Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Us92 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve rezoning of US‑92 property despite staff objections over buffering
Summary
The board approved 7‑0 rezoning of a 3.15‑acre parcel on US‑92 to Commercial General with restrictions after the applicant committed to removing encroachments within a 20‑foot buffer or seek limited variances; Planning Commission and staff had recommended denial for compatibility and buffering concerns.
Hillsborough County commissioners voted 7‑0 April 8 to rezone a 3.15‑acre parcel on U.S. 92 (east of Gallagher Road) from a split commercial/residential zoning pattern to Commercial General (CG) with restrictions, despite Development Services and Planning Commission recommendations against approval.
Bridal Grady, Hillsborough County Development Services, said staff’s objection centered on existing encroachments inside a required 20‑foot buffer on the eastern boundary and a procedural concern that the applicant would need future variances to retain certain existing structures. Planning‑level reviewers and the zoning hearing master also recommended denial in their records, citing incompatibility with the comprehensive plan and land‑development code issues.
Isabelle Albert, representing the applicant, said the property houses Jewell Empire Roofing and that the owner has operated the business for more than 35 years. Albert described the site as part of a mixed‑use corridor and said the applicant offered multiple restrictions — including prohibiting drive‑thrus, gas sales, car washes and certain other uses, limiting floor‑area ratio to 0.25, prohibiting commercial development in the rear 150 feet, and committing to remove pavers south of the house within the 20‑foot buffer. Albert said the applicant would retain the right to seek a variance for the existing on‑site residence; if a variance were denied the residence would be removed.
Planning Commission staff member Melissa Linehard said the parcel’s future land use is Residential 1 and that the rural area policies and commercial locational criteria weigh against rezoning. Linehard noted the closest qualifying intersection for commercial development is roughly 1,300 feet away versus the 660‑foot guideline in the comprehensive plan and recommended denial based on compatibility with adjacent single‑family and mobile‑home development.
The zoning hearing master also recommended denial, finding the request inconsistent with the land‑development code and the comprehensive plan. During the commission debate, Commissioner Oswald and others described the site as an existing commercial use that predated nearby homes and said the offered restrictions and commitments reduced potential impacts.
Commissioner Oswald moved approval and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Wilson; the board recorded a 7‑0 vote in favor. The rezoning was approved with the applicant’s offered restrictions and the record commitment to address encroachments within the 20‑foot buffer or pursue variances. The zoning hearing master’s recommendation of denial remains part of the record.
