Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. It's 9 o'clock, and we will begin with our June 2nd regular BOCC board meeting. If you would please stand for the invocation and remain standing for the pledge, and we will have Mr. Bill DeHart, chaplain, please.

Good morning. Let's pray. Heavenly Father, we come before you today with grateful hearts for the opportunity to serve our community. We ask for your guidance and wisdom. to be upon these county commissioners as they deliberate on the matters before them. Grant them the discernment to make sound judgments, the courage to tackle challenges, and the grace to work together in unity. May their decision be marked by fairness, transparency, and a deep dedication to the well-being and prosperity of every resident of our county. Bless the work of their hands and all who labor to make our community a better place to live. We ask for your continued protection and peace over this meeting and everyone gathered here today. In Jesus' name, amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

At this time, we're going to have a presentation by our clerk controller, Stacey Butterfield, to present the restoration, preservation, and digitalization of the historic cattle brand of rock. That's a mouthful right there.

It's exciting. It is exciting. All right, good morning commissioners and to the audience here today. So I'm so excited and pleased to share with you the restoration, preservation and digitization of our historic cattle brand books, which include records from 1860s through 1940s. During that time, the clerk's office recorded cattle brands used by ranchers to identify their livestock. This was particularly important in early times in Polk County because cattle from multiple ranches grazed together in open pastures. Over time, our historic records become fragile and due to the age and handling of those records. So we embarked upon a restoration project. Again, as you will remember, we digitized the deed books from the inception of Polk County a couple of years ago. We worked with a great team at Cofile to professionally restore and repackage the original books, which Megan has the restored book. Megan showed them the original book, and you can kind of see that they get a little fragile and all, to preserve them so we can enjoy them in future generations. We also had them digitized. so that they can be easily accessed online. An added benefit to that digitization project is that it clarifies the records, making them easier to access. These books, they're not just a collection of symbols. They're a record of families, ranches, industries, and traditions that helped shape Polk County and Florida as a whole. The books include entries from the Bellotto family, including Al Bellotto, who was 12 at the time. Bellotto is the renowned rancher and former owner of the pasture land that is now Circle B Bar Reserve. We're honored to have members of the Bellotto family here with us today. There are also records connected to George and Jasper Summerlin, the eldest sons of Jacob Summerlin, King of the Crackers, one of the Florida's most recognized cattle ranchers. Replica books are being donated to the Polk County History Center, providing residents and visitors with the opportunity to experience and explore this unique piece of Polk County history in person. A special thank you to Murtis Young, Murtis is here somewhere, and the History Center team. They helped spur this project. a year or so, a while ago. The books will debut in the History Center's newest exhibit, The Cow Culture and American Story, opening June the 9th. And so we welcome everyone to come out on June the 9th. I know Mertis will be telling you more about that so we can see the exhibit and show the replica books. I'd also like to thank Cofile Technologies for their partnership and work. On this important preservation project, I have Trey Sussum here, a Polk County resident. I'm his clerk. He reminds me with the company, and his company's done a great job, not only with these books, with other books. digitization projects as well. Those original deed books, as you might remember, are displayed over in our offices as well and they're digitized. You can search any deed from the history and inception of Polk County and now you can search the cattle brands. This collection, and we'll have them out after the, well, during the board meeting, if you might like to step out quickly, highlights the names and legacies of many ranching families and communities and figures who helped shape Polk County's agricultural history. We hope this project connects our community to its agricultural roots and preserves them for stories, preserves those stories for many generations to come. We do have other special guests here with us to celebrate the project. In addition to the Bellotto family, see if I can get it right, Leah, of course, Sri and Chris are here. If you'll just raise your hand. And then we have the Honorable Justin Sharpless, our Polk County School Board Chair and District 6 who is here. Dusty Holly is here with the Florida Cattlemen's Association. Sarah Waldman with the Polk County Farm Bureau. There's Sarah. Sri Ghosh. There you are, Sri. Thank you. With the Polk County 4-H Youth Development. And Amanda is with you. And then David Hunt, who is here, the Florida Cow Culture Preservation Committee. Is he the boss boss? I think that is. Mr. Hunt, thank you for being here. And then we have with us, I think, does that cover everybody? And, of course, Mertis. So thank you for the time to show you the preservation project. I think it's an important part of our history. And just in case you were wondering, after the 1940s, the registration of the cattle brands moved to the state. to the Department of Agriculture, so that's why it ends in the 1940s. So with that, if it's okay, Madam Chair, I'd like for our special guest to come up, and I'd like to get a picture, and I will hold one of the books.

Stacey, before they do that, I know that this started a while back ago. How long did this process take in...

The actual preservation project did not take long. Mertes had the idea about the cattle brand books and looking forward to her exhibit. And she contacted me about the books. Could we work out something with the History Center? Well, as you can see, Megan's got the, we had to, she wanted to know about what we could do. Because those are very fragile pages in there. So we contacted Trey with Cofile, who had done the other books, and said, is it possible? How long would it take? I don't think the actual project of digitization took more than a few months. It just took us a while to get everything together and figure it out. So maybe a year, two years ago, Mertis, we embarked on the idea.

Okay, great.

Commissioner Troutman?

And Mertis? Murtis may be able to educate others if they want some information past this meeting, but there is a great part of an exhibit in the History Center that allows children to kind of manipulate and to come up with their own brand was what I think they had previously. So that's exciting for our young kids to be able to see that.

Yeah, and so that's perfect because then they can look at the replica book before or after they create their own brand and and kind of search it and look at some of the brands. And after this meeting, please go out there and look because the books, while sort of organized by date, sort of organized by alphabet, it's a little hard to find, but it's fun to just sit there and flip through the pages. We had a grand time in our office sitting there trying to find some of those names that we knew. And and some you hear all the time and this along the heels of the land remembered film project that's going on as well. So thank you.

Well, we want to thank you and thank everybody that took a part in this and make this a reality and preserve the history of Polk County for many, many generations to be able to view and understand how it all came about. So thank you so very much.

And thank you to Megan and Taylor, wherever Taylor is on my team. They're fantastic to help pull it all together. So picture time. So those guests that came down for the presentation, if you'd join us.

Good morning, how are you?

Hey, good. Good seeing you. Hey, hey, I saw you over there, sir. I saw this. How are you? Hi, I'm Trey. Thank you for your work. Hey, Mr. Hunt. How you doing, buddy? Thank you. How are you? Can I have the commissioners just scoot a tad bit over?

They gotta go that way. They'll go that way. We need our boxes back here. Ah.

There you go. He's like, I'm good. Wow. Everyone look at this camera first. Ready? One, two, three. One, two, three. Perfect. One, two, three. Perfect. Thank you, guys. Good seeing you, bud.

Have a good one.

You too.

Good to see you.

Thank you all so very much, and we will continue with our meeting. At this time, we have public comments concerning agenda items. Ms. Amber, do we have anybody?

No, ma'am, we do not.

Okay, thank you. And Stacy's back up here.

So Stacy, it's your turn again. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Today we have you to approve and ratify payroll checks number 04633. through 04660 in the amount of $33,017.61. We have 3,072 direct deposits in the amount of $5,062,778.64. Those are dated May 29, 2026. We have wired electronic fund transfers of $42,776,175.44, dated May 19 through June 1, 2026. Invoice checks numbered 50543 through 506395, totaling $16,000,000. $153,497.44, dated May 19, 2026 through June 1, 2026, for you to approve and ratify. It's hard to believe it's June 2026.

Madam Chair, motion for approval. I have a motion. I have a second. Any questions?

Hearing none, all in favor?

Aye. Approved.

Thank you. And we also request the approval of your minutes of your regular board meeting that was held on May 19, 2026. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any questions, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Approved. That's all. Thank you for the time this morning. Okay, thank you. Then we move on to our consent agenda.

Second. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. County manager? I'm sorry, county attorney first. Thank you.

County manager, Bill Beasley. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, members of the viewing audience. The manager's office will have four items for board consideration this morning. Item number G1 is to request the board to approve a construction contract with Register Construction and Engineering in connection with the Roads and Drainage Division's replacement construction inspections and testing facility. Today's action will reflect a one-time contract expense not to exceed $2,680,650. Polk County has completed the public solicitation process to obtain bids from qualified contractors who are interested in the construction of an approximately 3,700 square foot single story pre-engineered metal building to accommodate the road and drainage divisions construction inspections and testing activities. This replacement facility is needed due to the significantly aging and antiquated layout of the existing facility. The proposed new facility will include a state of the art soils and pavement testing laboratory, covered walkway and patio areas, covered areas to accommodate operational vehicle access as well as limited staff parking. The new facility will be constructed on the existing Roads and Drainage Division's main campus located at 3000 Sheffield Road, approximately one and a half miles due north of the Bartow Air Base. Bid number 25614 was issued and nine contractors submitted a bid. The lowest responsive and responsible bid being submitted by Register of Construction in the total amount of $2,553,000. A recommendation of award was issued and no protests were received. In accordance with resolution number 13066, $127,650 has been included within the proposed contract award to address allowance and contingency work conditions. The total contract time for this project has been set at 210 calendar days for final completion. The construction inspection and testing facility is an approved project in the board's adopted community investment program. and sufficient funds are available in the transportation millage fund to accommodate these contract award. So Madam Chair, members of the board, I think in keeping with the board's expectations to ensure that proper quality assurance and quality control measures are included in all Polk infrastructure investments, I would request the board to approve the award of a construction contract to register construction and engineering in connection with the Rojan Drainage Division's new construction, inspection, and testing facility in an amount not to exceed $2,680,650. So moved. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any questions, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries.

Madam Chair, members of the board, item number G2 is to request the board to approve amendment number one to the existing professional services agreement with CPH Consulting for phase two architectural and engineering services in connection with the Northeast Region Utility Service Area Operations Support Campus. Today's board action will reflect a one-time professional services amendment expense not to exceed $705,648.50. As part of the ongoing Northeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion project from its current six million gallon per day capacity to a proposed nine million gallon per day capacity, the existing small utility site operations building will be enlarged and relocated to an adjacent five acre parcel in order to accommodate the expanded wastewater treatment facilities. In order to better accommodate a more regionalized utility business operation, staff continues to develop a delivery model that will optimize all aspects of how utility services are offered in the future, especially in Polk's largest utility service area. It is envisioned that regional utility and fleet maintenance staff will be assigned to an operations campus that will include a Polk County utilities operations support facility, a Polk County utilities northeast warehouse facility, and a northeast regional fleet maintenance satellite operation. As a result of considerable dialogue and evaluation, the three building operation support campus was the unanimous decision based upon existing site topographic challenges, roadway access challenges, unique vehicle and equipment arrival departure schedules, as well as the ongoing construction timeline constraints of the existing wastewater plant construction activities. In February of 2025, the board approved a professional services agreement with CPH to provide phase one campus-wide site master planning and conceptual design at a fee not to exceed $210,909, and those services have been completed. Proposed amendment number one incorporates phase two professional services to include final design of the three designated facilities and preparation of construction and bidding documents at a cost not to exceed $705,000. $648.50. These professional services are anticipated to be complete within 200 calendar days and phase three services that will include construction support and administration will be brought back to the board for subsequent approval. The Northeast Region Utility Service Area Support Campus is an approved project in the board's adopted community investment program, and funds are budgeted in the General Capital Improvement Fund designated for these professional services. So, Madam Chair, members of the board, I think in keeping with the board's commitment to operational efficiencies across all county business units, especially those infrastructure units supporting operations throughout the Northeast sector of Polk County, I would request the board to approve amendment number one to existing professional services agreement number 2025-008 with CPH Consulting to provide phase two architectural and engineering services all in connection with the northeast region utility service areas operations support campus in the total amount not to exceed $705,648.50. Motion for approval. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries. Madam Chair, members of the board, item number three is to request the board to approve a construction contract with Kaminga and Root Vets Incorporated in connection with the Cumbee Academy Safe Routes to Schools project that will include drainage improvements and the installation of sidewalks and street lighting at select locations. Today's board action will reflect a one-time construction contract award totaling $800,231.40. Polk County has completed the public process to solicit bids from qualified contractors who were interested in the construction of approximately 1,100 lineal feet of sidewalk to include the reconstruction of numerous driveways near the existing Cumbie Academy of Design and Engineering Facility. These five foot wide sidewalks will be constructed in multiple locations along Morgan Cumbie Road, Woodland Avenue, and Broadway Street. Work will include related street lighting improvements to be performed by the City of Lakeland through Lakeland Electric with the project to include various drainage improvements and utility relocations or modifications as necessary. This project is intended to create a continuous accessible pedestrian pathway that enhances safety and mobility for residents and students alike. Once completed, these improvements will provide safe and functional access to the Cumbie Academy located on the south side of Morgan Cumbie Road. Bid number 26045 was issued and five contractors submitted bids. The lowest responsive responsible bid being submitted by Kaminga and in the amount of $762,125.40. A recommendation of award was issued and no protests were received. In accordance with Resolution No. 13066, $38,106 is included in the total contract award to address contingency and allowance work conditions. The contract time for this project has been set at 150 calendar days for final completion. This project is partially funded through a federally funded local agency program administered through the Florida Department of Transportation. The approximate federal share is 90%, local share is 10%. The Florida Department of Transportation has reviewed the proposed contract documents and has provided approval for Polk to enter into contract arrangements with the apparent low bidder. Funding for this project is budgeted and available in the Special Revenue Grant Fund and the Transportation Millage Fund. So, Madam Chair, members of the Board, I think in keeping with the Board's priority commitments to Polk's pedestrian and bicyclist safety, especially in close proximity to school facilities, I would request the Board to approve a construction contract with Kaminga and Rudwitz in the amount not to exceed $800,231.40, all of which is in connection with bid number 26045, the Cumbie Academy Safe Routes to Schools Project.

Madam Chair, motion for approval.

I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion?

Yes, Madam Chair. Mr. Jarvis, I see you in the back of the room. My question is related to the street lighting. I know we have another problematic area in the county where we have installed the street lights for which then the wiring has been removed. I think we're now on... the third installation of that wiring. Could you talk about what systems this may have as far as theft protection and or the material itself?

Good morning. For the record, Jay Jarvis, Roads and Drainage Director. What we've done is we've changed the type of wiring. We've gone to an aluminum wire. It is not as favorable for people to want to have the copper wire, and we've also changed our security of the pull boxes for that to try to keep people out of it. So those are improvements that we've made relative to moving forward with our street lighting facilities. Hopefully it's a disincentive.

Correct. And is that just what would be the standard now, or do you do that based upon the location at which the streetlights are going in?

No, it's becoming a standard now for us to be able to do that. We never know, to be honest with you.

All right. Thank you. That's it, Madam Chair. Anyone else? Okay, I have a motion and a second. And all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries.

Final item, Madam Chair, item number G4 is to request the board to approve a consultant services authorization with HDR Incorporated to provide professional engineering and design services in connection with the Carter Road at Eagle Brook Boulevard intersection improvements project. Today's board action will reflect a professional services agreement not to exceed $393,548.40. The Roads and Drainage Division has completed a traffic study at the Carter Road-Eagle Brook Boulevard roadway intersection, and that location now meets engineering warrants for the installation of a traffic signal. HDR Incorporated has been selected to complete the required design and engineering in the preparation of final construction documents. This work will include structural engineering, geotechnical engineering, utility conflict reviews, civil engineering and drainage considerations, as well as the pedestrian crossing accommodation needs. The negotiated consultant fees also includes anticipated post-design and construction support services. Planned roadway improvements at the Carter Road-Eagle Brook Boulevard intersection is an approved project in the board's adopted community investment program. Funds are budgeted in the Transportation Trust Fund to accommodate these professional services, so Madam Chair, members of the board, I think in keeping with the board's priority commitments to countywide roadway infrastructure, where feasible, practical, and certainly safety-oriented, I would request the board to approve CSA number 2022-087-03 with HDR Incorporated in connection with the Carter Road at Eagle Brook Boulevard intersection project in an amount not to exceed $393,548.40. Motion for approval. Thank you.

