Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County OKs major modification allowing on‑site truck storage with conditional screening
Summary
The Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners approved a major modification to a 1991 planned development to allow open storage for trucks and an accessory dwelling on a 1.94‑acre parcel after the applicant agreed to screening; staff and the planning commission had recommended denial over compatibility concerns.
The Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners approved a major modification to a 1.94‑acre portion of an existing planned development (major modification 24‑0368) on Jan. 7, 2025, allowing on‑site open storage for trucks and an accessory dwelling, provided a screening condition is met.
The board’s 6‑0 vote came after staff and planning commission staff described the request as inconsistent with the county comprehensive plan’s compatibility and neighborhood‑protection policies, and after the zoning hearing master recommended denial. The applicant agreed at the hearing to install six‑foot opaque fencing and other conditions; the board limited the screening requirement so it would be required only if the adjacent northern parcel is later developed for residential use.
County staff told commissioners the property is inside a PD approved in 1991 and is designated light industrial in the comprehensive plan, which generally does not permit residential uses. The requested modification would permit open storage for trucks and other vehicles in the rear of the parcel and an accessory dwelling on the site. Staff said the primary concern was a lack of buffering and screening between the proposed open storage and adjacent lots inside the PD that are approved for single‑family residential uses. Planning commission staff and the hearing master also found the proposal inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and recommended denial.
Todd Simi, representing the applicant and the property owner Mary Ellis Silva, said the property is owner‑occupied, described proposed measures including an opaque fence and a five‑foot buffer in one area, and said the proposal is the property owner’s livelihood. “All we’re asking here is for outside storage in the back,” Simi told the board during his presentation, and stated the applicant had agreed to an opaque fence and other conditions entered into the record.
Planning commission staff Melissa Linehard told the board the parcel sits in the light industrial future land‑use category and that the category does not permit new traditional residential development; staff said the proposal lacked adequate mitigation and transitions required by the comprehensive plan’s neighborhood protection policies. The zoning hearing master summarized the hearing record, noting the applicant requested reductions in required buffers (from 30 feet to 5 feet on one side and to 0 feet on another) and the elimination of type C screening to adjacent residential parcels; the hearing master concluded the request was inconsistent and recommended denial.
After the applicant agreed at the meeting to provide a six‑foot opaque fence and to locate the southern driveway at least five feet from the southern property line, county staff said those additions were “very positive steps” that addressed compatibility concerns. Commissioner [Wilson] moved to approve the modification with the condition that the fencing requirement apply only if the northern adjacent parcel is developed for residential uses; Commissioner Myers seconded the motion. The motion passed 6‑0.
The approved modification does not increase entitlements on the parcel, but it alters allowed uses and approval conditions within the PD. County staff and the planning office remain available for follow‑up implementation details.
Votes at a glance Motion: Approve major modification 24‑0368 with condition that six‑foot opaque screening is required only if the northern adjacent property is developed residentially. Mover: Commissioner Wilson. Second: Commissioner Myers. Outcome: Approved 6‑0.
Why it matters: The action changes permitted on‑site uses inside a long‑standing planned development and highlights tensions between existing zoning entitlements, compatibility standards in the comprehensive plan, and local economic or livelihood claims by property owners. The conditional screening ties the change to a later development event on a neighboring parcel.
What’s next: Staff will prepare draft conditions and follow‑up materials reflecting the board’s direction for recordation and implementation.
