH CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THE KIND STAFF WE NEED MORE SMALL BUSINESS LET THEM REOPEN MRS. STATES SAYS MUGSHOTS IS A UNIQUE BUSINESS THAT BRINGS CHARACTER TO THE RIVERVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD THE COFFEE BEVERAGES ARE DELICIOUS AND MADE WITH CARE BY THE OWNER WHO TREATS EACH CUSTOMER PLEASE KEEP MUGSHOTS AS A PART OF OUR COMMUNITY MR. READING SAYS AS A LOYAL MUGSHOTS CUSTOMER I COMMEND HER COMMITMENT TO THE COMMUNITY.

HER DRINKS ARE SUPERIOR TO KING COFFEE SHOPS AND OFFER MEANS TO SUPPORT A WOMEN OWNED SMALL BUSINESS WE STAND BEHIND TERESA AND ANXIOUSLY AWAIT HER OPENING OF MUGSHOTS MS. B SAYS I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOU BACK IN BUSINESS AND A WONDERFUL FEELING KNOWING I'M CONTRIBUTING TO MY COMMUNITY ESPECIALLY WITH A SMALL BUSINESS AND IT GOES ON THERE'S A LOT OF COMMENTS BUT I'LL SPARE EVERYONE THAT.

>>STEVE LUCE: IF YOU HAVE A COPY OF IT, COULD YOU LEAVE IT WITH THE CLERK.

>>YES, ABSOLUTELY.

>>STEVE LUCE: IN ADDITION TO THE COMMENTS AND MY UNIQUE BUSINESS OF OFFERING SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAT YOU CAN'T GET ANYWHERE IN FLORIDA BECAUSE ALL OF MY COFFEE IS IMPORTED FROM WASHINGTON STATE IT'S A DIFFERENT TASTE THAT I THINK PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN HOOKED ON NOW AND WOULD REALLY ENJOY SEEING IT COME BACK BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT I PRIDE MYSELF IN GIVING BACK TO LOCAL HIGH SCHOOL I DO MILITARY MONDAYS SO I LIKE TO INCORPORATE EVERYONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD INTO THE COFFEE SHOP.

SO THAT'S ALL I REALLY HAVE TO SAY AND THANK YOU TO ALL OF THE ZONING THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVER DONE THIS AND I BOMBARDED EVERYONE WITH A LOT OF E-MAILS AND QUESTIONS SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD THANK YOU.

AT THIS POINT STAFF.

>>GOOD EVENING MR. HEARING MASTER.

AS EXPLAINED BY THE APPLICANT THIS IS FOR REZONING OF A PARCEL A SMALL PARCEL CURRENTLY ZONED BPO RESTRICTED.

AND UNDER THAT ZONING IT'S LIMITED TO FOUR USES, A DANCE STUDIO HEALTH PRACTITIONERS OFFICE, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND PERSONAL SERVICES AND ADDITIONALLY THERE'S SOME ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BUILDINGS HOUSING THOSE USES.

THE APPLICANT WISHES TO DEVELOP A SMALL DRIVE THROUGH COFFEE SHOP ON THE PARCEL RIGHT AT THE CORNER OF CARR AND BOYETTE ROAD SHE'S REQUIRED TO REZONE TO A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT FOR TWO REASONS ONE THE RESTRICTED USES CURRENTLY ALLOWED ON THE SITE DO NOT INCLUDE A COFFEE SHOP AND THE BPO DISTRICT IN GENERAL CAN YOU SEE NOT INCLUDE COFFEE SHOPS SO SHE NEEDS TO REZONE TO A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND REQUESTING A COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESTRICTED ZONING AND SHE WISHES TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING USE ENTITLEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY ALONG WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE USES.

AND THEN SUPPLEMENT THEM WITH THE ADDITION OF ONE USE HER PROPOSED COFFEE SHOP WHICH IS A DRIVE THROUGH SHOP WITH 120 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR SPACE I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THE CN DISTRICT AS WELL AS THE BPO DISTRICT ARE IDENTICAL EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN CN IS 35 FEET AND IN BPO IS 50 FEET.

SO BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT, WE'RE -- IT'S NOT GOING TO REPRESENT ANY INTENSIFICATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THE SITE OTHER THAN THE ADDITION OF THE 120 SQUARE FOOT COFFEE SHOP BECAUSE FAR LIMITS AND EVERYTHING ELSE ARE IDENTICAL BETWEEN THE TWO DISTRICTS.

PARCEL IS DESIGNATED RES 4 IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THEREFORE THIS REZONING IS SUBJECT TO CRITERIA OF THE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF PURPORTS THE PARCEL DOESN'T MEET SAID CRITERIA AND THEREFORE APPROVAL OF A WAIVER BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IS NECESSARY.

THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A WAIVER REQUEST TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF WHICH I'LL ALLOW THEM TO DETAIL THAT REQUEST.

HOWEVER, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE WAIVER AND THEREFORE FINDS THE REZONING INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF WITH REGARDS TO COMPATIBILITY OF THIS ZONING WE FIND THAT IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING ZONINGS AT THE INTERSECTION OF CARR AND BOYETTE ROAD WHICH INCLUDE THE BPO RESTRICTED ZONING WHICH IN ADDITION TO THIS PARCEL COVERS THE TWO PARCELS TO THE EAST.

IT ALSO INCLUDES A LARGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING TO THE SOUTH ACROSS BOYETTE ROAD.

THAT ZONING PERMITS A CHURCH, PARISH CENTER, PRIVATE SCHOOL, DAY CARE CENTER AND ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY AND ALSO A PD ZONING TO THE WEST ACROSS CARR ROAD WHICH PERMITS 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR SPACE FOR OFFICES AND ALSO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND FINALLY THE ADJACENT PARCEL TO THE NORTH IS ZONED OR RESTRICTED AND PERMITS A REAL ESTATE OFFICE.

HOWEVER, SINCE THE SITE DOES NOT MEET COMMERCIAL LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, AND THE FACT THAT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF CAN YOU SEE NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE NECESSARY WAIVER, STAFF CANNOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSED REZONING.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

>>YES, SIR.

BEFORE I BEGIN AND GO INTO THE PRESENTATION, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO NOTE ON PAGE 2 OF OUR REPORT AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE THE SECOND FULL SENTENCE WHERE WE NOTE THAT THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS ZONED AGRICULTURAL SINGLE FAMILY.

THAT IN FACT IS OFFICE RESIDENTIAL.

AS YOU KNOW, THE RESIDENTIAL PLAN CATEGORIES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMP PLAN HAVE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA RELATIVE TO COMMERCIAL USES.

CARR IS NOT ON THE MPO'S LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION COST AFFORDABLE MAP.

IT'S CONSIDERED A LOCAL ROAD.

AND THE NEAREST QUALIFYING INTERSECTION IS OVER 4,000 FEET AWAY.

ON BOYETTE ROAD.

IF YOU NOTE IN THE PRESENTATION FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, THE OTHER ZONINGS ADJACENT HERE HAVE -- I'LL READ IT OFFICE RESIDENTIAL, BPO, WITH THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER, EVEN WITH RESTRICTIONS TO SOME EXTENT.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF DOES NOT FEEL THAT WE WANT TO INTRODUCE ANY TYPE OF COMMERCIAL USES AND COMMERCIAL ZONING ON PARTICULARLY CARR ROAD.

AND THIS SECTION OF BOYETTE ROAD IN GENERAL IS ALTHOUGH THERE IS ZONING FOR OFFICE USES RESTRICTED OFFICE USES RESIDENTIAL AND CHARACTER ET CETERA THEY ARE STILL NOT DEVELOPED BUT THIS IS A SECTION OF BOYETTE ROAD HAS BASICALLY NOT COMMERCIALIZED.

WE LOOK AT THIS INTERSECTION AS I SAID CARR IS A LOCAL ROAD AND WE DON'T RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD WOULD APPROVE A WAIVER OF THIS LOCATIONAL CRITERIA.

AND FOR THAT REASON, WE FIND IT INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY THANK YOU AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

SEEING NO ONE RESPONDING ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION?

SEEING NO ONE RESPONDING. JUST REAL QUICKLY MR. GRADY, IF YOU KNOW, I THINK I READ SOMEWHERE IN THE BACK OF THAT THE INTERSECTION OF CARR ROAD AND BOYETTE ROAD IT WILL BE SIGNALIZED, DO YOU KNOW?

>>BRIAN GRADY: WE CAN CHECK WITH OUR TRANSPORTATION TO SEE IF IT WILL BE SIGNALIZED.

>>CHARLES WHITE PUBLIC WORKS I'M NOT AWARE THAT THAT INTERSECTION IS GOING TO BE SIGNALIZED.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

AT LEAST THE AERIALS ARE SHOWING IT'S STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW.

>>YEAH, THE AERIALS ARE SOMEWHAT OLD.

IT'S PROBABLY ADVANCED WELL BEYOND THE STAGE THAT IT IS NOW.

BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING IN THE PLANS THAT WOULD SHOW THE SIGNALIZED LIGHTS.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU AT THIS POINT IN TIME THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

I NEED TO GET YOU ON THE RECORD.

>>I WOULD JUST LIKE TO STATE THAT THE INTERSECTION IS GOING TO HAVE A LIGHT.

IT IS IN PLACE.

IT'S NOT JUST WORKING YET UNTIL THE CONSTRUCTION GETS FINISHED ON BOYETTE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION AND MR. GRADY WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I4 REZONING APPLICATION 14-0423.

THE APPLICANT IS CLARENCE FOWLKES.

THE REQUEST IS REZONE FROM AGRICULTURAL RURAL TO AGRICULTURAL SINGLE FAMILY CONVENTION 1 COLLEEN MARSHALL WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>STEVE LUCE: CAN WE HAVE THE APPLICANT, PLEASE?

>>RICHARD FOWLKES.

888 BAYSHORE DRIVE, ENGLEWOOD, FLORIDA.

MY FATHER IS --

>>STEVE LUCE: CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE.

I CAN BARELY HEAR YOU.

>>RICH FOWLKES 888 BAYSHORE DRIVE ENGLEWOOD, FLORIDA. MY FATHER IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY HE'S ALSO PRESENT WE'RE JUST REQUESTING REZONE WITH APPROXIMATELY 17 ACRES ON THE CORNER OF KNIGHTS GRIFFIN AND LEM SIMMONS ROAD TO ASC-1.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY ANYTHING ELSE?

THANK YOU, SIR I NEED YOU TO SIGN IN.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.

>>COLLEEN MARSHALL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THE APPLICANTS STATED THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE TWO PARCELS OF LAND ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER ON LEM SIMMONS STREET AND KNIGHTS GRIFFIN ROAD TO AGRICULTURAL SINGLE FAMILY CONVENTIONAL NO AGENCY OBJECTIONS WERE RECEIVED BY STAFF.

SURROUNDING AREAS IS A MIX OF AGRICULTURAL USES AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON LARGE LOTS STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS, THANK YOU.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

>>YES, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THIS REZONING REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE ASC-1 ZONING WOULD BE COMPARABLE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

NO ONE RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION?

>>GOOD EVENING I'M SAL NICKELS I LIVE AT 125 LEM SIMMONS STREET JUST SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY I'M NOT WANTING TO BE CONTENTIOUS TONIGHT THAT'S NOT MY INTENTION I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ZONING IS FOR BUT I DO FEEL AS THOUGH IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH AT LEAST THE PURPOSE OF WHY I MOVED MY FAMILY OUT WILL RECENTLY.

WE MADE A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT IN THE AREA FROM SOUTH TAMPA TO LEM SIMMONS.

AND BOUGHT 40 ACRES OUT THERE AT A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT.

AND TURNING THIS LARGE PLOT INTO ONE THAT I GUESS IS 17 SMALL ONE ACRE LOTS DOESN'T SEEM TO FIT INTO THE CONSISTENCY OF THE OPEN FIELDS, THE STRAWBERRY FIELDS ACROSS THE STREET.

THE HAY FIELDS ALL AROUND.

IN FACT I THINK THIS PROPERTY CURRENTLY IS BEING USED FOR HAY PRODUCTION.

I FEEL LIKE IT MAY BE SHIFTING TO THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT THE SPIRIT OF THE AREA. THIS WILL ALSO BECAUSE WHERE MY PROPERTY IS LOCATED COULD IMPACT THE ACCESS TO MY PROPERTY, ALSO, THE EGRESS THAT'S ON THE SIDE ROAD.

I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT THE LONG-TERM INTENTION OF IT IS.

AND AGAIN I'M NOT TRYING TO BE CONTENTIOUS BUT AT THE SAME TIME I THINK THE PROPOSAL LACKS A LITTLE BIT OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AS FAR AS WHAT THE INTENDED USE OF IT IS. I HAVE SPOKEN TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.

AND THERE'S NO QUOTE PLANS FOR ANYTHING TO BE DONE.

BUT IF YOU'RE AN INVESTOR IN THE AREA AND ONE THAT'S PUT THEIR STAKES UP THERE, IT'S A CHALLENGE.

I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE BOARD TO RECONSIDER THE APPLICATION AND/OR THE SIZE OF THE REZONING FROM 1 TO PERHAPS SOMETHING LARGER TO 5 OR EVEN 10 ACRES THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH NEIGHBORS OF MINE.

AND IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO REALLY FIT WITH THE FUTURE OF THAT AREA.

IN FACT THAT'S AN AREA THAT'S DESTINATION KIND OF AREA.

PEOPLE -- IT'S UNDISCOVERED YET IT'S 25 MINUTES FROM DOWNTOWN TAMPA.

VERY DESIRABLE BUT THE LAST THING I THINK WE WANT TO DO IS BRING IN MORE LOTS AND PERHAPS MORE HOUSING.

ALSO THERE'S A PROPERTY, SOMIC RANCH, WHICH IS A DEVELOPMENT JUST SOUTH OF WHERE I LIVE.

AND I BELIEVE PROBABLY HALF OF THOSE LOTS ARE VERY SIMILAR IN SIZE. AND MOST OF THEM ARE UNDEVELOPED.

SO THAT MODEL DOESN'T SEEM -- IF THAT'S THE INTENDED USE OF THAT DOWN THE ROAD -- I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT IT IS.

BUT IT MIGHT SUGGEST THAT IT IS, THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A MODEL THAT WORKS THERE.

I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE DEVELOPER COMING IN THERE AND PUTTING LESS THAN DESIRABLE HOMES UP FOR THE OTHER HOMES IN THAT AREA.

THERE'S MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR MANSIONS IN THAT VISIT AROUND THE LAKE AND I WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT VALUATION BECAUSE EVERYONE WHO MAKES AN INVESTMENT IN REAL ESTATE HOPES TO SEE IT APPRECIATE AND I WOULD BE VERY CONCERNED THAT IT WOULDN'T IN THIS CASE.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU, SIR.

>>THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPOND ING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

AND THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL?

>>YES, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT --

>>STEVE LUCE: SIR IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>>MY NAME IS CLARENCE FOWLKES AND I'M AT 1300 BAYSHORE DRIVE IN ENGLEWOOD FLORIDA.

AND I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY IN 1964.

AND I'VE USED IT FOR COMMERCIAL -- JUST AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES EVER SINCE THEN.

BUT I'M 89 NOW.

AND I NEED TO HAVE THE POSSIBILITY -- I DON'T HAVE ANY PLANS RIGHT NOW BUT I NEED TO HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING BEING ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF FINANCIAL NEEDS IN THE FUTURE.

AND THE HOUSES THAT ARE THERE, THERE ARE TWO HOUSES ON THE EAST SIDE.

AND THEY ARE ON ABOUT ONE ACRE LOTS AND THERE'S HOUSES ON THE SIDE OF LEM SIMMONS ROAD.

AND THERE'S QUITE A FEW HOUSES ALONG THERE.

AND THEY DON'T HAVE HUGE PROPERTIES.

THERE'S ONE HOUSE RIGHT ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE RIGHT IN THE CORNER ADJOINING THAT PROPERTY RIGHT IN THE CORNER IN THE SOUTHEAST END OF IT.

AND THAT HAS IS ON A ONE ACRE LOT.

AND THE BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME. SO IT JUST SEEMS LOGICAL AND REASONABLE THAT I HAVE THE OPTION OF TAKING CARE OF ANY FINANCIAL NEEDS THAT MAY COME UP FOR ME.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, SIR.

MR. POWELL?

OKAY.


WITH THAT THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION AND MR. GRADY WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I5 REZONING APPLICATION 13-0853. THE APPLICANT IS CROSS CREEK RANCH.

THE REQUEST IS REZONE FROM AGRICULTURAL SINGLE FAMILY 1 TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>STEVE LUCE: GOOD EVENING.

>> HI.


THANK YOU.

VIN MARCHETTI FOR THE RECORD 65 EAST QUICK STREET TAMPA REPRESENTING CROSS CREEK ON THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING APPLICATION.

WE HAVE MANY MATTERS TO COVER THIS EVENING IN THIS APPLICATION BUT FIRST LET ME START BY SUBMITTING INTO THE RECORD A BINDER OF MATERIALS WHICH I REFER TO AS REPRESENTING OUR CASE.

ALSO AS PART OF OUR PRESENTATION THIS EVENING WE HAVE THREE OTHER PEOPLE PRESENTING AS THE APPLICANT TEAM, IF YOU WILL.

ONE IS KEVIN MENIER LAND PLANNER AND NOISE EXPERT AND ALSO MY CLIENT BONNIE MCSHARRY WILL SPEAK AS WELL I REALIZE WE ONLY HAVE 15 MINUTES HOWEVER I'M SORT OF COUNTING ON YOU ASKING QUESTIONS AFTERWARDS.

LET ME FIRST POINT OUT THAT THIS MATTER WOULD PROBABLY NOT EVEN BE BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING EXCEPT FOR THE FACT OF THE -- THAT A COMPETITOR OF THE MCSHARRYS CALLED CODE ENFORCEMENT AND SUGGESTED THEY WEREN'T OPERATING LEGALLY IN THE AS-1 ZONING DISTRICT.

THAT THEN PROMPTED CODE ENFORCEMENT TO GO OUT TO THE SITE, START QUESTIONING THE ACTIVITIES ON THE SITE WHICH THEN PROMPTED MAKE SURE -- THEY HAD TO HIRE MR. MENIER INITIALLY AND PROMPTED STAFF TO BECOME ENGAGED THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR QUITE SOME TIME PROBABLY THE LAST 6 TO 8 MONTHS.

IT'S EAST OF VALRICO ROAD THE PD REQUEST THIS EVENING IS TO ALLOW FOR CONTINUED OPERATION AND EXISTING USES AS A WITH BED AND BREAKFAST TWO BEDROOM BREAKFAST LOCATIONS AND ALSO WEDDING VENUE OF WHICH WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY LIMITED -- SIGNIFICANTLY LIMITED -- BY THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING.

THE BINDER WHICH KEVIN JUST HANDED TO YOU, I WANT TO GO THROUGH KIND OF BRIEF AND THEN COME BACK TO IT LATER.

THE FIRST TAB HAS A SET OF APPLICANTS PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

THESE ARE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAD WORKED ON FOR QUITE SOME TIME WE SUBMITTED THEM TO STAFF THEY CHOSE NOT TO SUPPORT THE APPLICATION NEITHER STAFF DID BUT NEVERTHELESS WE'RE PUTTING THIS FORWARD TO YOU FOR YOUR REVIEW AND HOPEFULLY SUPPORT.

WITHIN CONDITION 9 WE ADDED AN ADDITION TO CONDITION 9 WHICH REFERS TO WHEN A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION WOULD BE SUBMITTED AFTER DESIGN OF ROAD GOING THROUGH THIS AREA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DESIGN OF ENCLOSURE OF STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY WHEN CONSTRUCTION WORK WILL COMMENCE BY AND WHEN IT WILL BE COMPLETED BY AND THAT WAS ADDED BECAUSE OF A CONVERSATION WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WHO FELT AS THOUGH THE CONDITION WAS NOT FULLY ENFORCEABLE BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF PHYSICAL -- WHEN IT STARTS AND ENDS.

THE SECOND TAB IS THE LIST OF THOSE WEDDINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN SECURED BY CONTRACT.

THAT IF YOU LOOK IN THE CONDITIONS, THEY TALK ABOUT ACCEPT FOR PREVIOUSLY CONTRACTED WEDDINGS THROUGHOUT SEVERAL OF THE CONDITIONS AND THESE ARE THE CONTRACTED WEDDINGS THAT WE'RE COMMITTING TO THE WORK DONE IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE CONDITIONS ALLOW FOR.

SO THESE ARE THE WEDDINGS THAT WERE CONTRACTED FOR AND WE NEED TO COMMENCE BY CONTRACT.

THE THIRD TAB ARE -- AND THIS IS IMPORTANT -- SHALL COMPLAINTS THAT WERE FILED EITHER WITH E OF PC, WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND/OR WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT.

AND THOSE COMPLAINTS ARE IMPORTANT.

BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THEM CAREFULLY THE COMPLAINTS WILL TALK ABOUT ISSUES AFTER PETITION WAS FILED BEFORE THE REZONING PETITION WAS FILED AGAIN THE NOTICE FOR THE PETITION WENT OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS.

THERE WERE NO CONCERNS ABOUT NOISE.

NOISE IS YOUR CENTRAL --

>>STEVE LUCE: WHEN DID YOU FILE, DO YOU REMEMBER?

>>THE DATE WAS FILED AUGUST OF 2013.

>>STEVE LUCE: THE ZONING APPLICATION AUGUST '13?

>>YES.


>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>>THROUGHOUT THE TESTIMONY THIS EVENING OF STAFF AS WELL AS THOSE IN OPPOSITION, YOU'LL HEAR TWO CENTRAL THEMES, ONE IS COMPATIBILITY.

COMPATIBILITY IS TO NOISE.

THERE ARE NO OTHER ISSUES WITH THIS USE OTHER THAN IN THEIR MINDS NOISE.

I WENT THROUGH THE LITANY OF ALL OF THE DIFFERENT USES.

WE HAD TWO NEIGHBOR MEETINGS.

NO ONE SUGGESTED ANYTHING OF THE NOISE BEING AN ISSUE.

SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE IN THESE FILINGS THAT NONE OF THE AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR REGULATING IF YOU WILL COMPATIBILITY ISSUES IN NOISE PARTICULARLY IN EPC'S CASE RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS OR CONCERNS UNTIL AFTER THE REZONING APPLICATION WAS FILED AND AFTER THEY ACTUALLY RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE REZONING BEING FILED.

THE FOURTH ITEM IS A COMPARISON -- I'M SORRY; FOURTH ITEM IS A HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY JOB CREATION PROGRAM FUNDING HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ACTUALLY HELPED THE MCSHARRY'S CONTINUE AND IF YOU WILL EXPAND THEIR BUSINESS ON THE PROPERTY.

$11,700 THEY PAID FOR THEM TO HIRE ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES.

MCSHARRY'S ASK SO AND CONTINUED TO OPERATE IN THAT MANNER.

BRIAN IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT AS WELL IN A FEW MINUTES.

THE FIFTH TAB INCLUDES AN ANALYSIS BY KEVIN MENIER WHICH I'LL GET TO IN A BIT TALKING ABOUT AN ASSESSMENT OF OUTDOOR WEDDING FACILITIES IN THE TAMPA AREA WHICH INCLUDE NEIGHBORING COUNTIES IF YOU WILL AND HOW THEY TREAT SUCH FACILITIES.

IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE WHEN YOU READ THE STAFF REPORTS NEITHER STAFF AGREES WHAT THIS IS ONE CALLS IT A BANQUET FACILITY ONE CALLS IT WEDDING CHAPEL WE'RE CALLING IT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR WHAT IT IS IT'S NOT IN THE ZONING CODE IT'S A USE THAT WE THINK A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS ENTIRELY SUITED FOR AND SHOULD BE APPROPRIATELY APPROVED FOR.

UNDER TAB NO. 6 IS THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION THAT WE WILL GET INTO IT'S THE FULL POWERPOINT HERE.

TAB NO. 7, INCLUDES AND BEHIND THE TAB INCLUDES SEVERAL CASES THAT I THINK ARE VERY RELEVANT FOR THIS SITUATION HAD EVENING.

THE TWO CASES MOST RELEVANT IN MY OPINION DEAL WITH STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

WHICH IS CITY NATIONAL BANK VERSUS FLORIDA VERSUS CITY OF TAMPA STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION STATUTES MUST BE GIVEN A PLAIN AND OBVIOUS MEANING AND ASSUMED THAT THE LEGISLATIVE BODY KNEW THE PLAIN AND ORDER MEANING OF WORDS SINCE ZONING REGULATIONS ARE DEROGATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP WORDS USED IN A ZONING ORDINANCE SHOULD BE GIVEN THE BROADEST MEANING WHEN THERE IS NO DEFINITION NOT DEFINITION OR CLEAR INTENT TO THE CONTRARY AND THE ORDINANCE SHOULD BE INTERPRETED IN FAVOR OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.

THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT THEME THROUGHOUT OUR PRESENTATION.

BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT THE STAFF HAS INAPPROPRIATELY AGAIN BURDENED THIS PROPERTY WITH A CATEGORY OF USE THAT'S OTHERWISE CONSIDERED TO BE COMMERCIAL.

WE'RE NOT COMMERCIAL.

CERTAINLY NOT COMMERCIAL. AND THEN ALSO THE WIN WARD MARINA CASE VERSUS CITY OF DESTINE.

VERY SIMPLY PUT, THE COURT IN THAT CASE DECIDED AND FOUND THAT THE CITY DID NOT HAVE -- THEY WERE ALREADY ARBITRARILY DETERMINED THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITH INCOMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING USES BUT THE LAND USE REGULATIONS DIDN'T INCLUDE DEFINITIVE IN THIS CASE DEFINITION OF TRAFFIC IN OUR CASE DEFINITION OF NOISE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NOISE STANDARDS THEY WOULD HAVE PUT A LAND OWNER ON NOTICE THAT IN OUR CASE TRAFFIC OR NOISE WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE.

TAB NO. 8 IS PART OF BONNIE'S PRESENTATION ACTUALLY.

DEALING WITH SUPPORT ARTICLES AND OTHER ISSUES THAT THE -- THAT WE HAVE HAD OVER THE YEARS IN TERMS OF GOOD PRINT AND PRESS ON WHAT THEY DO OUT THERE.

TAB NO. 9 IS AN ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT THAT CROSS CREEK PREPARED BASED UPON THEIR INCEPTION FROM 2006 TO CURRENT.

AND WHAT THAT INVOLVES AND BONNIE WILL GO THROUGH THIS, AS WELL.

THIS IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC IMPACT HERE OF OVER $4.5 MILLION ASSOCIATED STRICTLY WITH THE MCSHARRY'S OPERATION.

AND TAB NO. 10 IS THE NEIGHBOR MEETING SUMMARIES AND SIGN-IN SHEETS.

WE HAD TWO NEIGHBOR MEETINGS BOTH OF WHICH WERE PRETTY WELL ATTENDED THE FIRST ONE MORE WELL ATTENDED THAN THE SECOND ONE.

AND ESSENTIALLY THERE WERE THREE PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DO NOT APPROVE OF THE USE OF THE PROPERTY AS WE'RE PROPOSING IT AND CONTINUE TO USE IT AS -- PREFER TO USE IT AS WE ARE NOW WE'LL GET INTO THAT IN MORE DETAIL IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES.

SO NOISE AND COMPATIBILITY ARE THE TWO THEMES YOU'LL HEAR THROUGHOUT THE PRESENTATION I THINK BY STAFF AND BY THOSE IN OPPOSITION AND I WANT TO HAVE KEVIN START OUT OUR PRESENTATION WITH HIS LAND PLAN SUMMARY AND THEN WE'LL GO FROM THERE.

>>STEVE LUCE: WELL I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH DETAIL ALL YOUR TEAM WILL GET INTO.

BUT IT APPEARS THAT IT WILL PROBABLY BE MORE THAN 15 MINUTES JUST ON MY CURSORY LOOKING THROUGH YOUR TABS.

ANY ROUGH ESTIMATE OF HOW MUCH TIME YOU THINK YOU'LL NEED.

>>PROBABLY ANOTHER 20 MINUTES FROM NOW.

>>STEVE LUCE: CLERK, IF YOU CAN TRY TO KEEP TABS ON THAT, LET ME KNOW WHEN WE GET TO 20 MINUTES.

>>FROM THIS POINT.

>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH.

UNDERSTOOD.

AND GIVEN THE NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT THE APPLICANT HAS JUST PUT ON THE RECORD, I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO GRANTING 20 MINUTES FOR PRESENTATION.

>>THANK YOU.

>>GOOD EVENING, I'M KEVIN MENIER OF THE GENESIS GROUP AND I'M ASSISTING THE MCSHARRY FAMILY WITH THEIR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MIXED USE REZONING.

BEFORE I GET INTO THE SPECIFICS OF THE SITE I WOULD LIKE DISCUSS THE NATURE OF THE REQUEST.

I STRUGGLED TO DEFINE WHAT MCSHARRY'S BUSINESS IS.

AND YOUR PLANNING STAFF APPARENTLY HAVE STRUGGLED WITH A PROPER DEFINITION, TOO.

THEY HAVE THEIR HOUSE THEY HAVE TWO BED AND BREAKFASTS AND THEY ALSO HOST OUTDOOR GARDEN WEDDINGS.

AND ONE OF THE FUNDING AGENCIES CALLS IT A WEDDING CHAPEL AND THE OTHER CALLS IT A BANQUET RECEPTION HALL IT TURNS OUT THAT THERE ARE SIX OTHER PLACES IN UNINCORPORATED RURAL HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY THAT ARE DOING THE EXACT SAME THING THAT THE MCSHARRY'S ARE DOING AS THEIR PRIMARY BUSINESS AND FIVE OF THE SIX HAVE THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT AS-1 AS THE MCSHARRY'S OR ASC-1 ZONING WHICH IS VERY SIMILAR TO AS-1 ZONING.

THERE WERE ALSO DOZEN S OF OTHER RURAL VENUES INCLUDING COMMUNITY CENTERS AND WINE RELEASE THAT OFFER OUTDOOR GARDEN WEDDINGS, TOO AS A SECONDARY SERVICE ALONG WITH I MIGHT ADD HUNDREDS OF CHURCHES OUT IN THE RURAL AREA.

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN INDOOR AND OUTDOOR OR URBAN OR RURAL WEDDING VENUE FACILITIES BUT DOES LIST THE TERM WEDDING CHAPELS IN THE CODE.

WEDDING CHAPELS ARE PERMITTED AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN BPO AND IN OR, UC 1 AND UC 2 AND PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN CN, CG AND CI.

HOWEVER THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF WHAT A WEDDING CHAPEL IS OR THE PROPERTY PROCEDURE OR STANDARDS FOR REVIEW IF YOU WANT TO BUILD ONE.

NOR IS A WEDDING CHAPEL DEFINED AS EITHER ENCLOSED OR OPEN AIR, NUMBER OF GUESTS SPECIFIED, HOURS OF OPERATION, LOCATION, SETBACKS, ANYTHING.

LIKEWISE THE TERM BANQUET RECEPTION HALL.

IT'S LISTED IN THE CODES BUT NO DEFINITIONS OR STANDARDS FOR WHAT CRITERIA YOU HAVE TO MEET.

CROSS CREEK RANCH IS ZONED AS-1 AND ALL THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS FOR A SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE AROUND IT ARE AS-1 TOO AS-1 IS AN AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT NOT A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT IT'S AN AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT AND AS-1 ALLOWS A FULL RANGE OF USES.

AS-1 PERMITS BY RIGHT OBVIOUSLY THE RAISING OF LIVESTOCK, PLANT NURSERIES, INCLUDING RETAIL SALES, CONVENTIONAL HOUSES, MOBILE HOME HOUSES, SCHOOLS, GAME PRESERVES AND HIKING TRAILS.

AS-1 PERMITS AS A CONDITIONAL USE WHICH STAFF REVIEWED ALL ADMINISTRATIVE AGRICULTURAL MANUFACTURING, INTENSIVE FEEDING PINS, FARM WORKER HOUSING, KENNELS LANDSCAPER CONTRACTORS OR NURSERIES PUBLIC STABLES BED AND BREAKFASTS OF WHICH THE MCSHARRY'S HAVE ALREADY GOTTEN THAT APPROVED NEIGHBORHOOD FAIRS, NURSING HOMES CHURCHES PARKS DAY CARES ULTRA-LIGHT FLIGHT WASHING VETERINARIAN CLINIC CAMP GROUNDS.

RECOVERY FACILITIES.

AS-1 ALSO PERMITS BY A SPECIAL EXCEPTION THAT'S ONE PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REVIEW MEDIUM AND LARGE COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOMES RECOVERY HOMES PRIVATE PARKS PRIVATE SCHOOLS GOLF DRIVING RANGES PAINT BALL FIELDS PRIVATE PARKS PRIVATE -- I'M SORRY; AND CELL TOWERS AND LANDFILLS.

ALL OF THESE HAVE SPECIFIC CRITERIA IN THE LDC IN THE PROCESS TO APPROVE THEM.

AND IF YOU MEET THOSE SET STANDARDS YOU ARE PRESUMED TO BE COMPATIBLE, CONSISTENT AND APPROVABLE.

NONE OF THESE USES ARE REQUIRE MEETING LOCATIONAL CRITERIA EVEN THOUGH VET CLINICS, KENNELS PAINT BALL RIDING STABLES NURSING HOMES LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS AND OTHERS WOULD CLEARLY ARE CONSIDERED SPECIAL USES ELSEWHERE IN THE COUNTY AND OTHER USES SUCH AS SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES GENERATE A LOT MORE PEOPLE THAN THE MCSHARRY'S GARDEN WEDDING BUSINESS THE ONLY THING THEY ALL HAVE IN COMMON THEY ALL NEED OPEN SPACES IN RURAL AREAS AND THERE ARE SIX OTHER GARDEN VENUES DOING THE EXACT SAME THING THEY ARE DOING TODAY SINCE OUR CODE IS SILENT I LOOKED AT SOME OF THE OTHER COUNTIES FOR GUIDANCE THERE ARE SEVERAL OUT DOOR GARDEN WEDDING CHAPEL FACILITIES IN PASCO COUNTY AND I FOUND COMMERCIAL ZONING IS NOT REQUIRED.

YOU CAN CREATE A BUSINESS SIMILAR TO THE MCSHARRY'S IN THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS IN PASCO LIKEWISE IN MANATEE COUNTY COMMERCIAL ZONING IS NOT REQUIRED AND SUCH USES COULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AND VIN HAS MENTIONED WE PREPARED A LITTLE REPORT AND IT'S IN YOUR PACKAGE.

GETTING BACK TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SUBMITTED SITE PLAN, EACH STRUCTURE ON SITE IS LABELED IN THE OUTDOOR WEDDING CHAPEL MEETING AREAS ARE DEFINED, TOO, AS WELL AS GUEST PROHIBITION AREAS.

THERE'S SPECIFIC SITES THAT GUESTS ARE PROHIBITED FROM ENTERING.

ACTIVITY AREAS ARE SCREENED FROM ADJACENT RESIDENCES BY EXISTING TREES AND IN AN EXISTING VERY DENSE HEDGE ROW 8 TO 10 FEET HEIGHT ALONG THE NORTHERN AND WESTERN BOUNDARIES PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT BUILDING, BUILDING NO. 16 THE CROSS CREEK STABLE THE PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST ACTIVE BECAUSE IT'S USED AS A WEDDING RECEPTION BUILDING.

THIS BUILDING IS 84 FEET FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND 177 FEET FROM THE EASTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY.

THIS SETBACK IS SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER THAN THE STANDARD BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF AS-1 AS WELL AS SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER THAN SPECIFIC STANDARDS AND SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF A WHOLE VARIETY OF USES INCLUDING VET CLINICS, KENNELS, RIDING STABLES NURSING HOMES, CHURCHES, DAY CARES, LANDSCAPERS.

REGARDLESS THE MCSHARRY'S ARE PROPOSING TO INSTALL SOUND DEADENING WALLS ON NORTHERN AND EASTERN SIDE OF THIS BUILDING TO FURTHER BUFFER IT FROM ADJACENT NEIGHBORS I SHOULD POINT OUT IN TALKING WITH SOME OF THE LONG TIME NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA THIS BUILDING HAS A LONG HISTORY OF PUBLIC ACTIVITY APPARENTLY USED FOR BIRTHDAY PARTIES AND OTHER EVENTS UNDER ITS PREVIOUS OWNERSHIP WHEN IT WAS A RIDING STABLE AND PETTING ZOO.

THERE ARE MULTIPLE PLAN POLICIES THAT INDICATE THE CONSISTENCY AND APPROPRIATENESS OF THE PROPOSAL WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INCLUDING ALL OF THEM THAT PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING TOURISM WHICH IS RECOGNIZED AS AN EXPORT BUSINESS IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THE PLAN SPECIFIES THAT LOCAL UNIQUE BUSINESSES THAT PROMOTE THINGS LIKE TOURISM ARE TO BE ENCOURAGED.

CROSS CREEK RANCH IS NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED -- A NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED FACILITY IN THE WEDDING EVENT INDUSTRY.

AND EMPLOYEES MANY PEOPLE FROM THE RURAL AREAS AND IN FACT CROSS CREEK GOT A GRANT FROM THE COUNTY A FEW YEARS AGO ALL OF THIS MAKES IT A VALUABLE ECONOMIC RESOURCE FOR THE COUNTY THAT NEEDS TO BE PRESERVED THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

>>I'M SORRY; ONE MORE THING I WANTED TO WALK YOU THROUGH THE SITE PLAN REAL QUICK OF THE THERE'S 17 STRUCTURES ON SITE.

ALL OF THEM ARE LABELED WE HAVE A LIST ON THE SITE THAT SPECIFIES WHAT USE IS ALLOWED IN EACH ONE.

WE HAVE ALSO DELINEATED THE NO GUEST AREAS --

(TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES)

>>SO I'M TRYING TO SEE THIS THING HERE.

OH, THERE IT IS.

SO A FEW FUNDAMENTALS.

FIRST TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS NOISE OR SOUND.

IT'S RADIANT ENERGY TRANSMITTED BY VIBRATIONS THAT WE CALL SOUND WAVES. AND WE MEASURE THEM IN DECIBELS.

AND THEY TRAVEL THROUGH STRUCTURES.

THEY TRAVEL THROUGH AIR.

AND THEY TRAVEL THROUGH WATER.

I HAVE A LITTLE PICTURE OF A SOUND WAVE ON THE TOP RIGHT THERE.

HOW FAR IT DEVIATES FROM THE FLAT LINE IS IT'S AMPLITUDE OR ITS LOUDNESS.

ITS FREQUENCY IS HOW MANY CYCLES PER SECOND IT VIBRATES WITH A BASE TIME OF ABOUT 200.

ON THE BOTTOM LEFT YOU'LL SEE THAT WE DON'T HEAR ALL SOUND WAVES, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE EXPOSED TO MILLIONS OF THEM A DAY.

IN FACT, WE DON'T HEAR MUCH BELOW ABOUT 10 DECIBELS, NOTHING ABOVE 14 TO 20,000 HERTZ BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT TAKE-AWAY ON HAD SLIDE IS AT THE VERY BOTTOM.

AND THAT IS A 3 DECIBEL INCREASE IN NOISE OR IN THE SOUND LEVEL IS BARELY PERCEPTIBLE TO US.

5 IS PERCEPTIBLE AND 10 IS PERCEIVED TO BE TWICE AS LOUD.

WHAT ARE WE EXPOSED TO?

ROCK MUSIC CONCERTS AT 110.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT.

STREET NOISE, 70 DECIBELS.

IN THIS ROOM WE'RE AT 60 -- OVER 60.

RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, 50.

CROSS CREEK RANCH WHEN WE MEASURED IN MARCH, 44.