I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. That's it, Madam Chair. Thank you. We'll go to the Commissioner's report. We'll start with Commissioner Troutman.

you madam chair i just have two issues that i want to bring up number one we all received an email earlier this week from the pace program basically letting us know that people they had a list of people that may have signed up to request their services but i think it you know up for discussion we obviously are not participating in that program and as a board is that where we want to continue Or is there any interest in entering and looking into that program?

So, just to clarify, my understanding is basically they became a government entity. Is that technically what they are, Randy? A special district.

They're a special district. Basically, I believe what they qualify as.

So when they first came here, they were a special district in the beginning, Randy, or did that change?

No, sir. They've always been a special district.

And so they... They then have the ability when people borrow money or whatever you want to call it, make improvements. What all can the money be used for?

For certain improvements to the home, solar panels, roofing. I think there's some storm water type changes they can do. Heat and air. There is a list of them. And once they basically take the loan out, the difference between your normal loan is that they actually put it on the property property. As a special assessment. And then, of course, if you don't pay your special assessment, then it can be collected through a tax deed sale.

And so where I'm going with this is what function do they serve that a bank doesn't serve or other means of borrowing money doesn't serve?

Other than being supported by a government entity and be able to do a foreclosure through the tax deed sale. I'm not sure if there's much... I mean, if you don't pay a bank back, they can foreclose on it. They go through a mortgage foreclosure.

Yeah. If you don't pay these back, they go to a tax deed sale. I mean, I guess my point is I don't see what value they bring to anybody.

I think that's been the position of our board and our prior boards is that that was not something... that we wanted to get into as a government entity. We wanted to leave that to the private. But we got into it with them legally at one point. Yes, sir. That's because they tried to expand into Polk County without our permission, if you recall. But they're here now. In certain places, they are. We allowed them to, as part of our settlement, to continue the ones that they had done prior to the statute change. And you remember there was a change in the statute that now clearly states that they have to have our approval before they operate in Polk County. So, So all the prior approvals are still... And we allowed those as part of the settlement to... But we can deny additional ones. Yes, sir. At this point, our position is unless you have our approval going forward of that date of that statute, you can't operate in Polk County.

Again, I don't get their relevance. There has to be a reason that I'm not getting here. But it just seems like... A complicated entity that serves no purpose other than being a bank, which is just this government agency. I'm not going to use the word rogue, but I want to use the word rogue outfit out here that, you know, kind of. I don't see the purpose in it. I don't. I just don't. And I don't think it's a good idea. So to Becky's point, I don't think it's a good idea.

That's a long way of getting there. This came up a couple, like you said, Randy, came up a couple of years ago, in fact. And I think the consensus of the board at that time was that we were not interested in moving or working with this agency, whatever it's called.

And there's a couple different agencies out there. And I think routinely every couple years we get contact about one of these agencies warning us, to establish it here in Polk County, and at least since I've been here, the board's position has been, no, this is not an area in which we have an interest in.

Right.

And so our response has always been that.

I think, Bill, to answer your question, and I don't know all I need to know about this, but PACE would give individual loan. We basically, or the tax collector, would basically take it over. They get their money. They're gone. A bank, they got to work for it. They got to work for it. These people, they do the job. It's turned over to us or the tax collector to do what their deal is, and their hands are clean, and they move on. So I think that's what's behind it.

So that would certainly lend itself to more risky loans, would you say? I mean, is that possible?

I think that's a theory behind, and it's some of the pushback, that individuals who would normally not be able to get a loan through your conventional bank and stuff, would be able to get it here because ultimately they get bonds that is supported by the ability to get the assessment and that ultimately they collect the money or collect the property.

But that gets to the point of if you can't afford to borrow money, you shouldn't borrow money. I mean, this is to me, or at least it looks like outward appearances, that they're taking a high-risk group guaranteeing they're going to get paid and kind of to what Rick said, walking away. Whereas a bank is going to think long and hard before they're going to loan you the money because they got more skin in the game.

I think if we do not participate, that it helps to protect some of our citizens that can be vulnerable at times. And so I would definitely support that we continue not to have them in the county because I do not see that as a benefit to our residents.

I mean, solar panels ought to be a red flag for anybody anytime.

And so anytime we get a response or a request to me or to the accounting manager, Our response at this has been that our board has not had an interest in this. Okay.

I would like that word. I like that response. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everybody okay with that? Yeah. Okay. Definitely. What else, Commissioner Troutman?

I just wanted to say a thank you to our code enforcement staff. I was able to listen to part of a training that they have done some community outreach, and they were meeting with a real estate group regarding the – the ordinance about the large signs placed in the right of way in that procedure. So just wanted to say thank you for getting out into the community for those people that will be affected by it and providing the education that's needed. And that's it. All right.

Commissioner Wilson? Yeah, just a note, everybody knows it's now hurricane season. And we all, all us Floridians have been through it a lot. I've been hearing some good things that, you know, we might not be prone to as many this year, but all it is takes one. So just reminding everybody, which everybody that's in Polk County pretty much knows the ones that have been here, they know what to do and just be ready. So it's here and we got a ways to go. So the biggest thing is we need some rain. But that's it, Madeline.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Braswell?

I don't have anything.

Commissioner Scott?

Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Just two things. One, on the hurricane season, as a reminder, for our landfill, we're still offering their reduced rate for disposal, so anybody that hasn't picked up the Dead debris or fallen on tree limbs, feel free to do that and you get the reduced rate through the end of June. Is that correct? I think we've got, yeah, through the end of June. So residential collection only, not commercial haulers. But a great opportunity to be prepared so your neighbors aren't picking up your debris if a storm comes along. And again, even just a tropical storm with some straight line winds can cause some damage. And then the other part I have is just the property tax. I know that's all over the news as far as the new tool that has been launched for savings calculations, so on and so forth. And just a reminder, I've visited, well, 49 out of the 50 states now at this point in my life. But one of the ones that I'm often reminded of, I've had a lot of friends that moved to Tennessee. And Tennessee has low property tax, but they also have 9.5% sales tax. So every time you go and buy something every day that you need to live off of, most of that's subject to that 9.5% sales tax. So property tax reduction sounds like a great idea on paper, not saying that some change is necessarily unwanted. But if you take out of one pot, you've got to replace it somehow with another revenue source to maintain those critical services. And you'll hear that time and time again from this board, I'm sure. and from the county manager, but I think overall, when you look at news media, obviously they want to get the front page splash, and I'd say if you can save tens of thousands of dollars over the lifetime ownership of a house, that's great, but if you're going to have to pay it in the form of a sales tax to make up for that revenue, then what did you really save? And so I'm sure there's some mix that can lead to it, but again, I just wanted to put that out there. I know that there's certainly a large push from the state side to make that very appealing. I'm not saying that it isn't appealing, but just make sure and look at the whole picture before you make that decision on whatever the referendum is that comes up on the ballot in November. That's all.

I believe the hurricane preparation was until June 1st. I'll double check that but I believe it was because it's up to hurricane season we wanted you to go out and clear it off. I will double check that but I think it did in June 1st actually.

I know on the north side there's been more activity of people picking up debris so maybe if we can look at revisiting that to extend that for a couple of weeks it just would help probably on our collection efforts when we look at...

I will double check and if It is June 1st. Unless I hear any objections from the board, I will put something on the next agenda to extend it to July 1st.

That would be favorable, I think. It just gives us more opportunity for our residents to be proactive versus reactive.

Yes, sir. So I'll double-check that. I thought it was June 1st. So you'll see it on the next agenda if we need to extend that. Yes, sir.

Madam Chair, a quick shout-out consistent with Commissioner Scott's comment. Yesterday was the first opening of the Northeast Convenience site. Activity was brisk and steady all day long.

Good.

Yes, ma'am.

And just to piggyback off of what Commissioner Scott said, the pain or the are citizens, the needs of this county, the money's gonna have to come from somewhere. It's not gonna eliminate the property taxes. And that means that we don't have the budget to be able to meet the needs of this county. The money's going to have to come from somewhere. So either it's property taxes or, like you said, a 9.5% tax. on goods and things like that, so that's important. Thank you for bringing up the northeast area. I want to go out there and kind of see how brisk is going because it's well needed in the fastest growing area of the county.

And we'll give the board an update in about 30 days.

Thank you. Okay, that's it for the commissioner's report. Let's go on to the expedited hearing.

Yes, Madam Chair, before we go to expedited hearings, I'll go over the public hearing general procedures. Remind everyone if you wish to speak on any of the public hearing items that you fill out a speaker card in the back and give the card to a member of the communication staff. We ask that you please turn off your cell phones and other devices that may distract from the public hearings. Please adjust the microphones and state your full name and address for the record before you begin speaking on the topic. Individuals speaking during public comment section of a matter will be strictly limited to three minutes. The board is experiencing these matters and is able to discern what is legally relevant to an issue and what is not. Information that is relevant or repetitive only serves to frustrate and necessarily prolong the day's business. The commission expects civility at all times during all public hearings, speaking out of turn, shouting out from the audience, disrespectful sounds or other assistance while another is speaking are unacceptable and you will be asked to leave the chambers for the remainder of the day. If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the board with respect to any matter considered here today, you will need a record of proceedings and that for such purposes you may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. which record includes the testimony evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, which you must gather at your own expense. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak and present testimony today must be sworn in. All testimony given during public hearings shall be deemed to be sworn. At this time, if you're going to address the commission or speak on any case today, please stand, raise your right hand, and answer out loud to the following questions. This is all for your land use cases. Do you swear or affirm that testimony or evidence you provide to the commission today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. At this time, I'll go over the expedited hearing procedures. Expedited hearings are held pursuant to Resolution No. 2022-089. Expedited hearings are used when no opposition was present at the planned commission hearing. The applicant agrees to the expedited hearings, and the recommendation of the Development Review Committee is for approval. Expedited procedures are the following. After staff briefly introduces the case, the hearing will be open for public comment. If anyone speaks during public comment, the applicant will be given the opportunity to respond. At the public comment, the board will consider the land use case. At any time, full presentation from staff can be requested from a commissioner, the applicant, or a member of the public. All documents attached to the agenda items are deemed part of the record of the land use case. Unless removed from the list of experts by motion of the board, all individuals on the list of experts attached to the agenda item are deemed experts for the purpose of land use case. And at this time, I will turn to Mr. Ziskell to present the expedited hearings.

Thank you, Mr. Ming. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the public. My name is Ben Ziskell. I'm the Land Development Director for Polk County. Today, there are four items on the expedited public hearing portion of the agenda. Item number N1 is an expedited public hearing for case LDCD 2026-2 Avenue Q Auto Body Subdistrict to consider the adoption of a sub-district map change from Business Park Center 1 to Business Park Center 2 on a site that is approximately one acre. You can see on the screen here the subject site is at the corner of 42nd and Avenue Q. The subject site has historically had an auto body repair and outdoor storage facility located on it. It is considered a non-conforming use as that use is allowed in the business park center too. The request is to change the sub-district to that business park center too so the use will be conforming. This will allow the property to undergo renovations or improvements in conformance with the land development code. It is important to note that there is a transition from this facility to the adjacent residential or the nearby residential property. that is buffered by a storage facility as you can see here on the screen. So this request again is to bring the property into conformance to allow future investment into the site. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval and following any questions or comments from the public or the board staff recommends approval of this change.

Can we open it for public comment? Do we have anybody for this?

No, ma'am, we do not.

Okay, thank you. We close public comment and I'll bring it back to the board. Motion for approval? I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries.

Item number N2 is an expedited public hearing for case LDC-PAL-2026-2, Main Street Corridor Text, to consider adoption of a comprehensive plan text amendment to establish a new land use called the Main Street Commercial Corridor within the future land use element of the comprehensive plan. This item is really a follow-up to an effort that county staff has undergone over the bulk of the last two years, specifically in the Juanita and the Eloise communities, where we have proposed to you changes to the comprehensive plan and to the land development code to facilitate redevelopment in those two neighborhoods. This change would introduce this new Main Street corridor text to add a Main Street corridor land use plan specifically within redevelopment areas within the county which would allow flexibility of redevelopment of those areas as you know redevelopment areas tend to be harder to to reinvest in they contain sites that already have infrastructure that could be aging they already have buildings or transportation ingress and egress so this would allow that text and that land used to be an option for those redevelopment areas to help streamline and facilitate redevelopment. We hope that with adoption of this text we can replicate the efforts of Juanita and Eloise in some of our other redevelopment and revitalization areas. throughout the county. This item is a transmittal hearing, so we are requesting approval to transmit to the Department of Commerce. This item did appear before the Planning Commission and received unanimous recommendation of approval. So following any questions or comments from the board or the public, staff recommends approval to transmit this item to the state.

Any questions for staff? Okay, we open it for public hearing. Amber, do we have anyone for this one?

No, ma'am, we do not.

Thank you. We close public hearing. We'll bring it back to the commission. Second. I have a motion and I have a second. Any questions, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. Item number N3 is an expedited public hearing for case LDCT 2026-3, recreation use easements, to consider an amendment to the land development code to allow gun ranges or firearm ranges to receive access solely via an easement. This is a narrowly scoped text amendment to allow... gun ranges of fire ranges to establish on easements and not have to be on a publicly maintained road meeting county standards. The nature of this is that gun ranges by nature and by operation typically go in a less urbanized area and we would like to see them in a less urbanized area. where the infrastructure may not be up to current county standards. We have provided conditions that are similar to other provisions of our code where residential units access easements and you can see them on the screen here that there is a minimum width of 20 feet which would allow first responders to access the site if there were an emergency. They would also be limited to a distance not to exceed one half of a mile. and the firearm range would be allowed to serve no more than 50 daily attendees. So the intent here is that it is narrowly scoped to a small operation. If the distance were to be extended or the operation received more traffic, they would, of course, then have to bring that easement up to county standards. This item did appear before the Planning Commission and received unanimous recommendation of approval, but it is before you today on first reading, so no action is necessary, and we will bring this back to you in two weeks for adoption.

And being on this one, the staff report did show the Board of County Commissioner date as June 6th in the staff report. But we have confirmed that that's a typo and the notice and stuff is supposed to be correct. So we can move forward with it. But just to correct the record, the staff report should show June 2nd instead of June 6th as the Board of County Commissioner meeting.

Any questions for staff?

Yes. Mr. Ziskell, when we're talking about if the distance obviously is exceeded, that could be fairly easy to monitor and be known. How do you expect or how do you see that if an organization begins to see more than the 50 daily attendees, is that just going to be self-report or if a neighbor becomes unhappy and they sit there with the clicker

Well, exact traffic counts are hard to monitor. Of course, we would use the ITE manual for estimated or projected trips based on what the range is proposed, the square footage of facility, the number of shooting bays, and other measures that we can look at based on the design of the property. But you're correct to say one day they had 49 and one day they had 51 will be tough to monitor. So it will be based on those established norms for a facility and for the operations of a gun range.

All right, thank you. Any other questions for staff? Okay, hearing none, we open it for public hearing. Amber, do we have anybody for this one?

No, ma'am, we do not.

Thank you. We'll close the public hearing. And since this is a first reading, we take no action.

Thank you. And finally, for me, item number N4 is an expedited public hearing for case LDCT 2026-8, ATMs and Vending Machines, to consider adoption of an ordinance amending the Land Development Code to provide standards and definitions for standalone vending machines and ATM facilities. So as I have presented in a work session, The trend of having standalone either ice machines or in particular ATM machines is seeing an increase in demand and our land development code is currently silent to how we regulate or how we place those facilities. So this amendment would provide a level of review that a staff level review would be conducted for these facilities. They would have to meet established setbacks from the right of way. and mostly in importance is that they would not be able to interfere with the established traffic circulation or the required parking on a commercial site. They would be limited to 220 square feet, and that if the ATM or the ICE machine should cease operations or become inoperable, that it shall be removed so as not to become a problem. A code enforcement or an eyesore of a abandoned structure. This item did appear before your planning commission and received unanimous recommendation of approval. It is also on first reading, so no action is required today and we will bring this back to you in two weeks for adoption.

Any question for staff? Yes, ma'am. That shall remain inoperable condition or removed. I do not see a suggestion of excuse me of a timeline for that. Was that intentional or do you think that we need to clarify that with an amount of time as far as it's inoperable?

