Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing master hears new concessions in contested CG rezoning tied to pallet business
Summary
An applicant seeking Commercial General (CG) zoning for a parcel used for pallet storage told the Zoning Hearing Master they will accept restrictions; neighbors and planning staff argued the site’s existing open‑storage pallet operations are incompatible with nearby single‑family homes and noted outstanding code‑enforcement actions.
The Hillsborough County Zoning Hearing Master on June 22 heard competing views on Standard Rezoning 25‑1026, in which the applicant now seeks Commercial General (CG) zoning with written restrictions after an earlier denial. Applicant Robert Martin, who spoke for the owner Leonardo Colon, said the application was remanded so that correct notice could be given and that the owner is prepared to accept restrictions limiting operating hours and uses, including enhanced buffering and screening.
Planning Commission staff Willow Michie recommended denial, saying the parcel sits in a Residential‑6 future land use category and does not meet the commercial locational criteria (the nearest qualifying intersection is about 1,900 feet away, exceeding the 1,000‑foot threshold). Opponents, represented by attorney Gordon Schiff, submitted photos and code‑enforcement records and argued the property has functioned for years as an open‑storage pallet business that is not a permitted CG use; Schiff told the Hearing Master that “the use that’s been on the property for now going on six years … is not permitted in CG.”
Development Services staff (Logan McKaig) told the master the applicant’s revised restrictions — broadly drafted by staff — are the reason the department changed its recommendation from denial to approval, pointing to a list of prohibited, high‑impact uses and a commitment to 20‑foot buffers with staggered evergreen plantings. Michelle Heinrich of Development Services cautioned that a CG rezoning will not retroactively legalize open storage unless that use is explicitly allowed in the approved zoning or the applicant cures the existing code violations; as she told the panel, “the existing use would not be cured by a CG rezoning.”
The opposition also called attention to two pending code‑enforcement cases and to the site’s water, access and compatibility constraints. The Hearing Master closed the record on 25‑1026 after applicant rebuttal; he will file a written recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners within the standard 15 working days. The BOCC will make a final decision if the case advances on the county calendar.
