Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

There we go. OK. I'd like to call the meeting of the Polk County Planning Commission to order. Normally, we have a work session at 8.50, 10 minutes before our regular meeting, but we're having some technical difficulties this morning, and I believe we're pretty much set right now. So we're going to go and take a few minutes before the actual meeting starts to ask our staff to go over any agenda issues

items that we need to be aware of any changes to the agenda that we need to be aware of okay good morning no changes to the published agenda just a few notes two cases they're highlighted and blew up there have been advertised but were continued to july 8th this is ldcu 20263 the agricola firearm range and ldpd 20264 the berkeley crossing pd again these were advertised but they were continued prior to going on to the agenda There are cases highlighted in yellow up there that will be presented together. Those are the gray line cases, agenda items number one and two. Agenda items number seven and eight, the shimmering drive cases, and 18 and 19 regarding Indian Lake Estates. And that's the only notes on the agenda.

Okay, thank you. Could I get a roll call, please?

Merle Bishop.

Here.

Cindy Janamasso. Here. Brooke Agnini. Here. Mike Hickman. Here. Angel Sims. Here. Julie Jackson. Here. Linda Schultz. Here. Kevin Updike.

I'm here.

Mayor McCormick.

Thank you. So with that, I'll ask that we stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and Pledge of Allegiance.

liberty and justice for all.

Next on our agenda is approval of the minutes from the May 6th, 2026 meeting. Hopefully you've had a chance to look these over. Any? Move to approve. Motion?

Second.

Second to approve. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you. And now I'll ask our attorney to read our procedures and instructions to the audience.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Office of Land Development will introduce the case and disclose any responses to the notification which were not already provided to the Planning Commission in their packets. The Land Development Case Planner will then present their staff report and recommendation. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak and present testimony on a case will be sworn in. The applicant and others in support or opposition of the case will be given the opportunity to speak. The applicant will be given the opportunity to respond to any opposition testimony. The Planning Commission will then discuss the case and vote on the matter. Expedited hearing procedures may be used by the Planning Commission under the following circumstances. One, there is no opposition to the case present at the hearing. Two, the recommendation of the Office of Land Development is for approval. And three, all of the commission members present wish to use this procedure. With regard to Level 3 reviews, pursuant to Section 906 of the Polk County Land Development Code, the Planning Commission may approve the applicant's request, deny the applicant's request, or approve the request with additional conditions. Pursuant to Section 921 of the Land Development Code, the applicant or any substantially affected interest may appeal the final decision of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners by filing a formal application with the Land Development Division and paying the application fee. The appeal must be filed with the Land Development Division within seven calendar days of the Planning Commission hearing. The Board of County Commissioners shall set a date and time for a de novo hearing. If a party decides to appeal a decision made by the Planning Commission with respect to any level three review, he or she will need a record and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. The record includes all testimony and evidence given at the hearing. Each person or party that qualifies to file such an appeal must independently exercise their right to appeal in order to preserve that right. A party cannot and should not rely on their right to appeal being preserved by someone else filing an appeal on the same matter. Please be advised that a party may withdraw their appeal to the Board of County Commissioners prior to that de novo hearing. If one party withdraws their appeal and another party failed to file an appeal, there will be no appeal or hearing on the matter before the Board of County Commissioners. The application fee will not necessarily be refunded for such a withdrawal. Please further be advised that if a de novo application is filed with the board to be recognized during the de novo hearing as organized opposition, you must either file the application for de novo hearing or receive written authorization from at least five entities or individuals to speak on their behalf against the application. And they must waive their right to speak during the public comment portion of the public hearing. Regarding Level 4 reviews, pursuant to Section 907 of the Land Development Code, the Planning Commission's decision is a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners will ultimately decide the matter at a later date. Regarding ex parte communication, the Planning Commission receives numerous communications from the public. Unless otherwise stated, it should be presumed that ex parte communications have been made to the members of the commission regarding the matter. During the hearing, the applicant, organized opposition, and the public may request the Commission to disclose any ex parte communication or site visits they have had regarding the matter and question the members regarding their communications or site visits. Unless a commission member recuses themselves, he or she has determined that they are able to hear the case and fairly and impartially make a decision on the matter based on the substantial competent evidence in the record. Mr. Chair, would you like me to swear in the witnesses for today's cases?