We do have other provisions within the code of when something is deemed to be inoperable. So without specific language, it would default to other established language within the code. If the board wishes to provide a specific timeline for these operations, we could certainly amend it and bring it back. But I think the way we would handle it is to treat it like other definitions of inoperable or abandoned throughout the code.

As long as it's in the code, thank you very much.

Any other question? Okay, hearing none, we open it up for public hearing. Amber, do we have anybody?

No, ma'am, we do not.

Having no one, we'll close the public hearing. And since it's a first read, we take no action.

And Madam Chair, that concludes the expedited portion of today's agenda. Thank you. So now you can move into regular public hearings.

Move on to the public hearings.

Good morning.

Scott Lowry, Real Estate Services Support Manager. I have two items this morning. First item is a petition from Christopher DeRocher as authorized agent for Brian and Janet Babula to vacate a portion of a platted public utility easement as shown on the plot of Shadowwood Unit 2. Platt filed in 1979 in Platt Book 68 at page 28, dedicated various rights-of-way and easements throughout the Platt to the use of the public. The petitioners owned three lots within the Platt, which are bisected by a 15-foot-wide platted utility easement. The petitioners recently installed solar panels, which led to the discovery that part of the residence, pool, and a workshop were located within and across a platted utility easement, and they are requesting the vacation to clear the encroachment. After a review of the petitioner's request, it was determined that the remainder of the easement to the northeast, which is up here, and to the southwest would be ineffective and unnecessary. So staff is requesting that the remainder of the easement be included in this vacation request. The appropriate utilities and county divisions were notified and no objections were received. Staff recommends the board adopt the resolution to vacate the platted public utility easement shown the plot of Shadowwood as more fully described in the legal description contained in the resolution. And I'll remain standing for any questions. I believe the petitioner's representative is here as well, if there's any questions.

Do we have any questions for staff? You said the applicant is here?

I believe so, yes. Mr. DeRochers is here.

Yes, please, right here.

Good morning, everyone. For the record, my name is Christopher DeRusci. I represent Mr. Bryan and Ms. Janet Babula, who are the property owners, and they are also present in the audience today. If anyone has any particular questions about this application, it pretty much speaks for itself.

Okay. Any questions? No. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. And we open it up now for public hearing. So, Amber, do we have any?

Yes, ma'am, we do.

Last one, thank you. Okay, we have Jack, and hopefully I won't butcher the last name. Jack Sacklett? Okay. Is that him?

Yes.

Are you Jack?

No. What was the name, ma'am? Jack?

Jack, I think it's S-E-L, Sellett? Yes. Sellett, okay, right here. I thought it was a C at the first time, that's why I said Skillet. Bring his mic down to him, Amber, thank you.

Okay, my name is Jack Sellett, 2006 Leisure Drive, Winter Haven, Florida. Resident in Florida for about 60 some years.

Do you want to say anything about this particular case?

I'm hard of hearing.

Do you want to say anything about this particular case? Do you want to speak about it?

Yes.

Okay, go ahead. You have three minutes. Did you state your name and address? Yes, I did. Okay, then go on. You may speak.

Okay, well, this is an easement that was left to the homeowners in Leisure Shores. and we've always used it for our use and our pleasure, and it has now been requested that that easement been given up, and we object to that, and we don't want to make any changes to that easement, leave it as it is. It's been that way for as long as I can remember, and I say I've been there about 40 years, and we use it, and it doesn't bother anybody, Apparently it does bother some out there. They wouldn't request it that they close it. And we're requesting that no changes be made. We leave the easement as it was.

Okay. Thank you. Is that it? Okay. Anything else? No, that's it. If you're through, we're okay. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I believe he's actually speaking to the next item. I'm sorry? I believe he's actually speaking to the next item, which we haven't reviewed yet.

It has on his paper 01.

I know, but he referred to Leisure Shores, which is associated with the 02.

Can you check then, Amber? If he's already spoken for the other one, then we'll just use it for the other one. Okay. Next, we have Keith McDowell. Number two. That's number two also? All right. Do you have anybody for number one? Okay. So we'll close the public hearing since we have no one else. And since no one spoke, then we'll bring it back to the board.

Motion for approval.

I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Okay. Now we go to number two.

Item 02. The county has received a petition from Kelly Udichek to vacate portions of platted, unopened, and unmaintained right-of-ways shown on the Platte of Leisure Shores and on the revised map of Lakeview. The Platte of Leisure Shores filed in 1962 in Platte Book 46 at page 4, dedicated to public rights-of-way throughout the Platte. One of those rights-of-way is a 35-foot-wide unmaintained and unmaintained right-of-way lying to the north of Lot 13. which includes and essentially replatted the south half of a 30-foot right-of-way from shown as Mariana Street on the revised map of Lakeview, recorded in Platte Book 3 at page 80, which is presumed to be dedicated to the public. Basically, it created a 50-foot wide right-of-way in total between two different platts. The petitioner owns Lot 13 and has requested the vacation of all of the right-of-way to the north of her property. The owner adjacent to North has consented to the vacation and through a coordination has agreed to convey her resulting interest to the petitioner. The petitioner is requesting the vacation to better secure her property against trespass. The appropriate utilities and county divisions were notified and no objections were received. The county roads and drainage division requested a 15 foot wide drainage easement over the northern portion of the vacation area, which you can see here in the dotted red box. in conjunction with existing drainage facilities and for future drainage use. And the adjacent owner has complied with the request and has executed a drainage easement. Staff recommends the board adopt the resolution to vacate portions of platted, unopened, and unmaintained right-of-ways shown on the plateau leisure shores and on the revised map of Lakeview as more fully described in the legal description contained in the petition and the resolution. We also asked the board to accept the drainage easement from Joanne Napik. I'll remain standing for any questions.

Any questions for staff? Yes, Commissioner.

Mr. Lowry, could you go back to the overhead, the aerial photo? It looks like in this case, too, that there's been some construction in the easement.

I don't believe these are all still there. Here's a current photo. There is a lean-to, some golf carts and a trailer that happened to be sitting there in that photo, but most of this appears to be gone at the moment.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other question? Okay, hearing none, do we have the applicant here?

Okay. She's reserved the right to speak. She said she didn't necessarily want to make a comment, but if she needed to, she would.

So we'll open it up for public hearing. And I have two people. I have Keith McDowell, as you know.

Hi, my name is Keith McDowell. I live in Leisure Shores. I've lived there for 40 years. That property we're talking about now was designated for the people in Leisure Shores to have access to Lake Hartridge, and it's always been that way. And if that's blocked off, then the property 2000 Leisure Drive, they will have access to that property alone. In fact, that owner of that property has already established and put a lien to in there and has his personal property in there, has the ATV vehicle in there. So he's been using that as his own private property. And I object to that. It should be for the people in the community. That's what it was designed for. Thank you. Thank you.

And we also have Kelly.

That's the petitioner. Oh, that's the petitioner. Yeah.

Okay. Is he here?

That's up to you, but she claimed she didn't want to speak necessarily. Oh, here she comes.

If you state your name and address.

Yes. Good morning. My name is Kelly Udichek, 2000 Leisure Drive, Winter Haven. And for the last 22 and a half years, that property has been maintained by my family to include Craig Hart Castle. Jennifer, you to check and will you to check. No one else has ever taken care of that property. In addition, that UTV is not mine. I do not know whose it is and I did not connect that lien to. One more thing. Down by the lake and probably 20 feet up has been overgrown for the last 22 and a half years. And I do not know of anyone who has ever gone down there and tried to crawl through the trees and the snakes and the alligators to get there. Thank you. Thank you.

Just to be clear, this was public. It wasn't necessarily dedicated to the residents of that particular subdivision.

Okay. Having no one else for public hearing, I close the public hearing, and I'll bring it back to the board.

Madam Chair, a motion for approval. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion?

Madam Chair, if I may? Yes, please. Just for clarification, as far as drainage easement that's being proposed now, is there existing drainage infrastructure that's present and that we have been maintaining and maybe not been maintaining? Just a petitioner's comment about the lakeshore not being maintained. My concern is, are we missing part of the vote on drainage or would this be a new drainage easement?

And you can see it in this photo. There's a very shallow swale, which tapers to almost nothing. It's starting to sheet flow by the time you get to the lake. Actually, this ditch, as you go behind the photo to the west, gets much deeper. But at this point, I don't think there's much maintenance other than the mowing that I think the petitioner's been doing to this point. But it does allow for any future drainage if we needed to extend that swale or cut it deeper.

Okay. It would prevent us have to go and get an easement after the fact.

Correct. Correct. They're granting a 15 foot easement, 15 foot wide easement as part of this transaction. You can see that here.

Sure. Yeah. I just want to make sure as far as like I said, our current status, if it's something we had been maintaining or should have been maintaining, but weren't, or if that's truly like a future need identified on this is how I understood it in this application.

I just want to make sure that for existing in future. So if that ditch had to be cut further down, it could be.

Okay.

I haven't been made aware of any drainage issues that are going on at the moment.

Okay.

Any other questions? Discussion? Hearing none, I have a motion and a second. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Next three items are de novo hearings prior to us beginning those hearings. I will go over the de novo proceedings. The following is a summary of the procedures governing the de novo hearings pursuant to Polk County Resolution 2022-090. Procedures. First, staff will present the staff report and recommendation. After staff presents the staff report and recommendation, the applicant will have 30 minutes to present the applicant's case. After the applicant's presentation, any organized opposition will have 30 minutes total to present their case. If more than one person or entity qualifies as organized opposition, the 30 minutes is split equally amongst them. For example, if three individuals qualify as organized opposition, then each will have 10 minutes to present their case. Organized opposition shall consist of any entity or individual that has filed an application for de novo hearing or which has received written authorization from at least five entities or individuals to speak on their behalf, and those entities or individuals have agreed to waive their ability to speak in the public comment portion of the public hearing. After our organized opposition presentation, the public comment portion of the public hearing will be opened. Each speaker during public comments will be allotted three minutes. Individuals who are represented by organized opposition will not be allotted three minutes during public comment. Once public comment has been closed, the applicant will have five minutes and any time reserved from applicant's case presentation to respond to the organized opposition and public comment. After the applicant's response, the chair will close the public hearing and the board will discuss and vote on the matter. De nova hearing from record. All documents attached to the agenda and presentation given shall be deemed part of the record unless removed from the record by motion of the board. County staff submitting the staff report shall be deemed experts in land planning unless disqualified by motion of the board. Applicants organized opposition in the public may request documents to be entered into the record during their presentation. Applicants organized opposition in public may request a witness to be recognized as an expert during their presentation. Applicants to organize opposition and their witnesses are subject to cross-examination by the other party. Ex parte communications. The board members receive numerous communications from the public. Unless otherwise stated, it should be presumed that ex parte communications have been made to the members of the board regarding a matter. During the hearing, the applicant to organize opposition with the public may request the board to disclose and ex parte communication or site visits they have had regarding the matter and questioned the board regarding the communications or site visit. Unless a board member accuses himself, they have determined that he or she is able to hear the case and fairly and partially make a decision on the matter based on the substantial competent evidence of the record. De quorum, just a reminder, commissions expect civility at all times. This is a quasi-judicial hearing. Demo hearings are quasi-judicial. quasi-judicial, which means the action entails applying land development policies to a specific land development application in a fair and impartial manner. The Commission's review is limited to two areas, consistency and compatibility. Therefore, the evidence and testimony you give must be relevant to whether the application is consistent with the Polk County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code and whether the application is compatible with the surrounding area. Information that is relevant and repetitive only serves to frustrate and unnecessarily prolong the hearing. Regarding consistency, the commission must determine whether the application is consistent with both the comprehensive plan and land development code. The staff report and the presentation will provide expert analysis and opinion regarding the applicable criteria, as well as a recommendation as to whether the application is consistent with those criteria. Regarding compatibility, the commission must determine whether the application is compatible with the surrounding area. The commission will be presented with testimony and evidence at the hearing, both written and oral. By law, the only evidence the commission may consider is competent substantial evidence, which means evidence that is sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The following items are competent substantial evidence. Evidence that is fact-based and relevant to applicable criteria, staff reports, and staff presentation. Citizen testimony may be competent substantial evidence so long as it's fact-based. It may include testimony regarding subjective matters that do not require expertise, such as aesthetics and compatibility of a project with the surrounding neighborhood. However, popularity polls, petitions, testimony that is hypothetical, speculative, based on fear, or consists of generalized statements that do not address the land development code criteria are not competent substantial evidence. For example, fear that a project will cause increased traffic or crime is not competent substantial evidence. Lastly, when expertise is required for technical issues like traffic analysis, Engineering, drainage, wetland impact, school or utility capacity, light or noise pollution, or the applicant's impact on property value says the testimony is not normally competent as essential evidence unless the witness is qualified as an expert in that area. Commissioners, at this time, are there any communications, site visits, or ex parte communications that you need disclosed on item number 03, which is the Highland Street Mobile Home Park? Commissioner Troutman? Commissioner Wilson? Commissioner Santiago? Commissioner Schmidt? No. Commissioner Braswell? Scott? No. At this time, I will turn it over to Commissioner Nance to present O3. All right.

Good morning. Ian Nance, Land Development. Staff recommends approval of LDCU 202538, a request for a 19-unit mobile home park on property located at 2730 West Highland Street, west of Lebanon Road, south of New Tampa Highway, and surrounded by the city of Lakeland in Section 22, Township 28, Range 23. On April 1st, the Planning Commission heard this case and denied it by a vote of 7-0. For the record and for this hearing, one sign was posted on site on May 18th, 34 mailers were sent to area property owners on May 15th, and a legal ad was published on May 20th. Staff has logged two emails in opposition, including one that got in late last night that I'll hand out when I'm finished here and one to the applicant. The subject site is located within a residential low four future land use district in the transit supportive development area, which allows residential densities up to seven dwelling units per acre. This application is not for increased density. Mobile home parks are conditional uses requiring planned commission approval in all residential low districts, regardless of density. For comparison, at this location, a 19-unit platted subdivision of site-built homes on 6,000 square foot lots could be approved here administratively through a level two review. To the right is the subject site and surrounding uses and its transition area between residential development and industrial and warehousing uses along the I-4 corridor. It has direct frontage on West Highland Street and urban collector roadway with capacity. A Citrus Connection bus stop is located directly to the east and sidewalks along the frontage will be required with an approval of this application. This is in the City of Lakeland's utility service area and they will provide potable water. Wastewater connection is typically required in the TSDA. but the connection is not available to this site, so a waiver will be required to allow septic during the Level 2 review process. Otherwise, this site is suitably located in relation to urban services as well as employment and commerce centers within the city. Much of the surrounding residential development dates back to the 1940s and 50s and includes single-family homes, mobile homes, and mobile home parks. This is a site plan, 19 units on 4.93 acres. Again, the density could get to seven dwelling units per acre, but this comes in at 3.85 per acre, which is below the residential low four barrier. This will not be subdivided, but land development code standards require a minimum of 4,000 square feet of upland area or spaces for mobile homes, including two parking spots per unit. Site plan achieves this with 5,900 square foot spaces. The homes will be set back 68 to 70 feet from neighboring property lines, which will be further screened with a landscaping buffer. A walking path will be constructed around the approximately one acre storm water pond to the south side of the site. Since this site is within the Itchipack-Assassin Strain Basin, or Stress Basin, a 100-year, 24-hour stormwater pond design will be required, and the applicant has agreed to provide for an easement for the county to maintain an existing ditch on the southern end of the property. Otherwise, no flood zones or wetlands are mapped on the site. Here's kind of a larger view overlay of the site plan on the property. Again, Type B landscaping will be acquired to the east and west property lines. We're abutting larger residential lots. and it'll be a Type A landscaping buffer along Old Tampa Highway. Given this layout and the surrounding single-family uses, staff finds this request compatible with the area. Though this is more about housing types, this development fits into the allowable densities prescribed by the comprehensive plan and land development code with urban-level services available. Again, staff recommends approval, and I'll stand for questions.

Any questions for staff?

Yes, Madam Chair. I believe in light of House Bill 399, this is kind of a moot point, correct? Yes.