BUT WE ALSO CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT NOISE.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE BOTTOM PART OF THE SLIDE TALKS ABOUT IN TERMS OF IF YOU WERE A BUILDER OR AN ARCHITECT WHAT YOU DESIGN VARIOUS ROOMS IN BUILDINGS AND HOMES TO HAVE AS BACKGROUND NOISE SO IT'S NOT TOO QUIET.

WHEN WE MEASURE IN DECIBELS, WE'RE MEASURING A LOGARITHMIC LEVEL OF ENERGY SUCH THAT 80 DECIBELS IS NOT TWICE 40.

IT'S 1,000 TIMES 40.

AND AS A RESULT IF YOU HAVE A SOURCE AT 65 DECIBELS, SAY A STEREO, AND YOU PUT A SECOND STEREO RIGHT NEXT TO THE FIRST ONE AND ALSO PLAY IT AT 65, YOU GET 68 DECIBELS OF TOTAL EXPOSURE, NOT 130.

SIMILARLY YOU HEAR THE LOUDEST SOUND AND WE HAVE ALL EXPERIENCED THIS IF YOU'RE RUNNING THE VACUUM CLEANER AND THE PHONE RINGS IF THE PHONE ISN'T LOUDER THAN THE VACUUM CLEANER YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR THE PHONE IF YOU'RE RUNNING THE WATER OR IN THE SHOWER AND SOMEONE YELLS AT YOU IF THEY ARE NOT LOUDER THAN THE WATER, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HEAR IT. AND THAT'S WHAT WE CALL THE DOMINANT NOISE SOURCE.

WITH RESPECT TO NOISE REDUCTION, AS THOSE SOUND WAVES TRAVEL, THEIR ENERGY EXPAND OVER A PLANE THAT IS NON-LINEAR.

AND THAT IS TO SAY THAT AS YOU DOUBLE THE DISTANCE, THE PLANE ACROSS WHICH THAT ENERGY DISSIPATES HAS NOW INCREASED BY 4.

THUS, EVERY TIME YOU DOUBLE THE DISTANCE, YOU GET INCIDENCE A 6 DECIBEL DROP NATURALLY JUST PASSING THROUGH THE AIR.

BUT WE ALSO HAVE MECHANISMS TO REDUCE SOUND LEVELS.

WE CAN DEFLECT IT. WE HAVE ALL SEEN HIGHWAY BARRIERS WITH HOUSES BEHIND THEM.

WE CAN ISOLATE IT.

THE ENGINE IN YOUR CAR IS ACTUALLY ISOLATED BY THE FRAME FROM THE ENGINE MOUNT SO YOU DON'T FEEL THE VIBRATION AND WE CAN ABSORB IT.

MOVING TO CROSS CREEK RANCH HERE IT IS SHOWN, A COUPLE OF KEY POINTS ABOUT CROSS CREEK.

FIRST, THE LOCATED CLOSE TO TWO SIGNIFICANT SOUND SOURCES.

ONE BEING THE CSX TRACKS LESS THAN A MILE TO THE NORTH.

AND THE OTHER BEING THE PLANT CITY AIRPORT LESS THAN FIVE MILES TO THE EAST AND SUCH WITH AN EAST-WEST RUNWAY, THE TAKEOFF AND LANDING PATTERN DOESN'T GO EXACTLY OVER CROSS CREEK BUT VERY CLOSE.

THIS IS AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH THAT SPEAKS TO THE PLOT PLAN KEVIN JUST SHOWED YOU.

AND WHEN WE SPEAK OF NOISE WE SPEAK OF RECEPTORS BECAUSE IT'S THE RECEPTORS THAT WE'RE FOCUSING ON.

THE TWO CLOSEST HERE ARE TO THE NORTH AS KEVIN SAID, 84 FEET OFF THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY.

165 FEET TO THE STRUCTURE TO THE NORTH.

TO THE EAST 205 FEET TO THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY, 285 FEET TO THE STRUCTURE LOCATED TO THE NORTHEAST.

TO THE SOUTHWEST, THERE'S TWO KEY DIFFERENCES.

FIRST THE RECEPTORS ARE FARTHER AWAY.

AND SECONDLY, THERE'S A NATURAL VEGETATIVE BREAK IN BETWEEN WHICH SERVES TO REDUCE SOUND LEVELS SIMPLY BEYOND THE DISTANCE FORMULA I GAVE YOU BEFORE AND LASTLY THE BIG YELLOW STRIPE ON THE LEFT IS A 315 FOOT WIDE TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY TRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT THAT WILL PROBABLY NOT BE DEVELOPED INTO ADDITIONAL RECEPTORS: THE STABLE ACOUSTICS IT'S AN OPEN AIR BARN, THERE IS VINYL SIDING IN THE WINTER IT HAS A TIN ROOF WITHOUT INSULATION AND PAVER BRICK FLOORS AS A RESULT AS EPC CALLS IT THAT'S AN OPEN FIELD WHERE THE SOUND EMANATES IN EVERY DIRECTION OUTSIDE IN ALL DIRECTIONS AND RADIATES FROM THERE.

WE MONITORED TWICE AT THE FACILITY.

ONCE ON MARCH 8TH AT WHAT WAS A REPRESENTATIVE LARGE WEDDING.

AND WE PUT A METER BETWEEN THE STABLE AND THE TWO CLOSEST RECEPTORS.

HERE'S A PICTURE OF THE METERS FACING THE BUILDING.

THE TOP METER IS LOOKING AT THE NORTH -- FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE TOWARDS THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STABLES STRUCTURE AND THE BOTTOM PHOTO IS THE NORTHEAST CORNER FACING THE STRUCTURE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S NO VEGETATION TO SPEAK OF THAT WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO A REDUCTION IN SOUND LEVELS THROUGH THIS OPEN FIELD.

WE ALSO MEASURED BACKGROUND LEVELS. AND BY BACKGROUND I MEAN WE MEASURED PRIOR TO THE START OF THE WEDDING TO GET NON-INFLUENCED SOUND LEVEL READINGS.

WE CAME UP WITH A NUMBER OF 44.

THEN WE MEASURED DURING THE WEDDING AND WE CAME UP WITH LEVELS AT THE TWO PROPERTY LINES OF 51 TO 53 DECIBELS.

WHICH IS ABOUT 7 TO 9 DECIBELS THE THAN BACKGROUND. CLEARLY PERCEPTIBLE.

ALMOST DOUBLE.

WE WENT BACK TO CROSS CREEK ON MARCH 30TH AND MEASURED NEAR THE BUILDING.

AND FAR AWAY. WE FOUND A 10 TO 15 DECIBEL DROP OVER A 60 FOOT DISTANCE OF CLEAR OPEN LAND FROM ABOUT 65 DECIBELS DOWN TO ABOUT 53 DECIBELS WITH PEAKS AND SPIKES AS MARKED THERE WHICH ARE EXTERNAL INFLUENCES LIKE AIRPLANES AND TRAINS AND MOTORCYCLES.

AND SO WE HAVE RECOMMENDED TO THE MCSHARRY'S AND THEY HAVE AGREED THAT WE SHOULD ACHIEVE -- WE SHOULD ENCLOSE THE STRUCTURE IN THE DIRECTIONS THAT IT FACES RECEPTORS WHO EXPERIENCE A DIFFERENCE IN SOUND LEVELS DURING A WEDDING.

AND WE HAVE SPECIFIED THAT THEY ACHIEVE A 20 DECIBEL REDUCTION OUTSIDE THE STRUCTURE.

ALONG THE NORTH AND EAST WALLS.

AND WE DID THAT FOR THIS REASON.

IN THE GREEN YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE BENEFICIAL SOUND LEVEL REDUCTION WILL OCCUR ADJACENT TO THE NORTH AND EAST WALLS.

THE ORANGE SHOWS WHERE THERE WILL BE NO DIFFERENCE FROM TODAY.

WE PICKED 20 DECIBELS BECAUSE IF WE ACHIEVE AN EXACT 20 DECIBEL REDUCTION, LO AND BEHOLD THE SOUND LEVELS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE STABLES IN THE DIRECTION OF THE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS ARE RIGHT IN THE RANGE OF THE BACKGROUND LEVELS WITHOUT A WEDDING.

AND THUS, THEY WOULD NOT BE THE SOURCE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN.

THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS ADDRESS ALL OF THE SOURCES, AMPLIFIED BANDS ARE PROHIBITED.

THAT'S AS REQUIRED BY EPC RULE OR TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH EPC RULE.

THE DISC JOCKEYS HAVE BEEN TRAINED TO CONTROL THEIR VOLUME AND THE CROSS CREEK STAFF MONITORS THEIR VOLUME SO AS TO COMPLY WITH EPC NOISE RULE CROWD CAPACITY LIMITS ARE IN THE CONDITIONS.

BECAUSE ALTHOUGH CROWD NOISE IS NOT REGULATED BY EPC IT IS A COMPATIBILITY QUESTION.

ALL FUNCTIONS WILL END BEFORE 10:00 O'CLOCK.

THE RECEPTIONS AT THE STABLE FACILITY WILL BE INSIDE THE STRUCTURE.

AND OF COURSE THE STRUCTURE WILL BE ENCLOSED ON THE NORTH AND EAST.

NOW, EPC AND THEIR STAFF REPORT HAS SPOKEN TO THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE WORKED WITH THE DISC JOCKEYS, THE DISC JOCKEYS ARE CAPABLE OF CONTROLLING THE REGULAR AMPLIFIED NOISE.

THEY HAVE NOT EXPRESSED A FIRM OPINION ON THE ENCLOSURE OF THE STRUCTURE.

EXCEPT TO SAY THAT IT -- IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THE POWERPOINT.

EXCEPT TO SAY THAT IT WON'T MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE IN THE OPEN FIELD.

WELL IN THE OPEN FIELD ORANGE, WE DON'T DISAGREE.

BUT IN THE OPEN FIELD ORANGE IS NOT WHERE THE RECEPTORS ARE THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT.

WE COULD THINK IT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE GREEN AREA THAT WILL BE POSITIVELY INFLUENCED BY THE ENCLOSURE.

AND SO CONSEQUENTLY WE THINK WE HAVE BEEN RESPONSIVE.

AND WE THINK THAT THIS PLAN IS ENFORCEABLE.

AND IN CLOSING I WOULD JUST REMIND YOU TO GO BACK TO ONE OF THE POINT I MADE IN THE TUTORIAL.

AND THAT IS IF WE DOUBLE THE ENERGY COMING FROM THE CROWD, WE ADD 3 DECIBELS WHICH IS BARELY PERCEPTIBLE.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: SIR, AS LONG AS YOU'RE HERE, LET ME JUST ASK YOU A QUESTION.

IF YOU COULD PUT THAT GRAPHIC BACK UP IT SHOWS THE GREEN AND THE ORANGE.

THE SITE PLAN SHOWS A WEDDING CHAPEL AND IT WOULD BE THE NORTHWEST CORNER.

>>YEAH IT'S RIGHT HERE.

>>AND I ASSUME THAT IF THAT'S WHERE THE CHAPEL IS THAT'S WHERE THE WEDDINGS TAKE PLACE.

>>ACTUALLY THEY TAKE PLACE IF IT'S RAINING AND IT'S NOT THEY TAKE PLACE DOWN HERE.

>>SO IF IT'S NOT RAINING AND IT'S UP NOT NORTHWEST CORNER --

>>NO IF IT'S RAINING IT'S IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER.

>>OH I THINK IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE CHAPEL WOULD BE IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER IF IT'S NOT RAINING I'M SORRY PLEASE COME FORWARD THEN I GUESS I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

>>BONNIE MCSHARRY 12950 EAST WHEELER ROAD FLORIDA OWNER OF CROSS CREEK RANCH THE WEDDING CHAPEL IS ONLY USED WHEN THE BRIDES BOOK THAT FOR THEIR CEREMONY IT OCCURS FROM 4, 4:30, 5:00 O'CLOCK THAT THE CEREMONIES OCCUR IT'S ABOUT 20 MINUTES IT'S JUST THE GUEST MARRIED I DO THEN IT MOVES TO WHERE THE HOURS ARE POINTING RIGHT NOW FOR THE RECEPTION.

>>STEVE LUCE: CLARIFY FOR ME IF IT'S UP IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER IS IT USED WHEN IT'S NOT RAINING IF THE COUPLE WANT TO USE IT.

>>IF IT'S NOT RAINING, IT'S OUTSIDE IN THE TREES JUST ABOVE THE L OF THE ENCLOSED IN THOSE TREE AREAS THERE'S A CEREMONY AREA INDICATED.

THERE'S AN OAK TREE THAT WE -- A LOT OF THE BRIDES CHOOSE TO GET MARRIED UNDER.

AND IF THEY DON'T USE THE OAK TREE THEN SOME USE THE CHAPEL.

>>STEVE LUCE: SO EITHER PLACE.

>>EITHER PLACE AND IT'S ABOUT A 20 MINUTE HALF HOUR CEREMONY EARLIER IN THE AFTERNOON AND THEN THEY MOVE INTO THE MAIN BUILDING FOR THE RECEPTION.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

AND THEN THE WEDDINGS THEMSELVES YOUR CONSULTANT HAS FOCUSED ON THE BUILDING BUT WHEN PEOPLE COME TO THE WEDDING, DO THEY MINGLE?

DO THEY SORT OF ROAM AROUND A LITTLE BIT ON THE PROPERTY.

>>THEY REALLY CONGREGATE THEY COME IN, SIGN IN, USE THE GUEST BOOK AND GO TO THE CEREMONY AREA IT'S USUALLY VERY QUIET DURING THAT TIME.

PEOPLE JUST GATHERING.

AND THEN THEY PERFORM THE CEREMONY AND SAY THE I DOS AND THEN THE BRIDE AND GROOM GO OFF FOR PICTURES AND THEN THIS STABLE WOULD OPEN FOR LIKE THE COCKTAIL TIME AND HAVING HORS D'OUEVRS AND DINNER AND GOING TO THE RECEPTION.

>>STEVE LUCE: BUT THE QUESTION I'M ASKING: THAT AREA IN ORANGE, AFTER THEY -- AFTER THE WEDDING CEREMONY ITSELF IS OVER MAYBE THEY COME IN FOR A SIT-DOWN DINNER AND MAYBE THE MUSIC STARTS AND I MEAN DO LITTLE GROUPS OF PEOPLE GO OUT OF THE -- GROUPS OF PEOPLE GO OUT OF THE BUILDING SO THEY CAN CHAT.

>>SOME DO.

WE DO HAVE HORSESHOES AND CORNHOLE SET UP ON THE SIDE OF THE STABLE.

AND THEN THE WEST SIDE OF THE STABLE ONLY UNTIL DARK.

AND THEN THE PEOPLE COULD GO BACK AND FORTH ACROSS THE BRIDGE TO THE RESTROOMS.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>>BUT USUALLY --

>>BONNIE JUST POINTED OUT ON THE SITE PLAN SO YOU CAN BE CLEAR ON THIS.

COME HERE, BONNIE.

>>SO THIS AREA HERE, THE GUESTS WILL PARK, COME THROUGH AND COME ACROSS THE BRIDGE AND AGAIN THERE'S A LARGE OAK TREE HERE THAT WE DO A LOT OF THE CEREMONIES.

OR OUT HERE IN THE CHAPEL.

AND THEN THEY COME INTO THE STABLE.

AND THEN THEY WOULD GO BACK AND FORTH TO LIKE ARE RESTROOMS.

BUT IT'S REALLY MAINTAINED INSIDE THE -- IN THE RECEPTION.

AND WE'RE BLOCKING OFF ALL OF THIS AREA IS NOT OPEN FOR GUESTS.

AND WE'RE CONTINUING TO PUT SOME FENCING UP HERE TO BLOCK THAT AREA OFF, ALSO.

THERE'S AN ORGANIC GARDEN -- VEGETABLE GARDEN AND FRUIT ORCHARD WE PLANTED HERE ON HAD WHOLE BLOCK.

>>STEVE LUCE: BASED ON YOUR OBSERVATIONS WHEN THE WEDDINGS TAKE PLACE AND AFTER A WHILE MAYBE AFTER DINNER MAYBE AFTER INITIAL MEETING AND GREETING TIME, IS THERE ANY SORT OF DISPERSION OF THE CROWD INTO THE REST OF THE PROPERTY?

>>NO THEY REALLY CONGREGATE HERE BECAUSE ALL OF THE ACTIVITIES ARE HERE IN THE STABLE THERE IS AN OUTDOOR COCKTAIL AREA OUT IN FRONT JUST SOME LIGHTING AND WE DO HAVE PEOPLE SMOKING IF THEY ARE SMOKING THERE'S A DESIGNATED SMOKING AREA BUT OTHER THAN THAT THEY ARE ALL THERE AND GOING BACK AND FORTH TO THE RESTROOM.

>>STEVE LUCE: I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN PUT A PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE ON IT WHAT PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE JUST STAY IN THAT BUILDING.

>>I WOULD SAY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF RESTROOMS 100% THEY ARE STAYING IN THAT AREA FOR THE ACTIVITY BECAUSE THEY ARE CUTTING THE CAKE, HAVING THE FIRST DANCE.

PEOPLE ARE NOT -- WE HAVE A LEAD COORDINATOR AND NIGHT COORDINATOR AND THEY CAN SPEAK TO THAT, TOO, THAT THE PEOPLE ARE JUST CONGREGATING IN THAT AREA.

>>STEVE LUCE: IS IT AIR CONDITIONED.

>>NO, SIR IT'S NOT IT'S OPEN AIR RIGHT NOW.

>>STEVE LUCE: DURING THE COOLER MONTH ARE THERE HEATERS IN THERE.

>>YES WE HAVE HEATERS AND WE DON'T DO ANY WEDDINGS IN JUNE, JULY AND AUGUST.

THE HEAT AND THE THUNDERSTORMS SO WE SHUT DOWN FOR WEDDINGS DURING THAT TIME.

>>STEVE LUCE: BASED ON YOUR TESTIMONY THE NOISE EXPERTS DIDN'T LOOK AT SORT OF THE AREA OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING BECAUSE IT'S REALLY UNDERUTILIZED OR NOT UTILIZED AS MUCH AS THE BUILDING ITSELF.

>>AND HE WAS THERE AT WEDDINGS, ALSO.

>>WE ACTUALLY MONITORED AS THE CROWD GATHERED AND WE MONITORED DURING THE WEDDING CEREMONY AND THE I DOS AND ALL OF THAT.

AT YET ANOTHER LOCATION.

IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE POWERPOINT.

WE ACTUALLY MONITORED RIGHT HERE TO BE IN LINE WITH COCKTAILS AND THE WEDDING AREA AND THE SOUND LEVELS WE MEASURED AT THAT LOCATION WERE LOWER AND SO WE DIDN'T -- WE DIDN'T REALLY PURSUE THAT MONITORING SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WAS SO LOW AND WE FOCUSED REALLY ON THE IMPACT STUFF UP HERE ON THE TOP.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND IF YOU PUT A METER ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER AND IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, IF YOU COULD -- MR. MARCHETTI IF YOU COULD POINT TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER, IF YOU HAD PUT A METER OUT WILL IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, WOULD THOSE NOISE LEVELS BE BELOW A LEVEL THAT WAS NOT OF A CONCERN TO YOU?

FROM AN OFFSITE IMPACT POINT OF VIEW?

>>WELL FOR TWO REASONS, YES, NO. 1 THE DISTANCE WOULD CAUSE SOUND LEVELS TO DISSIPATE EVEN FURTHER.

AND SECONDLY THERE ARE NO RECEPTORS TO THE NORTHWEST.

>>STEVE LUCE: WELL, SORT OF TO THE NORTHEAST THERE ARE.

SO IF YOU'RE OVER BY THE CHAPEL AND THAT'S WHERE THE WEDDING CEREMONY TAKES PLACE, BUT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH NOISE LEAVING THE WEDDING CEREMONY AREA AND GOING TO THE NORTHEAST TO BE OF CONCERN IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION?

>>NO.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND THEN AFTER PEOPLE HAVE DINNER AND MAYBE THEY COULDN'T WANT TO LISTEN TO MUSIC AT THAT POINT IN TIME AND THEY WANDER OUTSIDE AND THEY ARE CHATTING AND IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION IF THEY DO GO OUTSIDE AND IT SOUNDS LIKE FOR THE MOST PART THEY DON'T BUT IF SOME DO, AND IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION WHEN THEY ARE OUT THERE AT THAT POINT IN TIME AFTER THEY HAVE HAD THEIR DINNER OR GETTING AWAY FROM THE DJ FOR A LITTLE BIT, IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION AT THAT POINT IN TIME THE NOISE ISN'T LOUD ENOUGH TO BE A CONCERN TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS?



>>WE DIDN'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE AT LEAST AT THE TWO WEDDINGS WE WERE AT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

>>VIN MARCHETTI BACK FOR THE RECORD.

BONNIE IS GOING TO TAKE IT FROM HERE BUT ONE POINT TO BE MADE VERY CLEARLY HERE THOUGH AND GARY WILL SAY I GUESS AND MYSELF IS THAT AT NO TIME DURING GARY'S OBSERVATIONS OF THE FACILITY TESTING WAS THE EPC RULE EVER VIOLATED.

AND THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT FACTOR HERE IN YOUR CONSIDERATION.

I'LL GET INTO THAT MORE IN A FEW MINUTES.

BUT JUST HAVE THAT IN MIND.

WE'RE TRYING TO HELP BASICALLY FOR THE UNREGULATED SOUNDS THAT EPC COULD NOT OTHERWISE REGULATE ON THEIR OWN.

>>SO BONNIE MCSHARRY 12950 EAST WHEELER ROAD.

FLORIDA 33537 MY HUSBAND AND I OWN AND RESIDE AT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

LIKE I SAID EARLIER IN JUNE 2009 WE RECEIVED APPROVAL PORE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A BED AND BREAKFAST.

WE DID INFORM COUNTY AT THAT TIME WE PLANNED TO HAVE WEDDINGS.

OH, I'M SORRY; WE WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU A VIDEO FIRST.

>>STEVE LUCE: I BELIEVE WE HAVE GONE BEYOND 20 MINUTES BECAUSE I REMEMBER IT WAS ABOUT . . . WE ARE?

OKAY.


HOW LONG IS YOUR VIDEO.

>>LESS THAN TWO MINUTES.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

IT'S A SHORT ONE.

>>VERY SHORT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

IT'S NOT A HALF AN HOUR TV SHOW.

>>NO.


>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

[MUSIC].


>>STEVE LUCE: IS THERE A NARRATION?

IF YOU DON'T MIND, YOU CAN AD-LIB THERE.

>>OKAY.

WELL, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL TEN ACRE RANCH. WE HAVE A CREEK THAT RUNS THROUGH THE PROPERTY.

THIS IS OUR WEDDING CHAPEL.

RIGHT NOW WE'RE SEEING THE STABLE. AND OF COURSE A HAPPY COUPLE.

AND IT'S A BEAUTIFUL SURROUNDING.

WHERE THE COUPLES ABSOLUTELY LOVE AND ENJOY THE PLACE AND WE MANAGE THE ENTIRE EVENT.

WE DO ALL INCLUSIVE CUSTOMIZED WEDDINGS. SO EVERY DETAIL IS DONE BY THE RANCH.

WE BRING IN OUR CATERERS, OUR VENDORS, OUR SUPPLIERS.

AND MANAGE THE ENTIRE EVENT.

AND THEY ARE GETTING MARRIED AND SAYING I DO.

AND NOW APPETIZERS ARE BEING SERVED AND THE GUESTS NOW ARE AT THE COCKTAIL TIME AND TAKING PICTURES.

AND THEN ON JUST A COUPLE -- PEOPLE ARE AROUND THE PROPERTY TAKING PICTURES NOW THEY ARE NOT STABLES AND THIS IS THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.

BACK IN THE STABLE.

PART OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE EVENING.

A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE A LOT OF FUN.

YOU'RE JUST SEEING MORE OF THE STABLE AND OF THE ACTIVITIES AND THE EVENING HOW IT'S ALL LIT.

AND THAT'S THE RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

[APPLAUSE].

>>LIKE I SAID IF WE GET -- WE DID GET THE APPROVAL FOR THE BED AND BREAKFAST PERMIT WE ALSO DID GET A GRANT IN -- MARCH 31ST, 2011 WHEN WE APPLIED FOR THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY GRANT TO HIRE THREE EMPLOYEES.

AND WE DID GET APPROVAL FOR THAT.

AND WERE REIMBURSED $11,700 GRANT MONEY IN HIRING THE EMPLOYEES WE CONTINUED TO BUILD THE BED AND BREAKFAST BUSINESS EACH YEAR WE PAID OUR SALES TAX COMPLETED OUR FIRE MARSHAL INSPECTIONS AND STATE INSPECTIONS WE CONTINUED TO FOLLOW THE -- BUILDING OUR BUSINESS AND WE THEN RECEIVED ON APRIL 16TH, 2013 MR. JONES CAME OUT FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT SAYING THAT WE WERE NOT ZONED FOR WEDDINGS AND I TOLD HIM WE HAD THE B&B PERMIT WE HAD INDICATED WE WERE GOING TO DO WEDDINGS WHEN WE ORIGINALLY APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT.

HE SAID WE NEEDED TO FOLLOW THROUGH AND APPLY FOR THE SECOND PERMIT BECAUSE WE HAD IT ON ONE FOLIO NUMBER BUT NOT BOTH SO WE WENT AHEAD DOWN TO THE COUNTY AND TALKED TO JOHN WALKER APPLIED FOR THE SECOND PERMIT RECEIVED THAT MAY 22ND, 2013 THEY THEN SAID THAT WE NOW HAVE ANOTHER ISSUE BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE TWO PERMITS BUT THEY REQUIRED THEM TO BE OWNER OCCUPIED WE MET WITH THE COUNTY AND THEY RECOMMEND WE APPLY FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

WE STARTED THAT PROCESS.

WE WENT THROUGH SOUND TESTING.

WE ALSO HAD THE EPC COME OUT AND DO A MOCK WEDDING.

THEY HAD REPORTS.

THEY TOLD US SOUND LEVELS WERE FINE AS LONG AS WE OPERATE WITHIN THOSE LEVELS DURING THE WEDDINGS WE WOULD BE IN EPC GUIDELINES.

AFTER SIX YEARS BUILDING OUR BUSINESS A FEW NEIGHBORS STARTED TO COMPLAIN BUT ONLY AFTER WE APPLIED FOR THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WHEN THE NOTICES WENT OUT THE ONLY TWO OFFICIAL REPORTS WE WERE ABLE TO FIND WITH THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WERE IN FEBRUARY OF 2014 WHERE THERE WERE SOUND REPORTS, SOUND COMPLAINTS.

AND THEN AGAIN WE HAVE THE TESTING DONE.

WE DID HAVE A COMPLAINT BY ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS REGARDING SAYING THAT WE WERE NOT A B&B.

WE WERE IN FACT A HOTEL AND THE STATE CAME OUT THE INSPECTOR THAT NORMALLY COMES CAME WITH HER SUPERVISOR SHE FOUND NO ISSUE THEY SAID THEY DID CONSIDER US A BED AND BREAKFAST BECAUSE WE WERE RESIDING ON THE PROPERTY IT DIDN'T MATTER HOW MANY FOLIO NUMBERS WE HAD BUT WE WERE LIVING THERE THEY CONSIDERED IT A BED AND BREAKFAST WE HAD A WETLAND COMPLAINT WE HAD SOMEONE COME OUT AND LOOK AT THE PROPERTY FOUND IN ISSUES AND CLOSED THAT FILE AND WE HAD TWO NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS WE JUST WANT TO SAY IN CLOSING THAT WE PROVIDE JOBS TO MANY PEOPLE WE HELP OUR ECONOMY BY INCREASING OUR BUSINESSES LIKE CATERERS, HOTELS, FLORISTS THE LAWN MAINTENANCE SERVICES AND ACTUALLY IN OVER THE EIGHT YEARS WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD A $4.8 MILLION IMPACT IN OUR COMMUNITY OF HIRING EMPLOYEES AND ALL THE VENDORS THAT WE PAID.

CROSS CREEK RANCH HAS EARNED A HIGHEST LEVEL OF RESPECT BY THE INDUSTRY LEADERS WE'VE BEEN AWARDED THE VERY PRESTIGIOUS BLUE RIBBON VENDOR AWARD BY SOUTHERN WEDDINGS MAGAZINE AND CURRENTLY THE ONLY TWO VENUES IN THE STATE HAVE THIS DESIGNATION WEDDINGWIRE WHICH IS THE INDUSTRY LEADER AWARDED US BLACK DIAMOND AND WE WON NUMEROUS AWARDS WITH THEM YEAR AFTER YEAR BECAUSE OF THE IMPECCABLE REPUTATION AND REVIEWS WE'RE NOT ONLY REACHING BRIDES IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BUT WE HAVE BECOME A VERY POPULAR DESTINATION SITE FOR BRIDES FROM OUT OF STATE OR EVEN OUT OF THE COUNTRY I HAVE THE LATEST ISSUE HOT OFF THE PRESS FROM WEDDINGS ILLUSTRATED THEY HAD A WHOLE FAMILY CAME DOWN FOR SPRING TRAINING AND THE ENTIRE WE GO CAME FROM OUT OF TOWN WE HAVE BRIDES FROM FLORIDA INCLUDING CITIES OF ST. PETE WEST PALM BEACH MIAMI ORLANDO AND YES WE OFFER SOMETHING THAT DISNEY DOESN'T OUR CURRENT OUT OF STATE BRIDES LIVE IN MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS, TEXAS, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK AND ALASKA AND WE HAVE A COUPLE GETTING MARRIED IN NOVEMBER THAT LIVE IN AUSTRALIA.

CROSS CREEK RANCH HAS BEEN FEATURED IN SEVERAL WEDDING MAGAZINES AND WE'VE BEEN THE SITE OF PUBLIC WEDDING COMMERCIAL AND IN DECEMBER ONE OF OUR BRIDES WAS FEATURED ON THE TELEVISION SHOW SAY YES TO THE DRESS.

AND IN MOST CASES THAT SHOW JUST OCCURS IN THE BRIDAL SALON IN ATLANTA AND THEY DON'T COME OUT AND FILM ON LOCATION BUT THEY SAID WHEN THE PRODUCERS LEARNED ABOUT OUR VENUE THEY SENT A FILM CREW TO FILM ON THE PROPERTY AND THEY TOLD US THAT THEY NEVER STAY UNTIL THE END OF THE RECEPTIONS BUT IN OUR CASE THEY DID BECAUSE THEY WERE SO IMPRESSED WITH OUR FACILITY JUST LAST MONTH WE WERE CONTACTED BY FLORIDA WE'RE GOING TO BE FEATURED IN ONE OF THE WEDDINGS IN UPCOMING TOURISM AD SHOWN AROUND THE WORLD IT WILL FEATURE THE BEACH AND STABLE WEDDING THE PRODUCTION CREW CAME OUT A FEW WEEKS AGO THE FILM IS CURRENTLY IN PRODUCTION AND WE'LL BE PROMOTING FLORIDA AND THE WEDDINGS THAT WE'LL BRING TO THIS INDUSTRY.

AGAIN WE HAVE VERY -- A LOT OF TESTIMONIES YOU'LL SEE IN THE BOOK FROM THE KNOT WEDDING WIRE AND FACEBOOK AND AFTER THE -- OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS WE'VE BEEN AWARDED HIGH MARKS IN EXCELLENCE.

WE ALWAYS THOUGHT WE WERE A GOOD NEIGHBOR.

WE DIDN'T REALIZE UNTIL THIS REZONING WE HAD THE ISSUES THAT SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION. AND WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND WITH THE CONDITIONS WE HAVE RECOMMENDED AND WE HOPE YOU'LL ALLOW US TO CONTINUE TO SERVE OUR BRIDES AND GROOMS AND CONTINUE TO EMPLOYEE OUR INCREDIBLE STAFF THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, MA'AM.

[APPLAUSE].

>>STEVE LUCE: MR. MARCHETTI JUST FOR THE RECORD DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR PRESENTATION.

>>YES.


>>STEVE LUCE: I COULDN'T HEAR YOU.

>>I APPRECIATE IT.

[APPLAUSE.]

>>STEVE LUCE: AT THIS POINT IN TIME DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.

>>GOOD EVENING ISABELLE ALBERT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LONG TIME AND I'M SURE YOU'LL UNDERSTAND IF I SAY THAT THIS IS QUITE A DIFFICULT CASE.

AND NOT BECAUSE OF ZONING ISSUES BUT BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED.

YOU KNOW WE MET BONNIE AND SHAWN AND GARY ABOUT SIX MONTHS AGO AND THEY HAVE SHOWN WHAT THEY HAVE CAN YOU KNOW TO THEIR PROPERTY.

YOU'VE SEEN THE VIDEO.

THEY HAVE WORKED HARD.

MADE A LOT OF BRIDES HAPPY.

I READ A LOT OF THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM BRIDES FROM VENDORS FROM PHOTOGRAPHERS.

THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE INVOLVED AND THEY DEFINITELY BENEFIT FROM THIS.

BUT THIS IS NOT ABOUT HOW WELL A BUSINESS IS RUN.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT HOW NICE BONNIE IS AND HOW A GOOD JOB SHE'S DONE OR HOW HARD SHE'S WORKED.

THIS IS ABOUT ZONING.

THIS IS ABOUT A USE THAT IS NOT PERMITTED IN THEIR ZONING DISTRICT.

I KNOW ABOUT THE CHURCH AND I KNOW ABOUT THE INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING AGRICULTURAL USES THAT ARE PERMITTED IN AGRICULTURAL ZONING BUT THIS IS ASKING FOR A WEDDING BANQUET, A WEDDING VENUE, A CHURCH THIS IS ASKING FOR EXACTLY WHAT THEY PRESENTED TO YOU A BED AND BREAKFAST WHICH IS ACCESSORY TO THE MAIN BUSINESS OCCURRING THERE IS A WEDDING VENUE.

IT'S WEDDING VENUES THAT HAPPEN ON WEEKENDS DURING THE DAY IN THE EVENING.

THEY HAPPEN IN TWO LOCATIONS.

THEY HAPPENED IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE PROPERTY AND IT HAPPENS ON THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE PROPERTY AND WHEN WE MET BONNIE, THE CONCERN WE HAD FROM THE BEGINNING -- AND WE EXPLAINED TO THEM LIKE VIN SAID IT WAS THE NOISE.

WE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE NOISE.

WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF YOUR BUSINESS ONTO THOSE NEIGHBORS.

AND SO THIS IS WHERE YOU KNOW WE REALLY HAD TO CONCENTRATE AND LOOK AT.

AND AS WE WENT ALONG, THEY DID COULD THE NOISE STUDY THEY DID PROVIDE CONDITIONS THAT THEY WANTED TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT AND THIS IS WHAT WE HAD TO TAKE A LOOK AT.

I'LL START WITH THE NOISE STUDIES.

I'M NOT A NOISE EXPERT.

SO WE HAD DEFER TO EPC.

AND I'M NOT GOING TO PRETEND THAT I'VE LEARNED EVERYTHING AND I'M AN EXPERT IN SIX MONTH I STILL LEARNED MORE AGAIN TONIGHT WITH THE PRESENTATION.

IT'S A VERY INTERESTING, COMPLICATED ISSUE.

AND EPC IS HERE I'VE ASKED THEM TO COME HERE AND TO ADDRESS THAT.

THEY HAVE PROVIDED THEIR REPORTS.

IT'S INTO THE RECORD.

I'VE TRIED TO PARAPHRASE THE REPORT AND WHEN I FILED APPARENTLY I DIDN'T EXACTLY SAY WHAT THEY THOUGHT I SHOULD HAVE SAID.

SO THEY ARE HERE.

AND I THINK THEY WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT I'VE SAID.

AND SO I HAD TO RELY ON THEM. AND FROM WHAT I HEAR FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD, THEY DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE 100% WITH THEIR EXPERTS.

AND SO THIS IS WHAT I HAVE TO RELY ON.

THE OTHER THING I HAD TO LOOK AT WAS THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.

AGAIN, THE CONDITIONS TRIED TO MITIGATE THE NOISE IMPACT.

BUT ALSO THE SIZE.

THE COMPATIBILITY ISSUE WE'RE LOOKING AT IS ALSO NOT ONLY ORIGINALLY WHEN THEY APPLIED IN THEIR BED AND BREAKFAST IN 2006 THEY DID SAY THEY WERE DOING INTIMATE WEDDING, INTIMATE WEDDING WAS A BED AND BREAKFAST IS NOT THE 100 PEOPLE OR WHATEVER THEY HAD ON THE PROPERTY.

SO THEY HAVE TRIED TO LIMIT THEIR SIZE OF THEIR EVENTS.

THE HOURS OF OPERATIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND TO YOU KNOW WE TOOK A LOOK AT THAT. AND THE TWO THINGS WE HAD TO SEE IS THIS GOING TO DO AN IMPACT ARE THOSE LIMITATIONS SUFFICIENTLY AND CAN THOSE CONDITIONS BE ENFORCED.

I MEAN THIS AGAIN IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

AND THE USES AND THE OPERATIONS OF THE SITE IS CONTROLLED BY THESE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

AND THE ENFORCING AGENCY FOR THAT IS OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF SO DISCUSSING WITH THEM AND LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE CONDITIONS AND SAY WELL HOW DO WE ENFORCE THIS AND A LOT OF THEM WE COULDN'T.

SOME OF THEM LIMIT -- STOP THE HOURS AT 10.

OKAY.


BUT SOME OF THE CONDITIONS THAT THE CONTRACTED WEDDINGS, WHAT ARE THOSE?

ALL OF THAT KIND OF INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE PART OF THESE CONDITIONS AND THAT WAS NOT PROVIDED.

AGAIN, BE THE OTHER CONDITIONS WERE WITH THE NOISE IMPACT.

ENCLOSURE OF THE BUILDING IF I COULD HAVE JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME, PLEASE.

THE ENCLOSURE OF THE BUILDINGS, AGAIN EPC I'VE ASKED THEM TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

AND HAD HE AGREED WITH THE SAME POSITION OF ENFORCING AND REGULATING AND ALSO THE MAIN NOISE FOR ME WAS I KNOW THEY DON'T DO LIVE BANDS THEY DID ACOUSTICS SO THEY ALREADY DID THAT THEY ALREADY HAD PEOPLE COMING BACK AND FORTH AND NOT WANDERING ALL AROUND THEY DID IT.

BUT IT WAS THE VOICES.

THE VOICES OF PEOPLE AND THAT'S NOT REGULATED BY EPC.

SO WHAT TO DO IT WAS VERY CAN I HAVE BUT ALSO I HAD TO, YOU KNOW LISTEN TO THE NEIGHBORS.

I DID ATTEND ONE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS THAT THE APPLICANT HAD.

AND THE CONCERN WAS THE NOISE.

I DON'T LIVE WILL SO I HAVE TO RELY AGAIN ON WHAT THEY SAY BUT ALSO FROM EXPERIENCE AND RELYING ON MY OWN THOUGHTS OF WHAT WE DID AND PORE THESE REASONS WE JUST COULD NOT SUPPORT THE APPLICATION.

AND SO I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

EPC IS HERE YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH LET'S -- IS AN EPC REPRESENTATIVE HERE TONIGHT?

>>THEY ARE.

>>STEVE LUCE: IF THEY COULD COME FORWARD.

GOOD EVENING.

>>GOOD EVENING REGGIE STANFORD EPC STAFF. I'M IN THE AIR MANAGEMENT DIVISION I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A TOUCH OF LARYNGITIS SO I'LL BE SPEAKING SOFTLY.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY WERE YOU INVOLVED WITH THE REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION.

>>YES MYSELF AND ALSO ONE OF MY CO-WORKERS WAS THERE JOHN HALGREN OF EPC STAFF DIVISION.

>>STEVE LUCE: IF YOU CAN TALK ABOUT YOUR OPINION REGARDING THE PROPOSED APPLICATION.