Yes, please.

Thank you. If you intend to address the Planning Commission on any case today, please stand up, raise your right hand, and answer out loud to the following question. This applies to all cases, so if you believe you may speak today, please be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you provide to the Planning Commission today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. You may be seated. I'll now go over some housekeeping items before we get started. First, we need to admit the county's land planners as expert witnesses. They have all been accepted as experts in the past. However, if you would like to voir dire any of them as to their background or expertise, then you may do so at this time. Without any opposition to their admission, can we please have a motion to accept staff as experts in their field of land planning? So moved. Second.

Motion second to approve. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you.

Secondly, if we have any experts of applicants, then you may tender them at this time or you may wait until your case is called. Finally, the Planning Commission must review quasi-judicial land use cases. Quasi-judicial means 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. Regarding consistency, the Commission must determine whether the application is consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code. The staff report and 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, 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 the applicable criteria, staff reports, and staff presentations. Citizen testimony may be competent substantial evidence, so long as it is fact-based and may include testimony regarding subjective matters that do not require expertise, such as aesthetic incompatibility of a project with the surrounding neighborhoods. However, popularity polls, petitions, testimony that is hypothetical, speculative, based on fear or consists of generalized statements that do not address the land development criteria are not competent substantial evidence. For example, fear that the project will cause increased traffic or crime is not competent substantial evidence. Lastly, when expertise is required for technical issues like traffic, engineering, drainage, wetland impacts, school and utility capacity, light and noise pollution, or the application's impact on property values, citizen testimony is not competent substantial evidence unless the witness is qualified as an expert in that area.

That concludes my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you. I should have in the beginning reminded everybody, please be sure that your smartphone, cell phone is turned off, turned to silence. With that, I will ask staff if you'll present the first case, please.

First case is LDCPAS 2026-10. It's a comprehensive plan amendment. It's also related to the next case, LDCT 2026-7, which is a text amendment to the Land Development Code. Mark Bennett is the case planner, and the staff report, application, and other items are submitted into the record and are included in the software that you use to review the agenda. Thank you.

Good morning. For the record, Mark Bant with Land Development presenting the Green Line X project. As Shonda just mentioned, there will be two items related with this project. I'll present them as one, but we will need separate actions for both the comp plan amendment and the land development code text. The requests here are to change 3.81 acres from residential suburban to industrial land. and then a text amendment to the Land Development Code to provide for additional stipulations and provisions regarding the intensity of the proposed industrial activity at the site. As far as notice requirements go, 14 mailers were sent to area property owners on May 15th. One board was posted on May 18th, and a legal ad was published in the Lakeland area in the center on May 20th. No response from the public. Staff does recommend approval. The location of the site is on State Road 60. You can see on the map on the left, north of the city of Mulberry. You can also see the Hillsborough County line as a reference point. And then the area on the right shows a more specific location, basically just south of Poli Creek and the bridge there, if you're familiar with that area. Excuse me. This is a more close-up, detailed view of the site outlined in black. I'm going to show three or four aerials of the site to provide some perspective. This is a view looking northwest at the site shown in red. I highlighted the South Lakeland Air Park, and I'll explain why further in the presentation. Here's another view of the site. And this view in particular shows the Tico easement that runs through the site there. As I mentioned earlier, the requested changes from residential suburban to industrial. You can see the surrounding land uses there, linear commercial, industrial to north, residential to the behind the property basically. Also as part of the comprehensive plan amendment, we do have text. This text basically is put in the comprehensive plan to make reference to the fact that there's additional text that's in the land development code that deals with regulating this site. The next set of slides is in regards to the proposed land development text. This slide here shows a summary of the proposed text it covers permitted and prohibited uses outdoor activities signage landscaping and some additional site development standards the proposal here is that any structure would be limited in height to 50 feet Our industrial land use does not have a height limitation, but the applicant proposed that and staff definitely concurs with that. Provisions also on location of loading and unloading areas, restrictions on the loading bays, and outdoor lighting with some examples of fully shielded lights. which minimizes glare and visual pollution there. Some of the reasons, oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, also included is a site plan. The key parts of this site plan is that it shows wetland areas and also, it's not shown here, but there are significant floodplain areas related to Pauley Creek. It also shows the potential buildable areas and the access point, which I'll discuss briefly further. Three main components that were related to or involved with coming up with the additional restrictions and stipulations. Prohibited uses. There's a list of prohibited uses here. Generally, as you're familiar, some of these uses can be very intensive in nature in terms of impacts and activities. These would be prohibited. Also included was general manufacturing. That means by implication light manufacturing would be allowed. Basically, the difference between light manufacturing and general manufacturing is that light manufacturing is conducted inside and that any activities don't, happen or occur or, like it says here, detectable beyond the property line. In contrast, general manufacturing has potential for greater nuisance to significant properties and can be conducted outside in enclosed or partially enclosed structures. I also included an excerpt from the applicant's narrative and a chart here out of our minor traffic study that lists the manufacturing category. And I put that in there because one of the restrictions that we also are proposing here is a limitation on the amount of vehicle trips. And let me explain a little further here. The big square here is an email that staff received from DOT. DOT expressed concerns about access As of now, the site has a structure or a house on it. It's accessed via an easement here. DOT has concerns about using the full median here because there are spacing standards that would not be met. To try and address DOT's concerns, our proposal was to limit any activity on the site to uses that had a lower trip count, daily and peak, and that's shown in here. The layout of the site is such that it sort of makes sense to have the access point here at a full median opening, but nevertheless, DOT expressed concerns about spacing standards, so to address their concerns, still allowing development of the site, We're proposing that there be limitations on the amount of daily and peak hour trips.