What we're kind of reviewing at this point is we're having multiple units on one property. We can't decide upon ownership. We can't decide upon mobile home and unit type. I'd defer to Mr. Mink here on this. We have changes coming to our land development code to address this. For right now, it's still a use. We're called Mobile Home Park. I think there might be a new name for it in the future to encompass all residential unit types on one parcel. Yeah.

because that bill just basically says anywhere a single family resident is allowed that off-site bill dwellings will also be considered the same, correct?

That's my understanding.

I'll double check it with us.

I'm trying to remember if that bill was effective January 1st, like that fall and that, or immediately. I believe it's January 1st. Right. I think that's correct. That's under 399.

It is under 399.

I believe most of that changes were effective January 1st, so we're still not gotten to that part of it. I'll double check that.

All right.

So, so to her point is the reason we're dealing with this because we haven't changed our company, our land development code.

Part of it is the rest of it is we, I guess our equivalent was site built homes. We call it a residential development park or park, which requires, you know, this level of use, if not more.

And again, it requires a level three review. So even if it was not a mobile home park and it was being treated as a, No, a subdivision, it was still required to level three review, if I'm understanding correctly.

If they were all site-built homes on one parcel, you know, under one ownership.

We're not treating it really any different. It's getting the same level review from the board. Okay.

Does that make sense? Not really. These aren't site-built homes, right?

No, sir, they're mobile homes, but what I'm saying is we have, you know, what we're up to decide here now is that we have multiple homes onto one piece of property that's going to be owned by one owner. It's going to be owned instead of having fee-simple lots.

Oh, okay.

All right, that's the part I was missing. I missed that as well. Our equivalent to that with site-built homes is called a residential development park where you have rental units, but they're site-built rather than mobile homes, so...

And you mentioned that this could be an administrative approval, but what was the reason it couldn't be an administrative approval?

It would need 6,000 square foot lots and meet setbacks, and it would be under the density for RL4 at this location. So they can come in here and do this fee simple if that's the product type that they wanted to do. Gotcha.

Yes, sir.

Thank you for the question.

Madam Chair, can you just go back over on the septic system? Inclusion on here. Does that per site or they're talking about doing a master septic system for this? How does that, I mean, I guess what is that in detail for here?

I'll defer to Mr. Berkley on this one. I don't think each unit is going to have a septic system, but they have the large backyards to accommodate that and that's going to help provide some of the setbacks for it. It still needs to go health department review. The city of Lakeland has a sewer line over here that pumps into one of their treatment facilities, but it's not been feasible for them to extend it down this way. So that's, It's kind of limited on the development for getting much more here.

Okay. Can you go back to the site plan for it? So on this one, we talk about, and again, just more of a, I guess, a detailed question. We talk about septic systems, if they're going on the individual homes or every other home. You know, one of the issues I ran into years ago, working with my dad for years and years, is access for repair, right? You can't get into backyards because it's a, you know, five foot wide alley to get back there. So I just... again I think there's this being a binding site plan but we don't really have provisions or knowledge of where the septic systems are going to be I think it's kind of a critical layout piece and I guess we can't necessitate that at this level at this point of review but I just think it's one of those things if it's not thought out And this is a binding site plan. There may need to be some revisions to the site plan to accommodate the septic tank. So they're coming back in for modification because they have to move a home to make room for septic treatment. So I just think it's at least a point of discussion or consideration on this being a binding site plan. To me, it's a bit, I understand the reason for that, but it may be kind of counterintuitive, I guess, based on septic needs.

This would be the maximum that could be approved. If they come back and they test for soils and the health department requires advanced treatment of septic, we can go down a number of units without having to come back in for a modification. That can just be done administratively. Again, that is a little bit further down the road. We know the soils are tough here. We know some of the issues. Where they're going to ultimately end up, again, Mr. Berker probably has a little bit more detail than I do on that one at the moment.

To Mike's point there on septic and what's the why are we waiving connection to sewer?

It's a process in our chapter 7 where if sewer is not available This is technically a TSD as I went through, and our code requires sewer connection. But if it's not within a long-range plan to provide it to that area, if it's not economically feasible in a series of standards, that they will have to go contact the city of Lakeland, basically sign off and saying there's no real reason for us to.

But at what point is the builder, developer, whatever required to connect regardless? That's at level two, after level two approval in the COO. What's the distance from sewer for this?

This is approximately half a mile, as I recall. But this comes down, this sewer line basically serves this industrial park, and it's kind of a part of a pretreatment system before they send more water back down to the Glendale Wastewater Station. It's kind of a unique plant right here. So you have physical lines, but not necessarily for these residential connections. It's kind of an old development area out here, and there's just not been...

But there's nothing special about a sewer line that says it's industrial versus residential, is there? I mean, you can't tie a residential into an industrial?

I don't know the answer to that one. I know I went through the research on that particular site there, and it is kind of an unusual one as far as wastewater treatment is concerned. It's a pretreatment station, I guess, before it's shipped to Glendale.

Madam Chair, if I may, one other thing. Again, not to say stuck on the topic, but going to where if it's a lot, just a home, and it has a septic mound because it has to be a four-foot mound due to poor soil conditions, I think the Commissioner Brazel's point is what is the density that this allows a septic to be an option for the plot to be developed? So how dense can this be? And then it kicks out where they have to hook up to sewer. Otherwise, you can't have that density. What is that threshold?

Again, we generally require, I think it's right around 11,000 square foot lots for that, but if you have advanced septic treatment, it can get smaller. At this point, it's just kind of unknown as far as the septic treatment is concerned. Generally speaking, if you're going to have a septic tank, I think it's 10,400 is the number, right around 11,000, but there are advanced treatment systems that would allow smaller lots. Again, the engineering has to go into it and I'll defer to Mr. Berker here if he has some more knowledge on that. So the applicant will be making a presentation here? Yes, sir.

Okay.

Any other question for staff? Okay, hearing none, we'll move on to the applicant.

Good morning, Chad Brooker with Traditions Engineering. Address is 900 Orchard Springs Drive, Winter Haven, Florida. Want to hit a couple of points here and more specifically answer some of the questions I already heard. Let's talk real quick about the wastewater. It's not so much a distance to the system. That's the issue here. It's a capacity with the city of Lakeland. We have applied for capacity for water and wastewater and we're denied access. capacity for wastewater. They don't have it. They don't have it for the foreseeable future within the next year and so we were advised that septic was the only option. We are proposing larger common septic systems, not individual per unit. That will probably be three or four systems there. Have already started coordinating with septic design-build contractors and everything is within reason here for this site. So we are connecting to centralized water. We just have to apply for the waiver there to get the septic system because the state of Lakeland doesn't have capacity.

Going back to the reason why we're here.

Yes, the land development code requires that anything that has the word mobile home on it comes to the planning commission for approval. My client is proposing a single-use, single-property rental community for mobile home parks. It's a C3 use, and hence it went to the community. As you saw from Ian's presentation, the use is very compatible with the area. There's several mobile home parks, several mobile home subdivisions, and individual mobile homes in this area. It's not so much a use thing as it is just some other factors that we got de novo to this point. And so I think use-wise we're compatible. Ultimately, this is RL4. By right, we can do a fee-simple lot subdivision. I actually worked for the previous owner as well and had a design set of plans for a, I want to say it was 17-unit or lot single-family subdivision that meets the RL4 standards standard. Uh, that was also to be on septic. So, uh, that is an option here, but we, uh, my current client, the current owner desires to have a mobile home park. And I think beneficial reasons for that is that it's just less impactful on the property. So compatibility-wise, I don't think there's any issue here, and I don't believe the Planning Commission had any issue with compatibility. It was really more discussion regarding the drainage. I wanted to discuss the drainage here, and I'm sure you'll see it here with the next presentation. But there is some known flooding issues out here, more specific to the county's ditch system there on the south end of this property. It's relatively unmaintained. We have worked with county staff with this owner and the previous owner trying to remedy this issue. The problem is that there's not legal access to the ditch. About three years ago with the previous owner, we actually had a coordinated effort with erosion drainage to try and get all of these owners to dedicate easements to the county so that the county did have the ability to put the spider equipment in there and maintain the ditch, clean out the culverts, everything. That ultimately was not successful. There was not enough neighborhood cooperation for dedicating those easements. As part of our efforts to further improve the area with this request, we did voluntarily add the condition to dedicate that easement to the county over that ditch system that covers our portion of the site. And so as you can see from this view here, I think what I'm looking at is what you're looking at.

Yeah.

We have this small portion of the ditch that is the south end of our site. Everything from top of bank onward will be dedicated with the large easements for drainage purposes that gives the county access to maintain that ditch system to further try and alleviate that flooding issue. In addition to that, we also are proposing to have a 100-year no discharge storm. What that means is that every storm event that you get from an afternoon rain shower to a full-blown hurricane, 10 inches in 24 hours, our pond will be designed to hold and maintain that water without discharge. There will be an emergency overflow discharge point that is required by the state to have for emergency purposes, but everything up to and including the 10-inch storm, which is the 100-year 24-hour storm, will be contained on this site. So any pre-development rain that that might have come from this site and enhanced any issues south of us in the system will no longer be the case because it's going to be held and maintained on our property. So that's the main reason why we're here now is because that issue came up. There is some known flooding issues. Obviously we have some recent history with the back to back hurricanes two years ago that might have exacerbated that issue in certain areas of the county and we are working diligently to try and help with this, this situation here with, uh, putting in ponds that can hold that whole hundred year storm event. As you know, this is not the final say, um, this project goes to multiple municipalities for review of design plans, design reports after this, um, including County Level 2, SWIFTMENT Environmental Resource Permit, and ultimately the state. They will all have a chance to review design plans, design reports, including that for stormwater. So this is not the final stage. We will get to that point, but that is our best attempt to help alleviate that issue here. As I mentioned before, My client is the current owner. We have to do something here. Currently, we do have the right to come in here for RL4 for the single family use. That's not his intention. I think the mobile home makes a lot more sense on this property, mobile home park specifically. And so that is the request we're coming forward with you today. And I'll stand for any questions.

Any questions for the applicant?

Yeah. The concept of a mobile home park doesn't bother me at all. That's not a problem. But when you talk about septic and then your next conversation is about flooding, that kind of raises a red flag for me. And I'm back to the sewer connection. We're waiving his requirement to connect the sewer. Am I understanding that correct? The request has not been made yet. But you will? Correct. Okay. and lakeland would be who you would connect to if if if you connected lakeland's service this is the city of lakeland's utility service area correct are we requiring i don't know what the term is dry lines or putting lines in for to connect the sewer if it was to come out that way closer or are we not doing that no not to my knowledge that's not required

I was going to say, to go along with Commissioner Braswell's thought there, I think where we're going is, would that be a condition that we could add on to this staff question?

Well, Lakeland doesn't have capacity, I think is what he's saying.

Well, they don't right now, and that's my understanding for the most part. At least at one point, their capacity was within their lines that they had incapacity, but not line capacity. So I don't know if this is the same area.

I believe the issue is going to be, I guess, going back to compatibility and consistency. If they're compatible enough to now have septic, to force them to have to put the drain lines, what's the nexus at that point? is I guess what I would question from this side.

I guess is that going then to the consistency with our land development code?

If I may, it's first time talking from the well to you, it's strange, sorry. Shonda Bennett with Land Development Division. Back when the comp plan was adopted, we did a lot of installation of dry lines before the sewer got to those locations. My understanding is we don't do that as much with utilities because the lines go unused and they decay. And it's a technical waiver. That's why it's not at your level for decision making. It's after the approval. So as far as I know, we haven't been requiring necessarily dry line. And depending on whatever the requirements are with utilities, we work that out with utilities.

Just to confirm my thought here, it sounds like basically our concerns right here are not related to consistency and compatibility and belong at a different hearing level as far as specific to sewer?

Yes, sewer is not a compatibility issue for us.

And if I may, I want to speak to Shauna's point. We've dealt with the dry line situation a couple of times, and ultimately what happens is, similar to this situation, there's not gravity out here to connect. So if and when the city does get capacity, what you're talking about is a lift station with pressure pipe force main that connects to it. When you put in the dry line system, specifically the pressure pipe, if it stays without pressure for an extended period of time, it starts to decay. And then when you do put it in there, it doesn't pass pressure tests and ultimately gets ripped out and replaced. So I think that's why the county is not pushing the pressure pipe issue or the dry pipe issue as much anymore. Because ultimately, if it takes too long to activate it and pressure it, it's a waste. Yeah.

Understood. Thank you.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

If I may, and again, just a question so I know more about the project. I know the surrounding area, and I know some of the elevations of the mobile homes that are out there now, some of which have flooded in the past as well. For the proposed mobile homes that are here, do we have an idea what that finished floor elevation is targeting based on your preliminary site design?

Yeah, it will be more in line with the elevations you have near the front of the site. You know, there's a little bit of an elevation drop from north to south. And the front of the site being near the road is more about a 130-ish, 132. So those finished floors, it will kind of be flatter and it will be up above that. And then ultimately the pond bank will be above that as well so that it can hold back that exceeding water or rainstorms of that. that water doesn't get out. It will be higher. There will be some fill placed here, which ultimately does help with the septic issue as well.

Gotcha. As far as the proposed top of bank that you have for the pond, do you know what that elevation is for your 100-year storm bed?

I don't have it for this current design. I know for the previous design, when we did the single family for the previous owner, it was, you're asking me to remember from 22, but I want to say it was... about that 130-ish, something around that number.

And where I'm going with that, I guess just so I understand from a site concept perspective, mobile homes are proposed for this application, which I understand. Going back to your point of RL4 previously go in and do site-built homes, is it fair to say it would be kind of challenging to have a finished floor elevation high enough for a site-built home versus a mobile home that you can put on blocks? Is that one of the challenges for the site?

The finished floor elevation above the flood elevations afoot, I think that's the requirement by the county. And so with the previous design when we did the single-family lot, single-family home design, we had everything pad-graded to be above those flood elevations. And so, yes, there's certain challenges with this site, but it was attainable. We were, right before we were about to submit for Level 2 permits, we actually, they sold the property and now we're here.

Gotcha.

Thank you. Yeah. And then real quick, lastly, I think you had mentioned access for the mobile homes. It's a good point. We are proposing 10-foot between the units as part of the binding site plan, and then there are also some spaces that there are wider green spaces for access to those septic systems in the back. You have the 35-foot offset from the right-of-way that provides some access there, and then we have the T-turnaround with the – a space there that can also access portions of the south end of the site. So there is reasonable access to get those septic systems at the rear of the property.

And this is not in a flood zone at all, is that correct? Correct. Thank you.

Commissioner Truman?

I just, again, wanted to confirm with staff that as he's proposing this, the site plan that we have, that is consistent with our land development code.

Yes, ma'am, that's correct.

Thank you. Can you kind of point out where the ponds are at in that little graph right there?

I don't want to mess it up.

I'll go right here.

You had the one that had the overlay. There you go.

Okay, I'm going to have to look at my screen.

Again, I don't want to mess it up here. There we go. So this site falls historically from north to south is the historical drainage. It's high near the road. It's lower in the back where the ditch is. We are proposing to isolate everything up here on the north end or center portion of the property, and then we have our large 100-year no-discharge ponds there on the south end so that we're maintaining historical flow patterns, but we're also going to hold back that 100-year storm. You can see here we actually have quite a bit of a gap behind that pond, and why are we not using that space? Well, that's where we're going to give you guys the easement to maintain and access this ditch. And so hopefully over time they'll get more development, they'll get more easements, and this ditch will have – proper access for maintenance purposes and to help relieve that issue.

And since, if I'm understanding this, since you're not doing septic tank, where in this picture are you going to be putting the bigger tanks?

Yeah, so you can see here there's some large areas in the rear of these units, which is why we kind of confined everything to the center because you'll have probably one or two systems back here, one system here, and then these two will probably have a system. So they're in the rear of the units along the boundaries.

So you're looking at approximately four?

Three or four. Three or four. Like I said, we're actively discussing this with our septic design bill contractor, and they're going through the various tools that they have to figure out what's going to make sense. There'll be longer drain fields, but it's going to be three or four.

Now, I heard there's two ponds. I see one. Where's the other one at?

There's one pond.

Just one? Okay, then I misunderstood that.

Yeah, everything flows. There's probably five or six feet of fall from the road to the back, so everything will be isolated to that rear pond because that's where everything will naturally flow.