>>SURE WE WERE ASKED TO REVIEW AND PROVIDE TECHNICAL COMMENTS TO THE REPORT THAT WAS DONE BY EPC -- I MEAN BY ECT.

OUR COMMENTS ARE OBJECTIVE.

WE DON'T HAVE A STAKE IN THE APPROVAL OF THE DISAPPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION SO WE LOOKED AT IT FROM AN OBJECTIVE STANDPOINT.

A COUPLE THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUTER WITH THEIR REPORT AND COMMENTS AND I CAN KIND OF EXPOUND A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT WAS WRITTEN.

THE STUDY THAT ECT CONDUCTED AT THE FACILITY WAS A PREARRANGED STUDY.

YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT FOR WHAT IT WAS.

THE CONSULTANT CAME OUT, DID THE STUDY.

EVERYONE KNEW THE STUDY WAS GOING TO BE CONDUCTED.

SO WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS, I DON'T KNOW AND I CAN'T REALLY ATTEST TO IT.

BUT I WOULD --

(TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES)

>> WHEN IT COMES TO NOISE LOW FREQUENCY MOST OF THE TIME IS WHAT DRIVES THE COMPLAINTS THAT OUR OFFICE RECEIVES.

IT'S BOOM.

IT'S THE BASS.

IT'S THE LONG WAVES THAT ACTUALLY -- IF IT'S -- HAS ENOUGH POWER BEHIND IT, YOU CAN FEEL IT.

I WOULD COMPARE IT TO DRIVING WHERE YOU PARK OR ALONG STOPLIGHT NEXT TO MAYBE A DEAN ACREAGE THAT HAS A HIGH BASS SYSTEM YOU CAN ALMOST FEEL IT.

SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN I THINK MORE HELPFUL FROM THE APPLICANT'S STANDPOINT TO CONDUCT SOME LOW FREQUENCY READINGS AND WHEN WE REVIEWED THE REPORT WE DIDN'T SEE ANY LOW FREQUENCY READINGS.

AS OUR COMMENTS RELATED TO THE DRAFT ADDITION THERE'S A CORRECTION I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TO A LETTER THAT WE SUBMITTED TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF, I BELIEVE I WROTE THAT AT 10:00 O'CLOCK THE FACILITY, IF THEY WERE TO OPERATE BEYOND 10, THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A TIGHTER STANDARD.

THE TIME SHOULD ACTUALLY BE 11:00 O'CLOCK.

THE TIGHTER STANDARD CHANGES AT 11:00 O'CLOCK FOR THE BAND.

SO FOR THE BASS FREQUENCIES THAT ARE REGULATED BY RURAL THEY WILL BECOME MORE STRINGENT AT 11:00 O'CLOCK AS OPPOSED TO 10.

I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT IN OUR SECOND COMMENT FROM THE APRIL 9TH LETTER, WE STATED THAT A NOISE LIMITER WOULD BE HELPFUL IF IT WERE TO BE EMPLOYED.

EVEN WITH THAT, THERE ARE SOME ISSUES WITH PEOPLE USING INTEGRATED NOISE LIMITERS.

A COUPLE MORE POINTS AND THEN I'LL WRAP IT UP.

THE LAST POINT, THE LAST BULLET UNDER THE DRAFT CONDITIONS, ECT CONCLUDED THAT THEY COULD ACHIEVE A 20 DECIBEL REDUCTION WHICH IN THE NOISE WORLD IS A LOT.

AND THEY BELIEVED THAT THEY COULD ACHIEVE THAT DB REDUCTION USING A PARTIAL ENCLOSURE.

WITH NOISE WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE BASS TONES, THEY HAVE LOW FREQUENCIES.

IN OTHER WORDS, YOU THINK OF A LONG DIP THESE FREQUENCIES CAN GO 30 FEET AWAY AND WITH THESE BASS TONES THEY CAN PENETRATE MATERIAL.

THEY CAN SKIP OVER MATERIAL AND THEY CAN MOVE AROUND MATERIAL.

AND WHAT WE CALL IN THE LETTER AN OPEN FIELD OR YOU CAN THINK IN TERMS OF A FREE FIELD BASED ON THE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS THAT I MENTIONED WITH WIND AND HUMIDITY IT COULD BE A SITUATION, IT COULD BE, THAT THE WALL WOULD NOT EVEN -- THE TWO SIDED WALL WOULD NOT EVEN BE THERE.

BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS WOULD AFFECT THE SOUND TRAVEL.

ALSO, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT PROBABLY NOT SHOWN IS THAT IF YOU HAVE A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE A TWO-SIDED WALL, NOW WHAT YOU WOULD DO, IF THE WALL WORKED PROPERLY, YOU ARE FOCUSING THE NOISE IN ANOTHER DIRECTION.

SO IT'S SIMILAR TO ME SPEAKING THROUGH THIS CONE HERE.

WHEREAS IF THIS PEN REPRESENTED A SPEAKER YOU HAVE A FREE FIELD AND NOISE EMANATING LET'S SAY IN CONCENTRIC CIRCLES AROUND THE HEAD OF HAD PEN.

NOW IT WOULD BE A CONDITION WHERE IT WOULD BE FOCUSED TO THE WEST.

AND I GUESS I CAN WRAP UP BY SAYING I BELIEVE IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER MAYBE BY THE ECT CONSULTANT THAT WE HAVE WORKED WITH DJS.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE NOT WORKED WITH ANY OF THE DJS AT THE FACILITY.

WE CAME OUT ON A COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE VISIT.

AND OUR APPROACH AND OUR HOPE WAS TO GIVE THE APPLICANT AN IDEA OF WHAT THEIR SOUND LEVELS WERE BASED ON WHAT WE WERE TOLD YOU KNOW THAT NORMAL OPERATIONS.

WHICH WE DID.

AND WE PROVIDED I BELIEVE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND THE APPLICANT A COPY OF THE COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE REPORT.

AND WE DID, HOWEVER, EXPRESS AN OPINION ABOUT THE TWO SIDED STRUCTURE AND IT'S ALL DOCUMENTED IN THE APRIL 9TH LETTER AND WITH THAT THAT PRETTY MUCH CONCLUDES WHAT I HAVE TO SAY AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

>>STEVE LUCE: STAFF JUST BEFORE YOU GOT UP TO SPEAK SAID THEIR CONCERN WAS BEING ABLE TO ENFORCE PROPOSED CONDITIONS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.

NOW, THE COMPONENTS OF THAT ARE NOISE CONDITIONS.

AND SO FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, WERE A NOISE ENFORCEMENT POINT OF VIEW, DO YOU BELIEVE IF THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT WERE IN PLACE, COULD YOU PROPERLY ENFORCE THESE CONDITIONS?

>>WELL, WE POINTED OUT WHAT WE BELIEVE ARE SOME WEAKNESSES IN THE CONDITION.

DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU AND THE BOARD WERE TO APPROVE LET'S SAY IF IT WERE APPROVED, WE WOULD HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO ATTEMPT TO REGULATE IT IF WE RECEIVED COMPLAINTS AND IF IN FACT THE COMPLAINTS DEMONSTRATED YOU KNOW THROUGH OUR MONITORING THAT DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY WERE OPERATING ABOVE OUR RULE, ABOVE THE LIMITS THAT ARE WITHIN OUR RULE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

WHAT I HEAR YOU SAY IS THAT IF YOU HAD TO ENFORCE THE CONDITIONS, YOU WOULD.

BUT ARE THEY ENFORCEABLE IN YOUR OPINION?

>>THE CONDITIONS?

>>STEVE LUCE: YES.

>>WELL, THE ENFORCEMENT WERE OUR STANDPOINT WOULD BE AS THEY RELATE TO CHAPTER 1-10.

THAT'S OUR ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM.

THAT'S THE RULES OF THE EPC.

SO WE WOULDN'T BE ENFORCING ANY OF THE CONDITIONS IN ANY ZONING APPROVAL.

BUT IT WOULD BE THE STANDARDS THAT ARE LISTED IN OUR RULE.

THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD BE ENFORCING.

I DID ALSO MAKE A COMMENT THAT I BELIEVE IN -- I DON'T HAVE THE CONDITIONS IN FRONT OF ME.

BUT I BELIEVE ONE OF THE CONDITIONS TALKED ABOUT THE APPLICANT PROVIDING A REPORT TO US, A CERTIFICATION TO OUR OFFICE.

IT REALLY WOULD HAVE NO BEARING OR BENEFIT US.

BECAUSE OUR ENFORCEABILITY RELATES TO THE RULES THAT WE HAVE TO WORK UNDER AS AN AGENCY.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

WELL THANK YOU.

>>SURE.


>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

>>YES, SIR, THANK YOU.

WE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WERE PRESUBMITTAL STAGE ALONG WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AND I ITERATE MS. ALBERT'S SENTIMENTS.

IT'S BEEN A DIFFICULT CASE TO WORK WITH.

AS IT WENT ON AND WENT ON, AT FIRST WE WEREN'T SURE OF THE SCALE.

BUT AS -- THROUGH THE MONTHS AND THROUGH DISCUSSIONS AND THE MEETINGS OUT THERE, THE MEETING OUT THERE, ET CETERA, WE WEREN'T AWARE THAT IT WAS A SCALE OF UPWARDS OF 200 OR MORE PEOPLE ON THE SITE.

INITIALLY.

POLICY 1.4 DESCRIBES ITEMS OF COMPATIBILITY.

AND MOST HEIGHT AND SCALE AND MASS, PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION, ET CETERA, IT'S EITHER 35 FEET TALL OR 100 FEET TALL.

YOU MAKE THE DECISION.

THAT'S PART OF IT. BUT WE DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH NOISE.

NOISE AS YOU'VE HEARD IN THE PREVIOUS TESTIMONY IS SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH, EVEN ATTEMPTING TO TRY TO CONDITION.

AND FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF ZONING.

THE EPC DOESN'T REGULATE THE HUMAN VOICE ASSOCIATED WITH 200 PEOPLE.

THEY REGULATE AMPLIFIED NOISE.

THE AMBIANCE OF THIS LOCATION IS BASED ON ITS SETTING.

IT'S AS MUCH OF AN OUTDOOR SETTING AS IT IS AN INDOOR SETTING.

AND THE INDOOR SETTING IS NOT ENCLOSED.

AT THIS TIME.

WE REVIEWED IT AS A WEDDING CHAPEL BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT PUT IN THEIR REQUEST.

A WEDDING CHAPEL.

AS YOU READ OUR REPORT, WE SAY WEDDING CHAPEL.

WEDDING FACILITIES, HENCE INCLUDING ASSOCIATED WEDDING RECEPTION, ET CETERA.

SO WE'RE CLEAR ON WHAT THE APPLICATION IS FOR.

IT ALSO INVOLVES A REQUEST FOR WAIVER.

AND WHEELER ROAD EAST OF VALRICO ROAD IS A LOCAL ROAD.

IT'S AGAIN NOT ON THE MPO'S COST AFFORDABLE LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION MAP.

IT'S OUTSIDE THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE INTERSECTION OF VALRICO AND WHEELER ROAD, WERE THAT INTERSECTION.

I'M RUNNING DOWN -- AGAIN, THE ISSUE OF THAT MANY PEOPLE IN WHAT I'LL REFER TO AS AN INDOOR-OUTDOOR SETTING BASED ON THE NATURE OF THE FACILITY, ADJACENT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT A LARGE NEIGHBORHOOD.

BUT AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD OUT THERE IN THE RURAL AREA.

I'M SORRY; I'M -- THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES HERE SO LET ME JUST SAY WE DON'T RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WAIVER.

THE MAIN ARGUMENT THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED FOR THAT WAS THAT THEY LIKEN IT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT GROUP OR A NEIGHBORHOOD CORE ESTABLISHMENT OR USE OF AND WE DON'T VIEW IT THAT WAY.

AND FOR THAT REASON WE DON'T RECOMMEND AN APPROVAL OF THE WAIVER.

AGAIN I THINK SUM IT UP IT'S JUST THAT MANY PEOPLE OUT IN A RURAL SETTING WITH NOISE THAT EPC REPRESENTED IT SAID AND I REFER TO ISN'T HEIGHT, IT'S NOT MASS, IT'S NOT -- IT CHANGES CONSTANTLY.

AS -- SO MY ONE WEDDING OF 200 PEOPLE VERSUS ANOTHER WEDDING OF 200, THAT'S OUR CONCERN.

>>STEVE LUCE: I UNDERSTAND.

THANK YOU.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

>>GOOD EVENING I'M LORI ORTEGA I LIVE AT 2211 BOGART ROAD FLORIDA.

I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT TO THE -- INTO THE RECORD A BINDER OF SUPPORT LETTERS AND E-MAILS.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>>SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO SENT THESE LETTERS AND E-MAILS MAY OR MAY NOT BE HERE TONIGHT.

HOWEVER I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S PART OF THE RECORD.

AND THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SPEAK TO THE BOCC IN SUPPORT OF CROSS CREEK.

AS A NEIGHBOR I HAVE LIVED AT MY CURRENT ADDRESS FOR A LITTLE OVER 18 YEARS.

TO MY KNOWLEDGE CROSS CREEK HAS BEEN IN OPERATION ABOUT 8 OR 9 YEARS OR SO.

AND UNTIL THE TWO NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, I NEVER HEARD ANY COMPLAINT OF ANY NOISE PROBLEM.

WITH ANY -- ANY ISSUES WITH THE NEIGHBORS AT ALL EITHER ON MY SIDE OR THE OTHER SIDE.

IT SEEMS TO BE A VERY BUSY PLACE.

BUT THAT MEANS THAT EVIDENTLY A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE EMPLOYED THERE.

IT IS BRINGING MONEY TO OUR COMMUNITY.

THAT'S ALSO A PLUS.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY, OBVIOUSLY HAPPY EVENTS GOING ON.

WHICH CAN'T BE A BAD THING.

VERY WELL MAINTAINED METICULOUSLY MAINTAINED PROPERTY IF YOU WALK IT, IT'S UNBELIEVABLE.

TO ME THE EVENTS ARE NOT DISTURBING I'LL JUST PUT IT THAT WAY.

MCSHARRYS HAVE BEEN GOOD NEIGHBORS.

TO MY KNOWLEDGE THEY HAVE FULLY COOPERATED WITH THE OTHER NEIGHBORS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE NOT IMPOSING ON THEM.

THEY END ALL OF THEIR ACTIVITY WITHIN THE PROPER TIME.

NO LIVE BANDS LIKE WAS MENTIONED BEFORE.

THEY HAVE HAD THE NOISE LEVELS CHECKED.

WELL WITHIN NORMAL RANGE.

ALL AS FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THEY HAVE SHUTTLES FROM LOCAL HOTELS THAT ACTUALLY PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE GUESTS.

SO TRAFFIC DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A PROBLEM AT ALL.

SO JUST TO PUT IT BRIEF I AM IN SUPPORT OF CROSS CREEK RANCH CONTINUING IN THEIR ACTIVITIES AS THEY ARE.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD, THANK YOU, MA'AM DOES ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT?

>>GOOD EVENING MY NAME IS MARILYN WESTDROP I HAPPEN TO WORK WITH AND REPRESENT THE GILLESPIE FAMILY AND WE DO QUITE A FEW WEDDING CAKES OUT THERE IN THE BEAUTIFUL VICINITY AND WE'RE VERY PROUD OF THAT.

WE'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR 102 YEARS AND WE DO HAVE QUITE A FEW EMPLOYEES.

I REPRESENT THE CATERING DEPARTMENT.

THE REASON WHY I'M HERE IS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO HEAR FROM A VENDOR WHO HAS BUSINESS OUT THERE.

WE ARE SO PROUD TO BE PART OF THIS FACILITY.

AND WE'RE VERY, VERY HONORED THAT THERE IS A PLACE THAT IS AVAILABLE TO US FOR OUR CAKES TO GO TO ON A REGULAR BASIS.

WE HAVE HAD ONLY GREAT REMARKS FROM EVERYBODY THAT HAS GONE THERE.

AND IN FACT OUR TEAM HAVE RECEIVED LETTERS AFTERWARDS LETTING US KNOW WHEN WE MAKE THE CAKES THEY ALWAYS WANT TO KIND OF GIVE US BACK THEIR STORY.

SO AGAIN MANY PEOPLE MENTION FACEBOOK PAGES.

I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU TAKE A LOOK AT OUR FACEBOOK PAGE, AS WELL.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU, AND LESLEY I WON'T LOOK AT THE FACEBOOK PAGE DURING THE DELIBERATIONS ON THIS.

(CAPTIONER SWITCH)

>> WHEN I STARTED WORKING THERE NINE YEARS AGO, THERE WERE FOUR OF US WORKING, TWO OF US BEING THE OWNERS.

THE BUSINESS STARTED OUT SLOWLY AND DIDN'T MAKE MUCH MONEY FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS.

I WATCHED BONNIE AND SHAWN STRUGGLE AFTER HE LOST HIS JOB AND HER INTERIOR DESIGN BUSINESS SUFFERED AFTER THE DOWNTURN IN THE ECONOMY.

FOR YEARS THEY PAID ME AND NEVER TOOK A PAYCHECK THEMSELVES.

IT'S A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF THE AMERICAN DREAM, OF MOM-AND-POP BUSINESS OWNERS WORKING HARD TO BUILD A SUCCESSFUL FUTURE AND ALONG THE WAY HELPING OTHERS BY OFFERING A QUALITY SERVICE, IN THIS CASE, FAIRY TALE WEDDINGS TO BRIDES AND GROOMS.

THERE ARE MANY WEDDING VENUES IN THE TAMPA AREA, BUT MOST ARE HOTEL BALLROOMS.

TODAY'S BRIDES WANT A UNIQUE EXPERIENCE FOR THEIR WEDDING AND FOR THEIR GUESTS.

THEY HAVE GROWN TIRED OF THE BASIC BALLROOM RECEPTION.

RUSTIC WEDDINGS ARE EXTREMELY POPULAR RIGHT NOW.

CCR MEETS THAT DEMAND.

THERE IS NO OTHER VENUE LIKE THIS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA THAT EQUALS THE LEVEL OF SERVICE WE GIVE OUR BRIDES.

CROSS CREEK HAS WON SEVERAL PRESTIGIOUS AWARDS AND BEEN RECOGNIZED NATIONALLY BY WEDDING PROFESSIONALS.

THE TEAM AT CCR TAKES GREAT CARE TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS PERFECT FOR OUR COUPLES AND FAMILIES.

BRIDES AND GROOMS CAN REST ASSURED THAT THE STAFF IS TAKING CARE OF ALL THE DETAILS OF THEIR MOST SPECIAL DAY.

TIGHT CONTROL IS KEPT OF EVERY EVENT, AND COORDINATORS MAKE SURE EVERYTHING HAPPENS ACCORDING TO THE TIMELINE.

AT EVERY EVENT, COORDINATORS TAKE DECIBEL READINGS AT THE PROPERTY LINES TO MAKE SURE WE REMAIN UNDER THE REQUIRED LIMITS.

OVER THE YEARS, BONNIE AND SHAWN HAVE PUT NUMEROUS RESTRICTIONS ON THE WEDDINGS IN ORDER TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS.

SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING, STABLE WEDDINGS HAVE ALWAYS ENDED AT 10 P.M.

THIS RULE HAS COST THE COMPANY BUSINESS OVER THE YEARS, BUT THE OWNERS FELT IT WAS MORE IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS.

THEY ALSO EARNED EARL -- LEARNED EARLY ON NOT TO ALLOW BANDS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT SOUND ORDINANCES THE WAY WE DO.

CCR HAS PUT NEW RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORS, INCLUDING OFFERING TO END SUNDAY WEDDINGS NO LATER THAN 7:30 P.M. AND PUTTING LIMITS ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE PER EVENT AT THE VENUE.

I DID JUST WANT TO SAY WE DO NOT DO WEDDINGS WITH 200 PEOPLE.

THAT WAS A BAD NUMBER.

IN CONCLUSION, I JUST WANT TO ASK THAT YOU PLEASE GRANT CROSS CREEK RANCH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AS REQUESTED SO THEY CAN CONTINUE TO GIVE COUPLES THEIR DREAM WEDDINGS AND BRING BUSINESS TO EASTERN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND YOUR CONSIDERATION.

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

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT?

>> CHAD HUDSON, 2006 SOUTH PARSONS AVENUE IN SEFFNER, FLORIDA.

I WANTED TO BE HERE IN SUPPORT TONIGHT OF SHAWN AND BONNIE.

LIKE THEM, THE MOM-AND-POP OF IT, I AM A SECOND-GENERATION RESTAURANT OWNER NOW ON 30-PLUS YEARS IN PASCO COUNTY AND 8 YEARS IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.

US, LIKE THEM, STRUGGLED IN THE BEGINNING ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO.

BONNIE APPROACHED ME AND SAID I WANT TO BUILD A LOCAL BUSINESS, AND I WANT TO DO THAT WITH OTHER LOCAL BUSINESSES.

SHE APPROACHED US AS BEING ONE OF HER MAIN CATERERS OUT THERE, WHICH WE IN TURN HAVE HAD THE PLEASURE OF DOING SERVICE IN MANY CATERINGS, DOING SOME CHARITY AND COMMUNITY EVENTS IN WHICH SHAWN IS INVOLVED IN, AND IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE TO GO THAT.

I LOOK FORWARD TO DOING THAT IN THE FUTURE AS WELL.

SO THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU, SIR.

OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT?



GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS RICHARD McDANIEL.

MY ADDRESS IS PO BOX 1066, MANGO, FLORIDA.

I OWN THE PROPERTY RIGHT TO THE EAST, 3.5 ACRES.

IT'S JUST INVESTMENT PROPERTY, RENTAL PROPERTY I'VE GOT, AND I'VE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM, NEVER HAD ISSUES WITH ANY OF MY TENANTS COMPLAINING OF ANY NOISES OR ANYTHING, AND I AM A LOCAL BUSINESS OWNER.

MY BUSINESS IS ONLY A MILE STRAIGHT NORTH OF THEM, AND I SUPPORT IT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

>> AND FOR THE RECORD, I HAVEN'T BEEN -- I CAME A LITTLE LATE.

I WASN'T ...

>> [SPEAKER OFF MIC]

>>STEVE LUCE: LET'S DO THIS AFTER THE FACT, I SUPPOSE; RIGHT?

DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD?

>> I DO.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY, OR IS THERE SOMETHING MORE?

>> I JUST WANT TO SHOW YOU THE -- I OWN THE PROPERTY RIGHT TO THE EAST, WHICH -- I OWN THE PROPERTY RIGHT TO THE EAST, WHICH I BELIEVE IS ALL THIS RIGHT HERE.

>>STEVE LUCE: FOR THE RECORD, YOU ARE POINTING TO ESSENTIALLY WHAT WOULD BE THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY, OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, OWNER'S PROPERTY?

>> IT'S KIND OF AN L-SHAPE BECAUSE I THINK -- WHAT'S THAT?

>> [SPEAKER OFF MIC]

>> RIGHT HERE?

I THINK IT'S THIS RIGHT HERE.

THIS RIGHT THERE.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

I GOT IT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

>> MARK, 7621 GRASMERE DRIVE, LAND O' LAKES, FLORIDA.

BEST CATERING.

WE HAVE BEEN CATERING OUT THERE FOR A WHILE FOR BONNIE.

WE HAVE COOKS, SERVERS, DELIVERY DRIVERS, PREP COOKS.

WE HAVE A LOT OF STAFF THAT RELIES ON THE RANCH FOR PART OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT WITH US.

YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE A SHAME FOR THIS TO COME TO AN END AT THAT VENUE BASED UPON COMPLAINTS.

FROM WHAT I GATHERED FROM THIS MEETING WAS THAT THE DISC JOCKEY PLAYING IS WITHIN ORDINANCE.

PEOPLE TALKING AREN'T WITHIN ORDINANCE?

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

HOW CAN A VOICE BE LOUDER THAN A SPEAKER?

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

[APPLAUSE]

>>STEVE LUCE: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE REFRAIN FROM CLAPPING.

THE ISSUE IS THAT PEOPLE SPEAKING OUT IN THE PROPERTY ARE SIMPLY JUST NOT REGULATED BY EPC.

THEY REGULATE MECHANICALLY CREATED NOISES.

>> I AM TALKING THROUGH A MICROPHONE RIGHT NOW, AND IF I WALK AWAY FROM THE MICROPHONE, YOU CAN'T HEAR ME.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE.

I THINK IT'S COMMON SENSE.

IT'S A GREAT BUSINESS, AND YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING THAT MY FAMILY RELIES ON AND A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE DO TOO, VENDORS, IT JUST GOES ON AND ON THE IMPACT.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT?

>> HI.


I'M DEVON BARNETT.

I LIVE AT 3536 OAK DRIVE.

>> I AM NICOLE, TAMPA, FLORIDA.

>> AND WE ARE ACTUALLY REPRESENTING THE HOTEL THAT WORK WITH CROSS CREEK RANCH.

I WORK AT THE SHERATON TAMPA EAST.

>> THE HILTON GARDEN INN IN BRANDON.

>> WE WANT TO PROVIDE SOME QUICK STATISTICS HERE.

JUST IN THE YEAR I'VE WORKED AT THE SHEAR TON TAMPA EAST, WE HAVE BOOKED WELL OVER 1500 ROOM NIGHTS, WELL OVER $250,000 THAT CONTRIBUTE TO NOT ONLY THE TOURISM DOLLARS HERE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, BUT ALSO TO SECURING JOBS AT OUR HOTEL FOR OUR ASSOCIATES.

>> AT THE HILTON GARDEN INN TAMPA EAST BRANDON, I CAN TELL YOU THAT OUR NUMBERS ARE VERY SIMILAR TO THE ONES THAT DEVON PRESENTED.

OUR WEEKEND BUSINESS HAS GROWN EXPONENTIALLY SINCE OUR PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CROSS CREEK RANCH, AND THAT PROVIDES MORE HOURS FOR OUR STAFF ON THE WEEKENDS THAT WE WOULDN'T NORMALLY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE AS A HOTEL IN A BUSINESS PARK.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

DOES ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT?

>> MY NAME IS MARY HORNACK.

I LIVE AT 12339 SILLTON PIECE DRIVE IN RIVERVIEW, FLORIDA.

I BRING A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.

I AM A MOTHER OF A BRIDE THAT GOT MARRIED AT CROSS CREEK RANCH, AND I WILL TELL YOU IT WAS MAGICAL.

THEY DID AN AMAZING JOB.

THE VENUE IS BEAUTIFUL.

IT'S UNIQUE.

AND CROSS CREEK RANCH TAKES CARE OF EVERY BRIDE AND GROOM AND FAMILY MEMBER, AND AS MOTHER OF THE BRIDE, I HAD A WONDERFUL, STRESS-FREE EVENING.

AND THAT IS ABSOLUTELY AMAZING!

[LAUGHTER]

>>STEVE LUCE: YES, IT IS.

>> SO I SUPPORT THE REZONING OF CROSS CREEK RANCH, AND I SUGGEST THAT EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO IS HERE IN SUPPORT OF CROSS CREEK RANCH PLEASE COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND GIVE A BRIEF REASON WHY YOU SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH REZONING.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU, MA'AM.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT?

>> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS MICHELLE --

>>STEVE LUCE: HOLD ON A SECOND, MA'AM.

LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT -- MR. GRADY, CAN YOU HELP ME WITH THIS?

30 PEOPLE STANDING IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

>> 200.


[LAUGHTER]

>>STEVE LUCE: AND SO THAT WILL BE RECORDED IN SUPPORT.

NOW, MR. GRADY, IF THESE PEOPLE WANT TO PRESERVE THEIR RIGHTS AT THE NEXT HEARING AND THEY WANT TO COME FORWARD, THEY CAN JUST SIMPLY STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND SIGN IN?

THAT WILL WORK AND ALLOW YOU TO SPEAK AT THE BOARD MEETING?

THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO.

>>BRIAN GRADY: MR. LAND USE, I WOULD NOTE THAT MOST OF THESE PEOPLE WHO STOOD UP DID NOT STAND UP TO RAISE THEIR RIGHT HAND TO BE SWORN IN.

I WAS ASSUMING THEY WEREN'T GIVING TESTIMONY.

IF THEY WANT TO GIVE TESTIMONY, EVEN JUST STATING THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE TESTIMONY, THEY WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE SWORN IN.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THEIR INTENT.

THEY MAY JUST BE STANDING TO SAY THEY ARE IN SUPPORT.

>>STEVE LUCE: IF YOU ALL WISH TO PUT YOUR NAME ON THE RECORD AND SIGN IN, I'LL HAVE TO SWEAR YOU IN.

IF YOUR INTENT IS JUST TO BE HERE FOR MORAL SUPPORT, THAT'S FINE, YOU DON'T NEED TO COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR PREFERENCE IS.

>> SWEAR THEM IN.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL TRY TO DO THIS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE; RIGHT?

ALL RIGHT.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD?

>> I DO.


>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

>> OKAY.


SORRY.

MY NAME IS MICHELLE WELCH.

MY ADDRESS IS 4302 PIPPIN ROAD, AND I AM ACTUALLY REPRESENTING TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

I AM ACTUALLY THE MOTHER OF A GROOM WHO WAS MARRIED AT CROSS CREEK RANCH, AND IT WAS MAGICAL.

BUT ALSO I'M ONE OF HER COMPETITORS, WISHING WELL BARN IN PLANT CITY, FLORIDA, AND I'M HERE ALSO IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-CREEK RANCH.

I'D LIKE TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE BOARD SENATE BILL 1106, WHICH IS KNOWN AS THE AGRITOURISM BILL.

THIS IS MENTIONED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, BUT AGRITOURISM, ALTHOUGH MENTIONED AS AN ECONOMIC DRIVER FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IT'S NOT REPRESENTED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SO THERE IS A BIT OF A DISPARITY THERE BECAUSE WEDDINGS, RURAL WEDDINGS, ARE AN AGRITOURISM ACTIVITY.

THEY'RE LISTED UNDER CULTURAL ACTIVITIES.

WE -- THE STATE OF FLORIDA IS FOLLOWING THE STATE OF GEORGIA IN OUR ACTIVATION OF THE AGRITOURISM, AND I THINK THAT'S BEEN WELL MENTIONED AND WELL REPRESENTED BY CROSS CREEK TONIGHT THAT THEY ARE CONSIDERED A DESTINATION WEDDING SITE, AS MY SITE AS WELL.

THIS WAS SIGNED INTO LAW BY OUR GOVERNOR ON JUNE 14, 2013, AND WENT INTO EFFECT ON JULY 1 OF 2013.

IT'S READ IN THE STATE STATUTES UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL AND CONSUMER SERVICES UNDER 570.96.

AND BASICALLY, THE LAW -- I WON'T READ IT TO YOU BECAUSE IT'S TOO LONG -- THE GOAL OF AGRITOURISM IS TO ASSIST PEOPLE WHO ARE ON AGRICULTURAL LAND TO BE ABLE TO DIVERSIFY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ON THAT LAND IN ORDER TO SAVE OUR FARMS.

AND CROSS CREEK DEFINITELY DOES THAT.

THEY'RE ZONED AGRICULTURAL, JUST AS WE ARE.

WE ARE A CATTLE RANCH.

WE HAVE A CATTLE RANCH.

AND PEOPLE COME TO OUR RANCH FOR THAT ENVIRONMENT, TO HAVE THEIR WEDDING OUT IN NATURE, AMONG, YOU KNOW, IN A BEAUTIFUL LOCATION JUST LIKE CROSS CREEK.

SO IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE CATTLE THERE, THEY COULD HAVE BLUEBERRIES.

ONE THING I WANTED TO MENTION TOO WITH REGARD TO NOISE RESTRICTIONS, IF YOU ARE ON AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY AND YOU -- FOR EXAMPLE, MY BROTHER-IN-LAW HAS A BLUEBERRY FARM, THEY SHOOT OFF CANNONS ALL NIGHT LONG, ALL DAY LONG.

YOU KNOW, THEY CAN HAVE FIRECRACKERS, THEY CAN HAVE -- THESE ARE VERY LOUD THINGS ON AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY.

SO I'VE BEEN TO A WEDDING, MY OWN SON'S, AT CROSS CREEK, AND IT WAS NEVER LOUD.

WE HAVE WEDDINGS AT OUR SITE, YOU KNOW, WE FALL WELL WITHIN EPC GUIDELINES.

SO I JUST THINK IT'S KIND OF RIDICULOUS TO SAY THAT A PERSON SPEAKING AWAY FROM AN AMPLIFIED SOURCE WOULD BE TOO NOISY WHEN, IF YOU ARE ON AGRICULTURAL LAND, YOU CAN SHOOT OFF CANNONS TO CHASE THE BIRDS AWAY FROM YOUR BLUEBERRIES.

SO IT'S JUST TOTALLY RIDICULOUS TO ME, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF THIS IS NOT APPROVED IN THIS MANNER, CROSS CREEK CAN ABSOLUTELY PUT -- YOU KNOW, THEY ALREADY HAVE GARDENING THERE -- THEY COULD DO THEIR SAME THING AND BE ALLOWED TO HAVE NOISE THROUGH AGRITOURISM, AND THAT HAS BEEN SIGNED INTO LAW, AND I THINK THAT THE BOARD NEEDS TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, MA'AM.

YES, SIR.

>> GARY TEENY, 4204 MEADOWHILL DRIVE, TAMPA, FLORIDA, 33618.

I HAVE WORKED WITH BONNIE AND SHAWN FOR ABOUT THE LAST SIX YEARS, MEETING WITH THEM EVERY TUESDAY MORNING AT 10:00.

ONE OF THE REASONS THEY'VE WON SO MANY AWARDS IS BECAUSE THEY SO INTENSELY CARE ABOUT SOLVING EVERY PREVIOUS, PRESENT, AND FUTURE PROBLEM FOR EVERYONE WHO STEPS ON THE PROPERTY, AND I WOULD LIKE FOR THE BOARD TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE WAS NEVER AN OFFICIAL COMPLAINT IN THOSE SIX-YEAR PERIOD UNTIL THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HAPPENED.

HAD THERE BEEN ANY OFFICIAL COMPLAINTS, CROSS CREEK RANCH WOULD HAVE DONE EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO SOLVE THEM, AND WOULD HAVE WORKED WITH THE NEIGHBORS HAD THEY KNOWN THAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHO I KNOW THEM TO BE AND THAT'S WHO THEY ARE.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, SIR.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS IT JUST FOLKS THAT WANT TO PUT THEIR NAME ON THE RECORD AND SIGN IN?

SO IN DUE RESPECT OF EVERYBODY ELSE THAT'S HERE TONIGHT FOR OTHER APPLICATIONS, THOSE WHO WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION WHO WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM; STAFF AGAIN, REBUTTAL.

LET'S TRY TO MAKE THIS AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE.

PLEASE COME FORWARD.

>> HI.

LISA PARSONS, 8648 14th WAY NORTH, ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA.



I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

THANK YOU.

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

>> RICK PARSONS, 8648 14th WAY NORTH, ST. PETERSBURG.

I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU, SIR.

>> MICHAEL FERGUSON, 2604 SHILOH COURT, VALRICO.

I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, SIR.

>> JILL FERGUSON, 2604 SHILOH COURT, VALRICO, FLORIDA, 33596.

I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, MA'AM.

>> QUINTON QUINCY, 10209 [INAUDIBLE]

TAMPA, FLORIDA.

I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

>> GINGER RIVERA, 3300 WALL CRAFT, TAMPA, FLORIDA.

I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

>> JULIANNE RELL, 4103 WEST AZEELE STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA.

I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

>> MARIANNE, 249 CHARDONNAY PLACE.

SORRY.

MARYANNE, 249 CHARDONNAY PLACE.



I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

>> HI.


JOANNE DELANIDAS, 208 HALTON CIRCLE, SEFFNER FLORIDA, 33584.

I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

>> HI.

NANCY NETHERY, 30905 [INAUDIBLE]



WESLEY CHAPEL, FLORIDA, AND I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE?

>> I'M JOAN, AND I LIVE AT 12950 EAST WHEELER ROAD, AND I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH, AND I AM THE OFFICIAL GREETER.

I GREET EVERY GUEST THAT COMES, AND THERE'S NEVER 200 AT A WEDDING.

THANK YOU.

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

ANYONE ELSE?

>> BECKY KANUTZEN, RIVER ROCK LANE IN RIVERVIEW, FLORIDA, AND I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE?

>> GOOD EVENING.

DANIEL NEUTZEN, 9323 RIVERVIEW LANE, AND I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>> ALTA McCARTHY, 3813 HIGHGATE DRIVE, VALRICO, FLORIDA 33594, AND I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH ABSOLUTELY.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

>> MARY ELLEN, BRANDON, FLORIDA, 33509.

I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

>> AVERY JORDAN, 17890 BOYETTE ROAD, LITHIA, FLORIDA, AND I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>> ROBIN CHATTERWHITE, 46 12 PORT BELLOW CIRCLE, VALRICO, FLORIDA, AND I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

NEXT, PLEASE.

>> SARAH SEYMOUR, LUTZ, FLORIDA.

AND I AM IN FULL SUPPORT OF CROSS CREEK RANCH AND THE JOY AND HAPPINESS THAT THEY BRING TO SO MANY FAMILIES AND COUPLES.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

NEXT, PLEASE.

>> ARTHUR BULLIS, 12914 EAST WHEELER ROAD IN DOVER, AND I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

NEXT, PLEASE.

>> JACQUELINE SCHUSTER, 11729 MANGO CROSS COURT, SEFFNER, FLORIDA.

I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

NEXT, PLEASE.

>> LISA INEZ, 12125 104th STREET NORTH IN LARGO, FLORIDA, AND I DO SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

NEXT, PLEASE.

>> PATRICIA CALKINS, 7100 ULMERTON ROAD, LARGO, FLORIDA.

I AM PROUD TO SAY THAT I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

NEXT, PLEASE.

>> ALL THREE CALL, 3917 STERNS ROAD, VALERIE COULD, FLORIDA, AND I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH AND ALSO WANT TO MENTION THAT CROSS CREEK RANCH ALSO SUPPORTS THE MILITARY.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

NEXT, PLEASE.

>> DIANA HIRSCH, 1420 CLARION DRIVE, VALRICO, 33596, SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH ALL THE WAY.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

NEXT, PLEASE.

>> BRUCE DONOVAN, 4 12 CHASTAIN ROAD, SEFFNER, FLORIDA.

I WANT TO MENTION THAT BONNIE AND SHAWN HAVE BOUGHT MANY, IF NOT MOST, OF THEIR LANDSCAPE PLANTS FROM OUR FAMILY NURSERY OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, AND THEY SUPPORT LOCAL BUSINESS.

WE SUPPORT THEM.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

NEXT, PLEASE.

>> DANIELLE DOORY, 11511 ARCADE DRIVE, DOVER.

>> TAMARA WHITAKER, 1103 RIDGEFIELD DRIVE, VALRICO, AND I FULLY SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

NEXT, PLEASE.

>> MICHELLE PET PETERSON, 1016 SONJA LANE, BRANDON, FLORIDA, AND I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

NEXT, PLEASE.

>> LISA KILL, 6913 NORTH 20th STREET IN TAMPA, 33610, AND I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: NEXT, PLEASE.

>> MYNAH PETERSON, 1016 SONJA LANE, BRANDON, FLORIDA, AND I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: NEXT, PLEASE.

>> ANDREA WILT, 3801 HANOVER HILL DRIVE, VALRICO, FLORIDA, 33596, AND I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

NEXT, PLEASE.

>> LISA MARIE HILL, 27750 COWDRY STREET, WESLEY CHAPEL.

I DO SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

NEXT, PLEASE.

>> ELLISON, 12208 TIMBER LAKE ROAD, RIVERVIEW, 33569.

I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST, APPARENTLY.

>> MY NAME IS RICK MULLIN, 304 HONEY LOCUST COURT, SEFFNER, FLORIDA, 33584.

I SUPPORT CROSS CREEK RANCH, AND AS THE DJ OUT THERE, THEY TALKED ABOUT THE LOW END, THE BASS.

