Hearing in Tampa examines whether offices at 150 E. Davis Blvd. qualify as a legal nonconforming use

At a quasi‑judicial hearing on case FDN 2536 held under Tampa Code section 27‑61(j), petitioners Emilio and Blanche Libero asked a hearing officer to rule that "office" is a legal nonconforming use at 150 East Davis Boulevard on Davis Islands. City staff told the hearing the department’s review of business tax receipts, surveys and floor plans showed the property's primary use is a dance studio and that offices on site are accessory to that studio.

The question matters because a formal finding of a legal nonconforming use would allow certain existing uses to continue despite current zoning (RM‑24) and would constrain how a new owner may be limited in future site uses, parking and occupancy. The property was originally developed under earlier zoning (R‑4 / Chapter 43) and the dispute centers on whether office spaces on the site were "manifestly arranged or intended" for office use when the nonconforming status was established.

City witness Eric Cotton, Development Coordination for the city of Tampa, reviewed the materials the city relied on for its formal decision. Cotton said the record the city used included business tax receipts, a property survey and floor plans. "The primary use of the property from the evidence submitted was and still is a dance studio, and there is an accessory office use attached to that dance studio," Cotton testified. He also noted the city's Citus/property‑use records and Hillsborough County documents did not identify the site as an office tower and that the evidence the city relied on pointed to the dance studio as the permitted use at the time the building was established.

Petitioners' attorney Jane Graham said the staff determination "went beyond the request" made in the petition by treating the site's use as solely a dance studio rather than recognizing the documented office uses. The petitioners called land‑use expert Susan Swift, AICP, a former director of planning for the city of Tampa (1984–1993) who helped write the codes at issue. Swift testified the R‑4/Chapter 43 code in place when the building was constructed permitted both studio and office‑type uses and that several rooms in the building were manifestly arranged for office use. "These uses ... were permitted, not accessory uses," Swift said, arguing that the code language should be read broadly and in favor of the property owner when ambiguous.

Owners Emilio and Blanche Libero testified they occupied the building as Libero School and Dance Club from 1984 until the recent sale, and described the property layout and uses. Emilio Libero testified the business averaged about "72 people coming and going daily for lessons" and held weekly events drawing "60 to 80 people." The owners said there were multiple offices on site used for related business activities (videography, costuming and travel arrangements for students).

The prospective new owner, represented by Brian Roney, senior director of product design at Performa, described the intended future use as less intensive. Roney said Performa would use the building for multimedia, videography and a small coding training program and that the site would typically host "5 to 7 people regularly there with occasionally larger teams for maybe about 10 people or so." He said coding classes would typically be "1 instructor and about 3 to 4 students." Swift and the petitioners argued that the proposed Performa use would reduce parking and occupancy demand compared with the historical dance studio operation.

City counsel reiterated the code's stated intent that nonconformities should not be expanded and that continuation is permitted only where legally established and maintained. Cotton pointed to Tampa Code section 27‑292 (intent concerning nonconformities) and emphasized the code does not authorize using nonconforming status to expand prohibited uses.

The hearing officer admitted evidence from both parties: the city's PowerPoint slides, petitioners' 21‑slide PowerPoint and a package of petitioner exhibits (authorizations, affidavits, the formal decision request, a petition for review dated 03/03/2025, Swift's resume, letters of support and relevant Tampa LDC excerpts). Counsel for the petitioners noted a corrected decision letter dated 02/17/2025 had been uploaded to the file; the petitioners said they had not received that corrected letter directly and flagged a potential due‑process concern.

No members of the public appeared to speak. The hearing officer set procedural deadlines: parties may submit proposed recommended orders by June 26, and the hearing officer will issue a recommended order on or before July 3, 2025.

The record at hearing centers on whether (1) office activities on the site were legally established and continuous under earlier zoning and (2) whether the presence of multiple rooms used as offices qualifies office use as a nonconforming use that may continue under the current RM‑24 zoning. The hearing officer will resolve those questions in the forthcoming recommended order.