Okay. So, historically, flooding on this piece of property has been on the south end where that ditch is. It just expands? Yes.

It's centralized around this ditch, and so the flooding goes north and south of this ditch, but the flooding source is that ditch. Based on our previous conversations with roads and drainage, it's twofold. It's the lack of maintenance over the ditch and the overgrowth that you get there. You'll probably see some pictures of the overgrowth. It is pretty bad in times, but it's also some culverts. There are some culverts downstream of this that are likely sized too small. You can see here there's a bridge here that's got a culvert, and I think there's another one just offscreen here that has a culvert that I believe bottleneck and restrict flow.

And that slide there, it's flowing right to left. Is that correct, to the west? Yes, sir.

Yep. It comes from up here, makes its way, crosses, comes over, and then heads on this way.

Madam Chair, I just have one other question. Yes.

You mentioned the drainage easement that would be incorporated. That's for the ditch, but as far as access to that drainage easement, is there access on this parcel? Or you're talking about the county would need to have other properties cooperation to gain access to that easement?

Um, it's a good question. We can incorporate some access to the parcel because we probably will be the only section right now that has legal access in the ditch, but the goal would be that the access is through the other properties along the ditch from road to road. That way the county can bring in one of the spider machines and properly maintain it.

Yeah, I understand. I just don't want to have it where it's a county easement and then we get blamed for not maintaining it, but we don't have access to it, so we can't maintain it. So it's kind of a

Yeah, we can likely provide some access through here. There's some easements over here on this side of the property for a transmission, I think it's TECO, line that we're not touching. And so there's likely some access that can be provided through there through the hammer of the hammer turnaround. And during level two, we can kind of show some grading that will make sure that that's a flatter area that can be... access for the county during the time of no easements until such easements are gotten for these other properties.

Go ahead. Just from my knowledge, here When we had the hurricanes, you know, the two hurricanes when we really got wet, you know, the way it was, I know that you were there. How far did the water go up? How much flooded on this property? How much?

Honestly, I don't know. I don't have record of that. I'm sure there are pictures. I know south of it was pretty bad. On this property, I want to say it was probably, I don't know, maybe a quarter midway up the property. But, again, I don't have visual representation for that. Yeah, that was a nasty deal, obviously. You know, you had back-to-back hurricanes. I know parts of the county received over 20 inches of rain. Wet's wet, though. Yeah, you're right. I had a couple properties that were close. But, yeah, hopefully we don't have that again for the foreseeable future.

And the easement, you're going to clear the easement for the county to take care of the pond and make sure that...

The pond will be private as part of the community. The easement behind the pond will be dedicated to the county for access and maintenance of that ditch.

And I guess that's a question for the county. Is that something that has been approved?

I'm sure it's been discussed during the application process.

I think Phil is here. We had had conversations with Phil Irvin a couple times about that. But no, we don't want to dedicate anything until this has been resolved. Once we get to level two and then get to design plans, then everything gets finalized.

I just want to make sure that that's an agreement that has been made.

I believe it's a condition. It's a condition of approval in the staff report and has been discussed at length prior to this application even.

Thank you. I need a confirmation. Any other question for the applicant? Thank you. I think after the public hearing, you'll be able to answer.

Sure. Absolutely. Thank you so much.

Madam Chair.

At this time, I'll open it up for public.

Madam Chair, at this time, actually, is there any organized opposition that you're aware of land development? I haven't heard of any organized opposition. No, sir. No, ma'am.

All right. Organized. So we'll open it up for public comment. And I do have a few, a hand. So we'll start with James Vitrello.

My name is James Vitello. I live at 2828 Old Tampa Highway, which is parallel east to their property. My comment is some of the stuff that he was talking about, and I don't really know the plans, but this 100-year storm plan with the pond, rest in peace. It's not going to happen. I was waist deep in my front yard. Where's this pond? Oh, six feet under that water. It's not going to hold it. The problem is there's a creek that runs east to west behind our properties. We're forgetting about the giant creek that runs from south to north and crashes into the southeast corner of my property and floods, I don't know, a couple million gallons a minute of water onto my property when it's raining. Not hurricanes, not tropical storms, summer rainstorms. Heavy summer rainstorms. I have a seven-acre parcel of land. I built a beautiful home. Me and my family, we searched for months trying to find some way to get out of suburban H-E double hockey sticks, so to speak. My oldest daughter was in the ag program, 4-H. She's currently in veterinary and medicine. She's graduated school. She's gone to college. My youngest daughter, same thing. She's always been in agriculture. We have a farm. We're listed as a farm. We raise goats, chickens. We have a donkey, pigs. So we were... We bought this property back in 2019 because it was Zone X. Zone X, no flooding. Awesome. It was great to find seven acres of property that was Zone X. So we thought, okay, this is going to be great. We're going to build our property here. We went and spent a lot of money to build a brand new home there, only for the first time when it rained. We were sitting in our back lanai biting our fingernails as the water come closer and closer and closer to our backyard. Didn't stop. Came over our septic mound, came up around both sides of our house. We're watching our investment just go out the window. We just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to build this house and it's all gonna go away here in just a couple of minutes from our summer rainstorm. That was a summer rainstorm in 2019. So then fast forward to 2021, we had a small, I don't know, what was it, a tropical storm or something that came through. I sat at my shop in Tampa. I own a diesel repair shop. I sat in my shop in Tampa on my phone watching the water come up and up over our septic mound, up onto my back patio. And I told my wife, I said, that's it. We're going to come home and it's going to be ruined. Everything's going to be gone. We're going to lose everything. So I called the county. It's not our ditch. We don't have to do with it. It's not mine. I called Swift Mud. Swift Mud came out there. It's not ours. We can't help you. I called the city. The city says, I don't know what to tell you. I called Road and Maintenance. I'm like, can you guys please, please do something with these ditches? They stay full for weeks and months at a time. I don't know what to tell you. It sucks to suck. Sorry. But nobody will help us. The old property owner, when we first moved there, was a little old Cuban couple, him and his wife. Awesome.

Sir, can you show on the map where your property's at?

Yeah, I'm to the left. SFR on the left.

Single family residential right there.

Right there. Right there?

Yep.

And if you follow that white line, I'm sorry, the yellow line there to the right there, if you follow that straight back, down, down, down, go down, right there, that ditch, if you kind of go like this, there's a ditch that runs from south to north and it hits the bank and just absolutely destroys us. Mine and his property both. the client's property, or the other guy here, whoever he is. It runs up onto the bank, so he's planning on building that pond back there. It's not going to hold it. That water's going to come over. That pond's going to be three feet under the water. Thank you.

Madam Chair, may I? Sir? Yes, I'm sorry. Sorry. So would it be fair to say that you'd be open to granting an easement on your property? A hundred percent. We tried the last time.

Like, nobody came and said anything to us. Like, he said that they had asked for one. 100%, take it, you can have it, I don't want it. When we first moved in there in 2019, I got a picture I can show you, it was beautiful. They had just came through that spider thing and cleared it all the way out, and it was beautiful. I got pictures of it, we actually put it on our desktop because it was so beautiful, white sand on the bottom of the creek, it was so cool.

Well, creek and ditch are, to me, different things.

It's a creek. It's a ditch, but water always runs through it. Like, it's never dry. There's always water running through it.

I guess for staff, do we know what, I mean, is that a county ditch back there?

Yeah, like, nobody claims it. Southwest Water Management District, a gentleman actually came out there on his laptop with a GPS and said, that's not ours. And I was like, well, I talked to the county. They said it's not theirs. The city said it's not theirs. It's private property. I said, it floods my property every time it rains. So I just fill it in. I push it in. It's mine. And he's like, well, you can't do that. I said, if it's mine, I'll fill it in. Well, you'll flood everybody downstream. Well, sucks for them. You know what I'm saying? Because I keep, I'm tired of being. Let's see.

Yeah. So Mr. Jarvis will address that. Because again, if you grant an easement, but it's not a ditch. Yeah, I don't know. And same thing with the applicant. Yeah, there will be about an easement.

You can have it.

And can you help Mr. Jarvis?

I will try. Thank you, Mr. Mink. I did not raise my hand, so I'm not sworn in. Do I not be sworn in?

No, no, you just...

Okay. For the record, Jay Jarvis, Roads and Drainage Director. Yes, this area, it's all private property. We have a little piece that's the right-of-way piece where the power plant is that we maintain. If we did come through here, it was a one-time thing just because there were concerns, but we did not get permanent easements. I think like it's been mentioned, we've talked to people, but we don't piecemeal easements because it doesn't do us any good to have a piece here and not this piece and that piece. So we haven't. unless we were able to get where we could maintain a majority of the system, we haven't pursued those easements as far as the permanent easements, even though there may be some property owners like this gentleman that's willing to grant it, you know, can we get the easement maybe between what is the Wilkinson road back to where the power plant is? We had that segment. Maybe we could main, then we would consider easements if we got everything. So yeah, That's part of it with this system, but we do not have any permanent drainage easements on that system. Anything else?

I think that's it. I'd just be curious if we have the homeowners here today that might help put the puzzle pieces together possibly.

Okay. Is staff able to pull up? I'm on Google Maps on Wilkinson. Can we pull up that crossing? Because it looks like a box culvert. Jay, I don't know if it's a box culvert or if it's a really big culvert. It is a box culvert. It is a box culvert. Just so we give some magnitude to the ditch that runs behind these properties. It's significant in size. I don't know if we can bring up that street view on Google Maps. Mr. James, you may sit.

Thank you. Sorry about that. Matt, sure. It may be best to bring this up after we hear all the testimony. Okay, fair enough. Because we're in the middle of public comment section right now. Fair enough. And here's the public comment section. Then we can bring that up. I'm good with that.

Put it on your notes, so bring it up. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next, I have Kyle Brown.

Hello, I'm Kyle Brown. I live at 915 Lebanon Road. I've lived there for 13 years. It was the very first house me and my wife bought at the age of 17, which is the SFR slash MH two years ago. I mean, it's flooded there multiple times, not just two years ago. It's a seasonal thing. I mean, if we get heavy rains, we're getting two feet in our yard. But the last one, it was about three, four feet deep. I've got pictures where my property was underwater. I had vehicles underwater, side by sides. I mean, everything. And... My neighbor, Kelly, and Dave even dug ponds to help. It hasn't helped because we're the lowest part of where all the drainage runs. We've got right next to my house the drainage ditch that they're saying. I mean, it is pretty much a river. It runs continuous water year-round. It's never dry. I've dug out the front of my property ditches because they don't maintain them. They haven't ever mowed since 2019. the ditch that's running through where SFR and all them are, where the property butts up to. And it goes from a 12-foot ditch down to a three-inch ditch. I mean, there's no comparison. I mean, it's going to all go somewhere. And it goes down, and where it goes across the road – Across Wilkinson, it runs into a pasture, so it's not even a drainage ditch. So there's really no control of where the water is going regardless.

I'm a visual person, so can you help out and point out where exactly he lives in the property?

I live at SFR slash MH.

Okay, that's your property there.

Which I bought right up there.

Okay, so you're on the other side of the property. Yes. Okay.

In which all of our neighbors, we're all in a group. So we all help out with everything, try and keep everything controlled. And, I mean, we're getting 13 strangers or 19 stranger mobile homes that we don't know. I mean, we don't know how that's going to go. I mean, we've been there for many years. We've got our ways that we've lived. I mean, we've got animals, goats, I mean, dogs. I mean, no telling what may happen behind us. People may not like us because we got goats. I mean, we are in the countryside. I mean, if we wanted the city side, we would have moved across the street. But we're in the countryside. We're in the back. And I don't see how it's fair to move 19 mobile home parks in.

Thank you. I'm sorry, are you through? I didn't mean to. I didn't want to stop you from your time. Okay. Next I have Kelly Alfred.

Hi, I'm Kelly Allred. I live at 935 Lebanon Road. I am to the south of this property. I am where, let's see, did you move? Okay, the 128, yep, 128, 129 is that. That's my property down back through there. I sent in quite a few pictures to you guys. I don't know if you got to see them or not, but there's a lot of visual pictures that were sent with rainstorm and hurricane for visuals. I also have video they told me to bring in if it's needed of some of this. Again, we agree it's the flooding. It's not just the flooding on those of us that are there now. We are My home is chest deep, and the water was that far on my property. It runs from this ditch, as the gentleman mentioned, south. So all of this water that is coming in is coming down on the ones of us that are basically kind of being left behind, I guess, on this. We have two ditches, which you aren't really able to see very well on this video, but underneath the 128 is a huge pond already dug. On the end of this property south that is not in this picture, on the 10 acres behind us, is also a ditch dug. huge we built the we dug these we did this my husband's husband and I we dug these ditches I know that they hold tons of water along with these creeks and again swift mud I've lived at my property now for almost 20 years I've owned it And Swift Mud's been in prior to us owning this property. The gentleman that lived there, same. He came in, told us that they've already brought people in. Nobody is willing to help with the drainage. For me, it's not so much that there's 19 homes being brought in. It's the drainage. It's my home that I live in and I'm going to lose at some point if this just keeps adding and keeps adding. It's not about the money for me like it is the people that want to add all these homes in here. And the other part of this that nobody seems to think about is that's 19 unsuspecting people. Those people have no idea what they're going to be getting themselves into when they rent these units. Their home may not say their homes don't flood. Their cars are going to. I promise you their cars are going to. The video and the pictures that I have sent so that you guys would be able to see shows The magnitude of water that is presented on a regular basis, on a yearly basis, it's not something that happened one time. It's not something that's happened two times. My neighbor to my left, the west side of me, is literally, again, pictures, literally building a wall around his home right now to help keep water out of his home because the last hurricane was five foot deep in his house.

Thank you, Ms. Alfred. I have no one else on my list for public hearing, so we will close public hearing, bring it back to the applicant to answer or address the issues that have been brought up. Is it on? It should be on.

Hello. There we go. Again, Chad Brooker, Traditions Engineering, 900 Orca Springs Drive. As you heard, the issue here predominantly is the drainage. We understand that. We are going to do what we can to help maintain it, but I think this is more of a regional issue that the county needs to consider helping address. And not so much just a site-specific issue. I mean, ultimately, we had conversations with Roads and Drainage before about trying to maintain this. We reached out to try and get these easements orchestrated so that that could be provided and maintained. It's not clear who owns it. Like it was mentioned, it is all private properties where this ditch lies. It's not in a right-of-way. It's not in any kind of a public track. And so easements for maintenance, for legal maintenance, is the only way to address that issue. And then ultimately probably some kind of a regional flood study to see if there are downstream bottlenecking issues with these culverts. But as far as this development goes... Again, we are trying to help be part of the solution, not the problem. We are going to dedicate the ditch. Whether the county wants it or not, it will be recorded. And the pond will be sized so that up to and including that 10 inches and 24-hour storm event does not ever leave that site. And so runoff will be drastically minimized in the post-development condition. And I can answer any additional questions you might have. Thanks.

Thank you. I think Randy has something.

Madam Chair, as you bring it back to discuss the vote, there has been a lot of discussion regarding stormwater and drainage. I'll just remind the commission, as you make your decision, it needs to be made based on compatibility and consistency, based on the density and the use that is coming before you. Questions of stormwater, drainage, and stuff, of course, will be addressed based on our technical code. But I would advise that we remain our decision based on compatibility and consistency. Thank you.

Can I ask Randy a question? Compatibility. Would you agree that there are just places that homes aren't compatible?

That's only there is places, and that would be a decision of the board when you're looking at the facts that are presented to you, whether or not that use, that's why it comes before you make a determination that it's not. The entire use of this parcel. It's not compatible. Yeah. Yes, or as presented. Okay.

Madam Chair. Yes. I'm sure if I'm looking at this too from going to the compatibility topic, looking at what's around. We have a substation that's a couple of parcels over, but everything else around here to the one constituents concern, you know, south of Highland Street or south of Old Tampa Highway is not really a mobile home park at all. And I don't see anything around it. So I would say on... On that regard, compatibility-wise, there's not other mobile embarks adjacent, so this one, in my opinion, is not compatible. With that, I'd make a motion for denial. I think the Planning Commission got it right on 7-0 denial.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second for denial. Discussion? Questions? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion for denial?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. I do want to add, and I know that this is a drainage and a flooding problem, that we kind of look at this, the county may look at this a little bit further down the road.