While you're there, I hate to interrupt you, but I want to leave this before I ask my question. So what is the spacing concern? Is it that easement? What is it related to in terms of their spacing concern? I'm zooming in because...

Here's the spacing standards. Basically, half mile, full median opening, directional, quarter mile. And I don't think that meets it right now.

By how much?

I don't know.

I'm missing something, and you're probably explaining it right, and I'm just missing it. So it's a spacing problem from the access point... To what? The median opening? I don't understand what is the distance from the access point to what?

Yeah, and bear in mind you're asking me to try and explain DOT's rules here, but they regulate the distance between access, median openings. Okay. And the gist of it is that they're saying that this area doesn't meet those standards.

So it's their median openings.

Right. Okay.

Right. So this applicant didn't have anything to do with that. Exactly. The DOT's got a problem with their medians. Exactly. I'm with you now. Okay.

And if I may, Shonda Bennett with Lindo Division, I think part of the other issue is that the current access of from and the use of the property is residential.

Right.

It's already not meeting spacing.

I got you.

So if we change it to industrial, it increases the trips coming on and off. So we're making a problem more problematic.

And I know this isn't really a discussion part, but it's just popping in my head. To me, it wouldn't matter so much the timing. It's the type of vehicle that's going in and out. If we're talking about spacing, a Prius is going to take up much less space than a giant dump truck that's coming in and out. If it's spacing, it's not really about the time of day. It's the type of vehicle that's coming and going. No? Okay.

I think they're both relevant because if a site has higher trip rates, you could have extension of turning cues that make the length problematic, regardless of the type of vehicle. So it depends on. I'm sorry.

I should open this up, but I didn't. You got 19 cases today. I know. I just, I would just not understanding the spacing. I just want to do that before you left this area. So let's let Mark finish.

