Hearing officer hears request to keep and reface oversized pylon sign at Citrus Park Town Center

Rob Johnson, speaking for the property owner of Citrus Park Town Center, sought a variance July 28 before the Hillsborough County Land Use Hearing Officer to allow the existing pylon entrance sign to remain, be refaced and receive new channel-lettering. The applicant said the final sign would total 596 square feet of aggregate sign area and would include up to 248 square feet per sign face; the request would also allow the pole sign to remain at the property line rather than meet the code setback. The variance application covers two departures from the Land Development Code: aggregate ground-sign area and a reduction of the 10-foot minimum setback from the right of way. Sam Ball of Development Services said staff’s calculations show the project would increase aggregate sign area relative to today’s code by 496 square feet and result in the 596-square-foot total Johnson described. Ball explained the numbers are based on current code limits rather than prior nonconforming allowances that predated the repeal of the center’s master sign plan. The applicant told the hearing officer the sign is existing and that the plan is to reface and refurbish it (replace vinyl with channel letters on the topper panel and refresh the tenant panels). Johnson said the pylon is important for visibility and tenant recruitment because the center is an enclosed shopping mall and lacks ample façade signage facing the road. No proponents or opponents testified at the hearing; no final decision was made at the meeting. The hearing officer closed Variance 25-0889; she will issue a written decision within 15 business days. The record shows the request is limited to allowing the existing structure to remain and be upgraded; Johnson repeatedly emphasized the applicant is not relocating the sign. Development Services confirmed the project would not expand the sign’s footprint beyond the nonconforming support the applicant seeks to preserve. The hearing officer asked staff and the applicant clarifying questions about how the current sign area was calculated and about the distinction between previously permitted master-plan allowances and the today’s code baseline. The hearing officer granted no immediate on‑the‑record action other than to close the item for decision. The applicant was instructed to sign the clerk’s log and await the hearing officer’s written ruling.