I believe you're talking about the area itself.

Yes, the area itself. Not necessarily this plot, but just the area itself about those ditches and those...

I'd be very surprised that Mr. Jarvis is not aware of it and has not looked into it some already, and I guess we'll keep it on.

If he could provide us an update on that, because for what I'm seeing, that's a bigger issue here with this area.

And are you wanting to do that, Jay? Yes. At this time?

I guess I would just ask of the neighbors, if you know each other, if you can help facilitate the conversations and work with Mr. Jarvis as far as if easements need to be gathered so that it could be pieced together along that back line, help us help you.

Once again, Jay Jarvis, Roads and Drainage Director. If you were to look at this overall area, this is actually the headwaters for Ichipacasassa Creek, which we're all aware of the issues that revolve around that. One of the big issues here, of course, is tailwater. Basically, Ichipacasassa fills up, backs up, and that's another thing. It basically has to build up. When it gets relief downstream, then it starts flowing back out, that type of thing. So this is being looked at. The Water Management District is currently conducting a major watershed management plan update four-inch pack of Sassa Creek that's part of this. Because of those conditions, in some cases, there's not a whole lot that can be done relative to creating where it's never you know basically to alleviate flooding because it's based upon volume capacity downstream and those types of things and there's a point where you can't go beyond the capacity of the system and what it can handle so um and then also by increasing the flow downstream then you have to look at what the impacts are to those people downstream of here by doing those things. So it's really a balance act when it comes to that. But yes, this is an area that we're very familiar with, have dealt with over the years.

And this is a, yeah, like you said, this is a countywide problem. It's not isolated to any one spot. But we as a board, historically, previous boards have made decisions to allow development in places where it shouldn't have been allowed back in the day. Things are much more sophisticated. The analysis of these things is much better. and all those things brought together. But now, in the last few years, the problem we have, we have so many people trying to squeeze into this county that we as a board, I think, have to take a big picture look at these things and say, look, these are problem areas. We need to just quit going on what the analysis says. And Randy, I totally understand what you're saying. We're not experts in drainage, we're not experts in anything like that. But we hear a lot of these cases and we see a lot of these problems and we need to apply common sense and solutions to them. And I think we did in this case right here that maybe this piece of property just isn't really compatible for homes or at least not homes that the kind of homes we're thinking of. But anyway, that's my two cents on that.

Well, and I'm also looking at the bigger picture. It's all these neighbors that are, like they said, five, four feet underwater, and their homes are being destroyed. I hate to hear that our citizens are going through this. So I don't have a solution. You probably don't have one. I think Commissioner Troutman was perfect in saying coming together. seeing where the balance is and how we can help this out because I just, you're right, I don't want to see our citizens living in these kind of conditions in the 2026. I'm sorry, you were going to say something? Yes, ma'am.

I'll just say, Jay, with respect to that right away, I have nothing else on the easement side. Hopefully we don't have hurricanes, but if we do, this is a heavily vegetated line too. At least that would give us provisions to be able to go in and remove down trees, stuff like that that may be too large for the residents. I mean, it sounds like a great... Tighten that community, but they may not have the equipment to remove some of that larger vegetation. So if the neighbors will all get together and allow us to have a easement, then at least again during more intense events, if we need to provide some heavy machinery in there, it gives us the ability to do so. Without it, obviously, we get the phone call and we can't do anything because it's private property.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

All right.

Thank you.

All right. Madam Chair, at this time, we'll go to 04.

Madam Chair, may I? Yes. For the woman in the audience who has a question, please just, if you have something that you need to communicate, if you would see the lady up at the front here, Ms. Amber Smith, who's our communications department, she will help you get the message where it needs to be.

Good morning. Shonda Bennett for the Land Development Division. This is a request for the board to consider an applicant-initiated KDC Forever de novo hearing for LDCU 2025-39, which is a 15.5-acre conditional use site for the expansion of a recreational camping use on the legal but non-conforming unpaved private access. from 20 RV cabin sites to 40 sites and other support uses and structures. Staff did recommend approval. The Planning Commission, however, denied the request four to three. The documents submitted into the record include a staff report, application, impact assessment statement, expansion criteria narrative, and a site plan. In terms of the advertisement, 16 mailers were sent to area property owners on May 15th. Three boards were posted on May 15th. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland Winter Haven Sun on May 20th, and we did receive opposition. We received six just yesterday, and Mr. Ziskell has the stack.

Yeah, we got it. We got it.

Okay, thank you. Okay. The subject site's location is to the east of Lake Wales, north of State Route 60 on the west side of Lake Kissimmee and east of Tiger Lake. The subject site is in the agriculture residential rural future land use designation fronting on the west side of Lake Simi. The unpaved access is approximately 1.75 to 2 miles long from the site to the county maintained road of Sam Keen Road. The access is an easement on the private road named Thomas Landing Road and that it also connects. to Lightsey Ranch Road, and then Sam Keen is to the south of that black line. This is a 2024 aerial context photo with the access easement displayed in white. The easement varies in size, but is at least 20 feet wide in terms of the area that vehicles would drive on. Thomas Landing Fish Camp was originally approved as a planned unit development in 1990, but it had begun operations in the 1980s shortly after the original proprietor purchased it in 1981. It was modified and given a conditional use designation in 2002 under approval of CU-0218 because of its non-conforming status to the LDC. It was again modified in 2004 to reach its current approval of a 15.65 acre recreational camping facility consisting of one single family residence, one two bedroom guest cottage, one mobile home, a 12 seat cafe, 1800 square feet maintenance building, 1100 square feet screened meeting hall, 500 square foot bait shop, one propane and gasoline tank with dispensing pump, a boat trailer parking area, 470 foot 5 pier, and a 20 RV camping site with water, septic, and electrical service. The use of the property meets all the requirements of recreational camping from Section 303 of the Land Development Code, except for direct access to a public road or private road meeting county standards. Thomas Landing Fish Camp takes access from Thomas Fish Camp Road, an unpaved access easement without a known maintenance entity, which connects to Lightsea Ranch Road, another unpaved access easement that is privately owned and maintained before it reaches Sam Keen Road, a paved county maintained road. The CU-0218 property consisted of two parcels and are now under separate ownership. The owner of the north portion and the owners of the south portion disagree with the equal sharing of the current list of use entitlements. Therefore, the owners of the south portion are applying to increase the number of certain entitlements so that they can pursue separate paths to utilizing the property. These include an additional 20 RV campsites with water, septic, and electrical service, a two-bedroom guest cottage, 2,400-maintenance-square-foot building, gasoline tank with dispensing pump, boat trailer parking, a 475-foot pier, two 600-square-foot bathhouses, cook sheds, and a 2,400-storage shed pole barn. Thomas Landing Fish Camp originated with a house, a few cottages, a mobile home, bait shop, entertainment venue, boat ramp, boat dock, feeding facility, and primitive camping. Through planning commission approval, the 20 RV campsites were added in 2002 under the expansion of a non-conforming use process. Now another 20 are requested. With the addition, more accessory structures and another residence are included as well. Staff finds this request is compatible with the surrounding land uses, the rule level of infrastructure available, and the environmental limitations of the site. For 40 years, Thomas Landing Fish Camp has existed in this location with no use or condition on nearby properties being unduly negatively impacted by its operation. This expansion of the number of camp sites will not directly or indirectly result in an adverse impact to another use or condition nearby. This is a site plan displayed on exhibit six of the staff report. The new structures to be added are outlined in black boxes to include cook shed, bath houses, pole barn, maintenance buildings. Staff finds the request consistent with chapter three of the land development code for recreational camping. Again, with the access as the non-conforming use. Chapter three limits the units per acre in recreational camping to no more than four units per acre, which is a total of 62 sites. And if this request is approved, this is less than at 40 units. There are six criteria in Section 120, which is our legal non-conforming section of the Land Development Code, to be considered when reviewing a requested expansion. These criteria are briefly summarized in Table 11 on page 19 of the report. Findings of fact are provided, and recommended conditions of approval are also listed in the staff report. The data and analysis to support each summary statement are included in the report. Although this expansion nearly doubles the intensity of the facility, it is of such low intensity that it will neither overburden the private paved access nor become incompatible with neighboring land uses, infrastructure, or environmental conditions. In the end, the result of this approval will expand, excuse me, will expand the total development and provide a separate autonomous set of entitlements for each property, giving the property owner's ability to seek approvals without the consent of the other owner. Several conditions have been provided. One specific condition to reference is that Public safety staff and fire marshal office staff may close the facility if access road is not adequately maintained for all public safety vehicles, as well as allowing some flexibility of the placement of the structure seen on the site plan as long as they're not within 50 feet of the property boundary. There is a single-family residence immediately to the south on nearly seven acres. The property appraiser's website estimates its origin to be 1901. It appears to be of seasonal use. Deed restrictions state one resort cabin or residential home. The rest of the surrounding area is predominantly pasture or pristine wilderness. There are a few properties with makeshift structures, RVs, carports, and sheds, referred to as hunting camps. Some have electrical connections, and a few have electrical meters. County Building Division and Property Appraiser's Office have no records of development on these properties. They are taxed as inaccessible lands. Much of the surrounding property is owned by the Southwest Flood and Water Management District, which borders the lake. However, much more of the surrounding property is owned by the Light Sea Cattle Company. In Polk County, the Light Sea Cattle Company consists of four separate ranches. According to the website, Lightsea Cattle Company restored some of this by partnering with the Nature Conservancy on a pilot program that restored the natural water flow on the property and welcomed back wildlife and thriving vegetation. The request is consistent with other recreational camping uses in the larger vicinity. This slide displays other sites such as Camp Mack, Lake Kissimmee State Park, Coleman Landing, and Grape Hammock. with more camping sites than is being requested. This is this picture looking at the property at the south side entrance. This is standing on the southern parcel looking toward the north to the northern parcel. This is at the lake with the boat dock looking toward the east toward the lake. And this is looking north to the northern property. You can see that there's an interior pond on the site. This is the bait shop, which the property line actually cuts the bait shop in half. And you can see the barbed wire approximately designating that parcel bifurcation. This is looking east again on the west side of the southern parcel looking at the lake. This is where we stop at the county-maintained road, Sand King Road, and enter the access easement, Lightsey Ranch Road. And you can see a gate there that's maintained by the Lightsey Ranch. This is looking at that gate itself. And then these photographs just keep taking us closer to the site. This is Lightsey Ranch Road, so if you would turn right here, you're on Thomas Landing Road heading east toward the lake. And here, getting closer to the site, you can see how the pavement or the stability of the access changes. This is toward the, as Thomas Landing starts to go north, getting closer to the site here, and you can see how it changes, and then getting closer to the site. The justification for approval is the unpaid private road is an adequate condition to increase from 20 to 40 campsites that are primarily used on a seasonal basis. Access is limited and controlled due to the locking gate. The Leipzig Ranch does have cattle on the property and staff offered the condition that public safety can close the use down if they can't get their public safety vehicles to the site. Most of the surrounding areas under government ownership or conservation easement provides camping and boat access in a remote area. And staff finds it's consistent with the Comprehensive Planet Land Development Code for recreational camping and lake access. And I'll stand for any questions.

Any questions for staff? Just one.

So no permanent structures, just campers?

There's one in there.

Well, one exists already.

The maintenance buildings. Right. But those will be permanent.

None will be allowed to be added with this.

It's going to say there is one cottage. If you look, Sean, to go back to where you listed them out, it did include a permanent guest cottage.

But that was included on the before the parcel was divided up. Is that correct?

It would. It was included on the property in its entirety, and I believe there's one existing on the north piece, so this would also be adding a permanent structure to the south.

Just one? Yeah.

Yeah.

To confirm on- To confirm, so everything that's in gray for the south side approval is already existing, it's just the stuff in yellow that's going to be proposed, is that correct? I mean, as far as what's existing structure-wise? I saw the pier is already in the picture by the boat ramp, so that's...

The items in gray are more support considered uses to the items in yellow. So the 20 RV campsites, those will certainly be the uses generating the traffic. And the one two-bedroom guest cottage, the other items are to be provided in support of that. You will see the pier here and the bait shop. The bait shop's divided and the pier is there also. on the southern parcel theoretically this approval could grant the ability of the northern parcel to build another 475 foot pier but you can see there are several existing permanent structures on the northern parcel and some other structures here that I'm not so sure if they're permitted or not I'd have to let the applicant answer that question

Okay, and then one other thing on the property appraiser aerial from 2007, just doing a rough count, there's 14 or 15, what appears, campers that are on just the south side of that property. I know in 07 this wasn't, I don't think it was split at that point in time. But so there's, I guess, from a historical perspective, this is operated to some extent with 20 or so campers on it periodically, correct? Like it's had that amount of traffic coming to it at some point in time.

Yes, and I would say some years it might have been at the maximum level, and other years it might have had nothing on it. So it's fluctuated over time.

Gotcha. And then do we have, I guess maybe the applicant will talk about it, as far as ownership of the southern property, as far as, you know, that's now a different owner from the north. So they've tried working with the northern property owner, and that hasn't come to fruition of any type of agreement. That's why we're here today, correct?

That's my understanding.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. We'll move on to the applicant.

As the applicant comes forward, I would ask the commissioners have there been ex parte communication site visits, personal knowledge, or other information you may have regarding this item that you need to disclose at this time. Commissioner Troutman.

Yes, I've had ex parte communications with both sides that you would consider as opposition and applicant.

Commissioner Wilson.

Yes, with the applicant.

Commissioners. Both sides for me. Both sides. Thank you. And my understanding from land development, at this time there has not been any organized opposition filed. Is that correct?

Correct.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Nothing further at this time.

Thank you. Good morning. I think it's still morning at this point. My name is Maddie Hardin-Tondreau, and I come from the law firm of Hardin, Ball & Tondreau at 1905 Bartow Road, Lakeland, Florida, 33801. Today, I have the privilege and the opportunity to represent the applicant in this case, and that is KDC Forever, LLC. I'd like to start with a little bit of the history of the property to kind of give a little bit more color, if you will, as to why we are here before the commission today. Originally, back actually in the 1980s, there was... The Thomas Landing was in operation. They then applied for a conditional use permit. At that time, Mr. Thomas owned the entire 15-acre parcel. Sometime down the road in the mid-2000s, later 2000s, the parcel was split through tax deeds, and that's where we arrive at two owners under one conditional use permit. My client is KDC Forever LLC. Its intent with this property is purely and completely non-commercial. I want to start with that notion because I think that there has been some opposition as it relates to commercial operations out there. The group I represent are... What I would call actually stewards of the land and what they do is they use this land for many generations previously they started as some of these members were members of a group commonly referred to as Ducks Inc that you may be familiar with Ducks Inc also owns a few parcels in this River Ranch acre area there are about less than 40 members of Ducks Inc. It's a private group, not-for-profit group that they use that camp for hunting, duck hunting purposes basically. So it's a very seasonal use at that. The members of KDC Forever are also, it's actually half that size of duck sink and they're also a part of duck sink as well so there's a little bit of duplication in that regard but it's the same people so we're not actually looking at new people coming and using this land but what they do is they come and they say on the weekends during you guessed it duck hunting season and they use it for camping purposes with several generations quite actually from there they're not the ones that are out there riding the ATVs the four wheelers are causing any of the commotion from there they're simply using it for duck hunting purposes again it's a seasonal use. What I also found to be interesting from the staff report that I think is actually helpful in this situation is not only while it seems like doubling the use sounds pretty significant, we're really going from 20 to 40, but of the same people already using it. Moreover, the road studies, which is the non-conforming use in this situation, is because of the roadway. And if there is actually more traffic, it's actually better for the roadway because it actually compacts the ground or the gravel or the dirt, if you will, getting out there. So it's actually a good thing in that regard to maintain and keep emergency personnel from being able to access from there. There was kind of the impetus of why are we here? Why do we need this split of the use to Commissioner Scott's question? There has been and what you will see in the opposition emails that I'm sure you've heard about is the northern property owner is believed to have some intent to make a commercial operation on the northern parcel. that is not consistent with what my client intends to do with the land. It's still purely for that recreational purpose. But when we came to... There's been... some improvements if you will on that northern parcel without our consent our knowledge and without actual building permits and when we went to the county to apply for permits we were told you we're going to have to have both landowners consent to that building permit and that's where we kind of got put at this standstill, if you will, of I'm not going to agree to yours if you're not going to agree to mine. And that left us in quite the pickle. My clients are those that want to be good neighbors, good stewards of the land. They want to follow the land development code. They want to use it consistent with the other uses in this area. And they're actually simply coming here to do the right thing, which is get that approval before they go out there and add any rv or or campsite from there which is not historically what has been done or maybe being done on that north parcel so this is basically the solution to kind of help us separate um i did review the email correspondence in opposition that i believe you guys were provided a copy of i want to make it clear this is what kind of came up at the Planning Commission meeting and that was the opposition was primarily as it relates to the northern parcels use of the land the commercial operation and I think that there has been confusion between some of these these surrounding land users if you will as to what our intent is and what this is not and that is not to I guess it's not for the commission to prove anything that the northern property owner is using nor are we a part of that and so if you actually look at that opposition it is specific to that northern property use we are not intending to use it for commercial purposes and in fact when my client has had conversations with some of these People that have written letters in opposition, they have no objection to what KDC Forever is using. There was also a recent conversation with Mr. Lightsey. He previously had opposed it. As of yesterday, I've been told that he no longer opposes this. He's actually in support of it and what KDC intends to use. As it is, it is just something that for many generations already, this group hopes to keep safe i guess for future generations to be able to use the land and have the outdoors which i think is a good thing as well so with that i will i will yield to the board for any questions you may have

Any question for the applicant?

