Neighbors and developer clash over requested 40-foot height for Seffner multifamily project

Todd Pressman, representing the applicant for Variance 25-1099, told the hearing officer Sept. 22 the project site on South Taylor Road has significant surface‑water easement and stormwater requirements that constrain building placement and that the requested variances (increase in maximum building height from 35 to 40 feet and a side-yard setback reduction of 10.14 feet) are minimal and required to construct modern three‑story multifamily buildings with 8‑foot additional interior ceiling height benefits.

Development Services staff summarized the request under LDC section 6.01.01: the RMC‑9 zoning district has a 35‑foot height cap and additional setback calculations for structures over 20 feet; the applicant requested a 5‑foot increase in maximum height (to 40 feet) and a reduced side yard resulting in a 49.86‑foot side yard where 60 feet would otherwise be required. The applicant’s presentation included an engineer’s explanation that the site is within a volume‑sensitive basin and must retain pre/post development runoff, which enlarges the on‑site pond and reduces developable area.

Community opposition: Two residents spoke in opposition. Grace McComas, representing the Seffner Mango Community Plan, said the area has a long history of wetland and flooding issues and urged denial of the variances and adherence to the RMC‑9 standards that the developer previously accepted in 2013. Nearby resident Lindsay Pennants said the request effectively rewrites the 35‑foot code for RMC‑9 and argued the claimed need for 9‑foot ceilings is a developer preference, not a hardship tied to unique property conditions. Pennants added that homes to the north would still experience visual and privacy impacts even if a pond separates them from the new buildings.

The applicant countered that the nearest residences are set back (the pond and buffers place the nearest homes more than 200 feet from the buildings) and that the development can be built at the allowed density without the height variance but that the requested relief is needed to achieve the proposed product and design. He said there were no written opposition emails in the file other than requests to participate.

The hearing officer closed testimony and indicated she will issue a written decision within 15 business days. No vote or permit decision occurred at the hearing.

Ending: The record for Variance 25-1099 is closed; the land use hearing officer will issue a written decision within 15 business days and any appeal would be limited to the hearing record.