I BRING THE BASS DOWN, AND ON SOME SONGS, I TAKE IT OUT COMPLETELY.

SO THE BASS IS NOT A PROBLEM.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

I BELIEVE AT THIS POINT IN TIME THAT CONCLUDES THOSE WHO WISH TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?

YES, SIR.

>> I'M DON PATE, 2280 JAUDON ROAD, DOVER, FLORIDA.

I AM ABSOLUTELY AGAINST THIS DELUSIONAL ATTEMPT BY THIS EMPIRE QUEEN TO BUILD HER EMPIRE ON MY BACK PROPERTY.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?

>> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS ERIN BEDENBACH, AND I LIVE AT 2272 JAUDON ROAD, AND WOW, I FEEL A LITTLE UNPREPARED.

I AM NOT A PROFESSIONAL ZONING HEARING PERSON OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

WE DO RESIDE RIGHT UP AGAINST THE PROPERTY, AND WE HAD SOME PEOPLE COME OUT WHO ARE OUR ADJOINING NEIGHBORS.

WE DON'T HAVE A MOVIE.

WE DIDN'T HAVE ALL THAT PUT TOGETHER.

WE DON'T HAVE A LARGE NOTEBOOK OF STUFF THAT WE DIDN'T PUT TOGETHER.

WHAT WE DID PUT TOGETHER WAS JUST KIND OF A TIMELINE, A LITTLE BIT, OF SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.

WE PULLED THESE OUT OF OUR -- OFF OUR COMPUTER, ACTUALLY, OF JUST STUFF.

YOU CAN SEE HOW THINGS HAVE GONE ALONG.

AND THEIR TESTIMONY EARLIER WAS THAT THEY DID START OFF SMALL.

THEY STARTED OFF IN ABOUT SIX, STARTED OFF WITH A BED AND BREAKFAST.

I DID ASK THEM, AND I READ -- I AM NOT REAL WELL VERSED ON SOME OF THE ZONING LAWS, SO HOPEFULLY I GET SOME OF THESE RIGHT, BUT IF NOT, FEEL FREE TO HELP ME OUT.

WE WOULD ASK ALSO -- THEY'VE HAD ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF.

WE HAVE SOME OF US THAT ARE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.

COULD WE HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL TIME ALSO?

>>STEVE LUCE: IF YOU NEED ADDITIONAL TIME, GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WE'VE GIVEN TO THE APPLICANT AND THOSE WHO SPOKE IN SUPPORT, ADDITIONAL TIME MAY BE GRANTED BASED ON WHAT KIND OF TESTIMONY I HEAR MOVING FORWARD.

>> WELL, HOPEFULLY IT'S ACCEPTABLE.

LIKE I SAY, WE'RE NOT PROFESSIONAL AT THIS.

BUT IS THAT WHERE YOU PUT -- YOU PUT YOUR PICTURE INTO THAT THING RIGHT THERE?

>>STEVE LUCE: YES.

>> DOES THAT SHOW UP SOMEWHERE?

>>STEVE LUCE: YES.

>> THERE WE ARE.

THIS IS A PICTURE TAKEN I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHEN, BUT PROBABLY RIGHT NEAR ABOUT 2006, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, WE JUST HAPPENED TO CATCH IN THE BACKGROUND THERE'S THE BARN THAT THEY BEGAN WITH AND STARTED HAVING PARTIES IN.

LIKE THEY SAID IN THE TESTIMONY, THEY DIDN'T HAVE PARTIES VERY OFTEN.

THINGS WERE KIND OF APPARENTLY TIGHT BACK THEN.

AND SO IT WAS A PRETTY INFREQUENT OCCURRENCE.

AND YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T REALLY KNOW MUCH ABOUT ZONING OR ZONING LAWS AND NOISE.

OH, WELL, THEY ARE HAVING ANOTHER PARTY BACK THERE, AND WE KIND OF WENT ON.

SO THAT'S HOW THAT GOT STARTED.

DO WE SUBMIT THESE TO SOMEBODY?

THAT PICTURE DOES KIND OF GIVE YOU AN IDEA HOW CLOSE THEIR BUILDING IS TO OUR HOUSE.

THIS IS OUR DRIVEWAY I AM STANDING IN.

DON, WHO SPOKE FIRST, WHO HAD TO GO HOME.

HIS DOGS RUN HIS HOUSE, AND HE HAS A FEW.

THIS GIVES AN IDEA OF HOW CLOSE DON'S HOUSE IS.

THAT'S THEIR CURRENT PARTY FACILITY THEY HAVE THERE.

AND WHILE IT SOUNDS GOOD IN SO MANY FEET AND YARDS AND WHATEVER HAVE YOU, CAN YOU SEE THAT IT'S PRETTY CLOSE RIGHT THERE, AND IT DOES -- THOSE BUSHES DON'T DO A WHOLE LOT TO STOP THE NOISE THAT COMES THROUGH.

ALSO, APPARENTLY, IT WAS YARD WASTE BURNING DAY.

EITHER THAT OR THE PLACE BURNT DOWN, I'M NOT REALLY SURE.

NOW, BACK IN THE DAY, THIS IS -- I BUILT A POLE BARN ON MY PROPERTY, AND WE DO LIVE IN AS-1, AND SINCE YOU LIVE IN AS-1, UNLESS YOU ARE GOING TO USE IT FOR AGRICULTURAL OR FOR PUTTING YOUR ANIMALS IN, YOU DO HAVE TO GET A PERMIT.

SO I WENT DOWN AND GOT MY PERMIT FOR MY BUILDING, AND IT JUST SO HAPPENS -- THE WHITE SQUARE, BY THE WAY, IS THE PERSON HANDLING THE TRUST.

I DIDN'T KNOW HE WANTED TO BE IN THERE.

AS WELL AS KIND OF THE FUNNY SHAPE ON THE LADDER.

THAT'S AGAIN ANOTHER PERSON.

I WHITED HIM OUT.

BUT OTHERWISE, I DIDN'T RETOUCH THE PHOTO IN ANYWAY EXCEPT WROTE THE DATE ON IT.

BUT BACK THEN, THAT WAS THEIR FIRST ADDITION TO THEIR BARN, AND I ASKED BONNIE ABOUT THAT, AND THEY DIDN'T GET A PERMIT FOR THAT.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT DOES HAVE THE PLASTIC ON IT.

THAT'S TO KEEP THE WIND AND THE RAIN OFF THE PEOPLE WHEN THEY'RE HAVING PARTIES.

SO THAT WAS THEIR FIRST ADDITION, DIDN'T GET A PERMIT FOR THAT.

THIS IS A PICTURE OF ABOUT A MONTH AGO, ROUGHLY, AND I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT DAY, BUT ABOUT A MONTH AGO, WHEN APPARENTLY THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT ROOM IN THE PARTY BARN, AND SO THEY HAD TO HAVE A QUICK ADDITION.

SO THERE'S THE TENT THEY PUT UP TO HOUSE THE REST OF THE PEOPLE WHILE THEY'RE GOING ON.

THIS RIGHT HERE IS THEIR NEWEST CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.

IT'S A FENCE.

AND WHAT'S SIGNIFICANT ABOUT A FENCE?

WELL, BY HILLSBOROUGH LAND USE ORDINANCE, A FENCE IS A MAXIMUM OF 6 FEET TALL.

THIS HAS BEEN ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A 9-FOOT-TALL FENCE THAT DOESN'T FALL UNDER THE ORDINANCE.

THEY DIDN'T CHECK ON THE ORDINANCE.

APPARENTLY THEY DIDN'T LOOK INTO IT.

IT'S NOT THAT HARD, BUT IT DOES SAY THAT A FENCE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 6 FEET, AND THIS ONE'S 9.

THERE'S THAT ONE THERE.

THE REMAINDER OF THE BUILDINGS WERE PUT UP OVER TIME, SO OVER TIME, THEY ADDED ONTO THE BARN, OVER TIME THEY ADDED ANOTHER SECTION TO THE BARN, OVER TIME THEY BUILT RESTROOMS, OVER TIME THEY ADDED SEPTIC SYSTEMS, OVER TIME THEY BUILT THEIR WEDDING CHAPEL TO THE REAR.

NOW, THE REASON NONE OF THESE CAME UP BEFORE THE COUNTY IS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T PULL ANY PERMITS FOR ANY OF THESE BUILDINGS THAT THEY WERE ADDING ON.

SO THE COUNTY HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT ALL THIS WAS GOING ON.

I CHECKED THE RECORDS ON THE PUBLIC RECORDS WEBSITE, AND BY MY CHECKING, THE LAST BUILDING THAT GOT A PERMIT WAS IN 2006, AND THAT WAS FOR A STORAGE BUILDING THAT IS NOW ON THEIR SITE PLAN AS AN OFFICE.

IT'S A 40-BY-60 BUILDING ALREADY AND IT'S, I THINK, MODULAR, AND THEY PUT IT THERE, AND NOW THAT BUILDING IS AN OFFICE.

SO THAT IS WHY WE DON'T HAVE ANY COUNTY PARTICIPATION IN THE PLANNING OF THE PROPERTY, THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY, EVEN THE BUILDING.

AND THESE ARE BUILDINGS WERE ASSEMBLIES ARE HELD.

AND I LOOKED INTO THAT.

FOR AN ASSEMBLY BUILDING, THEY HAVE CERTAIN CRITERIA UNDER WHICH YOU WOULD BUILD THESE SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE LIFE SAFETY ISSUES.

I DID SOME MORE READING, AND IT'S UNDER, I THINK, AS-1 OR SOMETHING -- IT'S AN A-3 BUILDING FOR ASSEMBLY FOR PARTIES AND FOR STUFF LIKE THAT.

THESE BUILDINGS WEREN'T BUILT TO THAT CRITERIA FOR WEDDINGS, THAT'S PROBABLY SOME OTHER CRITERIA.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT.

AND THEY BUILT IT RIGHT UP AGAINST DON'S BACK PROPERTY LINE.

THEY ARE WITHIN 15 FEET OF THE 20-FOOT SETBACK.

NOW, THESE BUILDINGS THEY SAID MIGHT HAVE BEEN STORAGE IN THE BEGINNING, BUT IT'S ODD THAT IT WAS BUILT, IMMEDIATELY THEY STORED A FLOOR IN IT, THEN THEY STARTED PUTTING PEWS IN IT, THEN THEY STARTED PUTTING PEOPLE IN THE PEWS.

SO IT DIDN'T SPEND ANY TIME AS STORAGE, SO THEY ARE PROBABLY NOT BUILT TO THAT STANDARD.

THE REASON I BRING THIS UP -- ACTUALLY, ALSO, I DID CHECK WITH THE SEWER DEPARTMENT, SANITARY SEWER DEPARTMENT, AND THEY HAVEN'T PERMITTED ANY OF THE ADDITIONAL SEPTIC SYSTEMS THAT THEY'VE PUT IN EITHER, NONE FOR THE BATHROOMS THAT THEY PUT IN OR ANY OF THAT.

I DON'T KNOW WHATEVER ELSE THEY BUILT THERE LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN.

I DON'T KNOW WHEN THINGS WERE BUILT.

BUT I DO KNOW THAT THEY'VE BUILT THOSE THINGS SINCE.

THE WEDDING CHAPEL WAS BUILT IN, I THINK, '12.

THE REASON I KNOW THAT IS BECAUSE THEY DROVE ACROSS THE BACK OF MY PROPERTY.

NOW, TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT WHY THERE WAS NEVER A COMPLAINT, THERE WAS.

I'VE SPOKEN TO BONNIE PERSONALLY.

OVER THE YEARS, WHEN SHE WOULD COME OVER AND WANT TO RUN A BUILDING ACROSS OR EVEN A CARRIAGE, SHE WAS OH, MY BRIDGE WON'T HOLD THE CARRIAGE, WON'T HOLD THE HORSES.

I'VE GOT TO GET A WEDDING DONE.

I'VE GOT TO GET THIS CARRIAGE ACROSS, YOU KNOW, OVER TO MY PROPERTY.

SHE WOULD CALL ME ON THE CELL PHONE, CAN I CUT A HOLE IN THE FENCE?

I TALKED TO HER AND SAID BONNIE, YOU NEED TO TURN THOSE SPEAKERS AROUND.

YOU ARE KILLING ME.

I DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP THE WHOLE TIME.

THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SPEAK TO THE SAME THING.

BUT WE HAVE TALKED TO BONNIE PERSONALLY, AND THERE ARE OTHERS WHO HAVE DONE OTHER THINGS, AND THEY WILL TALK ABOUT RECORDS AND THAT AS IT GOES ON.

WE DID SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE COME UP -- OH, THE MEETING.

THEY DID HAVE TWO COMMUNITY MEETINGS, AND I DID VIDEOTAPE THOSE, AND I DID BRING THOSE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE WOULD BE HELPFUL TO YOU OR NOT, BUT I HAVE THE VIDEO OF THOSE IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

>>STEVE LUCE: YOU CAN LEAVE THEM WITH THE CLERK.

>> IN CASE I SCREWED THAT UP, HERE'S ANOTHER SAME THING.

>> HEARING MASTER, I AM SORRY, I NEED TO INTERRUPT.

VIN MARCHETTI.

I ASKED HIM BEFORE HE STARTED TAPING THE FIRST MEETING WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE TAPING.

HE SAID I BELIEVE HIS PERSONAL USE ONLY.

I ALSO SAID TO HIM I WANT A COPY OF THE TAPE.

IF YOU PLAN ON USING IT AT A HEARING, I WANT A COPY OF IT FIRST TO MAKE SURE IT'S AUTHENTICATED, CORRECT, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

SO I'VE GOT TO OBJECT FOR THE RECORD STRENUOUSLY THAT THESE TAPES BE ALLOWED INTO THE RECORD HERE WITHOUT OUR REVIEWING THEM FIRST.

>>STEVE LUCE: HMM.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAVE AN OPINION?

>> NOTHING ABOUT THE MERITS OF WHAT MR. MARCHETTI STATED, ABOUT HIS DISCUSSIONS WITH THE GENTLEMAN, BUT I MEAN, THE EVIDENTIARY RULES ARE INFORMAL HERE.

THERE'S NO DISCOVERY PROCESS.

SO ESSENTIALLY, IF SOMEONE COMES UP AND SPEAKS IN OPPOSITION, YOU DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO SAY BEFORE THEY GET HERE.

IT'S THE SAME THING IF SOMEONE SUBMITTED PHOTOGRAPHS OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.

>> I AM SORRY.

FOR THE RECORD, VIN MARCHETTI.

THE DIFFERENCE IS, OBVIOUSLY, I CAN HEAR PEOPLE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION, I CAN ADDRESS THAT IN REBUTTAL.

I CANNOT ADDRESS A VIDEOTAPE, WHICH I ASKED THE GENTLEMAN TO PRESENT TO US IN ADVANCE, CANNOT ADDRESS THE VIDEOTAPE NOW IN REBUTTAL -- IN OPPOSITION, I AM SORRY -- I CAN'T ADDRESS IT.

>>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT.

>> I CAN'T ADDRESS IT AFTER THE HEARING.

I COULD ADDRESS IT DURING THE HEARING IF I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEEING IT, AUTHENTICATING IT, ENSURING IT WAS, IN FACT, CORRECT.

SO I AM GOING TO OBJECT.

IT COULD BE A BASIS TO ACTUALLY APPEAL.

>>STEVE LUCE: THAT'S A LEGITIMATE POINT IS THAT IF THERE ARE COMMENTS ON DVD THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT HAD A CHANCE TO REBUT, I THINK THAT IS PROBLEMATIC.

>>CAMERON CLARK: IT'S A FAIR POINT ALSO IN THE SENSE THAT -- THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE THAT IF HE WAS TO PLAY -- WHICH OBVIOUSLY HE IS NOT GOING TO -- BUT HE'S GOING TO PLAY THOSE, MR. MARCHETTI CAN ADDRESS THOSE AT THE TIME.

MR. MARCHETTI COULD SEE THESE IN TIME TO GET TO THE BOARD, BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT.

THE POINT IS THEY CAN'T BE ENTERED INTO -- HE CAN'T COMMENT ON THOSE -- ON THE MATERIAL IN THOSE DISKS HERE.

>>STEVE LUCE: LET ME ASK THE GENTLEMAN AT THE PODIUM.

THERE WERE MINUTES THAT WERE PRODUCED.

>> I AM SORRY?

>>STEVE LUCE: MINUTES OF THE MEETING THAT WERE PRODUCED.

HAVE YOU SEEN THOSE MINUTES?

>> NO, I DID NOT READ THE MINUTES, NO.

>>STEVE LUCE: WERE THEY MADE AVAILABLE TO YOU?

>> THEY DID NOT SEND ME THE MINUTES PERSONALLY, NO.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

HAS STAFF SEEN THE MINUTES TO THE MEETINGS?

THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS?

>>BRIAN GRADY: WE HAVE COPIES OF THEM.

I HAVE NOT PERSONALLY READ THOSE MINUTES.

>>STEVE LUCE: DID ANYONE FROM THE STAFF GO TO THOSE MEETINGS?

>>BRIAN GRADY: STAFF WENT TO THE FIRST MEETING, DID NOT ATTEND THE SECOND MEETING.

>>STEVE LUCE: MS. ALBERT, IF YOU COULD COME FORWARD, PLEASE.

YOU ATTENDED THE FIRST MEETING?

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: ISABELLE ALBERT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

YES, I DID ATTEND THE FIRST MEETING.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND HAVE YOU SEEN THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING?

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THEM AGAIN.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, BASED ON ARGUMENT PUT FORWARD BY THE APPLICANT, I WOULD NOT ALLOW THE DVD TO BE PUT INTO THE RECORD AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

LEGITIMATE OBJECTION IS THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE DVD ARE UNKNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, AND HE HASN'T HAD A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT, ASK QUESTIONS, REBUT WHAT'S ON THE DVDs.

YOU CAN SUMMARIZE WHAT TOOK PLACE AT THOSE MEETINGS.

THAT'S FINE.

BUT THE DVDs THEMSELVES WE'LL EXCLUDE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

>> THEY HAD LOTS OF DIFFERENT NOTEBOOKS AND STUFF THEY PRODUCED THAT I HAVEN'T SEEN EITHER.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, THEY HAD LOTS OF PEOPLE COME AND TESTIFY THAT ONLY WORKED FOR THAT PLACE.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND YOUR PLACE?

>> I MEAN, WE ARE PROPERTY OWNERS.

ANYHOW, IF THAT'S A GIANT PROBLEM, I WILL SUMMARIZE WHAT WENT ON.

MY MEMORY IS PRETTY GOOD.

I WAS RIGHT THERE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

IF YOU DON'T MIND.

I THINK THAT'S A CLEANER RECORD FOR US MOVING FORWARD.

>> WELL, I CAN APPRECIATE THAT.

HE SAID HE DIDN'T MIND -- ON THE VIDEO HE SAYS HE DOESN'T MIND ME VIDEOING THE MEETING UP FRONT.

THAT'S THE FIRST THING HE DID SAY.

BUT I'LL WITHDRAW THAT.

SO ANYHOW, WE WENT TO THE MEETING, AND AT THE MEETING, ALL THEY WANTED TO ADDRESS WAS WAYS THAT THEY COULD TRY TO -- BASICALLY TRY TO MAKE IT SO THAT THEY COULD HAVE THIS VENUE.

THE PROBLEM IS, LIKE YOU SAID, NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE ENFORCEABLE, OR IF THEY ARE ENFORCEABLE, NOT VERY MANY MEMBERS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION ARE AVAILABLE AT 9:00 AND 10:00 TO COME OUT AND CHECK ON THEIR NOISE LEVELS, THEIR ACTIVITY LEVELS, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

THEY DO HAVE ROUGHLY 150, 175 PEOPLE I THINK IS WHAT THEY EVEN ASKED FOR IN THEIR PERMIT TO -- THEY'RE OUT THERE, THEY ARE SCREAMING AND HOLLERING, CHEERING ON THE WEDDING GROUP, STUFF LIKE THAT.

FOR YEARS BEFORE THIS EVER CAME UP, WE HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO SO-AND-SO IS NOW THE BRIDE AND GROOM THAT'S COMING DOWN THE AISLE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO WE'VE BEEN PUTTING UP WITH THIS FOR QUITE SO MANY YEARS.

IN ALL HONESTY, WE WOULD NOT BE HERE -- THEY DID SAY IN THE BEGINNING THAT ONE OF HER COMPETITION TURNED HER IN.

I'D LOVE TO FIND OUT WHO THAT WAS AND THANK THEM.

WE DIDN'T KNOW.

WE HAD NO IDEA THAT THIS WAS IN ANY KIND OF ZONING DISPUTE OR ZONING VARIANCE OR WHATEVER.

WE DON'T PAY THAT GOOD OF ATTENTION -- WE DIDN'T REALLY KNOW HOW WE COULD GO AT IT AND REFUTE THIS.

WE DO ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER OUR PEACE AND TRANQUILITY.

I MEAN, WE DO ASK THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE MAKING $4.5 MILLION OVER HERE, THEY'RE DOING IT IN AN ILLEGAL FASHION THUS FAR.

THEY ARE NOT PROPERLY ZONED FOR THIS.

THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE.

SO THEY HAVE GONE THROUGH AND THEY HAVE MADE ALL THIS MONEY TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD, YOU KNOW, VIN, THE ATTORNEY, AND KEVIN, THE PLANNING GUY.

THEY HAVE ALL THIS EXPERIENCE AT THIS.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT.

AND THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO AFFORD THEM IF THEY HAD TO GO OUT AND ZONE THIS PROPERLY AND THEN START THE BUSINESS BECAUSE, AS THEY TESTIFIED, THEY STARTED IT, THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY MONEY.

SO INSTEAD OF DOING IT THE PROPER WAY, THEY DID SOME STUFF, BUILT ON, AND WHATEVER.

THE BUILDING THAT THEY ACTUALLY PERMITTED FOR A BED AND BREAKFAST -- AND THEY ARE STILL ASKING FOR BED AND BREAKFAST -- BUT ONE OF THE CRITERIA WHEN I READ THE BED AND BREAKFAST CRITERIA WAS THAT IT HAD TO BE LIVED IN BY THE OWNER OR BY THE OCCUPANT.

IT STATES IT RIGHT THERE.

IT'S NOT VAGUE OR AMBIGUOUS.

IT SAYS IT MUST BE LIVED IN BY THE OCCUPANT, OF WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'VE EVER LIVED IN THAT FIRST BUILDING THEY PERMITTED.

SO FROM THE GET-GO, THEY WERE IN NONCOMPLIANCE.

FROM THE GET-GO, THEY HAVE -- WELL, THEY PERMITTED AN ANCILLARY STRUCTURE FOR HER MOTHER-IN-LAW OR MOTHER -- I AM NOT REALLY SURE TO BE HONEST ABOUT IT -- THEN TERMS IT A GRANNY FLAT.

I AM NOT SURE IF A GRANNY FLAT FALLS UNDER A DEFINITION IN THE ZONING CODE, BUT THEY WERE PRETTY EXCITED ABOUT THAT.

AND THAT WAS AN ANCILLARY STRUCTURE TO A STRUCTURE THAT THEY WEREN'T LIVING IN, ACCORDING TO ONE OF THE REPORTS I READ.

SO ALL ALONG, EVER SINCE 2006, WHEN THEY STARTED THIS, IT HAS NOT BEEN IN COMPLIANCE OF ANYTHING.

THEY HAVE PROCEEDED TO ADD BUILDING AFTER BUILDING AFTER BUILDING, AGAIN, IN NONCOMPLIANCE.

THEY JUST PUT UP A FENCE THREE WEEKS AGO IN NONCOMPLIANCE.

SO I ASK WHAT WOULD MAKE US FEEL THAT THEY WOULD COMPLY WITH ANYTHING THAT MAY COME OUT OF THIS HEARING OR MAY COME OUT OF A PIECE OF PAPER THAT THEY WRITE DOWN OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?

WE'VE GOT A LONG HISTORY OF NONCOMPLIANCE.

WE TALK ABOUT NOISE.

NOISE IS AN INTERESTING THING.

TWO EXAMPLES, AND I WISH DON WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STAY HERE LONGER, BUT THEY CAN ATTEST.

DON WAS OUT MOWING HIS GRASS ONE DAY.

YOU SAW THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND DONE'S PROPERTY.

HE IS MOWING HIS GRASS ON A REGULAR JOHN DEERE MOWER YOU GET AT LOWE'S -- ACTUALLY, HE BUYS HIS AT JOHN DEERE.

ANYHOW, BONNIE CAME RUNNING OVER AND ASKED HIM TO STOP MOWING BECAUSE THE NOISE WAS TOO LOUD.

THAT'S A LAWNMOWER.

WHEN I WAS BUILDING THIS BUILDING, BONNIE CAME OVER AND ASKED THAT WE STOP SCREWING IN THE SCREWS FOR THE ROOFING BECAUSE THAT WAS TOO LOUD AND SHE DIDN'T WANT TO DISRUPT A WEDDING.

WE DON'T WANT TO DISRUPT.

A YOUNG LADY GETS MARRIED BUT ONCE -- A LOT OF TIMES.

WE DON'T WANT TO DISRUPT THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.

[LAUGHTER]

WELL, SOME DAYS MORE -- YOU KNOW, BUT ANYHOW, THE FIRST ONE WE DON'T WANT TO DISRUPT.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT SHE'S GOING TO REMEMBER.

SO YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO DISRUPT THESE THINGS.

SO WE STOP.

WE STOP MOWING.

WE STOP RUNNING A SCREW GUN.

BUT IF THAT'S THE SORT OF THING THAT BOTHERS THEM, WHAT ABOUT WHAT BOTHERS US?

AND WE'VE TALKED TO THEM MANY A TIME ABOUT IT.

SO WITH THAT, WHILE I GET MY NOTES TOGETHER BECAUSE I DIDN'T WRITE A WHOLE BIG LONG SPEECH, I WILL INVITE SOME OF THE OTHER PEOPLE TO COME UP.

OH, WAIT, I'M SORRY.

PLEASE PARDON OUR MAP.

IT'S GOT -- WE MADE IT.

HERE WE GO.

WE MADE THIS -- YEAH -- WE MADE THIS MAP HERE.

IN THIS MAP, WE COLORED IN IN BLACK CROSS CREEK RANCH.

IT'S RIGHT IN THROUGH HERE.

AND THEN WE COLORED IN IN RED ALL THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IN WHO ACTUALLY ARE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT OPPOSED.

THIS IS MR. STONE WHO IS BACK THERE.

THIS IS DON PATE.

HE LIVES RIGHT THERE.

I LIVE RIGHT HERE.

I ACTUALLY, I LIVE ALL THE WAY DOWN THROUGH.

THIS IS MIKE AND VINCE AND LORETTA, AND THEN WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE WAY OVER HERE THAT I TALKED TO THAT THEY'RE EVEN HEARING NOISES, AND EACH ONE OF THESE PEOPLE WROTE IN ORIGINAL LETTERS.

NOW, IN CONTRAST, WE DID SEE LETTERS FROM SOME OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE -- WERE FOR THIS.

NOW, A LETTER CAME FROM THIS PROPERTY, ONE, TWO -- I CAN'T READ -- 914, AND IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS ON HIS LETTER HE IS A RENTER.

THIS PROPERTY ISN'T OCCUPIED BY THE OWNER.

HE LIVES IN SEFFNER.

THIS PROPERTY, THIS IS RICHARD, AND RICHARD TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD NEVER HAD ANY COMPLAINTS FROM HIS RENTERS ABOUT NOISE.

RICHARD DOESN'T LIVE ON THE PROPERTY, BUT NEITHER DO HIS RENTERS.

THIS RENTER THAT IS IN THIS AREA RIGHT HERE HASN'T LIVED THERE -- I DON'T THINK THAT'S BEEN RENTED IN FIVE OR SIX YEARS.

THIS RENTER JUST MOVED OUT, AND THIS RENTER IS HARDLY EVER HERE.

NOW, JUST ALSO FOR THE RECORD, WE WERE OVER HERE ONE DAY SPEAKING WITH RICHARD, AND RICHARD AND BONNIE JUST HAD TO BE MEETING THAT SAME DAY TO DISCUSS RICHARD WANTING TO SELL THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.

WE THOUGHT THAT WAS INTERESTING.

AND THEY GOT TOGETHER BECAUSE THEY HAVE A COMMON FRIEND IN KEVIN MINEER'S COMPANY.

SO -- BUT THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WERE OPPOSED TO THIS AS IT WENT ALONG.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

I'M SORRY, I CUT YOU OFF.

IS THAT IT?

>> THAT'S IT FOR RIGHT NOW, YES.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

CAN I GET A SHOW OF HANDS OF THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?

I SEE ABOUT FOUR PEOPLE WHO HAVE THEIR HANDS RAISED.

LET'S TRY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE OTHER FOLKS THAT WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION.

>> YEAH.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS VINCE SANTILLO JR., DOVER, FLORIDA.

I WOULD LIKE TO READ A SHORT LETTER THAT I WROTE IN OPPOSITION AND THEN ENTER INTO THE RECORD, IF I COULD.

I'M WRITING THIS AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN AND AS A NEIGHBOR OF CROSS CREEK RANCH WHO FILED THE SUBJECT APPLICATION.

MY HOUSEHOLD INCLUDES MY WIFE, MY SON, 29 YEARS OLD, AND MY 95-YEAR-OLD MOTHER.

WE ARE ALL UNANIMOUSLY OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING OR INCREASED ACTIVITY OF CROSS CREEK RANCH.

WE LIVE A QUARTER MILE AWAY, AND WE CAN CLEARLY HEAR THE EVENTS GOING ON THERE, CLAPPING, ANNOUNCEMENTS, CHEERING, ET CETERA.

THEY'VE INCREASED MARKEDLY IN VOLUME AND FREQUENCY SINCE WE MOVED TO OUR HOME IN THE SUMMER OF 2004.

IT'S BECOME MORE DISTURBING AS TIME'S GONE ON.

SITTING OUTSIDE ON OUR PATIO HAS BECOME LESS RELAXING AS A RESULT OF THIS.

ADDITIONALLY, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE USE AND SERVING OF ALCOHOL AT THE RANCH, PARTICULARLY BY PEOPLE WHO WILL BE DRIVING THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AFTER THE ACTIVITIES THERE.

I HAVE NOT CLOSELY EXAMINED THE OUTGOING GARBAGE AND RECYCLABLES OF THE RANCH.

MY NORMAL DRIVE-BYS THERE TO AND FROM HOME HAVE REVEALED EXTREMELY LARGE DEPOSITS OF EMPTY BEER AND WINE BOTTLES IN TRASH CANS.

I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEGATIVE EFFECT ON OUR PROPERTY VALUES.

SUCH NOISY, HEAVILY TRAFFIC ON OUR FORMERLY TRANQUIL NEIGHBORHOOD WILL ONLY SERVE TO MAKE OUR HOMES LESS VALUABLE, THEREBY DECREASING OUR PROPERTY VALUES.

SURELY THIS IS UNHEALTHY FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AS A WHOLE AS WELL AS IT IS FOR INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS.

MY SENSE IS THAT REZONING REQUEST IS IN PART AN EFFORT TO LEGITIMIZE WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING FOR SOME TIME, HOSTING ACTIVITIES WELL OUTSIDE THEIR INITIAL APPLICATION AND SCOPE AS A BED AND BREAKFAST.

I WOULD LIKE TO ENTER THAT INTO THE RECORD.

MAKE TWO COMMENTS FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD TONIGHT.

THE EXPERTS AND NONEXPERTS TALKING ABOUT SOUND HAVE KIND OF FOCUSED ON THE VOLUME AND THE DECIBEL LEVEL.

I LIVE A QUARTER OF A MILE AWAY, AND YOU KNOW, CARS GO BY, TRUCKS GO BY, AIRPLANES GO OVERHEAD, TRAINS GO BY, AND THEY ARE CLEARLY LOUDER THAN CROSS CREEK RANCH, BUT THOSE SOUNDS ARE EVERYDAY SOUNDS THAT YOU EXPECT TO HEAR IN YOUR EVERYDAY LIFE, AND THE SOUNDS AT CROSS-CREEK RANCH ARE NOT.

SOMEONE WHISPERING IN YOUR EAR CAN BE ANNOYING, AND THE SOUNDS AT CROSS CREEK RANCH ARE BASICALLY ANNOYING.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST A GROUP OF UNORGANIZED NEIGHBORS HERE.

WE HAVEN'T HIRED LAWYERS OR EXPERT WITNESSES, AND I DON'T MEAN THAT IN A PEJORATIVE WAY AT ALL.

BUT WE DIDN'T BRING PEOPLE FAR AND WIDE TO COME AND TESTIFY ON OUR BEHALF.

A LOT OF OUR NEIGHBORS THAT ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ARE HARDWORKING FOLKS THAT COME ONLY AT 5:00, 6:00, 7:00 AT NIGHT, THEY GO HOME TO THEIR FAMILIES AND DON'T HAVE TIME TO COME OUT FOR THIS.

BUT BASICALLY, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU CALL THIS OPERATION, HOW YOU CATEGORIZE IT, WHETHER IT FITS OR DOESN'T FIT IN WITH A CERTAIN CRITERIA.

BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, THEY ARE A 4-PLUS-MILLION-DOLLAR NONAGRICULTURAL OPERATION IN THE MIDDLE OF AN AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONE.

WE'VE HEARD SOME PERSONAL NOTES FROM SOME OF THE PEOPLE.

I'LL GIVE YOU A PERSONAL NOTE OF MY OWN.

I AM A RETIRED FIGHTER PILOT, DID TWO COMBAT TOURS IN VIETNAM AND ONE IN THE PERSIAN GULF.

I CERTAINLY FOUGHT FOR PEOPLE LIKE THE MCSHERRYS TO CARRY ON AN ENTERPRISE LIKE THEY DO.

BUT I ALSO FOUGHT FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE NEIGHBORS TO ME TO HAVE A NICE, QUIET, PEACEFUL HOME LIFE.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

NEXT PERSON, PLEASE.

[APPLAUSE]

>> MIKE, 2264 JAUDON ROAD.

LOOK, WE ARE ALL FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

WEDDINGS ARE IDYLLIC PLACES, AND THERE ARE CERTAINLY A LOT OF FOLKS IN SUPPORT OF CROSS CREEK RANCH.

BUT I DON'T THINK ANY OF THAT IS REALLY GERMANE TO WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

IT'S ALL ABOUT WHAT ACTIVITIES ARE SUPPOSED TO OCCUR IN WHAT LOCATIONS, AND CERTAINLY THE TYPE OF ACTIVITIES THAT ARE GOING ON THERE AREN'T RIGHT FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

A LOT WAS MADE OF NOISE, BUT I THINK THERE ARE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS BESIDES NOISE THAT HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO EFFECT, AND I AM NO EXPERT ON THESE, BUT CERTAINLY TRAFFIC WAS ADDRESSED.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY FOLKS COME TO THEIR WEDDINGS.

THEY ADVERTISE A CAPACITY OF 250 FOLKS.

THAT'S CERTAINLY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC IN THE AREA.

WE'VE ALREADY HEARD ABOUT THE INCONVENIENCE OF THE NEIGHBORS' ROUTINE ACTIVITIES, AND MUCH OF THAT IS OUT OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE WEDDING PARTY.

WE TALKED ABOUT EXCESS TRASH AND ALSO OVERUSE OF THE LIMITED LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

AGAIN, NOT SURE WHAT EFFECT THAT WILL HAVE ON THE SEWERAGE, THE WATER, BUT CERTAINLY THERE'S SOME EFFECT, AND THERE MUST BE SOME EXPERT THAT UNDERSTANDS HOW TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

NEXT, PLEASE.

>> WILLIAM STONE, 2269 JAUDON ROAD, DOVER.

OUR PROPERTY IS NEXT TO DON PATE'S.

WE ARE RIGHT ADJACENT IN THAT AREA.

YOU'VE HEARD A LOT OF ARGUMENTS, AND YOU'VE HEARD BEAUTIFUL SPEECHES, BUT ALL THIS JUST BOILS DOWN TO THE FACT THAT THEY BUILT A PARTY BARN IN THE OTHER PEOPLE'S BACKYARDS, AND THAT'S BASICALLY IT.

THERE'S NOT A SINGLE PERSON HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO LIVE NEXT TO IT.

AND SO I'M OPPOSED TO IT.

I AM IN FAVOR OF THEM.

I SUPPORT THEM.

LET THEM PUT THEIR PARTY BARN UP IN THE FRONT.

BUT I'M AGAINST THIS -- CHANGES THIS ZONING.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

NEXT PERSON, PLEASE.

GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING.

DAVID RAY, 13030 EAST WHEELER ROAD.

I'M ABOUT 500 FOOT TO THE EAST OF THE MCSHERRYS.

A LOT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT THE NOISE TONIGHT.

SOMEONE SAID THERE'S BEEN NO COMPLAINTS IN THE LAST SIX TO EIGHT MONTHS.

I PERSONALLY HAVE CALLED THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE OVER THE YEARS.

THE ISSUE WITH THAT IS THAT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE RECEIVES OVER 6,000 COMPLAINTS A YEAR FOR NOISE.

WHEN IT GOES INTO THEIR SYSTEM -- I TRY TO GET THESE REPORTS -- IT GOES IN AS AN ALERT, SO IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY GO IN AS A REPORT.

I WAS NOT ABLE TO OBTAIN THOSE ALERTS THAT HAVE BEEN CALLED IN OVER THE YEARS.

I PERSONALLY HAVE TESTED MS. McSHERRY IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS MORE THAN ONE OCCASION AND ASKED HER TO TURN THE MUSIC DOWN BECAUSE I COULD HEAR IT INSIDE MY HOUSE WITH THE WINDOWS CLOSED WITH THE AIR CONDITIONING RUNNING OVER THE TOP OF MY TV, AND I GOT NO RESPONSE FOR THAT.

SO I AM NOT GOING TO, YOU KNOW, SAY A LOT ABOUT NOISE.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT SAID ABOUT IT.

ONE OF THE CONCERNS I DO HAVE IS THE TRAFFIC.

FROM THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, IT SAYS THAT THEY DON'T OBJECT, THEY DON'T SEE ANY TRAFFIC CONCERNS.

I DISAGREE WITH THAT.

THE TRAFFIC RESEARCH, THERE'S A PROGRAM THAT USED TO BE IN PLACE CALLED THE RTCNTC PROGRAM IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC CALMING, NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING.

AT ONE POINT THEY DID A STUDY.

IF THEY HAD DONE THE RESEARCH, THEY WOULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE SPEED LIMIT ON WHEELER ROAD WAS REDUCED FROM 40 MILES AN HOUR TO 35 MILES AN HOUR.

JUST ABOUT 1500 FEET EAST OF CROSS CREEK RANCH, THERE WERE SPEED HUMPS INSTALLED AND EXTRA SIGNAGE INSTALLED AT JAUDON AND WHEELER TO CALM TRAFFIC IN THE AREA.

I DON'T AGREE WITH THERE NOT BEING ANY TRAFFIC ISSUES.

ONE OF THE CONCERNS ALSO I HAVE IS WITH DEVALUING OF INTO MY PROPERTY.

IF I HAVE TO RESELL MY PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE IF THIS ZONING GOES THROUGH, AND PEOPLE COME OUT AND HERE THE BAND -- MUSIC, I SHOULDN'T SAY BAND -- THEY HEAR THE MUSIC, THINGS LIKE THAT, IT'S GOING TO DEVALUE OUR PROPERTIES.

A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE INVESTMENTS IN OUR PROPERTIES.

I CAN SEE THAT DECLINING.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

>>BRIAN GRADY: NOT UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

>> NOTHING FURTHER UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

>> YES, THANK YOU.

VIN MARCHETTI FOR THE RECORD AGAIN.

LET ME TAKE IT BACK TO THE STARTING COMMENTS FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

ACTUALLY, LET ME GET KEVIN TO GRAB MY BOOK FOR ME.