Madam Chair? Yes. Just a couple. So one is, and one will be for you, and one actually is to go back to the staff. But this is titled as Thomas Landing Fish Camp Expansion. So when I read that title, to me it means there's a fish camp, there's actively seeking participants, like outside people to come in and participate in fish camp activities, right? I don't think of it as a duck hunting, passive recreational, members only type thing. So I guess... Just with that, as far as the case names, is that Thomas Land that come from the original site and it just kind of conveniently got named an expansion plan?

Yeah, maybe not in a great notion at that, consistent with the actual use. But yes, that is what was originally permitted and that's what has been historically known as Thomas Fish Camp from back in the 1980s. So I think that name has just carried itself. I'm guessing the expansion comes in of... We're asking for kind of the duplication of a couple of those conditional uses by, i.e., the 20 RV sites and the guest cottage from there. And that's the expansion of it from there so that we can separate the two parcels.

Okay, and two other things. One is, in the opposition emails, there were several that included photos of, it looked like just junk that got placed, and there's half of a mobile home and some other stuff. Is that on this parcel, or is that all from the northern parcel?

That is all on the northern parcel. Currently, there is only one mobile trailer on the southern parcel, but none of those improvements that were photographed and included in those emails. are on the southern parcel. I would also, you saw the bait shop, I guess, if you will, that's got the fence that runs right through the middle of it. My client would be perfectly fine with tearing that part down. Obviously, we need the consent of the northern parcel from there, but that would be the only actual structure that's currently located on our parcel.

Okay, and the last question I had, and you may can answer this or maybe do back to staff, is Since this is two separate owners, why wouldn't this go just as a conditional use request for the southern parcel as a standalone versus like an expansion or a duplication? I'm not understanding if it's truly two separate entities that own the property, why not just come in for a new conditional use of a non-conforming and let that be the application versus it being an expansion or duplication?

You're absolutely correct. That's above my pay grade, and so I'm going to turn it over to you.

If I may, Shonda Bennett with Land Development Division. Any new recreational camping use has to have direct access to a paved county road, and this does not.

So this is an expansion of a legal non-conforming use? Without having that being an expansion of a non-legal conforming use, it would not meet that requirement. So that's the reason why we have to play off of that current CU and expand it. and this property was part of the original non-conforming parcel.

Right, but it couldn't stand on its own.

No, it couldn't. We looked at that, and we didn't feel that it would stand on its own under our code, and because this parcel was part of the original non-conforming approval that we have, we were able to use that to expand to use this southern property.

Do we have to handle, and this may be applicant or staff, as far as the bait shop that's split in the middle by property line, does that become like a long-term issue that has to be conditioned?

Unfortunately, that's probably something we wouldn't touch during the CU process if it became.

We don't have to worry about it. Okay, I just want to make sure it wasn't like, you know, yay or nay, but, you know.

No, no, that would be, and if it became such dilapidating, which unfortunately if code enforcement got involved and stuff, that's something they would have to work together to come to compliance. Okay, very good. Thank you.

EXPLAIN SOMETHING TO ME.

YOU SAID ORIGINALLY THAT THIS WAS NOT GOING TO BE FOR COMMERCIAL USE. IT'S BASICALLY ALL RECREATIONAL, THE ADDITIONAL.

So how are you going to add 20 new sites, and who's going to use those sites if it's not commercial?

Only the members of the limited liability company. So the entity is a private membership group, and it would only be used by the members of that group, which are already commercial. property owners out there through duck sink and using the land as well.

They already have areas where they go to and they're just moving into this new area where you're looking for the expansion.

Correct. They want to move it closer to the lake because that's where they get the access for the duck hunting.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Since we're in a public meeting now, there's the list of the original ones that are there, and then you'll see those there. So they are already out there, but that's just for your information.

If I may, Madam Chair, just so we don't get too far into who's using it, I remind the board that you're not looking at the users. That's really irrelevant is whether or not this density or this use is compatible with the surrounding area. quite frankly, it could get sold, those rights pass on. So you're really looking at whether or not the use currently that they're asking for is compatible with the surrounding use.

Well, the reason I asked, because she mentioned that this was not going to be for commercial but recreational, so I wanted her to explain a little bit more.

I understand that, but we go off. I believe only what the board is looking at is compatibility and consistency.

Did you want to say something, Commissioner Troutman?

Yes, Madam Chair. And this kind of goes to staff, but also to try to give some peace of mind to the residents that we have seen in the written opposition. I'm sure we may hear them shortly. But the condition of no commercial activity and the condition of no short-term rental activity out there as well. And looking at the conditions currently, Those are not spelled out, I believe.

That's correct. There's no conditions of that nature. The definition of recreational camping, though, allows for overnight stays less than 30 days, which is the same thing as a short-term rental. If it's an owner... The limitation of the intensity is based on the number of camping sites versus how they're used. Yes, because the owners could rent it out to you and me, and we could stay there. There's no prohibition in the code or the definition or these conditions, nor is that a prohibition anywhere else. The other sites that are on the lake, Coleman Landing, the county owns that facility, and we rent that out to all citizens, but it's very low intensity. You bring in your RV and you leave. So the recreational camping is meant to be something less intense than an RV park or an intense camping site. It's low intensity type. So commercial isn't even something that we consider and commercial uses are defined by the land development code in terms of what other land use categories are allowed in like Community activity center or convenience center or something like that. This is agriculture residential rule.

So Camping is the only thing that can happen And again, I feel safe with the individuals that are now part of KDC forever But if it gets sold trying to build in those assurances for the neighbors that have been there For many years and the fears, you know of what this site could turn into that might resemble a commercial activity so just trying to find that balance and

I completely understand, and the analysis that staff provided was really based on if they kept campsites and occupied them on a regular basis. We have to consider that possibility, not an intermittent basis. So that was something we did consider. I would assume they might not be camping there now. It's hot, but they could. That could be there, and we felt the impacts on the infrastructure, the road, is certainly an increase, but it's not a significant enough increase for staff to have recommended denial. Okay.

Let me make sure I understand what you just said. So basically, it could be used as a commercial use for 40 campsites, assuming we approved it. Well, the southern section is 20. Yeah, okay, 20, yeah.

North 20 and south 20 if it's approved, so total of four.

to your part on the roads, there's not a 40 total or 20 on the south, whatever you want to call it. There's not a number that'll trip a need for calling it commercial, for lack of a better way to explain it.

Correct.

I mean, it's just not enough use to matter in this case. Would that be correct?

This is a non-residential use because it's not full-time residential. But it's not a commercial either in the sense that it's not a convenience store. It's not a Publix. It's not that kind of a commercial.

Well, but, I mean, anybody who lives next to a campground thinks it's commercial. I mean, it's different people coming in every day and leaving.

No, I get that completely, yeah.

Madam Chair?

Yes. You know, it boils right down. It's a hunt camp. People, you know, they've been there. Most of these people have been on there. It's been generations. They duck hunt. We've all, you know, as Polk County boys, we've been involved in that kind of stuff over the years. It's deer hunting, duck hunting, or whatever, with clubs, with groups. And, you know, the main way you get in there, I mean, they don't want anybody else in there. The main way you get in there is somebody dies off. and they do something to put another member in the club. So I don't think there are going to be any commercial uses there. I don't think there's going to be. It's just going to be like it has been. We've got a dispute here. We want to get resolved so people can do what they've been doing for generations. Am I correct on that?

That is it. And I want to make kind of that clarification and piggyback off of that is the reason I bring up the commercial use is not because it's an issue for us. That's exactly what was raised in these letters of opposition. And I think it's misguided in the sense that there's a rumor mill going on with the northern property owner and what their intent is to use. And that has nothing to do with us. And so I just wanted to distinguish that as these complaints and the opposition is really related to a completely different property owner. and another property's use that's not related to us. I just wanted you to understand the distinguishment between the north parcel and the south parcel.

But for me, the issue is, yeah, it's not commercial now. Partners have fallen out. Partners split up. Things change. And what we decide here today, I guess it could be revisited. Yeah, yeah, we're not, yeah, okay, never mind. I'm good with that. I was thinking that was a one-time deal, but no, I mean, we can come back and change this.

Commissioner Scott and one other topic too because I know it came up during the agenda review as far as the septic system Location goes obviously we are now all knowing with respect to location of septic systems and relative close proximity to main water bodies either lake and Presumably I have not been to the site and I don't know the distance of the existing system to the lake but you know if it's non-conforming to current day requirements. Are we able to condition this that there would be at least an evaluation by an expert in septic systems that if a new system needs to be installed to be conforming and not? I just don't want to see a use go you add 20 RV sites and they're all going to use a common bathhouse and we're further polluting a lake water body that we're already paying. I don't know on this specific lake, but a lot of our lakes within the county are impaired. So we spend millions of dollars both collectively on the public and private side to help improve water quality just in ways that we can be proactive to not further contribute to the degradation of those water bodies. I'd like to be able to do that as well. But if you know of the current system or if you could speak to that, I think that may help on some of the uncertainty that was there about further pollution.

Yeah, so first and foremost, just because the conditional use is granted for this purpose doesn't mean that we don't have to go through the permitting process later on down the road for these septic systems, the electric or the two-bedroom cottage, if you will. So there's still a permit application process and a review to ensure that it is to modern-day standards. So there is that protection in place as it is, because by granting this doesn't mean we have a right to go back building right now we still have to go through the building permit process but to answer your question as far as there is a current septic system located it is if you will look at the southern parcel there' It looks like oak hammocks, so to speak, on the, if that's facing north, on the east side of the property along the water line. That septic system is west of that tree line, so to speak, there. And to the extent that it was not enough or sufficient enough for the purpose of the bathhouse, so to speak, then we would certainly be willing to bring it up to conforming use with applicable standards.

Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant? Hearing none, thank you very much. Thank you. Now we'll open it for public hearing. And I do have, well, actually I had two. Maddie, you were also on the public hearing, so I'm just going to go ahead and have the next person speak. I have Kevin Mahaffrey. Microphone. Huh? Turn your mic. Turn your mic. I just don't want to hear you guys hear me coughing, so I turn it off. So, Kevin Mahaffrey.

We do anyway.

Yeah, I know you do anyway.

Hello. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Kevin Meharry. I live at 2312 County Road 446, Lake Panasoftee, Florida. I am the owner of the property to the south of the Duck Club's property. That big pond that you see to the south is created because the other two properties raised the level of their land, and we get the big end of the stick, I guess. I'd like to correct a couple things that you guys have on your staff report. On page 28 of your staff report, it says that my property is a deed restricted to one vacation dwelling. So were the other two properties. And Mr. Leitzley brought in the deed restriction to the last planning commission meeting and presented it to the commission. Not that that matters, but it's just, you know, words matter. Owned by Southwest Florida Water Management District. That's incorrect. It's the South Florida Water Management District. I know I'm splitting hairs, but again, words matter. In their report, it says that additional traffic on the sand road is going to improve it. I don't know what planet they're from that they think that that's true. Have you ever seen a dirt road that got better with more traffic? I personally have not. I can tell you from the 20 permits that Thomas Landing originally had, it only takes one weekend and that road is impassable. You're going to have to get a platform, rice and cane, a tired buggy to come pull you out if it gets too dry or too wet. I do have a couple of pictures here that I'd like to enter into record. One is the picture of the road as soon as you come off of Lightsey Ranch Road onto Sam Keen Road. It shows two additional roads right next to it because it's such a good road.

Let me stop you right there. Can you stop the time for a minute? Can we put those up there so that we can see it?

And the second one is the...

When she puts it up, you can go ahead and explain it. It makes it easier for us to see what you're talking about. Gotcha. Okay. You could go ahead and add a couple of seconds to his time if we can. Or I'll let him go beyond the time since we need to stop. We'll add it at the very end. Don't worry. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

All of the staff pictures that you saw were taking on the pristine, perfect condition day to give you a great looking road. And it was just graded, I'm sure, as well. This is two extra roads that have started on that pasture because it gets so bad in the main road that they started another one. And then it got so bad on that one that they started another one next to that. So you're just going to keep moving that road further and further into Mr. Lightsey's pasture. And that's the area that's too dry. If you keep on going down and when you make your left paralleling the shoreline of Lake Kissimmee, that whole road, when it's too wet, is impassable. I know there was a mention of the EMS being able to access the lake through Thomas Landing. They just had a thing out there a few weekends ago where they accessed it through the River Ranch Club's boat ramp. So we can get to the lake in other ways. The site shouldn't even have this conditional use permit. Thomas landing actually, while Earl Thomas was still alive, he, uh, let the, the, uh, conditions of the conditional use permit lapse to where y'all should have taken that, taken that, uh, uh, conditional use permit away from that property in 2015. It wasn't until 2017 that the, uh, Duck Club got a hold of their property in 2020 for Scott Henderson. And I'd just like to finish. This is my last thing, and I'll stop. Section 120, Chapter 1, Section 120, Nonconformities. The cessation of the nonconforming use for any reason for more than 24 consecutive months shall be a reason for you to take away these permits. And it was definitely longer than 24 months that this place was shut down. And in Section D, it says that you should prohibit the expansion and alteration of nonconformities that have the potential to adversely affect surrounding properties and the community as a whole. There's one house per five acres on this residential rule area use code, whatever, and you're trying to put 20 on seven acres. It's a lot, guys. Thank you. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. I don't have any other public speakers for public hearing, so we will close the public hearing and we'll bring it back to the applicant if you want to address any of the issues that was mentioned.

Just briefly, there's no competent evidence, which is a standard that you have to consider in making this decision of this second and third road being the cause of anybody by KDC. There's other land users out there. As indicated in the staff report, which is that competent evidence, that additional but minimal extra use would add to the compaction from there. And so that's just a brief response to that as far as the road conditions are. But there is a thing here is being able to have EMS have access out there and that being required as well. So thank you.

So thank you. Public hearing is closed. And now I bring it back to the board for discussion.

Yes. I was going to make a motion that we could then discuss. So I make a motion for approval.

Second.

I have a motion and a second for approval. Any questions in discussion? Yes, Commissioner Scott.

Madam Chair, this would be for staff. Just on our condition specific to the roadway being passable or in condition for EMS to go there, I guess, how do we envision... maintaining that and then two you know obviously if it's a 911 call and it's firing ems is rolling out there and they get there and it's not impassable i mean obviously we have other all-terrain ways to get there we've done it in other areas of the county but i guess just in managing that as a condition and then is it a thing where we wait for ems to radio back and say we can't get in there and now we we shut down the operation it just seems i don't know that Can we add any more detail to that condition or how are we proactive on that? If you can just help me understand that a bit more.

