Neighbors oppose Scar Audio’s request to keep 8-foot perimeter wall inside Keystone scenic corridor

Scar Audio Inc. asked a Hillsborough County land use hearing officer on May 27 to allow an existing 8‑foot masonry wall around its property at the southeast corner of Gunn Highway and Cosmo Road to remain and to allow the wall to sit inside the 30‑foot Gunn Highway rural scenic corridor.

The request, presented by Michael Hoffman, P.E., of Advanced Engineering Consultants LLC, seeks two variances: permit an 8‑foot wall around the entire parcel where the Land Development Code (LDC) generally limits perimeter walls to 6 feet, and permit the wall within the 30‑foot scenic easement that applies along Gunn Highway. Hoffman told the hearing officer the wall would be set 10 feet from the corridor boundary along Gunn Highway and 2 feet from the property line on other boundaries and that the owner proposes landscaping to soften the wall’s appearance.

County planner Carolyn Peddle explained the relevant code sections, saying walls over 4 feet are restricted in required front yards (LDC section 6.07.02.c.1.a) and that the maximum permitted wall height is 6 feet except in limited circumstances (LDC section 6.07.02.c.1.f). She also noted portions of the wall encroach into the site triangle and that the property received a citation from Building and Construction Services for unpermitted work (staff referenced a code enforcement record cited in the file).

Neighbors and community representatives opposed the variance. Beth White, representing the Keystone Pacific Association, said the owner removed 20 mature oak trees, began construction without permits, and “elects to pay daily fines rather than removing the unpermitted wall.” She also said community standards for Keystone Odessa and the Keystone Odessa Community Plan favor setback, buffering and screening requirements and urged denial.

Resident Melissa Nordback told the hearing officer Keystone groups “vigorously defend our comprehensive plan,” warning that allowing an after‑the‑fact variance would set a precedent. Nancy Paterakki, a long‑time Gun Highway resident, described the wall and gated entries as “a gross departure and inconsistent with the community” and warned that allowing the variance “will set a precedence for anyone to violate zoning standards and only apply for variance if a complaint is filed.” Neighbor Arthur Smith raised concerns about altered drainage and a changed ditch profile that he said has increased flooding near his driveway.

Hoffman acknowledged some unpermitted work and said the owner was prepared to remove noncompliant elements in the right of way and to reconstruct where necessary. He said the owner’s stated purposes for the property include private tennis events and privacy measures; planning and engineering work would follow. County staff noted that hosting public charitable events would require a separate neighborhood fair permit and that the special‑use/permit status of such activities would be limited to nonprofit events.

Hearing officer Susan Finch asked whether financial cost of removing the wall qualifies as a hardship; Mary Dorman of the County Attorney’s Office advised that, generally, construction cost alone is not sufficient to establish the hardship factor in a variance application. Finch closed the public testimony; the land use hearing officer will file a written decision in the case (Variance 25‑0598) within 15 business days.

For now, no formal administrative decision was announced at the hearing.