FIRST OF ALL, ISABELLE MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THE CONTRACTOR WEDDING LIST NOT BEING AVAILABLE.

THAT'S NOT CORRECT.

WE HAVE THE WEDDING LIST AVAILABLE.

WE ACTUALLY REFERRED TO IT, OF COURSE, IN THE PROPOSED CONDITION.

WE DIDN'T GET FAR ENOUGH WITH STAFF TO ACTUALLY FINISH OUR CONDITIONS AND HAVE A BACK-AND-FORTH.

WE PRESENTED PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

STAFF HAD A COUPLE OF GENERAL COMMENTS, DIDN'T FOLLOW UP WITH THE COMMENTS BECAUSE THEY OBVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED DENIAL.

WE, IN TURN, WITHIN YOUR BINDER, UNDER TAB 2 IS -- AND WE DID THIS VERY CAREFULLY -- WE TRIED TO PINPOINT THE EXACT WEDDING DATES, TIMES, DAYS OF THE WEDDINGS, ET CETERA, THAT WOULD NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR PROPOSED CONDITIONS, AND THE CONDITIONS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO REFER TO BECAUSE -- YOU KNOW, IT'S INTERESTING.

EPC STAFF -- AND I GIVE THEM CREDIT -- ACTUALLY STOOD HERE AND SAID -- HE USED THE TERM THAT WE VOLUNTARILY -- ASKED FOR VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE MEASURES, WHICH IS PRETTY INCREDIBLE.

WHEN DO YOU SEE PEOPLE GOING TO EPC SAYING CAN WE COMPLY WITH YOUR RULES AND HELP US COMPLY?

EPC CANDIDLY -- YOU CAN TELL BY THEIR REMARKS TONIGHT AS WELL AS THEIR WRITTEN COMMENTS AS WELL -- REALLY WEREN'T CONDUCIVE TO ASSISTING US IN THAT REGARD, IN MY OPINION.

OKAY?

THE CONDITIONS TALK ABOUT ACCEPTED WEDDINGS THERE UNDER TAB 2.



I AM GOING TO REFER TO THE CONDITIONS AGAIN IN A MINUTE.

EPC STAFF TALKED ABOUT -- AND THE COMMENT WAS THAT IT WAS A PREARRANGED STUDY THAT GARY PERFORMED, MEANING I GUESS TO INFER THAT GARY'S WORK WAS DONE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE GUESTS ON THE PROPERTY AND, THEREFORE, THE GUESTS ON THE PROPERTY WERE QUIETER, PERHAPS, THAN WHAT THEY WOULD OTHERWISE BE, AND I AM GOING TO ASK BONNIE TO GET UP IN A MINUTE AND ASK WHETHER OR NOT SHE INFORMED THE GUESTS OF THERE BEING NOISE MONITORED FOR TWO SEPARATE EVENTS, TWO SEPARATE WEDDING EVENTS -- ACTUALLY, MORE THAN TWO -- ON THE SAME DAY OR TWO DIFFERENT DAYS.

I THINK THERE WERE FOUR EVENTS TOTAL.

DURING USUAL COMMENT FROM STAFF, AS IS THEIR COMMENT IN THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO -- I ASKED SPECIFICALLY ISABELLE THIS QUESTION, WHERE DID SHE GET THE QUOTE, AND THE QUOTE IS ON PAGE 3 -- I BELIEVE 3 OF THE STAFF REPORT.

IT SAYS -- I HAVE TO FIND THE COMMENT HERE.

SOMETHING ABOUT RELICING IN THE DELIGHT -- I AM SORRY.

HERE IT IS HERE.

I'LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO THAT.

ANYWAY, THERE'S A COMMENT ABOUT RELICING IN THE DELIGHT OF A WEDDING AND THEREFORE NOT BEING IN CONTROL OF YOUR SOUND AND YOUR VOICE, ET CETERA.

OBVIOUSLY NOT THINGS THAT EPC SHOULD BE TRYING TO REGULATE.

THEY ARE NOT REGULATING THAT.

THEY SAID THEY ONLY REGULATE CERTAIN THINGS.

WE ARE TAKING IT A ACCEPT FURTHER.

ACTUALLY, MANY STEPS FURTHER IN WHAT WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO.

EPC WOULD BE FORCED TO -- I AM SAYING FORCED TO -- CODE ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE FORCED TO ENFORCE ANY CODE CONDITIONS OR CONDITIONS OF A PD DEVELOPMENT, AS YOU KNOW.

AND THEY WOULD CALL UPON EPC TO HELP THEM ENFORCE THOSE REGULATIONS OR THOSE CONDITIONS IN THIS CASE.

SO FOR THEM TO STAND HERE AND SAY THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ENFORCE THE CONDITIONS MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL.

I'VE GOT A CLIENT WHO VOLUNTARILY WANTED TO TEST IN ADVANCE OF DOING THE WEDDING, IF YOU WILL, OR ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS.

I HAVE A CLIENT THAT WENT TO EPC BEFORE GARY WAS RETAINED AND ASKED THAT EPC TEST ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH THEY CAME OUT AND DID A MOCK TEST.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR THAT WE'RE NOT THRILLED ABOUT THE COMMENTS BY EPC, EITHER IN WRITTEN FORM OR VERBALLY TONIGHT.

PLANNING COMMISSION, RANDY SAID PLANNING COMMISSION STATES NOT COMFORTABLE WITH NOISE REGULATIONS UNDER THE COMP PLAN, YET THE DEFINITION -- AND I WANT TO HAVE KEVIN HAND THIS OUT.

ALSO, HE SAID THAT IN HIS OPINION, COMMERCIAL WAIVER FOR LOCATIONAL CRITERIA IS REQUIRED.

WELL, THAT PUTS US, OBVIOUSLY, IN A BOX.

ARE WE A COMMERCIAL USE LOCATED IN AG ZONING IN A COMP PLAN CATEGORY THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR COMMERCIAL?

NO, WE ARE NOT.

THE REASON IS BECAUSE WE ARE NOT A COMMERCIAL USE.

SO IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE THE DEFINITION OF COMPATIBILITY, WHICH IS THE FIRST PARAGRAPH THERE IN WHAT I JUST HANDED TO YOU, THIS IS BOTH IN THE LDC AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

IT WAS CHANGED A FEW YEARS AGO.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF DIFFERENT USES OR ACTIVITIES OR DESIGN WHICH ALLOW THEM TO BE LOCATED NEAR OR ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER IN HARMONY.

THAT'S THE DEFINITION.

SOME ELEMENTS AFFECTING COMPATIBILITY INCLUDE -- AND NONE OF THE ONES THAT ARE LISTED HERE PERTAIN TO THIS CASE -- AND BY THE WAY, THE STAFF REPORT, UNDER AGENCY COMMENTS, 1.7, SAYS THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS FROM REVIEWING AGENCIES.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR.

NO OBJECTIONS FROM ANY REVIEWING AGENCIES, INCLUDING EPC.

>>STEVE LUCE: MR. MARCHETTI, HOW MUCH MORE TIME DO YOU THINK YOU'LL NEED?

>> PROBABLY MAYBE 7, 8, 9, 10 MINUTES, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

5 MINUTES.

>>STEVE LUCE: 5 MINUTES?

CLERK, IF YOU COULD JUST REMIND ME OF THAT TIME WHEN IT COMES.

ALL RIGHT.

PLEASE PROCEED.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

SO SOME ELEMENTS AFFECTING COMPATIBILITY INCLUDE NOISE.

THEN IT SAYS COMPATIBILITY DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME AS; RATHER, IT REFERS TO THE SENSITIVITY OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS IN MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING HERE TO DO.

WE ARE PROPOSING CONDITIONS THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BETTER THE SITUATION.

YOU ARE NOT JUST MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER, BUT WE'RE BETTERING AND ENHANCING THE CHARACTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AG ZONING DISTRICT.

THE EPC NOISE REGULATORY AUTHORITY I QUOTED NEXT, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT THE SPECIAL ACT, WHICH YOU'VE GOT THERE ATTACHED TO IT.

THE SPECIAL ACT FROM 1984 WAS AMENDED -- AND LOOK AT THE EDITOR'S NOTE ON PAGE 10 OF THE SPECIAL ACT.

SPECIAL ACT IS 84-446.

IT WAS AMENDED TO STATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 13th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT RULING IN CASE NUMBER 0411404 ON 2/25/05, THE ACT WAS AMENDED, AND SPECIFICALLY THE DEFINITION OF NOISE POLLUTION MEANS, AND IT STRUCK THROUGH "OR WHICH REASONABLY INTERFERES WITH THE COMFORTABLE ENJOYMENT OF LIFE OR PROPERTY."

THAT WAS STRUCK THROUGH IN THE RULE, IN THE ACTUAL ENABLING ACT THAT THEN CARRIED FORWARD TO THE EPC RULE 1-10.

VERY IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF THIS CASE.

EPC REGULATES NOISE.

THEY CANNOT REGULATE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF NOISE.

WE ARE TRYING TO REGULATE IT OURSELVES.

THE NEXT POINT I WANT TO MAKE, NEXT PAGE THERE, LDC 5.03.01, SAYS SPECIFICALLY IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS, THE INTENT OF THESE DISTRICTS IS TO ENCOURAGE CREATIVE, INNOVATIVE, AND/OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND TO ENSURE AND PROMOTE LAND USE COMPATIBILITY AND HARMONY FOR LAND THAT IS TO BE PLANNED.

ONE OF THE ELEMENTS THAT YOU ARE ASKED TO CONSIDER IS REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FILED BY REVIEWING AGENCIES.

REVIEWING AGENCIES HAD NO OBJECTION.

THE ONLY ISSUE AT HAND HERE IS THE NOISE.

THAT'S IT.

SOMEONE MENTIONED TRAFFIC.

THERE'S NO OBJECTION ON TRAFFIC, NO AGENCY COMMENT ON TRAFFIC.

ALSO, YOUR TASK IS TO LOOK AT THE NATURE OF AND IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING LAND USE.

BUT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT IN AN OBJECTIVE, NOT SUBJECTIVE MANNER.

VERY IMPORTANT, THE CASE LAW I QUOTED AND REFERRED TO YOU IN THE BOOK I SUBMITTED TO YOU TALKS ABOUT THAT STANDARD.

I NEED TO TALK ABOUT ERIN FOR A SECOND.

ERIN, BY THE WAY, IS EITHER A LICENSED CONTRACTOR OR ENGINEER.

WE KNOW HE HAS A PROFESSIONAL LICENSE OF SOME SORT.

HE IS MAKING A COMMENT THAT PEOPLE RENTING AROUND THE PROPERTY ARE NOT AS IMPORTANT AS PEOPLE THAT OWN THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S INCORRECT.

IN FACT, ACTUALLY, MORE PEOPLE NOW RENT, I BELIEVE, THAN ACTUALLY OWN.

SO WHETHER THE McDANIELS ARE RENTING THIS PROPERTY OUT, HE HAS TESTIFIED BEFORE HE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY COMPLAINTS.

THE OTHER WOMAN WHO SPOKE LIVES ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY, OFF THE CORNER, SAID NO COMPLAINTS.

THE CONDITIONS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING WOULD ENCLOSE TWO SIDES OF THAT BUILDING THAT WOULD FACE EAST AND NORTH.

OUR OPINION IS THAT WILL ELIMINATE ANY AND ALL NOISE CONCERNS THAT ARE OTHERWISE, ANYWAY, UNREGULATED BY EPC.

WE'VE ADDED STANDARDS HERE IN CONDITION 9 THAT ARE VERY CLEAR.

THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE 20-DECIBEL LEVEL DECREASE.

WE'VE ADDED INTO THE TIMING WHICH THEY HAVE TO DO IT, THE CONSTRUCTION DESIGN, ET CETERA.

DECREASED PROPERTY VALUES.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF THAT HERE TONIGHT, AS YOU KNOW.

AND AGAIN, I WANT TO REFER AGAIN TO CONDITION 1.7 IN THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH IS CLEAR THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS OF REVIEWING AGENCIES.

SO WHEN EPC STOOD UP HERE AND SAID WE CAN'T COMMENT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO COMMENT ANYWAY, THEY ARE COMMENTING ON THINGS IN WHICH THEY ARE NOT, A, REGULATING, THEY HAVEN'T OBJECTED TO, AND CANDIDLY, I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE PROBABLY TAKEN MORE OF AN INTEREST IN.

WE DID HAVE THEM OUT TO THE SITE IN ONE OF THE SECOND MEETINGS, THEY CAME TO THE SITE FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, AND THEY HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO GET INVOLVED, AND I WISH THEY HAD MORE SO.

BONNIE, DO YOU WANT TO JUST RESPOND TO THE ORCHESTRATED COMMENT?

>> OKAY.

ON THE WHAT?

>> ABOUT HOW THE NOISE STUDY WAS DONE.

>> NO ONE AT THE PROPERTY OTHER THAN THE PEOPLE DOING THE TEST, MY HUSBAND, AND MYSELF, OUR DJs DID KNOW, BUT NO GUEST KNEW THAT THE NOISE STUDY WAS GOING ON AT ANY TIME THAT THE STUDY WAS BEING DONE.

IF I COULD MAKE SOME QUICK NOTES, I DO HAVE A TEXT FROM ERIN, WHICH WAS MARCH 13, 2013 -- I CAN'T?

OKAY.


SO I HAVE EXPERIENCE OF ERIN SPEAKING TO ME TELLING ME WE'VE BEEN A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND THAT WHEN WE FIRST WENT TO HIM WITH THE FIRST TEST -- SOUND TEST, WE ACTUALLY -- NOT GARY, BUT A PREVIOUS ONE -- WE WERE ON HIS PROPERTY, WE ASKED HIM IF WE COULD COME OVER THAT NIGHT, AND HE SAID WE COULD.

AND MR. RAY WAS THERE.

ERIN INDICATED TO ME THAT HE FELT THAT WE'D ALWAYS BEEN A GOOD NEIGHBOR.

HE ACKNOWLEDGED US AT HOW IT BUILT OUR BUSINESS IN A TIME OF ECONOMIC STRESS AND, YOU KNOW, SO FORTH --

>>STEVE LUCE: SIR, THIS IS A TIME FOR REBUTTAL.

PLEASE.


>> [SPEAKER OFF MIC]

>>STEVE LUCE: PLEASE, SIR.

PLEASE.

>> I AM SORRY.

>> [SPEAKER OFF MIC]

>> [INAUDIBLE]

I WOULD BE HAPPY TO READ THE TEXT.

>>STEVE LUCE: IT'S NOT NECESSARY.

>> OKAY.

HE'S ALWAYS SAID TO ME THAT WE'VE BEEN A GOOD NEIGHBOR, AND HIS CONCERN AT FIRST WAS WHAT IF YOU SELL?

YOU HAVE BEEN A GOOD NEIGHBOR, YOU END AT 10:00, YOU DO THESE THINGS, WHAT IF YOU SELL THE PROPERTY?

WHAT'S THAT GOING TO MEAN FOR US AND SOMEBODY COMING IN DOING A JACKHAMMER BUSINESS OR SOMETHING ELSE?

I SAID NO, THE PD ACTUALLY KEEPS IT WITH THE RESTRICTIONS AND THE WEDDING AND NO BANDS AND ALL THE TIMES AND THINGS THAT WE'VE DONE.

AND I DO HAVE FROM -- SO OKAY.

AND THEN THE -- THAT CONVERSATION I HAD WITH HIM, I DO HAVE A TEXT SAYING THAT WE WERE GOOD NEIGHBORS IN THAT, BUT I ALSO JUST WANT TO SAY THAT WE THOUGHT FROM THE BEGINNING WE HAD DONE THE RIGHT THING.

I WOULDN'T HAVE BUILT THE BUSINESS THAT I HAVE WITHOUT THINKING THAT.

WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE EMPLOYED AND A LOT OF BLOOD, SWEAT, AND TEARS IN THIS, AND I HOPE YOU WILL CONSIDER -- TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TONIGHT, AND I REALLY WANT TO -- I APPRECIATE EACH AND EVERY PERSON THAT'S BEEN HERE AND ALL THE TIME THAT WE'VE TAKEN FROM THE OTHERS TONIGHT.

THANK YOU.

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

>> ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

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

>> YES.


>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

MR. GRADY, WHAT'S YOUR PREFERENCE REGARDING -- YOU WANT TO TAKE A BREAK NOW FOR A FEW MINUTES OR YOU WANT TO KEEP GOING?

>>BRIAN GRADY: PROBABLY MAYBE JUST A COUPLE MINUTES TO CLEAR THE ROOM SINCE WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE.

REAL SHORT.

>>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT NOW, IT'S 5 AFTER 9.

WE WILL RESTART AT 9:15.

WE WILL RECONVENE IN ABOUT TEN MINUTES.

[BREAK TAKEN].

>>STEVE LUCE: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'LL RECONVENE TONIGHT'S ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING AT THIS POINT IN TIME, AND MR. GRADY, IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE THE NEXT ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS I-6, REZONING APPLICATION 14-30126.

THE APPLICANT IS GERACI LAND ACQUISITIONS, LLC.

THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AR TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR A MIXTURE OF RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE USES.

MICHELLE HEINRICH WILL PROVIDE STAFF PRESENTATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

MR. GRADY, I NOTICE THAT THE NEXT ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS AN ADJACENT PROPERTY.

>>BRIAN GRADY: CORRECT.

THEY ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER.

>>STEVE LUCE: I LOOKED AT THE SITE PLANS.

THESE TWO PROJECTS ARE RELATED.

I WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTIONS IF WE COMBINE THE TESTIMONY FOR BOTH APPLICATIONS AND HEAR ALL THE TESTIMONY ON THESE TWO APPLICATIONS AT THE SAME TIME.

WHEN IT COMES TO THOSE IN SUPPORT AND THOSE IN OPPOSITION, WE WILL HAVE TO TREAT IT ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, BUT MY PREFERENCE IS THAT IF IT'S POSSIBLE, HEAR ALL THE TESTIMONY UNDER -- AT ONCE, BUT I WILL ISSUE TWO SEPARATE ZONING HEARING MASTER RECOMMENDATIONS.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?

>> JUST FOR PURPOSES OF PRESERVING THE RECORD, OBVIOUSLY, JUST ONE SLIGHT MODIFICATION TO THAT.

I SPOKE TO MR. TEW ABOUT THIS PRIOR TO THE HEARING BEGINNING, AND HE STATED HE WOULD PRESENT THE -- HIS CASE FOR ITEM I-6, PROCEED TO OPPOSITION AND PROPONENT TESTIMONY.

ONCE THAT IS CLOSED, HE WAS GOING TO ASK THAT YOU INCORPORATE HIS PRESENTATION FROM I-6 INTO I-7, ESSENTIALLY TO DUPLICATE IT.

THEN WHAT HE IS GOING TO DO IS ANYTHING THAT HE WANTS TO PRESENT IN ADDITION TO WHAT HE PRESENTED IN I-6 HE WILL ADD TO I-7, AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO PURSUE THE SAME PROCESS WITH OPPOSITION AND PROPONENT TESTIMONY.

BUT IT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY SHORTEN THE PRESENTATION FOR I-7.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE APPLICANT, PLEASE.

>> MR. LUCE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, MY NAME IS JOEL TEW, 2999 PALM HARBOR BOULEVARD, PALM HARBOR, FLORIDA.

I AM CO-COUNSEL WITH MR. RICHARD DAVIS FOR THE APPLICANTS, GERACI LAND ACQUISITION, LLC, AND STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES OF FLORIDA, ALONG WITH THE REST OF OUR DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS.

WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU ARE TWO COMPANION PDs.

I AM GOING TO PRESENT ON THE FIRST ONE, WHICH IS THE RESIDENTIAL PD, 0126.

I THEN WILL INCORPORATE THIS TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD ON THE OTHER APPLICATION.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND OFFICIALLY, YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THE COMBINING OF TESTIMONY TONIGHT?

>> YES, SIR, CORRECT.

WE CONCUR WITH THE PROCEDURE THAT YOU SUGGESTED AND THAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY HAS ARTICULATED.

MR. MAXEY, MY COLLEAGUE, IS PASSING OUT AN EVIDENCE BINDER WHICH WE PREPARED TO TRY TO SAVE YOU TWO HOURS OF DISCUSSION THAT WE ENCOUNTERED ON THE LAST ITEM.

THIS IS A COMPLETE EVIDENTIARY PACKAGE, INCLUDING ALL THE ITEMS THAT WE THINK ARE RELEVANT TO THE DETERMINATION AND INCLUDING THE CVs OF OUR EXPERT CONSULTANTS WHO PREPARED THE REPORTS.

SO WE INTRODUCE THAT INTO THE RECORD WITH YOUR PERMISSION AS PART OF OUR EVIDENTIARY PACKAGE, INCLUDING THE TESTIMONY OF THOSE EXPERTS, WHOSE CVs HAVE BEEN PROVIDED.

WITH THAT SAID, BASICALLY, WE FILED TWO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS.

THE FIRST IS WHAT WE CALL THE RESIDENTIAL PD.

THE PROPERTY IS AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NORTH DALE MABRY HIGHWAY AND VAN DYKE ROAD IN THE LUTZ COMMUNITY.

WE FILED THESE WITH AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY TO FILE THEM AS COMPANION PDs TO BE PROCESSED CONCURRENTLY, AND AT THE COUNTY'S REQUEST, WE PREPARED A THIRD DOCUMENT, WHICH IS THE MASTER PLAN THAT YOU SEE ON THE OVERHEAD.

THAT MASTER PLAN, OF COURSE, DEPICTS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO PDs AND SHOWS THE PROPERTY IN ITS ENTIRETY.

GOING BACK TO THE RESIDENTIAL PD, WHAT IS IMPORTANT THERE IS THAT THE PARCEL AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT, PARCELS A AND B, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE DEPICTED ON THIS PD APPLICATION, THOSE TWO PARCELS WERE APPROVED IN 2001 AS THE LANDINGS AT LAKE PEARL PD.

SO THEY HAVE A PREEXISTING APPROVAL WITH VESTED ZONING RIGHTS FROM 2001.

THAT CONSISTS OF 650 MULTIFAMILY UNITS AND 70,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE.

WE AGREED AT THE COUNTY'S REQUEST TO ESSENTIALLY ROLL THAT VESTED PD INTO THE NEW PD FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE COUNTY PREFERRED TO HAVE ONE CONSOLIDATED PD THAT WOULD GIVE THEM EASIER SITE PLAN CONTROL, EASIER ENFORCEMENT OF CONDITIONS, EASIER PLATTING, AND EASIER DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL.

SO WE WERE HAPPY TO DO THAT.

SO REALLY, IF YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT HAS VESTED ENTITLEMENTS, THE ONLY NEW ENTITLEMENTS THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED IN THE RESIDENTIAL PD ARE THOSE ON PARCEL C, WHICH IS THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT.

I CALL IT THE FDOT TRIANGLE BECAUSE IT'S SEPARATED BY AN OLD FDOT RESERVATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT IS NOT CONSTRUCTED.

>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH, AND WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE, I'D LIKE YOU TO HAVE ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT D.O.T. STRIP IS ALL ABOUT.

>> WE WILL CHAT BRIEFLY ABOUT THAT BEFORE I STOP.

THEN OF COURSE, THE LARGE PARCEL, D, WHICH IS THE PRIMARY PARCEL.

SPEAKING OF PARCEL D FIRST, THAT IS PROPOSED FOR ONLY 240 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

THAT IS STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES GATED HIGH-END RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY THAT THEY PROPOSE THERE.

ONLY 240 UNITS ON THE BULK OF THE ACREAGE IN THE PROJECT.

AND THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT, PARCEL C, THE D.O.T. TRIANGLE, AS I CALL IT, IS A SMALL MULTIFAMILY PARCEL THAT IS PROPOSED FOR 177 MULTIFAMILY UNITS.

IF YOU ADD THE 240 UNITS AND THE 177 UNITS AND LOOK ONLY AT THE NEW ENTITLEMENTS THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED, THAT'S ONLY 417 DWELLING UNITS.

AND I EMPHASIZE THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE THREE MAIN POINTS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TONIGHT.

NUMBER ONE, THIS IS ACTUALLY A SUBSTANTIAL DOWNZONING FROM THE ENTITLEMENTS ENVISIONED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTER DESIGNATION THAT EXISTS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE LUTZ COMMUNITY PLAN.

THIS PROPERTY IS CMU-12 AND SMU-6 ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THE ENTITLEMENTS -- THE COMBINED ENTITLEMENTS THAT COULD BE REQUESTED UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND UNDER THE MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTER DESIGNATION FOR THOSE PARCELS C AND D, THOSE ENTITLEMENTS EXCEED 2,000 DWELLING UNITS OF CMU-12 AND SMU-6 AND UP TO 800,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND/OR OFFICE NONRESIDENTIAL USES.

AND I SAY THAT TO POINT OUT THAT THE COMBINATION OF THESE TWO PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS IS ONLY A FRACTION OF THAT.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE RESIDENTIAL ENTITLEMENT IS ONLY ABOUT 24% OF THAT PLANNED DESIGNATION, AND THE RETAIL REQUEST THAT WE'LL GET TO ON THE NEXT APPLICATION IS ONLY A LITTLE MORE THAN ONE-THIRD OF THAT POTENTIAL REQUEST.

SO MY POINT NUMBER ONE IS WE ARE ACTUALLY PROPOSING A SUBSTANTIAL DOWNZONING FROM A VERY INTENSE, DENSE MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTER CORNER ON NORTH DALE MABRY.

THE SECOND POINT IS THAT WE HAVE SPENT SUBSTANTIAL TIME AND EFFORT IN A COMMUNITY OUTREACH EFFORT.

WE HAVE HAD A TOTAL OF EIGHT MEETINGS WITH THE MAJOR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS THAT ARE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THIS PROJECT.

WE'VE HAD VERY VALUABLE, CONSTRUCTIVE INPUT FROM THEM.

WE LISTENED TO THEIR CONCERNS AND MADE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE PLAN AND AGREED TO SIGNIFICANT CONDITIONS THAT I AM GOING TO ACKNOWLEDGE ON THE RECORD BEFORE WE CONCLUDE OUR PRESENTATION TONIGHT BECAUSE WE'VE MADE THESE COMMITMENTS TO THESE ASSOCIATIONS AND WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE DONE SO.

MY THIRD POINT AFTER THE DOWNZONING AND THE COMMUNITY OUTREACH IS THAT WE HAVE WORKED JUST AS HARD WITH THE STAFF, STAFF HAS BEEN MOST GRACIOUS, THEY'VE BEEN VERY GENEROUS WITH THEIR TIME.

I THINK WE PROBABLY WORE OUT OUR WELCOME ON HOW MANY MEETINGS WERE REQUESTED, BUT WE WENT TO THEM ALL.

WE HAVE A COUNTY FINDING OF CONSISTENCY.

WE HAVE A COUNTY STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.

I AM HAPPY TO SAY THAT WE HAVE FULL CONCURRENCE WITH ALL THEIR RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS.

THERE IS ONE CONDITION THAT WE EXPECT STAFF TO ANNOUNCE AN AGREED-UPON CONDITION TO INTO THE RECORD, BUT THAT'S ON THE RETAIL ZONING AND ONLY ONE CONDITION -- IN FACT, ONLY ONE SENTENCE OF ONE CONDITION.

WE ARE IN COMPLETE CONCURRENCE WITH THAT.

WITH THAT SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO TURN OVER THE PRESENTATION TO ETHEL HAMMER, OUR PLANNING EXPERT.

SHE IS BRIEFLY GOING TO WALK YOU THROUGH THE CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY POINTS.

MY CO-COUNSEL, MR. DAVIS, HAS A FEW COMMENTS, AND I WILL QUICKLY WRAP UP.

OH, I AM SORRY.

YOUR QUESTION BEFORE I FORGET IT ABOUT THE FDOT TRIANGLE.

>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH, THERE IS A GRAPHIC YOU HAD ON THE SCREEN EARLIER.

IF WE COULD BRING THAT BACK UP.

>> WAY BACK IN THE DAY, EARLY MID-90s, THIS PARCEL WAS ACTUALLY PROPOSED AS A REGIONAL MALL, THE GALLERIA REGIONAL MALL BEFORE CITRUS PARK MALL WAS CONSTRUCTED.

IT WAS THE SUBJECT OF MUCH DEBATE, LITIGATION ALL THE WAY TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, AND HENCE THE REASON ULTIMATELY FOR THE CMU-12, THE 650,000-SQUARE-FOOT LIMIT THERE, THE MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTER BASICALLY WAS A COMPROMISE AND RESOLUTION OF ALL OF THAT.

THAT'S WHY I SAY WE HAVE THESE ENTITLEMENTS UNDER THE COMP PLAN THAT WE AREN'T GOING TO USE.

THE FDOT TRIANGLE WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT THAT POSSIBLY VETERANS EXPRESSWAY WOULD BECOME A FLYOVER, COME OVER DALE MABRY, LOOP NORTH, AND BE A FRONTAGE ROAD.

FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE ONLY PARCEL WITHIN THE PROPERTY THAT D.O.T. ACTUALLY CONDEMNED AND ACQUIRED WAS THAT ONE LITTLE NORTH-SOUTH PIECE RUNNING FROM NORTH DALE MABRY DOWN TO WHAT IS NOW EXCITING IDLEWILD BOULEVARD.

THEY HAVE THAT PIECE.

THEY STILL HAVE IT.

IT'S THERE.

AT AN APPROPRIATE POINT IN TIME, SHOULD THIS PROJECT BE APPROVED AS WE'VE NOW PRESENTED IT, WE PROBABLY ARE GOING TO GO TO THEM AND DISCUSS WHETHER THEY COULD POSSIBLY RELOCATE THAT, WHETHER THEY'RE REALLY GOING TO USE IT, WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO.

BUT IT'S SIMPLY THERE, SO WE'VE OBVIOUSLY ACKNOWLEDGED IT AND WILL PLAN AROUND IT IF IT STAYS THERE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

>> BASICALLY, THAT MULTIFAMILY PROJECT WOULD THEN BE BETWEEN THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY AND NORTH DALE MABRY NORTH OF EXCITING IDLEWILDE.

SO IT'S KIND OF AN HISTORICAL ANOMALY, AS THEY SAY.

>> GOOD EVENING.

ETHEL HAMMER, ENGELHARDT HAMMER & ASSOCIATES.

I WAS ASKED TO EVALUATE THIS PROPOSAL REZONING WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

I'VE LOOKED AT THE COMPATIBILITY AND THE CONSISTENCY OF THIS PROJECT WITH ALL THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND I HAVE FOUND IT CONSISTENT.

AS PART OF THE BINDER THAT WAS ENTERED INTO THE RECORD, THERE IS A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALL OF THE APPLICABLE ASPECTS OF THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE PLAN.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY, AND I FIND THAT THE USES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED IN THIS REZONING ARE URBAN IN SCALE AND THAT THIS PROPOSED REZONING WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF DESIGNING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WHERE THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE.

IT'S A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING, SO IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT IF YOU ARE IN A MIXED-USE PLAN CATEGORY THAT YOU MUST HAVE MORE THAN TWO USES.

THIS APPLICATION HAS RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE, SO THEREFORE, IT MEETS THAT REQUIREMENT.


THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE NORTH DALE MABRY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT.

THIS IS THE CULMINATION OF OVER 20 YEARS OF PLANNING.

THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN THE KEYSTONE PROPERTY IN THE ENTIRE NORTH DALE MABRY OVERLAY DISTRICT.

IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN DESIGNATED AS THE ANCHOR FOR THE SOUTH END OF ALL OF THE PROPERTIES BETWEEN VAN DYKE AND COUNTY LINE ROAD.

SO THIS IS THE FULFILLMENT OF 20 YEARS OF PLANNING.

IT'S ALSO LOCATED IN THE LUTZ COMMUNITY PLAN CATEGORY OR BOUNDARY.

THAT LUTZ PLAN RECOGNIZES THIS PROPERTY AS BEING THE MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTER AND REALIZES THAT THIS SHOULD BE AN URBAN-SCALE DEVELOPMENT, SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT THAN THE REST OF THE LUTZ COMMUNITY.

THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DESIGNED WITH ASPECTS THAT ARE EMBODIED IN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT GO ABOVE AND BEYOND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS.

THERE ARE PROJECT ENHANCEMENTS SUCH AS INCREASED SETBACKS FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

THERE ARE CONDITIONS THAT DEAL WITH BUILDING ORIENTATION, WHICH IS SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL.

THERE IS ENHANCED LANDSCAPING, AND THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR SIGNAGE THAT ARE ABOVE AND BEYOND THE NORMAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE CODE.

IN CONCLUSION, THE PROPOSED REZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN, CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING PATTERN, AND IT WILL FURTHER THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

IT HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA, AND IT WILL FURTHER THE COUNTY'S GOALS TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY.

THANK YOU.

AT THIS POINT, MR. DAVIS HAS SOME COMMENTS.

>> GOOD EVENING.

RICHARD DAVIS FOR STANDARD PACIFIC.

TWO COMMENTS THIS EVENING, AND THEN I WILL BE SHORT.

FIRST OF ALL, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT, BASED UPON THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU HAVE HEARD FROM MS. HAMMER AND BASED UPON THE BOOKLET THAT WE HAVE SUBMITTED, IT IS IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THAT THIS PROJECT IS DEFINED NOT ONLY BY THE APPLICATION BUT ALSO BY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME WITH STAFF.

THEY ASSIST IN DEFINING THE PROJECT, AND THAT ASSISTANCE IN DEFINING THE PROJECT GOES A STEP FURTHER IN ENSURING THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE DEFINITION OF CONSISTENCY CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 163, WHAT DOES IT TELL US?

CONSISTENCY 163 TELLS US DEVELOPMENT ORDERS SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH LAND USES, DENSITIES, OR INTENSITIES AND OTHER ASPECTS OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED BY SUCH ORDER ARE COMPATIBLE WITH AND FURTHER THE OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, LAND USES, AND DENSITIES OR INTENSITIES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IF IT MEETS ALL OTHER CRITERIA ENUMERATED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

WELL, IN THIS PARTICULAR CONTEXT, MS. HAMMER'S ANALYSIS, AS YOU HEARD IT THIS EVENING AND AS YOU WILL REVIEW IT IN THE MATERIALS WE'VE SUBMITTED, PROVIDES A DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF THE GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES, WHICH THE PROJECT, AS DEFINED BY ALL THE CONDITIONS AND THE PROPOSAL, SHOWS THAT CONSISTENCY IS ESTABLISHED FROM THAT DIRECTION.

BUT BEYOND THAT, MS. HAMMER HAS SPECIFICALLY REFERRED YOU TO THOSE ASPECTS OF THIS PROJECT AND THOSE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT TAKE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, APPLY IT IN A WAY THAT IS NEW AND CREATIVE TO ESTABLISH BUFFERS AND TO ESTABLISH OTHER DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA WHICH ENSURE THE FIT OF THIS PROJECT AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION.

BASED UPON THAT AND THE INFORMATION IN THE RECORD, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PROJECT HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH AND FURTHERS THE DIRECTION ESTABLISHED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

>> MR. LUCE, JOEL TEW AGAIN TO WRAP UP.

I WOULD LIKE MR. MAXEY TO INTRODUCE INTO THE RECORD, IF WE MAY, A LISTING OF THE ASSOCIATION MEETINGS THAT WE ARE PROUD WE CONDUCTED OVER THE LAST THREE TO FOUR MONTHS.

THERE WERE EIGHT OF THEM, AS I REFERENCED BEFORE.

AND I'D LIKE TO SPEND JUST THE LAST MINUTE OR TWO, IF I MAY, CONFIRMING THE COMMITMENTS THAT WE HAVE MADE TO THOSE ASSOCIATIONS.

WE HAVE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS AND COMMITMENTS WITH THEM THAT I WANT TO REITERATE FOR THE RECORD SO THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT THESE APPLICANTS ARE COMMITTED TO THIS, AS WE PROMISED THE ASSOCIATIONS.

WE'VE ALREADY NOTIFIED STAFF OF THESE COMMITMENTS.

FIRST, WITH RESPECT TO THE CALUSA TRACE ASSOCIATION, WE HAVE COMMITTED IN WRITING TO THEM THAT THE DEVELOPERS WILL DESIGN, PERMIT --

>>STEVE LUCE: MR. TEW, HOW MUCH MORE TIME DO YOU THINK YOU WILL NEED?

>> 3 MINUTES.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> WE WILL THEN BE THROUGH WITH OUR SECOND APPLICATION ESSENTIALLY, TOO.

WE WILL DESIGN, PERMIT, AND CONSTRUCT SIGNALIZATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF EXCITING ISLAND BOULEVARD AND NORTH DALE MABRY AT THE EARLIEST POINT THAT D.O.T. AND THE COUNTY APPROVE THAT.

WE'VE HAD FACE-TO-FACE MEETINGS WITH CALUSA TRACE ASSOCIATION, THE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, AND D.O.T., AND WE BELIEVE THAT THAT IS APPROVABLE, AND WE'RE COMMITTED TO CONSTRUCTING THAT AT OUR SOLE COST, NOT THEIRS, AND THAT'S OUR COMMITMENT TO THEM THAT WE REITERATE ON THE RECORD, AND WE ARE HAPPY TO HAVE DONE THAT.

WITH RESPECT TO THE LUTZ CITIZENS COALITION, WE HAD EXTENSIVE MEETINGS WITH THEM AND WITH STAFF, AND WE HAVE COMMITTED TO THEM AND WE REITERATE TONIGHT THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ZONING CONCEPT SITE PLAN SHOWS THREE ACCESS POINTS POTENTIALLY ON VAN DYKE ROAD ON THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, THERE'S AN EASTERNMOST POTENTIAL ACCESS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.

WE HAVE COMMITTED THAT WE WILL NOT PERMIT OR CONSTRUCT THAT.

THERE'S A CENTRAL ACCESS POINT THAT'S LABELED DRIVEWAY A THAT WAS AN ADDITIONAL RETAIL CENTER ACCESS.

WE'VE COMMITTED THAT WE WILL NOT PERMIT OR CONSTRUCT THAT.

WE WILL RETAIN THE ONE ACCESS, WHICH IS THE WESTERN MOST ACCESS ON VAN DYKE LABELED DRIVEWAY B, WHICH IS THE ACCESS TO THE ISOLATED RETAIL COMMERCIAL PARCEL ON THE CORNER THAT OTHERWISE DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS, AND OUR COMMITMENTS TO THE LUTZ COALITION AND THE COUNTY IS THAT THE DELETION OF THOSE OTHER TWO IS CONTINGENT ONLY UPON OUR ULTIMATE PERMITTING OF FULL ACCESS AT THAT ONE DRIVEWAY B.

SO I WANT TO REITERATE THAT FOR THE RECORD THAT WE WILL GO FROM 3 TO 1, AND WE WILL MODIFY THE SITE PLAN WITH THE STAFF PRIOR TO THE BCC HEARING TO REFLECT THAT COMMITMENT.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

MR. TEW, JUST ABOUT THAT DRIVEWAY THAT YOU WANT TO PUT IN PLACE.

I GUESS IT'S THE ONE THAT'S THE WESTERN MOST CURB CUT, CLOSEST TO DALE MABRY?

>> YES, SIR.

>>STEVE LUCE: I BELIEVE I READ IN BACKUP MATERIALS BY STAFF IS THAT THEY ARE COMPETING -- THERE ARE COMPETING TURN LANES FOR LEFT-BOUND TO SOUTHBOUND TURNING MOVEMENTS AT THE VAN DYKE AND DALE MABRY INTERSECTION, SO PROVIDING FOR AN EASTBOUND TO NORTHBOUND TURN MOVEMENT INTO THE SITE MAY BE PROBLEMATIC?

>> WELL, WE HAVE THE SURVEY DATA ACTUALLY, AND WE'VE ALREADY STARTED THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN.

OUR TRAFFIC CONSULTANT, MR. HENRY, IS MEETING WITH PUBLIC WORKS.

WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT ROOM TO CONSTRUCT ALL OF THE REQUIRED TURNING MOVEMENTS AND THE LENGTH OF THOSE LANES.

IT IS ADMITTEDLY A TIGHT AREA BECAUSE OF UTILITY LINES, BUT WE BELIEVE WE CAN MAKE IT TO WORK, AND WE STAND THAT WE HAVE TO SATISFY THE NORMAL PERMITTING PROCESS TO SATISFY PUBLIC WORKS THAT THAT WORKS.

BUT WE BELIEVE IT DOES, AND WE BELIEVE THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THAT FULL ACCESS.

AND WE ARE COMMITTED TO ELIMINATING THE OTHER TWO AND NOT PURSUING THEM.

AND JUST BY WAY OF REFERENCE, ALL OF THE ACCESS POINTS WE DEMONSTRATE ON THE SITE PLAN AS TO NORTH DALE MABRY, THOSE ALREADY HAVE APPROVAL FROM THE ACCESS MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AT D.O.T., SO WE'VE DONE THAT WORK ALSO.

WITH THAT, WE CONCLUDE OUR CASE ON 0126.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

STAFF AT THIS POINT?

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: GOOD EVENING.

MICHELLE HEINRICH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

IN REGARDS TO APPLICATION 14-0126, AS STATED, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 251 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM AR, AGRICULTURAL RURAL, AND PD, WHICH WAS NOTED TO YOU BY MR. TEW, IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER, TO A NEW PD, WHICH WOULD BE 14-0126.

THE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF NORTH DALE MABRY HIGHWAY, NORTH OF VAN DYKE ROAD.

THE PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF SMU-9, 6, AND CMU-12.

WESTERN PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTH DALE MABRY OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND AS STATED EARLIER, THIS APPLICATION IS BEING REVIEWED IN CONJUNCTION WITH 0127, WHICH IS THE RETAIL COMPONENT OF THE OVERALL PROJECT, WHICH PROPOSES COMMERCIAL USES.

AND FOR THIS ONE, THEY ARE MAINLY LOOKING TO DO SINGLE-FAMILY, MULTIFAMILY, AND OFFICE USES, AND ALSO ADULT CONGREGANT CARE USES.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A SMALL PORTION IN PARCEL D, ALL OF THE PROPERTY IS VACANT.

THERE ARE FOUR PARCELS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED IN 14-0126.

AS WAS SHOWN TO YOU BY MR. TEW AT THE BEGINNING, PARCELS A AND B, THE LANDINGS AT LAKE PEARL, WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR 650 MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS AND 70,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE.

IN THIS PD APPLICATION, THOSE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WERE TRANSCRIBED OVER TO THIS PD.

THERE WERE SOME MINOR CHANGES, AND THOSE WERE TO INCREASE THE BUILDING HEIGHT, TO DECREASE THE MINIMUM BUILDING SEPARATION, TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR FENCING ALONG THE NORTH, TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LUTZ RURAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, TO ADD THE USE OF ADULT CONGREGATE CARE, AND ALSO TO PUT IN PLACE AN EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR PARCEL A NORTH OF EXCITING IDLEWILDE BOULEVARD.

FOR PARCEL C, THAT IS CURRENTLY ZONED AR.

IT'S LOCATED TO NORTH OF EXCITING IDLEWILDE BOULEVARD.

THAT'S WHERE MULTIFAMILY OFFICE AND ADULT CONGREGATE USES WOULD BE PERMITTED.

THE CMU-12 LAND USE CATEGORY FOUND TO THE SOUTH IN PARCEL B IS BEING FLEXED 500 FEET TO THE NORTH INTO THIS PARCEL, AND IF THEY DO DEVELOP THAT WITH MULTIFAMILY, IT WOULD ALLOW FOR A MAXIMUM OF 177 MULTIFAMILY UNITS.

PARCEL D IS THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT.

THAT IS PROPOSED FOR 240 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS WITH LOT SIZES OF 5500 SQUARE FEET, AND THAT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED AR WITH FRONTAGE BOTH ON NORTH DALE MABRY AND VAN DYKE.

THERE IS A SECTION IN YOUR BACKUP THAT YOU SAW FROM THE APPLICANT.

THERE ARE SOME VARIATIONS TO THE FENCING REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED.

THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO HAVE EIGHT-FOOT-HIGH FENCES ALONG NORTH DALE MABRY, VAN DYKE, EXCITING IDLEWILDE BOULEVARD, AND THE PRIMARY ACCESS ROAD THAT GOES THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE PROJECT.

WE HAVE ADVISED THE APPLICANT THAT PER OUR CODE, IF YOU HAVE A ROADWAY THAT IS CONSIDERED ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR, WHICH ALL OF THOSE WOULD BE, YOU ARE PERMITTED TO HAVE AN EIGHT-FOOT-HIGH WALL OR FENCE; HOWEVER, THERE IS SCREENING REQUIRED BETWEEN THE RETAIL IN 0127 AGAINST PARCEL D OF 0126, AND FOR UNIFORMITY AND ENHANCED SCREENING, THEY HAVE REQUESTED THAT THAT BE EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT TO MATCH WHAT'S CURRENTLY GOING TO BE ALONG THE ROADWAYS, SO THAT IS PART OF THIS APPLICATION, AND ALSO, WITH THAT, THEY'VE ASKED FOR COLUMN HEIGHTS TO BE TEN FEET IN HEIGHT.

THEY HAVE PROVIDED VARIATION RESPONSES, IN YOUR BACKUP FOR REVIEW, AND STAFF DOES NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THOSE REQUESTS.

LET'S SEE.

I THINK MS. HAMMER PRETTY MUCH COVERED A LOT OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS AS FAR AS COMPATIBILITY AND THE TYPES OF BUILDING DESIGN THAT IS BEING PROPOSED, SO IN ESSENCE OF TIME, I WON'T REPEAT THAT.

I ARE JUST STATE AGAIN THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND THERE ARE TWO ACCESS POINTS BEING PROPOSED.

ONE WHERE ARE NOT DALE MABRY HIGHWAY AT VETERANS EXPRESSWAY, AND THE OTHER AT EXCITING IDLEWILDE BOULEVARD.

AS YOU HEARD FROM MR. TEW IN OUR REPORT, YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE IS ALSO A GATED ACCESS ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF VAN DYKE, WHICH SINCE FILING OUR REPORT, THEY HAVE AGREED TO NOT PROPOSE THAT.

SO YOU CAN DISREGARD THAT PORTION OF OUR STAFF REPORT, AND ALSO THAT WOULD MEAN WE WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE REVISED CONDITIONS IF YOU DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO STRIKE THE CONDITION 10, WHICH STATES THAT THEY DO HAVE THE OPTION OF DOING A ACCESS POINT AT THAT LOCATION.

JUST TO TOUCH ON A FEW THINGS RELATED TO THE TRANSPORTATION, WHICH ARE THE SAME IN 127, SO IT WON'T BE REPEATED, THIS SITE IS THE SITE OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.

THAT'S 13-04, AND THAT WAS A PRIVATELY INITIATED TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMP PLAN.

THAT'S SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON MAY 15, AND THE REQUEST WAS -- AND THIS WAS SORT OF TOUCHED ON WITH THAT FDOT SERVICE ROAD THAT RAN THROUGH PARCEL C -- IS IT IS REQUESTING THAT A CORRIDOR PRESERVATION SEGMENT THAT RAN THROUGH PARCEL D FROM EXCITING IDLEWILDE BOULEVARD SOUTH TO THE VETERANS THAT THAT BE REMOVED FROM THE CORRIDOR PRESERVATION PLAN.

>>STEVE LUCE: MS. HEINRICH, COULD YOU SHOW ME ON A GRAPHIC?

I AM TRYING TO VISUALIZE WHERE THAT CORRIDOR WOULD BE.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: I DON'T HAVE THE ACTUAL COMP PLAN MAP OF THAT, BUT I AM SURE THE APPLICANTS WILL CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

BUT IT STARTED FROM THE FDOT RIGHT-OF-WAY, LOCATED HERE, DOWN TO THE VETERANS EXPRESSWAY ENTRANCE THERE ON NORTH DALE MABRY.

SO THIS SEGMENT RIGHT HERE.

THAT'S CORRECT, STEVE?

OKAY.


I WILL GIVE THAT RIGHT BACK TO YOU.

MR. HENRY PROVIDED THIS, WHICH IS MUCH BETTER.

IT DOES GO DOWN TO VAN DYKE, NOT -- HERE IS THE VETERANS OVER TO THE WEST.

THIS WAS A STRAIGHT NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDOR THAT WAS ON THE CORRIDOR PRESERVATION PLAN.

THAT IS NOW BEING ASKED TO BE REMOVED, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED THAT AND IS PROPOSING SUPPORT FOR THAT, AND IT'S BEING HEARD BY THE BOARD ON MAY I THINK IT WAS 15th.

>>STEVE LUCE: IS IT -- HAS THE PLAN AMENDMENT BEEN TRANSMITTED TO TALLAHASSEE AND COME BACK FOR FINAL APPROVAL?

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: I MAY NEED TO HAVE RANDY DISCUSS THAT OR MR. TEW.

>>RANDY KRANJEC: I AM SORRY.

THAT'S NOT MY CASE.

>> IF I MAY, YES, PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPORTED IT.

THE COUNTY COMMISSION APPROVED IT ON FIRST READING, TRANSMITTED IT TO THE STATE, AND BY AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND MR. GRADY, OBVIOUSLY, WE DIDN'T WANT TO ADOPT THAT UNTIL CONCURRENT WITH THESE ZONINGS BECAUSE THE WHOLE BASIS FOR THAT IS IT WOULD BE THROUGH THE CENTER OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, NOT TO MENTION IT WOULD CONNECT STRAIGHT TO VAN DYKE, WHICH OUR COLLEAGUES AT THE LUTZ CITIZEN COALITION ARE NOT REAL EXCITED ABOUT THAT EXPRESSWAY CONNECTING TO VAN DYKE.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND DOES THE STATE -- DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, DO THEY HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS?

>> THEY DID NOT OBJECT.

SO WE WOULD ACTUALLY -- WHAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO IS CONTINUE THAT MAY 15 PLAN AMENDMENT ADOPTION BECAUSE, BY AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY STAFF, WE AGREED THAT WOULD NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE UNTIL THESE PDs WERE APPROVED, SO THAT WOULD BE DEFERRED UNTIL PRESUMABLY THE JUNE 10 COUNTY COMMISSION HEARING, WHEN THESE WOULD BE HEARD.

THAT'S WHAT WE BASICALLY WORKED OUT PROCEDURALLY.

IT'S BEEN TRANSMITTED AND ALREADY BACKED.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: I DO HAVE A SUMMARY OF THAT AMENDMENT, IF YOU NEED IT.

IT IS ALSO PUBLIC RECORD, IT IS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S WEBSITE.

>>STEVE LUCE: IF I COULD GET A COPY OF THAT.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: SURE.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANKS.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: ALSO A NOTE TO PUT ON THE RECORD IS THAT THE CONNECTION TO THE VETERANS EXPRESSWAY WHICH IS CONSIDERED TO BE THE PROJECT'S MAIN ACCESS POINT WILL BE AT THE SOLE DISCRETION OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND TURNPIKE AUTHORITY.

THEY HAVE THE ULTIMATE APPROVAL FOR THAT, AND THE APPLICANTS ARE WELL AWARE OF THAT, AND I KNOW THAT THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM IN CONJUNCTION WITH WORKING ON THE REZONING.

>>STEVE LUCE: MS. HEINRICH, I HATE TO KEEP INTERRUPTING, BUT PERHAPS THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE CAN TALK TO ME ABOUT HOW THAT INTERSECTION WOULD WORK BECAUSE I KNOW D.O.T. SUPPORTS IT AND MR. TEW PROVIDED THAT TESTIMONY THAT CONCEPTUALLY SUPPORT IT, BUT --

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: SURE, MR. HENRY, THEIR CONSULTANT, IS HERE AND CAN SPEAK TO THAT.

WE ALSO HAVE CHARLES WHITE WITH PUBLIC WORKS IF YOU NEED ANY INPUT FROM STAFF.

>> STEVE HENRY, LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, AS WAS STATED, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH BOTH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND ALSO THE TURN PIKE AUTHORITY TO COME UP WITH A DESIGN FOR THIS, AND PART OF IT, JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE HISTORY, ORIGINALLY WHEN THIS WAS DESIGNED -- AND IF YOU'VE DRIVEN OUT THERE AND SEEN WHERE THE ACTUAL -- THE MAIN LINE ENDS A COUPLE THOUSAND FEET TO THE WEST OF DALE MABRY.

WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL PLAN MANY, MANY YEARS AGO WAS THIS WAS THE EAST-WEST ROAD THROUGH LUTZ, SO THIS WAS GOING TO BE ELEVATED ACROSS AND CONTINUE ON THROUGH LUTZ.

SO WHAT YOU HAVE HERE ARE THE RAMPS FOR WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AT AN INTERCHANGE.

WELL, OBVIOUSLY, THAT NEVER HAPPENED, AND SO THAT'S WHY WHEN YOU DRIVE OUT THERE, YOU'VE GOT A RELATIVELY FUNKY INTERSECTION THAT YOU'VE GOT THE NORTHBOUND LEFT STOPS WELL SOUTH, THEN THEY HAVE TO PROCEED NORTH TO GET ONTO THE RAMP.

SO IT DOESN'T FUNCTION VERY WELL.

SO WHAT WE ARE DOING, ACTUALLY, IS BRINGING IT DOWN TO ONE INTERSECTION.

WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO IS THIS IS OUR PROJECT DRIVEWAY HERE.

WE'LL THEN KEEP THE -- WHAT I WILL CALL THE EASTBOUND LANES AS THEY ARE.

THE WESTBOUND WILL REMOVE THAT NORTHERN PIECE, BRING IT INTO ONE INTERSECTION, AND THIS WILL THEN TIE BACK UP INTO THE -- SO WHAT IT DOES IS FROM AN OPERATIONAL STANDPOINT, THAT'S WHY BOTH THE TURN PIKE AUTHORITY AND D.O.T. LIKE THIS OPTION, BECAUSE WHAT IT DOES NOW IS INSTEAD OF HAVING THIS SEPARATED INTERSECTION HER TRY TO GO DEAL WITH, IT BRINGS IT INTO ONE.

SO WE HAVE BEEN MEETING WITH THEM.

THEY REVIEWED THE ANALYSIS AND THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN, AND BOTH ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH IT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

SORRY, MS. HEINRICH.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: MICHELLE HEINRICH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

ON A RELATED NOTE, YOU WILL FIND IN OPTICS IN OUR AGENCY COMMENTS, WE DID RECEIVE SOME CONCERNS FROM FDOT, WHICH ARE IN THE REPORT.

THE APPLICANT IS VERY AWARE OF.

D.O.T. IS AWARE THAT THEY ARE PURSUING THE REZONING, AND I KNOW THAT THEY ARE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANTS ON THAT.

BUT THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE, WHICH IS NOTED IN THE AGENCY COMMENTS.

AND OTHER THAN THAT, I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT WE DO NEED TO, IF APPROVED, MAKE A REVISION TO STRIKE CONDITION 10, WHICH DEALS WITH THE VAN DYKE ACCESS.

I AM AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: I NOTICE I THINK IT'S THE COMMERCIAL REZONING, 1267, WHERE YOU REFERENCE THE NORTH DALE MABRY OVERLAY ZONING SECTION.

3071.06.

I DIDN'T SEE IT REFERENCED IN THE COMPANION REZONING 14-0126.

THE FRONTAGE, AT A MINIMUM, IS PART OF THE NORTH DALE MABRY CORRIDOR PLAN.

I WOULD THINK THEY WOULD WANT TO COMPLY OR YOU WOULD WANT THEM TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: I AGREE.

WE CAN PUT THE CONDITION IN THERE, WHICH I DON'T THINK THE APPLICANTS HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH, REITERATING THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE NORTH DALE MABRY OVERLAY, WHICH FOR THEM WOULD MAINLY BE THE BUFFER ALONG THE PERIMETER OF C AND D.

>>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT.

I THINK IT'S WITH 124, AND THE TRACK THERE MR. TEW CALLED THE D.O.T. TRIANGLE.

I THINK YOU CAN HAVE MULTIFAMILY OR OFFICE IN THAT TRACT, PARCEL C.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: CORRECT.

>>STEVE LUCE: I LOOKED AT THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN, AND IT SHOWS 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE IN THAT TRACT.

BUT IN THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS, I THINK IT JUST RESTRICTS IT TO AN FAR, I THINK, OR BPO USES, WITHOUT REFERENCING WHAT GOES ON THE SITE PLAN.

WAS THAT BY DESIGN?

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: NO, I BELIEVE WE WERE, AGAIN, STATING WHAT THEIR MAXIMUM APPROVAL WOULD BE.

AT THAT TIME, THEY WERE NOT CERTAIN WHAT WOULD BE DEVELOPED.

IF YOU WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH GOING WITH THE 30,000 SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN, WE CAN CERTAINLY MAKE THAT REVISION IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO THE APPLICANT.

>>STEVE LUCE: I AM NOT SURE I HAVE A PREFERENCE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

I AM JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW YOU GOT HERE TONIGHT.

IN TERMS OF YOUR PROPOSED CONDITIONS.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: MAINLY THAT WAS JUST TO KEEP IT OPEN SO THEY WOULD HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY, BEING AS THEY WEREN'T SURE WHICH USE WOULD BE DEVELOPED.

>>STEVE LUCE: IN CONDITION -- I GUESS IT'S IN 126.

THERE'S CONDITION 1.7 IT SAYS A DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE CROSS-ACCESS TO THE ADJACENT EAST END PARCELS.

DO YOU HAVE A GRAPHIC THAT SHOWS ME WHERE THOSE FOLIOS ARE?

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: SURE.

>>STEVE LUCE: TO THE EAST?

MS. HEINRICH?

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: YES, SIR.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND THE SECOND SENTENCE TALKS ABOUT THE CROSS-ACCESS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO ADJACENT PARCELS ON THE WESTERN BOUNDARY.

THAT MAY BE A REMNANT WE CAN JUST DELETE.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: THAT WAS FROM THE MOST RECENT PRS.

WHEN THAT WAS A STAND-ALONE PD, THE LANDINGS AT LAKE PEARL, THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY PUT IN THERE BY EPC BECAUSE THEY DID NOT -- EVEN IF THAT WAS A LIKE USE, DUE TO THE WETLANDS THERE, THEY DID NOT WANT A CROSS-ACCESS POINT.

PERHAPS IT COULD BE CLARIFIED THAT WE'RE REFERRING TO PARCEL A NORTH OF EXCITING IDLEWILDE BOULEVARD, IF YOU THINK JUST SAYING TO THE WEST IS TOO GENERAL.

>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH, I AM SORRY, I AM NOT FOLLOWING.

THEY DIDN'T WANT CROSS-ACCESS BETWEEN PARCELS A AND C?

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: IF MEMORY SERVES ME RIGHT -- I KNOW MS. HAMMER AND TY MAXEY WERE INVOLVED IN THAT -- WHEN THEY CAME IN FOR THE MOST RECENT PRS, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION WITH A CROSS-ACCESS POINT BEING RIGHT HERE, THAT WHEN THAT WAS TRANSMITTED FOR REVIEW, THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION PROVIDED AN OBJECTION STATING THAT DUE TO THE WETLANDS THERE, THEY WOULD NOT SUPPORT A CROSS-ACCESS POINT THERE.

>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH, I AM HAVING A HARD TIME FOLLOWING IT.

IT MAY BE BETTER TO TRY TO BE MORE SPECIFIC FOR FUTURE REVIEWERS.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: SURE, WE CAN MAKE THAT REVISION AND MAKE IT A REFERENCE TO PARCEL A NORTH OF EXCITING IDLEWILDE BOULEVARD TO THE WEST AND TO -- WHICH IS NOW PARCEL C.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

THOSE ARE THE ONLY QUESTIONS I HAVE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

THANK YOU.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

>>RANDY KRANJEC: YES, SIR.

A QUICK CORRECTION FOR THE RECORD.

ON OUR FRONT PAGE OF OUR REPORT, WE HAVE 850 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

THAT SHOULD BE 827.

AND THE 225 SINGLE-FAMILY SHOULD BE 240.

OKAY?


THIS PROPERTY IS SUBURBAN MIXED USE-6, COMMUNITY MIXED USE-12, AND RESIDENTIAL-9.

IT FALLS WITHIN THE LUTZ COMMUNITY PLAN.

WE BASICALLY DID REVIEW THIS IN CONJUNCTION WITH 127.

WE DO FIND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT RELATIVE TO THE MINIMUM DENSITY.

THEY MEET ONE OF THE CRITERIA IN POLICY 1.3 WHEREBY, DUE TO THE AMOUNT OF WETLANDS ON-SITE, THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 75% OF THEIR MAX DENSITY.

AGAIN, WITH THOSE COMMENTS AND THE CONDITIONS IN PLACE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WE FIND THIS REZONING CONSISTENT.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND THAT APPLIES TO BOTH 126 AND 127?

>>RANDY KRANJEC: YES, SIR.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

MR. CLARK, I THINK WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS PROCEED WITH THOSE IN SUPPORT AND THOSE IN OPPOSITION.

I DON'T KNOW AT WHAT POINT WE WANT TO HAVE THE APPLICANT SAY WHICH TESTIMONY APPLIES TO BOTH CASES.

>> WELL, WE'LL SEE WHAT TESTIMONY THERE IS.

I THINK THE MAIN THOUGHT WAS THAT IF YOU'RE -- IN ORDER TO KEEP SORT OF A CLEAR LINE BETWEEN THE TWO CASES, IN CASE, FOR INSTANCE, ONE WAS GRANTED AND THE OTHER ONE WAS DENIED, THERE NEEDS TO BE RECORDS THAT ARE DISTINCT, AT LEAST AS FAR AS THAT GOES, SO FOR TESTIMONY PURPOSES, SEE WHAT TESTIMONY THAT THERE IS AND SEE HOW IT GOES.

>>STEVE LUCE: RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

>> HI.

PAMELA JO HATLEY.



I AM AN ATTORNEY AND I REPRESENT THE LUTZ CITIZENS COALITION, AND SOME LUTZ CITIZENS, NAMELY STEVEN TELLER, PETE DUDLEY, AND DR. RICHARD HOFFMAN.

MY CLIENTS ARE HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF APPROVAL OF BOTH OF THESE REZONING REQUESTS, CONSISTENT WITH THE AGREEMENTS THAT WERE ENTERED INTO AMONG THE APPLICANTS AND MY CLIENTS, WHICH MR. TEW DESCRIBED ACCURATELY IN HIS PRESENTATION.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY THAT WHILE MY CLIENTS ARE THESE WHO I MENTIONED, THE BROADER COMMUNITY HAS EXPRESSED ITS SUPPORT, AND IF YOU CHECK THE RECORD, THERE ARE PROBABLY DOZENS OF LETTERS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT, AND THEY ALL MENTION THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF APPROVAL, CONSISTENT WITH THE LETTER OF AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO AMONG THE APPLICANTS AND MY CLIENT.

WE WANT TO SAY ON THE RECORD ALSO THAT THE APPLICANTS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES MET WITH MY CLIENTS AND WITH ME, AND THEY LISTENED TO MY CLIENTS' CONCERNS, AND THEY WERE VERY RESPONSIVE, AND WE APPRECIATE THAT.

WE COMMEND THEM FOR MEETING WITH US, AND WE APPRECIATE THEIR RESPONSIVENESS.

I'D LIKE TO ALSO MENTION THAT PETE DUDLEY IS HERE, AND HE IS ONE OF MY CLIENTS, AND HE IS PRESIDENT OF THE VAN DYKE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AND HE ALSO SUBMITTED A LETTER ON BEHALF OF HIS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.

FINALLY, I HAVE ONE LETTER TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD THAT SHE DIDN'T GET IT SENT IN IN TIME.

THIS IS FROM BONNIE HOFFMAN, AND SHE WRITES THAT SHE FULLY SUPPORTS APPROVAL OF THE REZONING APPLICATIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO AMONG THE APPLICANTS AND MY CLIENTS, AND SHE URGES APPROVAL, CONSISTENT WITH THAT AGREEMENT.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT?

>> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME'S MIKE WHITE.

I LIVE AT 18401 AUTUMN MIST DRIVE, LUTZ, FLORIDA.

THIS EVENING I'M GOING TO SPEAK BRIEFLY NOT ONLY AS A PRIVATE LUTZ CITIZEN, BUT ALSO ADDS THE PRESIDENT OF THE LUTZ CITIZENS COALITION.

THE LUTZ CITIZENS COALITION, ITS MEMBERS, AND THE MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY FULLY SUPPORT THE APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT AND THE PENDING APPLICATIONS, BUT ONLY UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS AS ARE STIPULATED IN THE SIGNED LETTER OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN VAN DYKE ROAD RESIDENTS, LUTZ CITIZENS COALITION, AND CALUSA TRACE SUBDIVISION.

AND THE APPLICANT.

THESE LETTERS OF AGREEMENT ARE ALREADY ENTERED INTO THE RECORD BY THE APPLICANT.

MR. LUCE, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR US TO RECOGNIZE THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO ARE HERE FROM THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, THAT INCLUDES THE LUTZ CITIZENS COALITION, CALUSA TRACE HOA, AS WELL AS THE VAN DYKE AREA RESIDENTS?

>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH, THAT WOULD BE FINE IF THEY WANT TO STAND UP AND BE RECOGNIZED.

>> TO SUPPORT THE AGREEMENT.

IF YOU SUPPORT THE AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPERS, PLEASE STAND UP.

>>STEVE LUCE: MR. GRADY, DO YOU WANT TO HELP ME WITH NUMBERS, JUST FOR THE RECORD, WHAT WE SEE IN THE AUDIENCE?

YOU CAN HELP ME TOO.

WHAT DO WE HAVE?

WE HAVE LIKE 40 PEOPLE?

>> PROBABLY 40, AND THEN AS -- AS OUR COUNSEL MENTIONED A MINUTE AGO, THERE ARE DOZENS AND DOZENS AND DOZENS OF LETTERS OF -- JUST LIKE THIS EXPRESSING THESE SAME OPINIONS ENTERED INTO THE RECORD.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

SO WE'RE CLEAR, ABOUT 40 PEOPLE STOOD UP IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION.

ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

>> IN CLOSING, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT THUS FAR, AS OUR COUNSEL MENTIONED, THE SYSTEM WORKED AS THE SYSTEM IS DEVELOPED TO DO.

THE APPLICANT ACCEPTED AND APPEARED BEFORE SEVERAL OF OUR COMMUNITY MEETINGS.

THEY NEGOTIATED WITH OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN GOOD FAITH, AS WELL AS DID THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS NEGOTIATE AND RETURN IN GOOD FAITH.

THE SYSTEM THIS TIME WORKED, AND IT WORKED WELL.

A FEW CASES CAN WE WALK AWAY WHERE EVERYONE IS SATISFIED.

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE.

SO THAT BEING SAID, WE COLLECTIVELY, RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU, MR. LUCE, AS HEARING MASTER, ALSO RESPECT THESE AGREEMENTS AND NOT PLACE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OR CONDITIONS UPON THESE APPROVALS WHICH WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE DEVELOPERS AND THE LOCAL AREAS AGREEMENTS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU, SIR.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT?

>> GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE.

MY NAME IS JAN SMITH, AND I LIVE AT 3627 BERGER ROAD.

THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT'S BEEN CONFRONTING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 20 YEARS.

IT HASN'T JUST BEEN THE GERACIS AND THEIR PLANS; IT'S BEEN WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND SO WHICH ARE HERE, IN FACT, KNOWING THAT WE ARE GOING TO LIVE NEAR A MUCH LARGER COMMERCIAL CENTER AT DALE MABRY AND VAN DYKE.

WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THIS.

HOWEVER, FOR THE SAKE OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE AND DRIVE ON VAN DYKE AND COME INTO THE INTERSECTION AT DALE MABRY AND VAN DYKE, THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS REALLY NEEDS TO BE LIMITED.

AND WHATEVER DESIGN COMES UP FOR THE -- WHERE THE WALGREENS AND THE CROSSOVER TO THE SMALLER COMMERCIAL SITE IS, IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THEY WILL HAVE TO TAKE SOME PROPERTY FROM THE NORTHERN PIECE TO ACTUALLY MAKE THAT FUNCTION.

OTHERWISE, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ENOUGH RIGHT-OF-WAY BECAUSE THE ROAD DOES NOT LINE UP.

IF YOU ARE ON THE WEST SIDE OF DALE MABRY COMING EASTBOUND, THE ROADS DO NOT LINE UP, SO SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED THERE.

ALSO, I WILL SAY THAT THE DESIGN FOR THE EXPRESSWAY ENTRANCE WILL BE A GREAT IMPROVEMENT AND WILL PROBABLY KEEP ME FROM RUNNING RED LIGHTS IN THE FUTURE.

I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT.

I MEAN, I JUST -- YOU KNOW, IF I WAITED, SIT THERE FOR TEN MINUTES, AND NO CARS COME DOWN THE ROAD, I'M GOING TO TURN.

[LAUGHTER]

SO WE AREN'T OPPOSED TO THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BEING PROPOSED, BUT I AM SOMEWHAT RESENTFUL OF THE WAY IN WHICH THE REZONING IS BEING PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL.

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO COMMENT ON A SITE PLAN WHEN, IN FACT, THERE IS NO SITE PLAN.

IT'S A BUBBLE.

LET ME GIVE YOU THE DEFINITION OF A BUBBLE FROM THE WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY.

ANY IDEA OR SCHEME THAT SEEMS PLAUSIBLE AT FIRST BUT QUICKLY SHOWS ITSELF TO BE WORTHLESS OR MISLEADING.

WE HAVE EXACTLY THAT HERE.

WE HAVE SQUARE FOOTAGES, WE HAVE FARs.

HOW CAN WE ASK FOR CONDITIONS ON A LARGE -- VERY LARGE -- SHOPPING CENTER OR BIG BOX WHEN WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT?

IS IT A BIG BOX WITH A MASSIVE PERVIOUS PARKING LOT THAT WILL DISCHARGE MILLIONS OF GALLONS OF WATER INTO OUR LAKES?

IS IT ANOTHER UNATTRACTIVE STRIP CENTER WITH THE SAME ISSUES?

WILL THERE BE OUTPARCELS THAT CREATE MORE MOVEMENT WITHIN THE CENTER THAT MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR PEDESTRIANS TO MOVE AROUND?

AND ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS EXPERIENCE THE SHOPPING CENTER ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DALE MABRY AND VAN DYKE.

WILL THERE BE SIDEWALKS OR A TRUE BIKE PATH INTO THIS CENTER?

WILL THERE BE OPERATING HOURS?

WILL THERE BE DELIVERY HOURS?

CAN THE SHERIFF PROVIDE 24-HOUR SECURITY?

WILL HART BUSES SERVE THIS SITE?

WILL THE WALLS THAT ARE -- OR FENCES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED AROUND THE SITE BE SOLID WALLS, OR WILL THEY BE WROUGHT IRON TYPE FENCING?

AND IN EITHER CASE, THEY MUST BE MAINTAINED INSIDE AND OUTSIDE SO THAT WE DON'T END UP WITH FALLING-DOWN WALLS, GRAFFITI, ET CETERA.

I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ROADS.

THERE'S A SUBDIVISION WHERE MANY OF US LIVE, AND IT'S CALLED CRENSHAW LAKE ESTATES.

IT INVOLVES CRENSHAW LAKE ROAD, BERGER ROAD, LITTLE ROAD, AND LINDA VISTA ROAD.

YOU CAN BE SURE THAT DRIVERS, IN AN ATTEMPT TO AVOID MUCH OF THE TRAFFIC THAT WILL BACK UP ON VAN DYKE, WILL FIND THEIR WAY THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

OUR ROADS ARE SUBSTANDARD ROADS.

THEY ARE NOT WIDE ENOUGH TO EVEN HAVE A STRIPE ON THE SIDE OR THE MIDDLE.

AND WE HAVE NO SIDEWALKS.

OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1938.

THE SPEED LIMIT IS SUPPOSED TO BE 25 MILES AN HOUR.

THE ROADS WERE BUILT FOR 250 CARS A DAY.

WHEN THE LAST TEST WAS DONE, THE AVERAGE SPEED LIMIT WAS 48 MILES AN HOUR, AND MORE THAN 1200 CARS A DAY WERE GOING THROUGH THERE.

SO WE WILL EXPECT THAT THERE WILL BE COUNTERS IN PLACE, THAT THERE WILL BE MORE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT, AND THAT OUR ROADS WILL BE PROTECTED SO THAT YOU PROTECT THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE, THAT WALK, BIKE RIDE, CYCLE, RUN, JOG, WHATEVER.

MANY OF US LIVE ON BEAUTIFUL LAKES IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THIS PROJECT.

WHEN I FIRST MOVED TO MY HOME ON BERGER ROAD, THE BEAUTIFUL SAND BOTTOM OF THE LAKE WAS EVIDENT.

YOU COULD STAND AT THE END OF OUR DOCK AND SEE DOWN 14 FEET.

WELL, SINCE THAT TIME, DALE MABRY HAS BEEN WIDENED, COMMERCIAL STRIPS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED ON THE NORTHWEST AND THE SOUTHEAST CORNER, AND OUR LAKES HAVE BECOME THE COUNTY'S STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM BECAUSE NONE WAS BUILT.

AS A RESULT, OUR LAKES ARE MUCKY, AND I MEAN INCHES DEEP OF MUCK.

SOME PEOPLE HAVE TRIED TO REMOVE IT.

REMEMBER, ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS THINGS ABOUT LAKES IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES IS THE AMOEBA THAT THRIVES IN THAT MUCK.

SO OUR LAKES, WHERE WE USED TO BE ABLE TO SWIM AND FISH AND WATER-SKI, HAVE BECOME LESS USABLE, LESS SAFE.

SO WE ARE VERY CONCERNED THAT THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ON THIS PROJECT, THAT THE WETLANDS AND THE RETENTION PONDS RETAIN MORE THAN ONE INCH OF RUNOFF.

WE WANT TO MAKE IT SO THAT OUR LAKEFRONT PROPERTIES AREN'T FURTHER DEGRADED.

WE PAY HIGHER TAXES ON THE LAKE SIDES OF THE PROPERTIES THAN THOSE ON THE OTHER SIDES OF THE STREET.

WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE OUR LAKES ACTUALLY CLEANED UP.

WETLANDS ON THE SITE PROPOSED MUST BE RESTORED AND IMPROVED, AND THE RETENTION PONDS CONSTRUCT TODAY THIS HIGHER STANDARD.

THOSE WHO LIVE IN CRENSHAW LAKE ESTATES ARE ON PRIVATE WELLS AND SEPTIC TANKS.

AS YOU KNOW, EVERY CHEMICAL THAT LEAKS FROM A CAR IS A CARCINOGEN, AND WE REALLY DON'T WANT THAT WASHING INTO OUR LAKES NOR INTO OUR POTABLE WATER, WHICH IS -- WE'RE ALL BASICALLY DEPENDENT ON WELLS THAT ARE ANYWHERE FROM 200 TO MAYBE 300 FEET DEEP.

SO WE HAVE SERIOUS CONCERN ABOUT THE WATER.

AND AT THE SAME TIME, THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE CAPTURE ZONE OF THE SECTION 21 WELLFIELD.

NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH HAS MORE RECHARGE TO THE AQUIFER THAN ANY OTHER AREA IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND SO INSTEAD OF DRAINING IT ALL OFF THE LAND, WE WOULD LIKE TO FIND WAYS TO KEEP IT THERE SO THAT IT CAN RECHARGE THE AQUIFER.

CALUSA TRACE AND CHEVAL HAVE LOVELY ENTRANCES IN THEIR RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES.

WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE HEAVILY LANDSCAPED BOULEVARD ENTRANCE INTO THE LARGE COMMERCIAL SITE, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE MONUMENT SIGNAGE.

THERE IS A LARGE MARSH IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BIG COMMERCIAL SITE, AND THAT MUST BE MITIGATED.

IT WOULD BE NICE IF IT COULD BE DONE ON-SITE AND MAYBE PROVIDE SOME MORE OF A NICE BUFFER FROM THE OTHER AREAS ADJACENT TO THIS PROJECT.

IN 1984, MANY MEMBERS THAT LIVE IN THE CRENSHAW LAKE ESTATES SUBDIVISION WERE PROMISED THAT THE INTERSECTION OF SIMMONS ROAD AND CRENSHAW LAKE WOULD BE TURNED INTO A T INTERSECTION.

THEY SAID THAT ONCE THE DEVELOPMENTS START TAKING PLACE OUT THERE THE COUNTY WOULD REDESIGN THE ROAD.

WELL, THE COUNTY REDESIGNED THE ROAD.

IT'S MORE DANGEROUS NOW THAN IT'S EVER BEEN.

WE'VE HAD A SHOPPING CENTER AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER BUILT, DALE MABRY AND VAN DYKE INTERSECTION HAS BEEN IMPROVED, PEOPLE COME ACROSS THERE, NOT GENERALLY GOING THE SPEED LIMIT, BUT IN EXCESS.

CALUSA TRACE HAS BUILT OUT A THREE-WAY STOP -- OH, AND LEDARA IS ALMOST COMPLETED, AS IS CALUSA TRACE AND CHEVAL.

A THREE-WAY STOP IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY THERE.

IT'S ON THE WAY TO THE SITE.

I REALIZE IT'S AT LEAST A MILE AND A HALF, MAYBE FURTHER FROM THE SITE, BUT THE IMPACT OF THIS CENTER WILL AFFECT THAT INTERSECTION.

IT'S EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.

THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY GETS MOWED MAYBE TWICE A YEAR, AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER ISN'T TOO WORRIED ABOUT KEEPING THE BRUSH CUT BACK, AND SO THE ONLY TIME IT'S SAFE, REALLY SAFE, TO GO THROUGH THAT INTERSECTION IS WHEN IT'S DARK AND IF THE CAR COMING SOUTHBOUND HAS ITS LIGHTS ON.

SO WE WOULD APPRECIATE HAVING THAT ROAD CONSIDERED WITHIN THIS PROJECT, AND PERHAPS IT'S NOT IN THE PURVIEW OF THE DEVELOPER, BUT THE COUNTY SHOULD LOOK AT THAT.

AGAIN, WE ARE NO -- MY HUSBAND AND I ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THE SITE BEING DEVELOPED.

WE JUST WANT IT TO BE DONE SAFELY AND AESTHETICALLY BECAUSE ALL OF US THAT LIVE THERE HAVE MOVED THERE TO ENJOY THE BEAUTY OF THE AREA.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, MA'AM.

[APPLAUSE]

GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE.

DAVID MECHANIK, 305 SOUTH BOULEVARD, TAMPA, FLORIDA.

I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CALUSA TRACE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AND I AM HERE AUTHORIZED BY THE ASSOCIATION TO TELL YOU THAT THE ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST PROVIDED THAT A SIGNAL BE A CONDITION -- TRAFFIC SIGNAL BE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT, THE SIGNAL BEING LOCATED AT EXCITING IDLEWILDE BOULEVARD AND DALE MABRY HIGHWAY.

AND HAVING SAID THAT, WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT INSTALLATION OF SUCH A SIGNAL IS SUBJECT TO PERMITTED BY D.O.T. AND THE COUNTY, AND WE RECOGNIZE THAT.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT?

NO ONE RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

APPLICANT, OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

>> [SPEAKER OFF MIC]

>> THANK YOU, MR. LUCE.

JOEL TEW AGAIN.

REBUTTAL ON 0126.

ONLY TWO POINTS, I THINK, WHICH REALLY WERE RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAD RAISED.

I BELIEVE THAT THE NORTH DALE MABRY CORRIDOR OVERLAY COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT, IN FACT, IS IN BOTH SETS OF CONDITIONS.