I don't feel... Confident enough to add more to that condition without speaking to public safety to be honest with you The only thing I can think of is how it would be implemented is just how you described that somebody Public safety staff member needs to get there for some reason and realizes this is difficult for us to get there and then they call Stafford and then we coordinate the closure of the use until such time as the access is fixed. I

If I may, I just want one clarification. Currently, is there that condition required for the northern parcel?

I do not know. I don't have the conditions of the PUD and the O2 condition. I'm sorry.

I was trying to figure out what was the difference between the northern and the southern in that regard. I think it only has to be brought to our attention that it doesn't meet those requirements, and then the fire marshal will go out and check it and see if It doesn't meet the conditions. And then at that point, they would inform the property owners, hey, you need to bring this up. And if they don't, then we would pretty much stop them from operating until they brought up to those conditions. But I think it would have to be brought to our attention at that point.

And that is for the entirety of the road from the paved portion all the way to this site. That is my understanding, correct?

Yeah, I would read that condition. It says if the access road is not adequately maintained, meaning from Sam Keene all the way to their access point. Yeah.

Yes. Randy? Yes, sir. Turn on your mic.

We keep turning these mics off. Being said that, what do we do with the other 10,000, no, we have not, thousands of miles of roads? I know it's a different deal.

I'm just asking for them all. It would be a similar deal if we, a lot of times we've heard that required.

And they've been that way for years. Yes, sir. And it's rained for thousands of gallons of water. You've got to deal with it.

Yes, sir. It's brought to our attention. I don't think we go out and monitor them or check it. We get a call from a neighbor or we get a call from a property owner, and then that's when we address it. Our code enforcement comes across it and reports it to us.

And I'm sure the main reason I bring that up, I just want to make sure the applicant, I mean, obviously they're aware of the condition, but to be good stewards and maintain that road so they are able to retain access to their site. And also in case of a medical emergency, there's not that oh no scenario.

I think one of the things on this, Commissioner Scott, maybe ease it a little bit. Unlike other approvals like Commissioner Wilson spoke to, this one actually has a specific requirement. although I think there is a general requirement under your Florida Fire Prevention Code, because we've used it before when we found that there was not, probably couldn't be assessed because of the road conditions. We've used the Florida... fire prevention code this one actually has it in their condition approval so i think it's at a higher uh no they notice it now compared to what what what would have been in just in the fire prevention code very good thank you yes so i have so do i understand light sea cattle or somebody owns this road in its entirety and has conveyed a perpetual easement for the road

I don't know about a perpetual easement, but certainly the Lightsy Cattle Company owns the road.

If you can correct, and I know, Matt, my understanding, this is a paper plat, and as you're aware of in paper plats and stuff, there's always easements that's recorded with those paper plats, and this is one of those easements that's recorded as part of the paper plat. Okay. So when they first subdivided the property, there was easements placed all through here. All right.

And just for the record, I've had ongoing conversations with Mr. Lightsey, um, to, to get his opinion in understanding of this concept. And I think definitely just by the fact he's probably not here cause he's probably working cows, but, um, he has had, you know, some input and learned a little bit about, again, we can say who the users are now. It's not a condition based upon just their ownership. But there's been a lot of discussion with Mr. Lightsey in regards to what the true intent of this application is. Because I think, as Commissioner Scott pointed out, the name alone can cause some confusion and concern.

Any of the questions, comments? Okay, so I have a motion and a second for approval. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

Thank you, Madam Chair. At this time, we have one last day noble hearing. That's 05. And while Ian gets this set up, I'll go ahead and ask commissioners if they have had any ex parte communication site visits or other knowledge regarding this case that they need to disclose at this time. Commissioner Troutman. Commissioner Wilson. Commissioner Santiago. Commissioner Braswell. Both sides. Commissioner Scott.

Yes, sir. With the It would be with the developer.

I just glazed over in my mind the meeting that we had, so sorry about that. I've changed that back to you.

Okay. Thank you. He's losing it. All right. Madam Chair, that's it. I'll turn it over to Mr. Nance to present 05.

All right, good morning again. Ian Nance with Land Development. LDSPD 2025-2 is a request for 31 single-family lots on approximately 15 upland acres. On April 1st, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to approve this application, and it was subsequently appealed by a member of the public. On May 15th, a board was posted on site, and 35 mailers were sent to area property owners. A legal ad was published on May 20th. Staff has logged one response in opposition that I'll hand out here shortly. Subject site is located at 1994 Old Dixie Highway, west of the Polk Parkway in Auburndale on Section 5, Township 28, Range 25. Then our high school is to the west and single family homes on the surrounding uses. The site is split between residential suburban with a small portion of residential medium to the east. and the applicant has chosen to pursue the suburban plan development route. Through policy within the land development code that allows increased density through locational criteria such as proximity to schools, roads, and utilities, an SBD can attain up to three dwelling units per acre. This plan with 31 lots and minimum lot sizes of 10,010 square feet reaches 2.07 dwelling units per acre on the 15 acres of wetland. All RS setbacks will be met. Landscaping, shielded street lighting, and sidewalks will be required. Access will be directly onto Old Dixie Highway. The site layout uses open space and stormwater ponds to buffer between proposed homes and existing properties which are larger in size. The site plan meets a 20% minimum of open space, not including the wetlands, and will provide for passive recreation amenities. The site has also accomplished the necessary locational points for the requested density. What is shown here is a projected flood zone with an undetermined base flood elevation. Wetlands in the man-made surface waters are also found to the north side of the site. Here's a layout over the site with proposed lots sited to the south of these features. A flood study will be required prior to level two review approval, as will be the review of the stormwater ponds by land development staff and the water management district. These lots will utilize private septic systems and connection to sewer is not required at this location. The access to the site is on the westbound lane of Old Dixie Highway, which begins to divide at the site for access to the Parkway. Eastbound traffic will have to make a U-turn at Hickory Road to enter and one at Sims Road when leaving and traveling east. The number of trips proposed by the 31 homes will not trigger intersection improvements or require major traffic study, but this will be reviewed again during the Level 2 phase. I talked about traffic and flood studies. There is school capacity and Auburndale provide potable water and they have capacity. In summary, the site is limited to just about this density given the wetlands and flood and wastewater connection or lack of wastewater connection and the challenges to access. Staff does find that it is consistent with the land development code and comprehensive plan. Given the surrounding residential uses and strategies incorporated into buffering from off-site uses, staff finds request compatible surrounding uses, recommends approval. With that, I think you will stand for questions.

Any question for staff?

Yes, Commissioner. What is the going on down Old Dixie? What's that development that's going in across from Tenerock? Do you know? We approved it years ago, and I think it's just now getting started.

Yeah, it was an SPD. Shallot Preserve, yes.

And how many, any idea how many homes? What kind of density? It was three dwelling units per acre. It was a substantial number.

Sounds like the applicant may know. Okay. I'll get my answers from him. I actually did that case, but it's been so many years ago.

Any questions? Any other questions? Yes, Commissioner.

Yeah, just when we have the, as far as the county goes, when we have a flood zone with the undetermined elevation, how are we handling that on the cup-for-cup analysis when we look at floodplain compensation?

That's going to be reviewed by our floodplain manager and our engineering, I know, county engineer. Yeah. here if you'd like to speak with him about the technical aspects of that, but it is a cup for cup compensation for storm or, um, floodplain impacts.

Yeah. Um, if Gator could speak to that, just so we understand from an elevation when it's talked about as an unknown or undetermined elevation, how does that get interpreted?

For the record, Clinton Howerton, Jr., or go by Gator, county engineer. Yes, part of the level, too, we'd be doing the analysis on that. And part of the requirements in the code is even mentioned in the environmental review on the staff report section in there is that we have to do an analysis on that site for this area. This is a relatively large floodplain area there, so we might not. go to the full extent of the full basin study on there. But it's pretty clear that the lines pretty much kind of follow the 125 contour line or they're about. So I'm just kind of looking at a ballpark and it's kind of following contour lines there. So it seems to be pretty consistent. So we probably would look at some information, look at some preliminary or some basic analysis on that. along with the consultant, engineering consultant as part of that review, and make sure that it stays outside of there. Then if there are any impacts to that floodplain, which it looks like the layout that they have proposed can stay, have buildable areas outside of the floodplain, so they would not need to go in there and impact that potentially. So if that's the case, we stay out of those flood areas, then we wouldn't have any impacts directly to the floodplain. But if there are some, it would be a one-for-one.

While you're up here, can you go to the image that's got the site plan that's more zoomed in? So, yeah, so that just on one actually. So the kind of the sawtooth line that's south of our shaded line, we're saying that's not part of the floodplain or that is? I think it's probably getting muted because of the white transparent background. So that floodplain comes into all those lots, correct? Okay.

Right, so some of these lots would be in it, but it looks like they have a developable area outside of that floodplain, so we'd be looking at requiring that the development of the lot probably stay on that upland side of it. If they are looking at doing any proposed filling back in there, then we would do the... a cup for a cup, and analyze the amount of filled volume that's going into that floodplain area and make sure that that area is being set aside outside and created so that the net result is no decrease in volume to the floodplain, but it would be, if anything, an increase.

What's the depth of those lots? I can't really read it in the copy. Do we know what the depth of the lot is?

He knows.

I see it. Yeah, he knows. I got to find that.

Another 60 feet wide is what we look at.

Yeah, I read that. I tried to zoom in on my paper, but I can't get it. 315 feet.

315, okay. And also, his site plan was derived in this floodplain line based on generalized information that I see in our GIS viewers, too. So the work hasn't been done to make sure that that's… No, I get that.

But it's not going to move by, like, 300 feet. So we know that it may move a few feet. I've been around this for a while. Okay, very good. That's all I have for now.

Any other questions for staff? Okay, hearing none. Is the applicant here?

Madam Chair, while the applicant comes forward, I just want to confirm we don't have any organized opposition filed for this case, correct? We have opposition, but not organized opposition. It's a little bit different. Do you have signatures from each one saying they can speak on your behalf and that they waive their time? Okay, so you'll get your opportunity to speak. It just won't be organized opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Tony Wierschke. Good morning, commissioners and chairmen. My name is Tony Wierschke. My address is 4307 Cleveland Heights Boulevard, Lakeland, Florida. I'm the owner of the subject property associated with the Old Dixie Highway SPD request. Just have a planned statement here that I'm going to read you all. First, I'd like to thank the county staff and planning commission and surrounding residents who have participated in this process. I understand that the neighboring property owners care deeply about their homes and have concerns related to aesthetics, compatibility, and drainage. I respect those concerns, and it's my hope that the residents who have concerns will gain confidence at the work that we have done, as well as the work that we will be required to complete the next phases of this development. We'll solve your concerns, all while providing a neighborhood that is compatible with current comprehensive standards, as well as existing development in the area. First thing I wanted to talk about was the density of the homes. This property is located in between two main metropolitan areas of Auburndale and Lakeland, as well as being very close to Major Arterial Highway in the Polk Parkway. This area is part of the suburban development area, which means it has been designated as a potential area for housing growth. This is why we already have the supportive services we need, like the new Tenerock High School, as well as police and fire services. The school and the other services and infrastructure are there to provide for the education, transportation, and safety of those who currently live in the area, as well as those who will be living in the area in the future. When we designed a development for this property, we designed it with everyone in mind. To the east, we're adjacent to land that is zoned medium density, which allows for seven dwellings per acre. Properties across the street, to the south have some similar areas to our sizes to ours, and to the west we have lots that are larger than what we were planning. Additionally, the three major developments of shallow preserve that we talked about, Meadow Lakes and Hickory Ranch, all of which are close by and have much higher density than ours. We took this information and other indicators to design a reasonable development well under the allowable number of dwellings that we could have had. The SPD scoring system and comprehensive plan would have allowed us to build up to three dwelling units per acre.

We're proposing only two dwellings per acre.

Water retention ponds are also in areas that provide additional buffer between existing residents and the new home builds. All of this has been designed in order to preserve wetlands, accommodate stormwater management, respect floodplain areas, and provide compatibility with surrounding residential developments. Now let's talk about drainage. The state and federal governments have strict guidelines on what is required to make sure that the water that falls on this land does not run into someone else's property any more than it has in the past. So we must collect it. Then that water is collected It must be properly released back into the soil. Currently, our preliminary design shows three retention ponds in the property. This design is an SD approval design. It's not final engineering approval. As you're aware, before any construction can occur, we must complete the county's Level 2 engineering process, including stormwater analysis, drainage calculations, floodplain review, wetland verification, and final drainage design approvals. The county will not issue permits unless the final engineered system complies with applicable drainage and floodplain standards. We will provide engineered drawings showing how the water will flow on the property. We will analyze the soil through a geotechnical land analysis. We will work with Southwest Florida Water Management District, or SWIFTMUD, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to make sure they approve the way the water is treated and released back into the soil. We also have a wetlands delineation completed. And finally, during our level two with the Polk County Land Development Division, we'll make sure that the water retention plan will meet the local stormwater and floodplain regulations. Long story short, numerous steps will be taken to ensure that less water will go onto neighboring properties. In closing, this SPD illustrates a compromise allowing the responsible growth of open space preservation as well as ensuring that stormwater is handled correctly. I believe that's why the Planning Commission previously approved this SPD with a six to one vote. Staff recommended approval, finding the request compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the LDC and Comprehensive Plan. My request is that you see it the same way as them and approve this SPD. Now I'm gonna hand things over to my engineer, Chad Brooker, with Traditions. He can handle any specifics.

Before you get going, looking at the picture up there, the white area, why is it on the left and right side? Is that just, am I missing something there? Your development is in white and then it seems to bleed over.

On the south side?

Yeah.

Yeah, those are other properties, that's not part of ours.

I think that's just- So the white doesn't mean anything to, okay, all right. I have poor abilities with PowerPoint.

Got you. Right here and then right here? Yeah. Yeah, those are not applicable. I'm back. Chad, Berkley Traditions Engineering. Address is 900 Orchard Springs Drive. I'm not going to repeat too much of what Mr. Worshe has stated here. Staff and Planning Commission believe this site to be compatible. We also agree with that as there are a lot of similar densities and lot sizing in this area. The property does sit between two major municipalities and right next to the Polk Parkway, providing ample opportunity for growth in this area. This address was given to you guys, and I know we provide the lots here, and you can kind of see some of the density that's around us. Some of that's Not fully yet in construction as messed with shallop or preserve. I think they just started Hickory Ranch. I know they're done, and then Auburn Lakes or Meadows Lakes is on the way. And so one of the things we wanted to provide clarity on is that, you know, with the SPD request, we are able to achieve those densities up to three units per acre. That's based on location points, and location points are based on your proximity to certain things and amenities. We actually achieved in the... in the site plan you'll see there that we actually achieved, I believe an available density up to about 2.7 to 2.8 units an acre. Yet we're only proposing that two units an acre. And, and the reason for that is to provide a product and a lot that is more amenable to the, the area and then to the community. So I wanted to make that point that we are working to create a site plan and a development that, that, uh, con is, does not contrast the surrounding area, but is compatible with it. Um, Outside of that, I can answer any specifics you have on utilities, drainage, site planning, anything like that. Lastly, I will make the one point about the floodplain. It's hard to see on this picture here. I know the site plan was submitted with the request, but those lots on the north end are just over 300 feet long. Where there is the pinch point, you still have about 100, 120 feet of developable area. for those houses to be built without any impacts to the floodplain. Our intention is to not impact the floodplain at all, and so there is additional analysis that has to happen. There's coordination with Swift Mud. All too often, they have master drainage models that can give you some more insights into what those BFEs might be, and then we are staying completely out of the floodplain and wetland area on the north end. We actually provide access to that area for the residents so that, you know, that little cattle pond or fishing pond in the back can be used for someone who lives in the community and wants to use that through access on that dead end. Ultimately, we've modeled this site plan to the best of our ability to make it work with everybody, including the residents and then surrounding residents. If you have any questions, please let me know. I'm here to answer.

Any question for the applicant?

I think you were just answering it, but I want to clarify. So the north portion there that isn't for homes will be accessible for all the residents, or is it just going to be just open, not a trail or anything going back there, just open area?