I THINK IT IS IN 2.3 OF 0126, AND IT'S IN CONDITION NUMBER 2 OF 0127.

BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO REVIEW THAT WITH STAFF, AND IF IT'S NOT CLEAR, THAT CERTAINLY WAS OUR INTENT.

>>STEVE LUCE: I THINK THE INTENT IS THERE.

I JUST DON'T THINK YOU REFERENCED THAT SECTION OF THE CODE.

>> OKAY.


WE WILL MAKE SURE WE DO THAT IN 2.3 OF 0126 AND CONDITION 2 OF 0127, BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THAT AND I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT FOR THE RECORD.

THE OTHER RESPONSE ON THE PARCEL C QUESTION ABOUT THE 30,000 SQUARE FEET, THE REASON WE HAVE BOTH AN FAR AND A MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE IS OBVIOUSLY, AT THE ALLOWABLE FAR WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE, IF YOU DID OFFICE ON THAT ENTIRE PARCEL, YOU WOULD HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF OFFICE.

SO OUR LIMITATION IS WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH LAND WILL BE COMMITTED TO OFFICE, BUT REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH WE COMMIT, WE CAN'T HAVE MORE THAN 30,000 SQUARE FEET TOTAL, AND ON THE PORTION OF THE LAND WE USE, WE CANNOT EXCEED THAT FAR LIMITATION ON THAT PART OF THE LAND.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> THAT WAS THE REASON WE HAVE BOTH LIMITATIONS.

BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY TO ONLY DO 30,000 SQUARE FEET IS GOING TO TAKE A RELATIVELY SMALL PORTION OF PARCEL C.

>>STEVE LUCE: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS OF STAFF MODIFYING THE CONDITION TO STATE WHAT YOU JUST SAID?

>> NO PROBLEM AT ALL BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WE DISCUSSED WITH STAFF AND IS OUR MUTUAL CONSENT.

WE NEED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.

IT'S A DOUBLE LIMITATION, FAR ON THE PART WE USE, NO MORE THAN 30,000 WE USE.

THAT'S IT ON 0126.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, MR. CLARK, GIVEN WE'VE HEARD TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT, NOBODY IN OPPOSITION, I WOULD LIKE TO JOIN THE RECORD OF THIS HEARING WITH 127.

>>CAMERON CLARK: MR. TEW, WERE YOU GOING TO SAY SOMETHING?

>> YES, ALL I NEED TO DO IS WHEN YOU OPEN 127, WE SIMPLY NEED TO INTRODUCE THE BINDER FOR 127, WHICH HAS ITS OWN BINDER, MOST OF WHICH IS THE SAME, BUT OF COURSE, THE APPLICATION, THE CONDITIONS ARE DIFFERENT.

IF WE CAN INTRODUCE 127 INTO THE RECORD, WE WILL OTHERWISE ADOPT ALL THE TESTIMONY FROM 126.

>>STEVE LUCE: SHOULD WE CLOSE 126 NOW?

>>CAMERON CLARK: THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA, MR. LUCE, JUST TO KEEP THE RECORD CLEAR.

MR. TEW, YOU CAN JUST REQUEST THAT ALL TESTIMONY BE DUPLICATED FOR THIS APPLICATION, AND THEN MAKE ANY DISTINCTIONS YOU WANT TO ABOUT THIS APPLICATION.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

SO ZONING APPLICATION 14-126 IS CLOSED.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE WILL MOVE ON.

NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS PD 14-0127.

>> THANK YOU, MR. LUCE.

JOEL TEW AGAIN FOR THE APPLICANTS.

ON 0127, WE WOULD LIKE TO ADOPT AND INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AND ALL OF THE TESTIMONY THAT WAS JUST PRESENTED ON 0126.

SECONDLY, WE'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE INTO THE EGG FOR 0127 THE EVIDENCE BINDER THAT WAS JUST HANDED TO YOU AND TO THE CLERK FOR THE RECORD.

THE ONLY OTHER ADDITIONAL COMMENTS I WANT TO MAKE ABOUT 0127 REALLY ARE TO FOLLOW UP ON THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO, AND MOST OF THIS GOES DIRECTLY TO THE COMMENTS THAT MS. SMITH MADE WHEN SHE SPOKE IN SUPPORT OF THE OTHER MATTER.

THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE RETAIL AREA, IF YOU LOOK AT THE RETAIL PD CONDITIONS, YOU WILL SEE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL AESTHETIC ARCHITECTURAL CONTROLS THAT WE HAVE VOLUNTARILY AGREED TO WITH STAFF, THAT STAFF ASKED US TO CONSIDER AND WHICH WE HAVE DONE.

THESE ARE WAY BEYOND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS.

SO WE ARE, IN FACT, SENSITIVE TO THOSE CONCERNS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE AN AESTHETIC, QUALITY PRODUCT.

THERE'S STRONG ARCHITECTURAL CONDITIONS.

THERE ARE CROSS-ACCESS REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN THOSE PARCELS.

THERE IS PEDESTRIAN, BIKE ACCESS REQUIREMENT AND CONNECTIVITY SO THAT PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE ACCESS IS PROVIDED.

BIKE PARKING IS REQUIRED.

I COULD JUST GO ON AND ON.

MONUMENT SIGNAGE IS REQUIRED.

WE DO AGREE THAT ANY ON-SITE MITIGATION THAT'S REQUIRED CAN, IN FACT, BE DONE ON-SITE, AND WE ARE GOING TO DO EXACTLY AS SHE SUGGESTED.

THE LITTLE BIT THAT IS DONE, WE ARE GOING TO USE TO, IN FACT, BUFFER AND FURTHER SHIELD THE VAN DYKE PRESENCE FROM THE PROJECT.

SO WE THINK IF YOU REVIEW THOSE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS, YOU'LL SEE THAT WE HAVE EXACTLY DONE THAT WHICH WAS SUGGESTED ON THE RETAIL CENTER.

SO I THINK AT THIS POINT, WE WILL DEFER UNTIL WE SEE IF THERE ARE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS RATHER THAN REITERATING MORE.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

>>BRIAN GRADY: YOU NEED TO SIGN IN AGAIN.

>>STEVE LUCE: MR. GRADY, HOW DO YOU WANT TO HANDLE THE STAFF REPORT?

>>BRIAN GRADY: WE HAVE SOME MINOR CHANGES, THINGS WE NEED TO GO OVER.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: MICHELLE HEINRICH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

I JUST WANT TO PUT A MAP UP SHOWING ACCESS POINTS JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE IS IN AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTANDS.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD.

AS STATED, WE DO HAVE SOME REVISIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION AFTER THE STAFF REPORT WAS FILED, AND THOSE ARE FOUND IN -- THIS IS 14-0127, IN CONDITION 15, IN 15.1, AS YOU HEARD FROM MR. TEW, THEY ARE REMOVING THAT DRIVEWAY, WHICH IS LABELED AS A, SO 15.1 WOULD BE STRICKEN.

IN 15.2, THE LAST SENTENCE, WHICH STATES MOVEMENT MAY BE RESTRICTED DUE TO SAFETY CONCERNS, WHICH WILL BE IDENTIFIED AT SITE DEVELOPMENT STAGE, WILL BE STRICKEN AND REPLACED WITH THE DRIVEWAY SHALL BE FULL ACCESS SUBJECT TO FINAL DESIGN OF DRIVEWAY.

ALSO RELATED TO THAT, IN CONDITION 16, 16.4, AGAIN REFERS TO DRIVEWAY A, WHICH MR. TEW STATED IS NO LONGER PROPOSED.

>>STEVE LUCE: SO 16.4 WOULD BE DELETED?

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: CORRECT, THAT WOULD BE DELETED.

I AM AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS.

WE'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED ON THE RECORD THAT 14-0127 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. KRANJEC?

>>RANDY KRANJEC: THAT'S CORRECT.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

IN RECOGNITION THAT ALL PREVIOUS TESTIMONY CAN BE ROLLED OVER INTO THIS APPLICATION AS WELL.

>> PAMELA JO HATLEY, 14519 NORTH 18th STREET, TAMPA, AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REPEAT ALL MY TESTIMONY FROM 14.0126 INTO THIS HEARING, 14.0127.

SAME TESTIMONY.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

>> JAMES WHITE, 18401 AUTUMN MIST DRIVE, LUTZ, FLORIDA.

I LIKEWISE WOULD LIKE TO TRANSFER MY COMMENTS FROM 14-0126 OVER TO 14-0127 ALSO.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, SIR.

>> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS JAN SMITH.

I LIVE ON BERGER ROAD IN LUTZ, 33548.

I WOULD LIKE MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS AMENDED TO THIS PETITION ALSO.

I HAVE ONE OTHER ISSUE, AND THAT IS ON THIS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND ON THE INDIVIDUAL FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE GOING INTO BEHIND IT, I SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT SOONER -- I APOLOGIZE -- WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A RESTRICTION ON THE ABILITY FOR ANYBODY TO DRILL A DEEP WELL AND IRRIGATE.

THE WHOLE INTENT OF TAMPA BAY WATER IS TO BE ABLE TO MANAGE THE WATER RESOURCE, AND EVERY TIME SWFWMD APPROVES ANOTHER DEEP WELL AND A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T FOLLOW THE WATERING RESTRICTIONS, WE WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE A CONDITION THAT SAYS NO DEEP WELLS WILL BE DUG IN THIS AREA OF EITHER OF THESE PETITIONS, THAT THEY WILL ALL BE SERVED BY THE PUBLIC UTILITY THAT'S AVAILABLE THERE NOW.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

>> MR. MECHANIK DID WANT ME TO READ THIS WHOLE REPORT IN, BUT I WILL REFRAIN FROM DOING THAT.

>> MILD JOKE THERE.

DAVID MECHANIK, 305 SOUTH BOULEVARD, TAMPA, FLORIDA, HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CALUSA TRACE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

I WOULD LIKE TO INCORPORATE ALL MY PRIOR COMMENTS INTO THE RECORD FOR THIS PETITION.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT?

SEEING NO ONE RESPONDING, ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?

SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

NO FURTHER COMMENTS.

AND THE APPLICANT, OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL?

>> JOEL TEW FOR THE APPLICANT.

NO REBUTTAL, MR. LUTZ.

I JUST WOULD LIKE TO ACK -- LUCE -- I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE FOR THE RECORD THAT WE CONCUR WITH THESE SPECIFIC CHANGES MICHELLE READ INTO THE RECORD FOR CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY STAFF.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

MR. TEW, BASED ON THE FINAL COMMENT BY MISS SMITH AND ABOUT A DEEP WATER WELL, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT?

>> NOT OTHER THAN WE'RE NOT PREPARED TO DO A RESTRICTION OR CHANGE THE CONDITIONS.

THERE ARE RULES THAT GOVERN THAT, MY UNDERSTANDING, AND OBVIOUSLY, WHATEVER THE RULES ARE WE WILL OBVIOUSLY COMPLY WITH, WHATEVER THE CODE OR TAMPA BAY WATER OR ANYONE ELSE REQUIRES.

>>STEVE LUCE: FAIR ENOUGH.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION.

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

>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS I-8, 14-0166.

THE APPLICANT IS WALLOW CORPORATION.

THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM CG AND RSC-6 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION -- NO, FOR COMMERCIAL.

TOM HIZNAY WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS DICK LaROSA.

I HAVE NOT BEEN SWORN.

>>STEVE LUCE: RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD?

>> I DO.


MY NAME IS DICK LaROSA, 1095 EAST BRANDON BOULEVARD --

>>STEVE LUCE: MR. LaROSA, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

>>BRIAN GRADY: EXCUSE ME, COULD THE FOLKS THAT ARE LEAVING, WE'VE GOT ANOTHER HEARING GOING ON, SO IF YOU COULD MOVE EXPEDITIOUSLY, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: JUST GIVE IT 30 SECONDS.

>> CERTAINLY.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

I THINK WE ARE SUFFICIENTLY QUIET NOW.

YOU SHOULD PROCEED.

>> MY NAME IS DICK LaROSA, 1095 EAST BRANDON BOULEVARD.

I AM REPRESENTING THE WALLOW CORPORATION WITH THIS REQUEST.

THE SUBJECT SITE IS CURRENTLY A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER, SINGLE BUILDING.

RECENTLY, APPROXIMATELY ONE-THIRD OF THE PROPERTY WAS TAKEN BY FDOT, WHICH INCLUDED PART OF THE PARKING AND PART OF THE BUILDING.

THIS REQUEST IS TO REZONE, IN ESSENCE, THE NORTHERN THIRD OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH WAS RSC-6.

WE WANT TO BASICALLY TAKE THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING THAT WAS LOST, RELOCATE IT TO THE NORTH, AND REZONE TO PD TO ALLOW THE SAME USES, SAME DRIVEWAYS, BASICALLY VERY SIMILAR CONFIGURATION TO REMAIN.

WE ARE MAINTAINING THE BUFFER TO RESIDENTIAL, AND THAT'S BASICALLY THE ESSENCE OF THE PROJECT ITSELF.

I WILL KEEP IT QUITE SIMPLE.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.

>> MR. LA ROCA SUMMARIZED THE APPLICATION QUITE WELL.

I WILL JUST TOUCH ON SOME OF THE POINTS THAT YOU FIND IN MY STAFF REPORT.

THERE IS ONE PD VARIATION THAT'S REQUESTED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION, AND THAT REGARDS FOR PARKING.

BASED ON THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF THE BUILDING THAT'S PROPOSED, 6800 SQUARE FEET, THAT WOULD REQUIRE 34 PARKING SPACES AT THE STANDARD RATE OF 5 SPACES PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR SPACE THAT'S TYPICALLY FOUND IN SHOPPING CENTERS AND A LOT OF OTHER GENERAL COMMERCIAL USES.

HE IS PROPOSING TO PROVIDE 30 SPACES.

WE FIND THAT THIS REQUEST MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL FOUND IN THE CODE FOR VARIATIONS, PROVIDED THAT THE PROJECT IS LIMITED TO CERTAIN USES AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT WITH THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT THOSE USES BE LIMITED TO THOSE WHICH REQUIRE FIVE PARKING SPACES OR LESS PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

THE APPLICANT CONCURS WITH THIS, AND THIS IS FOUND IN THE CONDITIONS REGULATING THE USES.

THIS IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THE SITE WOULD NOT BE DEVELOPED AS A STAND-ALONE USE, SUCH AS A RESTAURANT, THAT WOULD REQUIRE FAR MORE THAN 30 SPACES AND BE CONTRARY TO THE REGULATORY INTENT OF THE LDC, WHICH IS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PARKING FACILITIES.

THE APPLICANT IS IN FULL CONCURRENCE WITH THAT CONDITION.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND, THEREFORE, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, THE PROJECT WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO PUBLIC WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES.

YOU MAY NOTICE IN THE APPLICATION THAT THERE IS A STATEMENT BY THE APPLICANT THAT A VARIANCE WAS GRANTED IN THE PAST USED FOR A SEPTIC TANK FOR THIS PROJECT.

WE'VE WRITTEN A CONDITION THAT UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, SO DURING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, IF IT'S FOUND THAT THAT VARIANCE IS STILL APPLICABLE TO THE NEW DEVELOPMENT, THEN HE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE SEPTIC.

IF NOT, HE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO PUBLIC SEWER.

THAT IS AN ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED DURING SITE DEVELOPMENT.

I ONLY BRING IT FORTH HERE BECAUSE IF THE APPLICANT STATES THE INTENT TO USE SEPTIC.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WILL BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.

LASTLY I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THIS SITE IS LOCATED IN A WELLHEAD RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA ZONE 2.

THEREFORE, IN ADDITION TO THE USE RESTRICTIONS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT AND REFLECTED IN THE CONDITIONS, THAT ALL USES OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE FURTHER SUBJECT TO REQUIREMENTS OF LDC PART 3.05.00, AND THESE REQUIREMENTS PROHIBIT AND RESTRICT A NUMBER OF USES, INCLUDING FUEL FACILITIES SUCH AS GAS STATIONS.

IT ALSO FOUND IN THE CONDITIONS, AND AGAIN, IT WILL FURTHER RESTRICT THE USES BEYOND WHAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT WE FIND THIS REZONING IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE PREDOMINANT COMMERCIAL CHARACTER OF MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD AND [INAUDIBLE]

WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, AND THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THIS REQUEST IS APPROVABLE.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

>>RANDY KRANJEC: YES, SIR.

THIS PARCEL FALLS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-4 PLAN CATEGORY.

IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING USES IN THE AREA AND MEETS LOCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

IT'S SUPPORTIVE OF THE SEFFNER MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN, AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE REZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

APPLICANT, YES, SIR?

>> YES, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A NOTE I DID SUBMIT A REVISED FLU MAP.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

THE APPLICANT, OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

>> NO FURTHER COMMENT UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION.

>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-9, 14-0198.

THE APPLICANT IS HUTTON GROWTH ONE, LLC.

THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMERCIAL USES.

ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>> MATTHEW CAMPO WITH CAMPO ENGINEERING.

I HAVE BEEN SWORN.

THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS A REZONING OF A VACANT PARCEL ZONED BPO.

THE PARTICULAR PARCEL IS ACTUALLY RIGHT AT THE INTERSECTION OF SUMMERFIELD CROSSINGS BOULEVARD AND U.S. 301.

ONE OF THE SIX LANE SEGMENTS.

THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, ORIGINALLY WE HAD A CONTINUANCE FOR THIS AS WE WENT BACK TO WORK WITH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF ON SOME OF THE USE RESTRICTIONS IN ORDER TO HAVE GAINED THEIR SUPPORT.

THE PARTICULAR PROPERTY HAS GOT COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH AND COMMERCIAL GENERAL IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THAT.

TO THE NORTH IS BPO.

THE PARTICULAR PROPERTY WOULD BE PROPOSING 15,520 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL.

ONE THING I DO WANT TO NOTE OUT IS ON OUR PARTICULAR SITE PLAN, WE HAVE A VARIATION REQUEST.

CONDITION NUMBER 5 THAT WAS PROVIDED -- I ACTUALLY TALKED TO MS. ALBERT ABOUT THIS -- SHOULD READ 64 INSTEAD OF 68.

I THINK IT'S JUST A TYPO IN THAT PARTICULAR CONDITION.

THE OTHER THING I WANT TO PUT ON THE RECORD IS IN CONDITION 1, WE DO NOTE THAT THE SITE WOULD BE ALLOWED 65% IMPERVIOUS, WHICH IS GREATER THAN THE NORMAL COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE DO HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT ACTUALLY SHOWS 71% IMPERVIOUS, AND THAT WAS DISCUSSED WITH PLANNING STAFF THAT WE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE IMPERVIOUS TYPE MATERIALS LIKE POROUS CONCRETE OR SOMETHING SIMILAR TO ALLOW FOR THAT 71.

THAT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY NOTED, BUT I WANTED TO REFERENCE THAT.

WITH THAT SAID, I BELIEVE THE APPLICATION AND THE SITE PLAN, THE CONDITIONS ARE ALL CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE EXPECTED.

WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO PRESENT UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: NO QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF?

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: GOOD EVENING.

ISABELLE ALBERT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

AS MR. CAMPO STATED, THIS REQUEST IS TO REZONE 1.67-ACRE PARCEL FROM BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TO A COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD USE FOR 50,520 SQUARE FEET.

THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TWO VARIANCES.

ONE IS FOR THE PARKING REQUIREMENT.

THEY HAVE SUBMITTED A PARKING STUDY THAT SHOWED THAT WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING WITH 64 SPACES IS SUFFICIENT.

TRANSPORTATION STAFF DID REVIEW THAT AND HAVE NO OBJECTIONS.

THEY ALSO REQUESTED VARIANCE TO THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND STAFF HAS NO OBJECTIONS.

THE SITE IS LOCATED ON U.S. 301.

IT HAS RECENTLY BEEN EXPANDED TO SIX-LANE MAJOR ARTERIAL.

IT IS CURRENTLY ACCEPTING -- OPERATING AT ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE AND WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE AT THE ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE.

THE -- THE APPLICANT STATED THAT THEY ARE -- THEY ARE REQUESTING WAIVERS TO THE LOCATION CRITERIA IN ORDER TO GET THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT THEY WANTED, AND BETWEEN PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF AND THE APPLICANT, THEY HAVE AGREED ON RESTRICTIONS ON USES, AND THOSE HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED IN CONDITION NUMBER 1.

I DO WANT TO PROVIDE REVISED CONDITIONS JUST CLARIFYING SOME OF THE WORDINGS, BUT I'LL GIVE THAT TO YOU RIGHT NOW.

IN TERMS OF COMPATIBILITY, THE SITE IS LOCATED NEXT TO A COMMERCIAL USE TO THE SOUTH AND OFFICE USE TO THE NORTH, AND THEN TO THE WEST THERE IS SOME RESIDENTIAL ZONING THERE, RESIDENTIAL USES.

AND TO ADDRESS A COMPATIBILITY, THEY ARE PROPOSING A SIX-FOOT WALL.

AND WITH THAT, STAFF DOES FIND THIS APPROVABLE, SUBJECT TO THE REVISED CONDITIONS.

I AM GOING TO PUT INTO THE RECORD.

AND I DO WANT TO CLARIFY AGAIN WOULD BE CONDITION NUMBER 1, THE, I GUESS, FIRST SENTENCE, INSTEAD OF FOR PARCEL 1 ONLY, IT WILL BE ADDITIONALLY, NEIGHBORHOOD MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIRS PROHIBITED ON PARCEL 1, WHICH I AM GOING TO GIVE YOU INTO THE RECORD RIGHT NOW, AS WELL AS CONDITION NUMBER 5, I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT IT IS 64 PARKING SPACES VERSUS 68 [INAUDIBLE]

I AM HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: CAN I JUST GET A COPY OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS?

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: YES.

>>STEVE LUCE: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF?

>> YES, SIR.

THIS PARCEL FALLS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL-6 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY.

IT MEETS LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR UP TO 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF NONRESIDENTIAL USES.

THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A WAIVER TO THAT PER POLICY 22.8.

BASED ON COMPATIBILITY, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THAT WAIVER BE GRANTED.

THE USE IS COMPATIBLE.

WE APPRECIATE THEIR WORKING WITH US AND MEETING THE INTENT OF THE RIVERVIEW COMMUNITY PLAN RELATIVE TO DESIGN OF NONRESIDENTIAL USES ALONG 301.

THEY'VE COMPLIED WITH THAT.

AND FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS, WE FIND THIS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION?

SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

APPLICANT, OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

>> NO FURTHER COMMENT UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: NO COMMENTS, NO QUESTIONS.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION.

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

>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS I-10, REZONING APPLICATION 14-0234.

THE APPLICANT IS FELICIANO MORALES.

THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM CI TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

MICHELLE HEINRICH WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER A PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE.

I'M DAVID MECHANIK, 305 SOUTH BOULEVARD, TAMPA, FLORIDA.

I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, FELICIANO MORALES, WHO IS HERE WITH ME THIS EVENING.

I ALSO HAVE MR. BRAD KUHL WITH HAMILTON ENGINEERING, WHO HAS PROVIDED THE ENGINEERING SUPPORT ON THE PROJECT.

AS INDICATED, THE STAFF REPORT ACCURATELY DESCRIBES THE PROJECT, BUT I'LL GO THROUGH IT BRIEFLY.

THE PROPERTY IS 10.88 ACRES ON BOTH THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF 60th STREET, JUST ABOUT HAD 00 FEET NORTH OF COLUMBUS DRIVE.

THE PROPOSAL IS FOR A RECYCLING AND PROCESSING FACILITY, AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION, OFFICE, EQUIPMENT, REPAIR, AND STORAGE.

THERE ARE TWO PARCELS ON THE SITE.

WE RECENTLY -- YOU WANT TO PUT UP THE SITE PLAN THERE?

THERE ARE TWO PARCELS THAT WE'VE DESIGNATED.

PARCEL A WE ARE REZONING FROM CI TO PD, BUT WE ARE LIMITING PARCEL A TO CI USES.

PARCEL B, WHICH CONSTITUTES THE BALANCE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS 8.38 ACRES, IT WILL BE WHERE THE RECYCLING AND PROCESSING WILL OCCUR, AND WE RECENTLY OBTAINED A PLAN AMENDMENT APPROVAL FOR THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.

>>STEVE LUCE: MR. MECHANIK, DO YOU KNOW WHEN YOU GOT THAT APPROVAL?

>> IT WAS IN APRIL, I BELIEVE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OF THIS YEAR?

>> YES, YES.

IT WAS A COMPANION.

WE HAD A DELAY IN THIS HEARING, BUT THEY WERE ACTUALLY SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD ROUGHLY -- OH, YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT.

>> [SPEAKER OFF MIC]

>> OH, FEBRUARY 20, 2014.

RECENT.


YOU WILL SEE IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF VARIATIONS AND WAIVERS BEING REQUESTED, AND I WILL DISCUSS THOSE IN SOME DETAIL IN A FEW MINUTES, AFTER I GO THROUGH THE OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO NOTE -- AND THIS IS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE STAFF REPORT -- THAT ALL AGENCIES FOUND THAT THE PUBLIC FACILITIES WERE ADEQUATE TO ACCOMMODATE THE IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

THE STAFF ANALYZED THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE SITE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND INDICATED THAT THE AREA WAS PREDOMINANTLY USED FOR INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES.

THERE ARE SOME RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE AREA OF THE SITE, AND I WILL DISCUSS THOSE IN CONNECTION WITH THE VARIANCE -- VARIATION AND WAIVER REQUEST.

THERE WERE NO STAFF OR AGENCY OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSAL.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO NOTE -- AND I BELIEVE THAT MICHELLE WILL SPEAK TO THIS -- WE AGREE WITH THE STAFF REPORT IN ITS ENTIRETY EXCEPT THAT THERE IS A CORRECTION ON VARIATION NUMBER 4, THE REFERENCE TO THE WEST PROPERTY LINE SHOULD BE TO FOLIO 41964 AS OPPOSED TO 41963.

ALSO IN CONDITION 4-A, THE WORD "SETBACK" SHOULD BE DELETED.

AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT IT PROVIDES SCREENING SHALL BE PERMITTED AT A LOCATION 15 FEET WEST OF THE WETLAND, NOT EAST OF THE WETLAND SETBACK, BECAUSE THAT WOULD REQUIRE A 45-FOOT SETBACK.

I BELIEVE MICHELLE WILL CONFIRM THAT THE WORD "SETBACK" SHOULD BE DELETED.

WE AGREE TO ALL THE CHANGES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO THE SITE PLAN.

I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TWO OF OUR OWN.

WITHIN PARCEL A, THERE ARE CONDITIONS ON THE SITE PLAN INDICATING THAT PARCEL A IS CURRENTLY ZONED RDC-12, AND THOSE REFERENCES ARE FOUND RIGHT BELOW THE FOLIO NUMBERS ON THE SITE PLAN.

IN FACT, THE EXISTING ZONING IS CI, AND THAT SHOULD BE CORRECTED WHEN WE FILE OUR REVISED SITE PLAN.

NOW I'D LIKE TO DISCUSSION THE VARIATIONS, BRAD, IF YOU COULD PUT THE SITE PLAN BACK UP.

THE VARIATIONS AND THE WAIVERS APPEAR NUMEROUS, AND I WANTED TO JUST EXPLAIN FIRST OFF WHY THAT IS.

I PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, AS YOU CAN SEE, ARE IRREGULAR.

IN FACT, THERE ARE NINE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ON THIS SITE.

AND BECAUSE OF THE OPERATION OF -- AND THERE ARE ONLY TWO REGULATIONS THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY SEEKING DEVIATIONS FROM, CODE SECTION 6.06.06, THE BUFFER AND SCREENING MATRIX, AND SECTION 611.84A, RESOURCE RECOVERY SETBACKS.

HOWEVER, THOSE TWO SECTIONS IMPACT EACH BOUNDARY SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, AND SO EACH ONE HAD TO BE SEPARATELY ARTICULATED AS EITHER A SEPARATE VARIANCE OR A WAIVER.
WITH THAT IN MIND, I'D LIKE TO SORT OF WALK YOU AROUND THE SITE.

YOU PROBABLY CAN'T READ IT PERHAPS ON THE ONE RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU.

WE COLOR CODED -- THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT'S FILED WITH THE APPLICATION, AND WE COLORED IT JUST FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PRESENTATION.

THE STARTING AT THE SOUTH PROPERTY, SOUTHWEST PROPERTY CORNER, YOU WILL SEE A PURPLE DESIGNATION, AND THEN THERE ARE NUMBERING ALONG WITH THOSE, AND THOSE CORRESPOND WITH THE NUMBERS IN THE STAFF REPORT SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THE EXACT DESCRIPTION OF EACH VARIANCE, BUT WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS JUST SORT OF GIVE YOU THE NET EFFECT HERE OF WHAT WE'RE SEEKING, AND THAT IS A 20-FOOT BUFFER AS OPPOSED TO WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES, WHICH IN SOME CASES IS 30 FEET, ALONG EACH OF THE BOUNDARIES, EXCEPT FOR THE EASTERN BOUNDARY, WHICH WE ARE PROPOSING FOR THE BUFFER TO BE 15 FEET.

SIMILARLY, WE ARE ASKING THAT THE SETBACKS, AS REQUIRED UNDER 6.11.84A, BE REDUCED TO 20 FEET EXCEPT FOR THE EASTERN BOUNDARY, WHICH WOULD BE PROPOSED AT 15 FEET.

I WOULD LIKE TO JUST ALSO POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE SCREENING DEVIATIONS, AND THE ONES THAT ARE ON THE NORTH -- I MEAN, ON THE SOUTHERN AND THE WESTERN BOUNDARY, THOSE ARE DEVIATIONS REQUESTED BY EPC BECAUSE THEY PREFERRED THAT WE CONSTRUCT A WOODEN FENCE AS OPPOSED TO A CONCRETE WALL BECAUSE OF A LESSER POTENTIAL IMPACT TO WETLAND AREAS.

SO THAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR THAT.

I'D LIKE TO JUST GO BRIEFLY THROUGH THE VARIATION CRITERIA THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE ADDRESSED AS PART OF OUR APPLICATION.

THE FIRST CRITERION IS TO ADDRESS NECESSITY, AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE HAVE AN IRREGULAR AND RELATIVELY NARROW SITE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE IT CLEARLY ON THERE, BUT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE SITE, AS A CONTINUATION OF 60th STREET, WHICH HAS BEEN VACATED THROUGH THE PROPERTY, THERE IS STILL A RESERVE TECO EASEMENT.

SO THAT REQUIRES THAT THE SITE ESSENTIALLY BE ACCESSED VIA THAT EASEMENT, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT IT CAN'T BE USED FOR ANY PERMANENT STRUCTURES.

THAT FORCES WHAT IS PROPOSED TO BE A VERY LARGE BUILDING ON THE EAST SIDE OF 60th STREET OR VACATED 60th STREET OVER TO THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE PROPERTY, THUS NECESSITATING THE VARIANCES TO THE EASTERN BOUNDARY.

WHAT IS HAPPENING THERE IS GIVEN THE NEED FOR MANEUVERING OF TRUCKS AND STORING OF MATERIALS, THOSE -- ALL THESE BUFFER WAIVERS HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO BE NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE.

WE ALSO HAVE LARGE AREAS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR STORAGE, AND THE VARIATIONS ARE NEEDED TO ADDRESS THOSE AS WELL.

THE SECOND CRITERION IS MITIGATION.

WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IN TERMS OF MITIGATION TO OFFSET THE EFFECT OF THE VARIATIONS OR WAIVERS, AND I WOULD LIKE TO JUST GO THROUGH THOSE WITH YOU.

THE SITE IS FAIRLY HEAVILY WOODED, ESPECIALLY ALONG THE PERIMETER, SO THE PLAN IS TO PRESERVE ALL THE TREES WITHIN THE BUFFER AREAS; AND SECONDLY, WHERE THERE ARE REPLACEMENT TREES TO BE PLANTED, WE WOULD PROPOSE -- AND THIS IS SOMETHING SUBJECT TO THE NATURAL RESOURCES REVIEW, BUT WE WOULD PROPOSE TO PUT AS MANY REPLACEMENT TREES AS POSSIBLE WITHIN THOSE BUFFER AREAS.

FINALLY, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE NOISE AND AIR QUALITY AND VIBRATION ARE ALL CONTROLLED THROUGH EPC PERMITTING, SO ALL THOSE WOULD BE MITIGATING FACTORS IN TERMS OF OUR USES.

I'D ALSO ADDRESS CRITERIA NUMBER 3 IN TERMS OF BEING IN HARMONY AND IN PURPOSE WITH THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

CLEARLY THE CODE IS THERE TO PROMOTE THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS, AND ANOTHER IS TO PROMOTE HARMONIOUS DEVELOPMENT, AND WE THINK IT'S EVIDENT IN THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL.

WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THIS IS THE USE WHICH PROMOTES THE PUBLIC GOOD BY CREATING ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR RECYCLING WITHIN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, WHICH IS A USE, AND THE AVAILABILITY OF THIS USE IS SORELY NEEDED WITHIN THE COUNTY.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO JUST POINT OUT WHILE THERE ARE SEVERAL RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PARCELS IN THE AREA WHICH NECESSITATED A NUMBER OF THESE REQUESTED WAIVERS, AS THE STAFF NOTED, THE AREA IS PREDOMINANTLY HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREA, AND IF YOU WILL, THE RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTIES ARE TO SOME DEGREE AN ANOMALY TO THIS AREA.

SO MUCH SO, I THINK MR. KRANJEC MIGHT BACK ME UP ON THIS, DURING THE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS, MR. KRANJEC INDICATED THAT THE STAFF WOULD ACTUALLY BE LOOKING AT CHANGING A LARGER AREA TO AN INDUSTRIAL USE, GIVEN THE PREDOMINANT USES THAT ARE ALREADY PRESENT IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA.

AND THAT LEADS ME REALLY TO THE FINAL CRITERION WHICH WE ARE TO ADDRESS, WHICH IS THE PROPOSAL WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

WE BELIEVE GIVEN THE CHARACTER OF THIS AREA, THIS PROPOSAL SHOULD HAVE NO ADVERSE EFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

AND I NEGLECTED TO MENTION THAT ON THE EAST BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY IS MAJORITY OF THAT BOUNDARY IS A SUPERFUND SITE, WHICH FROM WHAT WE CAN GATHER, WILL NOT BE USED FOR POTENTIALLY FOR ANYTHING BUT CERTAINLY NOT FOR ANY RESIDENTIAL USES.

NOTWITHSTANDING ITS ZONING.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION, AND WE WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR WAIT FOR ANY STAFF --

>>STEVE LUCE: YES, LET ME JUST -- THE ACTUAL USE THAT WILL TAKE PLACE ON THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, RECYCLING BUSINESSES GENERALLY BRING IN -- IT'S A TIMING THING.

THEY GO TO A CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND THEY BRING IN MATERIALS.

>> CORRECT.

RIGHT.

>>STEVE LUCE: THEY HAVE TO STOCKPILE IT.



>> YES, THEY HAVE STOCKPILES ON THE SITE, RIGHT.

>>STEVE LUCE: HOW TALL WOULD THE STOCKPILES BE?

>> LET ME ASK NIGH CLIENT THERE.

ABOUT 20 FEET HE IS INDICATING.

THERE IS CURRENTLY STORAGE ON THE PROPERTY, AND I WAS OUT THERE.

THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD REPRESENTATION OF WHAT'S OUT THERE.

YOU CANNOT SEE THAT FROM OFF-SITE BECAUSE OF ALL THE TREES ON THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY.

>>STEVE LUCE: WHAT'S THE NEED OF THE HUNDRED FOOT [INAUDIBLE] FOR THE PROJECT?

>> SOME OF THE PROCESSING EQUIPMENT WILL BE INSIDE THE BUILDING ITSELF.

IT WON'T BE JUST FOR STORAGE.

THERE WILL BE THE PROCESSING EQUIPMENT INSIDE THE BUILDING.

>>STEVE LUCE: SO IT'S THE CRUSHING MACHINES?

>> CEMENT CRUSHING, WOOD CHIPPING.

>> THEY RISE TO 125 FEET?

>> I BELIEVE SO.

>>STEVE LUCE: SIR, IF YOU ARE GOING TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY, I NEED YOU TO COME FORWARD, PLEASE.

>> MY NAME IS FELICIANO MORALES, AND I LIVE IN TAMPA.

>>STEVE LUCE: ARE YOU THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE OPERATOR OF THE BUSINESS?

>> YES.

SO WHEN THE CRUSHING AND THE WOOD CHIPPING, IT WILL BE OUTSIDE, YOU KNOW, OUTSIDE THE BUILDING.

THE BUILDING WE ARE APPLYING FOR TO DUMP WITH THE DUMP TRUCKS TO SEPARATE CONCRETE, WOOD, AND RECYCLING KIND OF SEPARATING, SHAKING THE FILL DIRT, AND DOING THE WOOD CHIPPING, CRUSHING WILL BE OUTSIDE.

BUT THE DUMPING IS GOING TO BE INSIDE THE BUILDING.

>>STEVE LUCE: SO TRUCKS CAN DRIVE INTO THE BUILDING?

>> YEAH.


>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THAT'S WHERE THE STOCKPILES WILL BE?

>> THE STOCKPILES FOR THE SEPARATION.

>>STEVE LUCE: AFTER THEY ARE SEPARATED, THEN YOU WILL HAVE ESSENTIALLY SUPPLY OF MATERIALS STOCKPILED OUTSIDE?

>> FOR REUSE.

>> ON THE CONCRETE AND THE WOOD CHIPS.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

>> THE DIFFERENT MATERIALS, FIRST GO THROUGH DUMPSTERS TO TAKE IT TO LANDFILLS.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

AND THEN I ASKED YOUR REPRESENTATIVE ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF --

>> THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING IS SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE 40 FEET, HEIGHT OF A SEMI TRUCK INSIDE.

>>STEVE LUCE: IS THERE SOMETHING THAT'S A HUNDRED FEET TALL?

>> NO, CANNOT BE.

IT'S ABOUT 45 FEET HIGH.

THE HIGHEST MIGHT BE 60 FEET, MAYBE NOT.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

MR. MECHANIK, THERE'S CONDITION 2 THAT STAFF HAS PROPOSED, FOR THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT SHALL BE 110 FEET.

DOESN'T SOUND LIKE WE NEED THAT KIND OF HEIGHT.

>> IT SOUNDS THAT WAY.

>>STEVE LUCE: MAYBE I THINK I HEARD HIM SAY 60 FEET?

>> WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE LOADING AND --

>>STEVE LUCE: 60, 70 THE MOTHS.

>> 70?

>> I DON'T THINK HIGHER THAN THAT.



>>STEVE LUCE: 70 FEET?

>> YEAH.


>> OKAY.

ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT?

>> YEAH, I THINK SO.

>>STEVE LUCE: I MEAN, IF YOU ARE LOOKING -- I THINK THE HEIGHT STRUCK ME AS NOT BEING CORRECT, BUT I WILL PUT DOWN 70, PROBABLY, AND YOU HAVE TIME BETWEEN NOW.

YOU CAN WORK WITH YOUR CLIENT, MAKE SURE THAT'S CORRECT.

>> OKAY.


ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

>> APPRECIATE THAT.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

MS. HEINRICH.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: MICHELLE HEINRICH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

MR. MECHANIK PRETTY MUCH WENT OVER PRETTY THOROUGHLY THE ESSENCE OF THE APPLICATION, WHICH IS TO REZONE SIX PROPERTIES FROM CI TO THIS PD TO ALLOW FOR A CONTRACTOR'S OFFICE TYPE USE IN PARCEL A, AND THEN THE RECYCLING ACTIVITIES ON PARCEL B, WHICH IS A MAJORITY OF THE SITE.

AND I WILL AGREE WITH MR. MECHANIK THAT IN THE BUFFERING AND SCREENING VARIATIONS THAT THERE WAS A TYPO IN 4, WHICH I SAW THAT YOU NOTED, SO IT IS CORRECT IN THE CONDITIONS.

WE CHECKED THAT.

BUT IT'S NOT CORRECT IN THE REPORT.

AND ALSO MR. MECHANIC AND I SPOKE EARLIER TODAY AND REALIZED THAT I GOT A LITTLE CARRIED AWAY IN MY TYPING WITH 4 AND PUT WETLAND SETBACK LINE WHEN IT SHOULD JUST BE WETLAND LINE.

EPC WAS GIVING HIM -- BEING AS HE STATED THEY ARE DOING SOME FENCING RATHER THAN WALLS; THEREFORE, THEY WERE ABLE TO WORK WITH THAT.

SO HE IS ALLOWED TO GO INTO THAT WETLAND SETBACK AREA.

AND IT SOUNDS LIKE FOR CONDITION 2, YOU ARE LOOKING TO NOT GO WITH THE 110, BUT INSTEAD 70?

>>STEVE LUCE: YEAH.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: JUST TO CONFIRM THAT.

JUST SO MR. MECHANIK WORKS, THE 110 CAME FROM THEIR SITE PLAN.

SO JUST WHEN THEY COME IN TO CERTIFY THEIR SITE PLAN, WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CHANGE THAT IN THEIR SITE DATA TABLE.

>>STEVE LUCE: THERE WERE TWO REASONS FOR THAT.

ONE IS I WASN'T SURE THEY NEEDED THAT HEIGHT FOR THEIR BUILDINGS.

THE OTHER WAS WITH RESPECT TO THEIR STOCKPILES.

TREE HEIGHT IS 50 FEET FOR VERY HIGH TREES.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE STOCKPILES ARE BELOW THE TREE LINE.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

>>RANDY KRANJEC: YES, SIR.

THIS SITE WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PLAN AMENDMENT THAT WAS APPROVED IN FEBRUARY FROM OFFICE COMMERCIAL-20 TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PLANNED.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH THE WAIVERS TO BUFFERING REQUESTED AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

MR. MECHANIK IS CORRECT THAT WE DO ANTICIPATE LOOKING AT THIS AREA IN A MORE MACRO BASIS WITH THE PLAN UPDATE AS IT IS AN AREA THAT APPEARS TO BE TRANSITIONING MORE TOWARD INDUSTRIAL USES.

WE FIND THIS REZONING REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BASED UPON THE CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

APPLICANT, OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

>> WE HAVE NOTHING.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

NO NEED FOR REBUTTAL.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS AM A CATION.

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

>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS I-11, REZONING APPLICATION 14-243.

THE APPLICANT IS EB 138 INVESTMENT OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, LL AREA.

THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM RSC-6, RSC-6 MH, AR, AND PD TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION.

ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>> GOOD EVENING, SIR.

I'M KEVIN MINEER OF THE GENESIS GROUP, AND I AM ASSISTING EB 138 INVESTMENTS WITH THEIR REZONING.

I HAVE WITH ME TONIGHT MARK BENTLEY, WHO IS OUR ATTORNEY.

WE COMPLETELY, FULLY, TOTALLY AGREE WITH PLANNING COMMISSION AND WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' PROPOSALS, AND I UNDERSTAND THERE'S BEEN A COUPLE OF TWEAKS TO SOME OF THE CONDITIONS WHICH WE'RE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT IN.

IF THERE'S NOBODY IN OPPOSITION, I JUST HAVE A PLANNING REPORT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT TO THE RECORD, BUT IT'S SINGLE-FAMILY.

WE ARE COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY SINGLE-FAMILY.

WE ARE VERY COMPATIBLE.

EVERYONE FELT WE WERE COMPATIBLE SO I DON'T SEE ANY SORT OF ISSUES FOR A FULL -- ANY REASON FOR A FULL PRESENTATION.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

LEGAL COUNSEL HAVE ANY COMMENTS?

>> NO, THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: GOOD EVENING.

ISABELLE ALBERT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

I DO WANT TO PUT INTO THE RECORD REVISED CONDITIONS.

I DID PROVIDE A COPY TO THE APPLICANT AS WELL.

I'LL BE BRIEF, BUT NOT AS BRIEF AS THE APPLICANT.

BUT THIS REZONING IS FOR 22 ACRES, APPROXIMATELY 22 ACRES FOR -- SORRY -- FOR 76 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES.

MOST OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPED AT 6,000 TO 7,000 SQUARE FEET.

7,000 SQUARE FEET WITH A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 60 FEET.

THIS AREA IS LOCATED IN AREA 1 OF THE RUSKIN COMMUNITY PLAN, AND THEY DO MEET THE SUGGESTED DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FOUND IN THE PLAN.

THERE IS NO COMPATIBILITY ISSUE.

WE HAVE GONE THROUGH, LIKE WE SAID, THE RUSKIN COMMUNITY PLAN.

WE LOOKED AT ALL THE RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND WE DO FIND THAT THE APPLICATION DOES MEET ALL OF THEM, AND -- SORRY.

COUGHING RIGHT NOW.

BUT THEY ARE MEETING MOST OF THOSE REGULATIONS.

ALSO, I DID WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE SURROUNDING AREA IS A MIXTURE OF DEVELOPMENT OF BETWEEN 5,000 TO 7,000 SQUARE FEET.

AND I DID HAVE CHANGES TO SOME OF THE CONDITIONS IN MY STAFF REPORT, AND THESE WILL BE FOUND IN CONDITIONS 3 AND 5.

JUST TO CLARIFY, WHEN TRANSPORTATION STAFF DID REVIEW THIS FURTHER, THEY WANTED TO MAKE SOME CHANGES TO THAT, SO WE HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THAT.

I AM FINDING THIS APPROVABLE, SUBJECT TO THE REVISED CONDITIONS, AND I AM HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

NO QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

>>RANDY KRANJEC: [SPEAKER OFF MIC] -- IS RESIDENTIAL-4 ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

IT'S IN THE RUSKIN COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING DEVELOPMENT COMPATIBLE AND COMPARABLE TO WHAT EXISTS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.

THEY ARE MEETING THE INTENT OF THE RUSKIN COMMUNITY PLAN TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE BASED ON THE CONFIGURATION OF THE SITE, AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

APPLICANT, OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

>> THERE'S NOTHING TO REBUT, BUT JUST TO CLARIFY, I HAVE INCLUDED IN MY PLANNING REPORT THE GUIDELINES.

WE ARE IN AREA 1, AND WE COMPLETELY, TOTALLY, UTTERLY MEET THE STANDARDS OF THE LOT SIZES, LOT WIDTH, AND EVERYTHING OF AREA 1 IF YOU ARE BUILDING SINGLE-FAMILY.

AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY RECOMMENDED, SAW THE REASON TO STRIKE THROUGH THAT ONE CONDITION.

IT WAS REDUNDANT.

WE MEET IT; THEREFORE, WE ARE DONE.

THE ONE THING THAT RANDY BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE ONE ISSUE THAT WE HAD IS WITH THE RUSKIN PLAN, THEY TALK ABOUT INTERCONNECTING WITH SURROUNDING PROJECTS.

WE CANNOT DO THAT.

OUR NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBORS ALREADY BUILD.

SO THAT'S THE ONE THING THAT WE CAN'T DO.

WE CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE OUR NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR HAS ALREADY LAID OUT THEIR LOTS, SO THERE'S NOTHING TO CONNECT TO.

BUT WE DO -- SO IN ESSENCE, WE DO MEET THE RUSKIN PLAN.

THANK YOU.

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

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

>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-12, REZONING APPLICATION 14-0313.

THE APPLICANT IS PULTE HOME CORPORATION.

THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AR TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION.

TOM HIZNAY WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING, MR. LUCE.

MORRIS MASSEY, 101 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF PULTE HOME CORPORATION, THE APPLICANT.

THIS SITE IS AN APPROXIMATE 10-ACRE SITE LOCATED SOUTH OF BOYETTE ROAD ON THE WEST SIDE OF BALM-RIVERVIEW ROAD ACROSS FROM RIVERVIEW HIGH SCHOOL.

WHERE IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED AR, WE ARE ASKING FOR A PD ZONING THAT WOULD ALLOW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT UP TO A MAXIMUM 39 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES.

IT'S WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA.

WE DO HAVE TWO ALTERNATIVE SITE PLANS.

I CAN SHOW YOU BRIEFLY WHY WE ARE DOING THAT BY GOING TO THE ELMO AND PUTTING THIS ON THE OVERHEAD.

THIS AREA I THINK IS IN YOUR BACKUP OR THE STAFF REPORT, BUT -- OKAY.

GOT IT.

THE PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN YELLOW.

OPTION A SHOWS ACCESS OUT TO BALM-RIVERVIEW IN THE CENTER OF THAT SITE.

WE HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE NORTH AS WELL, AND IN FACT, WE JUST ENTERED A CONTRACT TO PURCHASE THEIR PROPERTY.

SO IF THE DUE DILIGENCE AND THE ZONING EFFORTS GO WELL, WE WILL LIKELY DEVELOP THESE TWO TRACTS TOGETHER AS A SINGLE DEVELOPMENT, AND THE ACCESS THEN WOULD GO OUT TO BALM-RIVERVIEW.

ACTUALLY, THIS IS OPTION B, THROUGH THE NORTHERN PARCEL, WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE ZONING REQUEST, AND THE ALIGNMENT WITH THE DRIVEWAY INTO THE SITE WOULD ALIGN WITH THE DRIVEWAY INTO RIVERVIEW HIGH SCHOOL.

THE ONLY OTHER THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE -- I THINK TOM HIZNAY WILL GO THROUGH THIS WITH YOU -- WE HAVE AGREED TO INCREASED SETBACK ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE LOT -- OF THE SITE FOR THE LOTS THERE BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE LARGE RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT ABUT SHADY LANE HERE.

WE INITIALLY AGREED TO A 35-FOOT SETBACK.

AFTER MEETING WITH SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS, THEY HAD ASKED FOR AN ACTUAL BUFFER, SO WE AGREED TO AMEND THAT ZONING CONDITION, SO WE HAVE NOW A 30-FOOT SETBACK, THEN A 5-FOOT BUFFER ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY THAT WILL BE OWNED BY THE HOA.

AND IN THAT BUFFER AREA, I WILL PUT UP HERE A DRAWING THAT OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DID.

WE HAVE AGREED TO PUT UP A SIX-FOOT VINYL FENCE IN FRONT OF ALL THE LOTS ON OUR SOUTHERN BOUNDARY, AND THEN WHAT'S IN THE FIVE FEET FORWARD OF THAT, WE WOULD PLANT EVERGREEN TREES SIX FEET IN HEIGHT SIX FOOT ON CENTER.

>>STEVE LUCE: WHEN YOU SAY FORWARD, THE TREES WOULD BE --

>> ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE.

ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER'S SIDE, BUT ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE HOA AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOA.

THE ONLY OTHER THING OF NOTE IS THAT YOU WILL SEE THAT THIS IS A HEAVILY TREED SITE, SO WE'VE AGREED WITH NATURAL RESOURCE STAFF TO IDENTIFY ALL THE GRAND OAKS AND MAKE ALL EFFORTS THAT WE FEASIBLY CAN MAKE TO SAVE AS MANY OF THEM AS WE CAN, AND THEN IN AN EFFORT TO DO SO, IF WE NEED TO REDUCE THE SETBACK ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY FROM 30 UP TO 15 FEET, AND ONLY FOR THAT REASON WE COULD DO SO, BUT THAT WOULD BE ONLY IF WE NEEDED TO PRESERVE ONE OF THE GRAND OAK THERE IS.

AND I THINK THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANYTHING.

>>STEVE LUCE: EXCEPT FOR YOUR LAST COMMENT, I WAS [INAUDIBLE]

HOW YOU COULD PROVE THAT PRESERVING ONE GRAND OAK JUSTIFIES THE SETBACK.

IS THE BURDEN ON YOU TO PROVE IT?

>> YES, THE BURDEN IS ON US TO PROVE, AND IT WOULD BE UP TO THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.

THE TREE IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SITE, SO WE WOULD HAVE A LARGER FRONT YARD AND A SMALLER YEAR REGARD.

IT ALLOWS THAT FLEXIBILITY.

>>STEVE LUCE: ON A LOT-BY-LOT BASIS?

>> YES, SIR.

>>STEVE LUCE: GOT IT.

ANYTHING ELSE?

THANK YOU.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF?

>>TOM HIZNAY: TOM HIZNAY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THE APPLICANT EXPLAINED THE REQUEST QUITE THOROUGHLY, AND MY STAFF REPORT ALSO PROVIDES WHATEVER DETAILS YOU MAY NEED TO SEE.

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT, AND I AM GOING TO HAND OUT THE REVISED CONDITIONS THAT WERE REFERENCED BY THE APPLICANT.

THESE REVISIONS WERE REQUESTED THIS MORNING, SO WHEN YOU READ THE STAFF REPORT YOU ARE GOING TO SEE AS NOTED BY MR. MASSEY, TALK ABOUT A 35-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK WITH THE LOTS ON THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY.

THE CONDITIONS ORIGINALLY READ THAT WAY, BUT NOW THAT THEY'VE ASKED TO PROVIDE A FIVE-FOOT BUFFER, WHICH, BY THE WAY, IS NOT REQUIRED BY CODE.

IT'S ENTIRELY SOMETHING THEY'VE DONE ON THEIR OWN AND NEGOTIATIONS WITH NUMBERS.

YOU WILL SEE IT'S NOW BEEN CHANGED TO A 30-FOOT SETBACK.

I WANT TO EXPLAIN WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE APPEAR TO BE AN INCONSISTENCY.

THAT'S WHY.

I HAVE THE REVISED CONDITIONS HERE TO HAND OUT.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND THE GRAPHIC THAT WAS PUT ON THE OVERHEAD, HAVE YOU SEEN IT?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE HE HAS.

WE JUST HAD IT DRAWN UP TODAY.

BUT WE WILL PROVIDE IT TO THEM, AND THAT'S PART OF THE CONDITIONS FOR THE REVISED SITE PLAN IS WE HAVE TO SHOW GRAPHICALLY THE AREA ON THE SITE PLAN.

>>STEVE LUCE: WHEN YOU CERTIFY THE GENERAL SITE PLAN.

>>TOM HIZNAY: NO, I HAVE NOT SEEN THE GRAPHIC, BUT YES, THE CONDITION SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THE FENCE THAT'S PROPOSED IS ON THE INTERIOR BORDER OF THE FIVE-FOOT BUFFER, AND THE TREES WILL BE OUTSIDE OF THAT, AND THAT WAY THE FENCE PRECLUDES THE HOMEOWNERS OF THOSE LOTS FROM EFFECTIVELY INCORPORATING THE BUFFER AREA INTO THEIR LOTS, YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS REVERSED; RIGHT?

AND THEY'VE AGREED TO THAT.

AND YEAH, SO WE FIND THAT THIS IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE SURROUNDING AREA, WHICH IS GENERALLY SUBURBAN IN NATURE WITH LOTS RUNNING FROM 5,000, 8,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE, AND THERE'S MOBILE HOME PARKS.

LARGER LOTS IN THE AREAS ARE THOSE THAT PRECEDED URBAN SERVICES IN THE AREA, BUT CERTAINLY ANY OF THE NEWER DEVELOPMENTS ARE SUBURBAN IN NATURE, WITH LOT SIZES SOMEWHAT COMPARABLE WITH WHAT'S PROPOSED HERE.

WE ALSO FIND THAT THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DENSITY TARGETS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH DEAL WITH THE -- TRYING TO ACHIEVE AT LEAST A 75% DENSITY OF WHAT'S ALLOWED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SO I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

>>RANDY KRANJEC: SIR, THIS IS RESIDENTIAL-4 ON THE FUTURE LAND USE.

IT'S RESIDENTIAL-4 FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION.

IT IS IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA.

IT'S COMPARABLE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA.

STAFF FINDS IT CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS.

I -- SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS.

I LOOKED AT THE MODIFIED CONDITIONS, AND THEY ARE FINE.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

ASSUMING THEY GO TO THE ADJACENT HIGH SCHOOL.

>>RANDY KRANJEC: I AM SORRY?

>>STEVE LUCE: ASSUMING CHILDREN THAT LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WILL GO TO THAT HIGH SCHOOL.

>>RANDY KRANJEC: IF THEY WISH.

>>STEVE LUCE: THANK YOU.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION?

SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

NO NEED FOR REBUTTAL.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION, AND MR. GRADY, WE ARE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

>>BRIAN GRADY: THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-13, REZONING APPLICATION 14-0314.

THE APPLICANT IS UCH FLORIDA HOSPITAL CARROLLWOOD.

THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM BPO AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ACCOMMODATE EXPANSION OF THE HOSPITAL -- EXISTING HOSPITAL.

MICHELLE HEINRICH WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING.

STEVE HENRY, LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, 5023 WEST LAUREL, TAMPA, 33607.

WE ARE REPRESENTING FLORIDA HOSPITAL CARROLLWOOD ON THE PROJECT.

I AM GOING TO GO OVER TO THE ELMO AND THE SITE PLAN.

FLORIDA HOSPITAL RECENTLY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY -- I WILL ORIENT YOU HERE.

THIS IS DALE MABRY, HAMILTON, THE EXISTING CAMPUS.

THE HOSPITAL RECENTLY PURCHASED A LITTLE LESS THAN .2-ACRE PARCEL THERE AT THE CORNER OF HAMILTON AND CLEARVIEW.

>>STEVE LUCE: CAN YOU SLIDE IT UP AND OVER TO THE RIGHT.

THE OTHER RIGHT.

THERE YOU ARE.

THANK YOU.

>> PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY.

IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED BPO.

BPO DOESN'T ALLOW HOSPITAL USES.

SO WE HAD TO REZONE THAT PIECE, SO AS A PART OF REZONING THAT PIECE, WE BROUGHT IT ALL INTO THE OVERALL PD FOR THE CAMPUS.

WHILE WE WERE DOING THAT, WE MADE SOME ADDITIONAL CHANGES.

BASICALLY, ONE KIND OF REFLECTING WHAT WAS -- HAD CHANGED OUT ON THE CAMPUS SINCE THE ORIGINAL PD WAS DONE.

SO WE'VE DONE THAT.

WE'VE ALSO INCORPORATED A BUILDING ENVELOPE AREA THAT WILL INCLUDE THE HOSPITAL EXPANSION AREA THAT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED.

WE'VE ALSO INCREASED THE FAR FROM .5 TO .56.

THEN IN ADDITION, TODAY IF YOU GO OUT THERE, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE ACCESS TO HAMILTON DOCTOR THERE'S TWO ACCESSES.

ONE, THE FRONT OF THE HOSPITAL, WHICH IS GOING TO REMAIN AS IS; AND THEN THE ONE IN THE BACK HERE.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THE EXPANSION AREA IS OVER TOP OF THAT ACCESS, SO WE ARE RELOCATING THAT ACCESS FURTHER TO THE EAST TO ACCOMMODATE THAT.

THAT'S REALLY THE CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN.

EVERYTHING ELSE PRETTY MUCH REFLECTS WHAT IS OUT THERE TODAY.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IN THE BACK IS LOCATED TODAY IS SUFFICIENTLY DISTANCED ITSELF FROM THE INTERSECTION THAT'S TO WHAT WOULD BE THE EAST?

WHAT IS IT?

HAMILTON?

WHAT'S THE NORTH-SOUTH STREET?

>> IT'S CLEARVIEW.

>>STEVE LUCE: CLEARVIEW.

WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO PUT THE DRIVEWAY LOOKS LIKE IT'S GETTING AWFULLY CLOSE TO THE INTERSECTION.

>> IT IS.

WE LOOKED AT THAT.

WE LOOKED AT BOTH WHAT THE VOLUME IS COMING -- AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT SERVICES THE BACK OF THE HOSPITAL.

SO WE LOOKED AT THE VOLUMES THAT ARE THERE TODAY, AND WITH THE EXPANSION, JUST TO EXPLAIN THE EXPANSION OF THE HOSPITAL, ALL THEY ARE REALLY DOING IS NOT ADDING ANY ADDITIONAL BEDS.

THE HOSPITAL WAS BUILT MANY, MANY YEARS AGO, AND IT IS BASICALLY THE SEMI-PRIVATE ROOMS.

AND SO WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IS HAD A COUPLE EXPANSIONS TO TAKE THE SEMI-PRIVATE TO PRIVATE ROOMS.

WE ARE STILL GOING TO HAVE 120 ROOMS.

THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THAT.

THAT'S REALLY ALL THE EXPANSION IS IS TO BRING IT INTO THE -- I GUESS THE EXISTING USES OR THE CURRENT USE OF HOSPITALS, WHICH IS PRIVATE ROOMS.

SO WE ARE REALLY NOT GOING TO INCREASE TRAFFIC ON THAT.

SO WE LOOKED AT THE TRAFFIC, THAT DRIVEWAY, WE LOOKED AT THE TRAFFIC FOR CLEARVIEW TO SEE WHAT THE VOLUMES WERE.

BOTH OF THEM ARE VERY LOW.

SO FROM THAT STANDPOINT, WE FELT COMFORTABLE -- WE MET WITH TRANSPORTATION STAFF -- BEING ABLE TO PUT THOSE CLOSE.

IF IT WERE THE FRONT OF THE HOSPITAL WITH IN A DRIVEWAY, A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT STORY, BUT THIS ONE, BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH RELATIVELY LOW VOLUMES, WE FELT COMFORTABLE.

IN REALITY, IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO I CAN MA THE EXPANSION OF THE HOSPITAL WORK.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU RECALL, BUT THIS WAS A MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING CONVERTED TO HOSPITAL ROOMS, SO IT'S JUST CONTINUING THAT SAME --

>>STEVE LUCE: WHERE'S THE GENERAL PUBLIC COME INTO THE HOSPITAL?

>> GENERALLY THEY COME IN -- THEY HAVE TWO ACCESSES ON DALE MABRY.

AND THEN THEY HAVE THE ACCESS ONTO HAMILTON, WHICH IS IN THE FRONT OF THE HOSPITAL.

SO THIS IS REALLY SERVICE, SOME EMPLOYEES, THAT TYPE OF THING.

WE ARE ACTUALLY, TO SOME DEGREE, REDUCING PARKING BACK HERE IN ORDER TO GET THAT EXPANSION.

THAT WOULD BE EVEN LESS PEOPLE INCLINED TO USE THAT ACCESS.

>>STEVE LUCE: IS THERE A PARKING GARAGE?

>> NO.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND WITH THE EXPANSION, YOU ARE NOT ELIMINATING PARKING SPACES?



>> WE ARE ELIMINATING A FEW.

WE ARE OVERPARKED BASED ON THE CODE, AND JUST SO YOU ARE AWARE, THE HOSPITAL, BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT SO MANY YEARS AGO, IT HAS A VESTED PARKING RATE FOR A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE SITE, AND ANYTHING BEYOND THAT, THEN WE MEET THE NEW CODE AS FAR AS THE HOSPITAL AND ALSO MEDICAL OFFICE.

BUT WE ARE OVERPARKED FROM THAT STANDPOINT, AND SO WE WILL NOT REDUCE IT; WE WILL MEET CODE BASED ON BOTH THE VESTED RATE AND THE CURRENT RATE.

>>STEVE LUCE: I DON'T THINK YOUR CLIENT WOULD WANT TO EXPAND THE BUILDING AND NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PARKING.

>> NO.

OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S CRITICAL FOR THEM TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE ENOUGH PARKING.



>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

BUT BASED ON GENERAL OBSERVATIONS WHEN VISITING THE SITE, DOES IT LOOK LIKE ALL USERS ARE PARKING ON THE PROPERTY?

>> YES.

THEY ALL PARK ON PROPERTY.

THEY HAVE A FAIRLY -- WE JUST BUILT A NEW MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING HERE, AND SO AS A PART OF THAT, THIS HAS ALL BEEN NEW PARKING BUILT DOWN IN THIS AREA HERE.

>>STEVE LUCE: DO THEY HAVE ANY OFF-SITE PARKING LOTS?

>> NO.

IT'S ALL -- ALL THEIR PARKING IS ON-SITE.



>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

MS. HEINRICH.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: MICHELLE HEINRICH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

AS STATED, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE ONE PROPERTY, WHICH HE SHOWED YOU ON THE MAP THAT IS CURRENTLY ZONED BPO, WHICH THEY WILL BE USING FOR A NEW SHIFTED ACCESS POINT ON HAMILTON, AND AS PART OF THAT ACTION, THEY ARE ALSO MAKING SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING PD, WHICH THEY ARE JOINING, WHICH IS THE FLORIDA HOSPITAL IN CARROLLWOOD.

AND MR. HENRY NOTED ON THOSE CHANGES, WHICH ARE AN EXPANSION OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPE A TO THE NORTHEAST AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION MODIFICATION FOR THE NEW ACCESS POINT, WHICH YOU SAW, WHICH IS GOING EASTWARD, AND EXPANSION OF BUILDING ENVELOPE AREA B.

A SLIGHT INCREASE IN THE FAR, WHICH HE STATED IS MAINLY CHANGING FROM THE ROOMS GOING FROM DOUBLE TO SINGLE OCCUPANCY.

ALSO, THEY HAVE SPECIFIED BUILDING HEIGHTS, WHICH ARE ACTUALLY BEING REDUCED FROM THE ORIGINAL PD.

OTHER THAN THAT, THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONS FOR FLORIDA HOSPITAL ARE ALSO INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS, AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY OBJECTIONS FROM ANY REVIEWING AGENCIES, AND I ALSO BELIEVE PLANNING COMMISSION IS IN -- HAS FOUND THIS CONSISTENT, AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: QUESTION FOR TRAFFIC.

MR. WHITE, I GUESS YOU CAN COME FORWARD.

GOOD EVENING.

>> CHARLES WHITE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.

>>STEVE LUCE: I DON'T KNOW IF YOU FOLLOWED THE CONVERSATION I HAD WITH THE APPLICANT.

I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION, PARKING, AND WHETHER WHERE THEY WANT TO PUT THEIR DRIVEWAY AND IT BEING CLOSE TO CLEARVIEW AND HAMILTON.

DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS BEING PROPOSED?

>> TYPICALLY -- WE LOOKED AT THE DRIVEWAY.

WE LOOKED AT THE TRAFFIC NUMBERS.

THE VOLUMES AT THAT END ARE SO LOW THAT WE REALLY DIDN'T SEE WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE ANY CONFLICT POINTS.

IF YOU HAD A HIGHER VOLUME, YOU WOULD DEFINITELY WANT THE DRIVEWAY PUSHED AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION, BUT THE TRAFFIC IS SO LOW, WE DIDN'T SEE WHERE WE WOULD HAVE A CONFLICT POINT.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF?

>>RANDY KRANJEC: YES, SIR.

THIS SITE IS OFFICE COMMERCIAL-20 AND RESIDENTIAL-20 ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

THEY ARE TECHNICALLY IN NEED OF A WAIVER TO LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED.

THE SITE, THE BPO SITE, ENJOINED INTO THE OVERALL PD, IS OVER, I BELIEVE, 300 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF HAMILTON AND DALE MABRY.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THAT WAIVER AND FINDS THE REZONING REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BASED UPON THE CONDITIONS BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

APPLICANT, OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

NO NEED FOR REBUTTAL.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION.

MR. GRADY, READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.

>>BRIAN GRADY: NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-14, REZONING APPLICATION 14-0319.

THE APPLICANT IS WES INVESTMENTS OF HILLSBOROUGH, INCORPORATED.

THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM AR AND ASC-1 FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION.

ISABELLE ALBERT WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>> KEVIN MINEER WITH THE GENESIS GROUP REPRESENTING WES INVESTMENTS OF HILLSBOROUGH, AND I AM HERE TONIGHT WITH MY ATTORNEY, MARK BENTLEY, AND WE COMPLETELY AGREE WITH ALL OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, AND WE APPRECIATE YOU ALL WORKING WITH US.

AS THERE IS NOBODY THAT HAS ANY ISSUE, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF?

UNLESS YOUR ATTORNEY HAS SOMETHING TO SAY.

[LAUGHTER]

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: GOOD EVENING.

ISABELLE ALBERT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THIS REQUEST IS TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY A HUNDRED-ACRE PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE LAND USE OF RESIDENTIAL-4, THEY ARE REQUESTING ABOUT 400 SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPED WITH 5,000-SQUARE-FOOT LOTS.

THE SURROUNDING AREA IS -- SORRY -- TO THE WEST -- TO THE WEST IS GOING TO BE 4,000 5,000-SQUARE-FOOT LOTS.

TO THE EAST IS ALREADY LITTLE PLATTED LOTS.

SO THIS REQUEST IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA.

THERE WAS NO OBJECTIONS FROM ANY REVIEWING AGENCIES, AND I AM HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: I GUESS IT'S A QUESTION MORE FOR THE APPLICANT.

MAYBE YOU CAN HELP.

I AM JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND LIKE WIMAUMA AND HOW THE PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND THE PROJECT THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, HOW YOU ARE TREATING THE WATERFRONT.

>>ISABELLE ALBERT: I WILL LET THE APPLICANT RESPOND, BUT ON THE PLAN, IT'S MOSTLY AS THE RECREATIONAL AREA, OPEN SPACE, BUT I WILL LET HIM GO INTO DETAIL.

>> KEVIN MINEER FOR THE APPLICANT.

WE TAKE GREAT PRIDE IN HOW WE'VE ADDRESSED THE WATERFRONT.

UNLIKE SO MANY OTHER PROJECTS WHERE THEY BUILT HOUSES UP ON THE WATERFRONT AND ONLY A CERTAIN NUMBER OF HOUSES HAVE WATERFRONT -- OR WATERFRONT FRONTAGE, WE SET ASIDE ALL OF OUR WATERFRONT, AND IT'S FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF EVERYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY.

AND WHAT WE'RE EXPECTING IS SOMETHING KIND OF LIKE BAYSHORE -- MAYBE NOT HOUSES AS FANCY AS BAYSHORE -- BUT ALL THE HOUSES ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET, AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A VERY NICE COMMUNITY AREA ON THE WATERFRONT.

AND WE HAVE A NOTE ON THERE.

THE ONLY THING THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO PUT ON THE WATERFRONT, PERHAPS, IS SOME SORT OF COMMUNITY BUILDING FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF EVERYBODY.

AND SO UNLIKE SO MANY OTHER WATERFRONT COMMUNITIES WHERE ONLY A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PEOPLE GET TO ENJOY THE WATERFRONT, WITH OUR PROJECT, EVERYONE GETS TO ENJOY THE WATERFRONT.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.

>>RANDY KRANJEC: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THIS PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

APPLICANT, OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

>> NO, WE'RE GOOD, THANK YOU.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE ARE READY FOR, I BELIEVE, MR. GRADY, THE LAST ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

>>BRIAN GRADY: YES, THE LAST ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM I-15, MAJOR MOD APPLICATION 14-0321.

THE APPLICANT IS AMERICAN ADDICTION CENTERS, INCORPORATED.

THEIR REQUEST IS FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO MODIFY A PERMITTED USE ON THE PARCEL.

MICHELLE HEINRICH WILL PROVIDE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AFTER PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

MY CONDOLENCES FOR BEING LAST ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

>> IT'S BEEN ROUGH.

GOOD EVENING.

ANNE POLLACK WITH FLETCHER AND FISCHER, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANT, AMERICAN ADDICTION CENTERS.

WITH ME TONIGHT IS MICHAEL CARTWRIGHT, THE CEO OF AMERICAN ADDICTION CENTERS, WHO IS GOING TO SPEAK JUST A FEW MINUTES ON WHAT WE ARE DOING.

WE ARE REQUESTING A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO THE PD FROM PRIVATE BOARDING SCHOOL TO PROFESSIONAL RESIDENTIAL FACILITY.

WE COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE STAFF REPORT, BUT I JUST THOUGHT I'D GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON WHERE THIS SITE HAS BEEN.

FOR MANY YEARS, THE 23-ACRE SITE WAS THE HOME OF A BOARDING SCHOOL AND TREATMENT FACILITY FOR CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS AND INCLUDED THOSE WITH PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS, SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEMS, AND THOSE MOVING TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.

AFTER MANY YEARS, THE FACILITY CLOSED IN 2011 WITH -- WHEN VARIOUS ISSUES AROSE DUE TO THE CARE OF THE PATIENTS THERE.

THE APPLICANT, WHICH OPERATES A HIGH-END, UPSCALE FACILITIES -- SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITIES AROUND THE COUNTRY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2013 AND HAD INTENDED TO USE IT FOR ADOLESCENTS.

THE PROPERTY IS ZONED FOR A SCHOOL AND RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY IS ALLOWED AS PART OF THAT SCHOOL USE.

AND IN FACT, THEY WENT THROUGH A PRS LAST YEAR TO GET ADDITIONAL DORMITORY SPACE.

BUT FURTHER RESEARCH REALLY SHOWED THAT WHAT THE TAMPA BAY AREA NEEDS IS ADULT TREATMENT, NOT NECESSARILY ADOLESCENT.

SO SINCE THAT DOESN'T FALL WITHIN THE SCHOOL USE, WE'RE COMING FORWARD WITH THIS USE.

NO INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF BEDS PERMITTED.

NO DECREASE IN SETBACKS OR BUFFERING.

NO WAIVERS FOR PARKING.

14 OF THE 23 ACRES IS OPEN SPACE AND INCLUDES OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL FIELDS AND COURTS AND EQUESTRIAN AREAS.

THEY'RE EXPANDING THEIR LONG, WINDING PEDESTRIAN PATH AND GOING TO SPEND SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS NOT ONLY ON RENOVATION OF THE BUILDINGS TO BRING IT UP TO STANDARDS, BUT ALSO ON THE LANDSCAPING OF THE OUTDOOR AREA TO REALLY MAKE SURE THAT THE OUTDOOR AREA ASSISTS IN THE TREATMENT AND LOOKS NICE.

THE COUNTY HAS NO OBJECTIONS TO THE PROJECT, AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

MR. CARTWRIGHT'S GOING TO SPEAK JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING AND WHAT THEY'VE DONE IN OTHER AREAS, AND I THINK YOU'LL SEE THAT THIS SHOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL BENEFIT TO THE TAMPA BAY AREA AND, IN FACT, TO THE COMMUNITY ITSELF BASED ON WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE.

THANKS.


>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MY NAME IS MICHAEL CARTWRIGHT.

I AM THE CHAIRMAN AND CEO OF AMERICAN ADDICTION CENTERS, AND I WILL BE BRIEF.

I DO HAVE SOME PICTURES THOUGH, JUST REAL QUICK, I WANTED TO SHOW YOU GUYS, SHOW YOU AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE VERY SOON.

THIS IS THE SITE NOW.

IT'S ON 23 ACRES.

IT WAS REALLY A PUBLIC SECTOR FACILITY.

YOU HAD A LOT OF CRIMINAL OFFENDER ADOLESCENTS THERE.

THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT WE DO.

WE DON'T SERVE THE GOVERNMENT.

MOST OF OUR FACILITIES ARE ALL UPSCALE, PRIVATE-SECTOR FACILITIES, PEOPLE WITH HEALTH INSURANCE.

WHAT WE'LL DO WHEN WE'RE FINISHED WITH IT IS PUT ABOUT $12 MILLION INTO THE RENOVATION OF THE PROPERTY, AND IT WILL LOOK MORE LIKE THIS, ONE OF OUR FACILITIES IN LAS VEGAS, EXTREMELY UPSCALE, VERY NICE.

NONE OF THE FOLKS THERE ARE YOU GOING TO WORRY ABOUT RUNNING OFF.

IF THEY DISCHARGE THERE, THEY ARE GETTING IN A TOWN CAR, GOING TO THE AIRPORT, OR GOING BACK TO AN UPSCALE SUBDIVISION.

THE LANDSCAPING WE TAKE VERY MUCH PRIDE IN, SO THE 23 ACRES THERE IS GOING TO BE COMPLETELY LANDSCAPED, MANICURED.

WE WILL HAVE BACK, I THINK, A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY THERE.

WE'VE HAD NO OPPOSITION FROM THE COMMUNITY.

IF ANYTHING, I THINK WE'RE BRINGING KIND OF AN UPGRADE TO A FACILITY THAT WAS THERE.

$12 MILLION IN RENOVATION JOBS TO THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS ABOUT 150 JOBS FOR DOCTORS, PROFESSIONALS, PSYCHOLOGISTS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

I'M JUST GOING TO STOP RIGHT THERE.

I HAVE A LOT MORE PICTURES.

IF WE NEED MORE TIME FOR QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO GO INTO MORE OF IT.

I WILL JUST WAIT FOR STAFF TO RESPOND.

>>STEVE LUCE: I APPRECIATE THAT.

UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE IN THE EVENING.

BUT YOUR COMPANY, IT'S AMERICAN ADDICTION CENTERS?

AND YOU HAVE A WEBSITE?

>> YES, SIR.

>>STEVE LUCE: AND YOU HAVE PROJECTS SHOWN ON YOUR WEBSITE AROUND THE COUNTRY?

>> WE DO.

WE ARE IN CALIFORNIA, NEVADA, TEXAS, TENNESSEE, NEW JERSEY, FLORIDA ALREADY ON THE EAST COAST.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING AT THIS SITE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY IS SIMILAR TO THOSE OTHER PROJECTS?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

VERY, VERY SIMILAR.

WE DO HAVE AN ADOLESCENT FACILITY ON THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA.

A LOT OF OUR STUFF IS ADULTS.

THIS WOULD BE AN ADULT FACILITY THAT WE ARE PROPOSING.

IT'S VERY, VERY SIMILAR.

THE TYPE OF CLIENTELE WE SERVE IS DOCTORS, LAWYERS, BOSTON FIRE, CHICAGO PD, FOLKS THAT CAN AFFORD TREATMENT AS WELL AS THEY WANT TO BE THERE.

>>STEVE LUCE: OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, SIR.

ALL RIGHT.

MISS HEINRICH.

>>MICHELLE HEINRICH: GOOD EVENING.

MICHELLE HEINRICH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

I THINK THE APPLICANT AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVE EXPLAINED THE APPLICATION VERY WELL IN THAT IT ESSENTIALLY IS MAINLY JUST A USE CHANGE.

THERE'S NO CHANGES IN BUILDING DESIGN, SETBACKS, BUFFERING, SCREENING, EVERYTHING THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IS STILL IN PLACE.

THEY ARE UTILIZING EXISTING FACILITIES.

SO WE DO FEEL THAT IT IS STILL COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND THAT THIS IS MAINLY CHANGING FROM A BOARDING SCHOOL SERVING ADOLESCENTS TO WHAT WE CHARACTERIZE IN THE CODE AS A PROFESSIONAL RESIDENTIAL FACILITY, WHICH IS MORE OF A VOLUNTARY SITUATION AND WOULD ALSO SERVE ADULTS.

AND I WOULD ALSO JUST NOTE THAT THE APPLICATION WAS REVIEWED AGAINST THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENTS IN 6.11.75, IN PARTICULAR, SECTION A THAT DOES REQUIRE IT NOT BE LOCATED IN PROXIMITY TO OTHER SIMILAR USES.

AND THE APPLICANT AND I DID REVIEW THOSE AND FOUND NO ISSUES, SO THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH EVERYTHING IN 6.11.

I AM AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF?

>>RANDY KRANJEC: [SPEAKER OFF MIC]

TURN THE MIC ON.

RESIDENTIAL-4 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY, AND WE FIND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' CONDITIONS.

>>STEVE LUCE: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION?

I SEE NO ONE RESPONDING.

STAFF, ANYTHING FURTHER?

APPLICANT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

NO NEED FOR REBUTTAL.

WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THIS APPLICATION, AND IT ALSO CONCLUDES TONIGHT'S ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING.

WE ARE ADJOURNED.




Directory: htv -> caption -> scripts


Share with your friends:




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page