Yeah. And, and, On one hand, I get what DOT is saying. On the other hand, gee whiz, there's a full median opening right in front of the site. One of the criteria in our comp plan for industrial is access and median openings. Nevertheless, DOT raised the concern. We felt the best way to address it is try and limit the potential amount of traffic coming in and out. We're suggesting doing that by addressing trip rates. So the last item, and the reason why I mentioned the South Lakeland Airpark earlier, and you can see it on the aerial there, is that this site, although it's not in the approach zone, South Lakeland Airpark, and you can see that drawn here, it is in what's known as a height notification in-flight visual interference zone. The reason why this was added is that it's our understanding that There may be manufacturing of drones at this site. And I'll defer to the applicant later to clarify and explain that further. Our concern was that, OK, if there's going to be drones, if there's going to be testing, if it's going to be near the air park, how is this going to be addressed? For those of you who are not aware, I used to work in the cell tower industry. And I do know that FAA regulates only at 200 feet and above. which is why there's a bunch of 199-foot towers around. But nevertheless, we recognize that may be a potential issue. So our proposed solution is that if, in fact, they do conduct manufactured drones and do wish to do testing there, we're asking that they create a testing operations plan for staff to review and approve as part of a Level 2. Impacts, we don't foresee any impacts on the site. There are some environmental concerns that was shown earlier as part of the site plan, wetlands, flood plains with Poli Creek there. But the site plan, which would be binding, conceptual but binding in nature, will address those environmental concerns. To summarize our justification for approval, we have location criteria for industrial. There are industrial uses in the general area with properties east and southeast of the site. Like I mentioned earlier, one of our criteria is direct access to a full median opening. For those reasons, we consider it compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive plan. And with that, I'll stand for any questions.

Thank you. Any questions of staff? Okay. If not, I'll ask the applicant if you'd come forward, please.

Okay. Thank you. Yep. Let's see.

Good morning. For the record, Tom Woodruff, TDW Land Planning. I have a presentation. It's very short, but just provides better photos of what we're talking about to help guide the commission. I'm not sure where it's located. There's a lot of these. Just a moment. It is. Yeah, it's here somewhere. There it is. That's Mark's. Uploaded earlier this morning appears that it may not have made it hang on just a moment, please There it is, thank you for your patience Okay, again, Tom Woodridge, TDW land planning consultant for the property owner applicant here. Mark's done a great job outlining what we are intending to do. We've been negotiating with staff and understanding what is the key needs for the site. We've gone through numerous initial site plan renditions to deal with a lot of the things you've heard. We've also held a pre-app with FTOT, something you don't usually hear from a comprehensive plan amendment applicant. I'm sure. So we were going down all the different avenues to make sure that we've covered all the issues. Mark's got a great list of conditions that we provided and he revised and through the sets of revisions, we've come up with a great solution. They found that it is consistent with the comp plan and land development code. I just want to address a couple of things. We have a mixture of industrial manufacturing, warehouse salvage, and commercial in and around the site. So while this is LCC around us, the closest development, and I'll show you a picture here soon, but this is a welding shop next to us, some light industrial almost warehousing directly across the roads. If you take what's directly adjacent to us within the LCC, it's actually quite compatible just because it's linear commercial corridor. I wanted to explain those uses directly to have you understand what's actually there. who our neighbors are, and then, of course, some of the salvage up across to the north or northwest of us. We have sufficient infrastructure. We've worked through DOT back and forth. There's been no permit issue. There's been no final determination. This is all in ongoing discussions. The information that you have here today is illuminating to a lot of the things that we've been going through, but it's in no way restricting us. It is correct that we have a full median opening at this time with deceleration lanes. It's very safe to get in and out of the site, and that is the reason why you see the location on our site where it's currently proposed. We have wetlands on site. We have access challenges that we're working through. We have a power line easement cutting straight through the property. So for this property to be usable for really anyone besides the single-family home that's currently on it, It's very challenging and so we would have to go through all these discussions and have to bring this forward to any commission to say, hey, we've addressed these one by one. And have a conditional CPA that was the best route to say what's the best fit for a reuse, a development of the site next to the uses that I've outlined to you all. So we've buffered and designed it to be appropriate to get the staff's approval. I want to show you quickly. This is that meeting open a little bit closer. This is on the ground. This is looking on the right, looking west within the desal lane. And then imagine yourself turning to the left across the median. So that's what put the pictures in this order. Now you're looking straight kind of west, northwest into the site within the meeting open. So you're standing here. and you turn to the left and that's the view of our site. We tried as best we can to avoid wetland impacts. Some of the challenges were that there was mention of an easement. There is no desire excuse me, of the property owner who currently owns that driveway to allow us access. So that was our first step to check with DOT and they asked us to request that from that property owner being declined that. Of course, DOT will issue us a permit somewhere here. The best, most logical place right now is located right in front of this median opening. Whether it is directionalized, which means they take it from being wide open as it is to westbound left end and eastbound you know, left and across, so it looks kind of like a, you know, passing cars, but there's a raised bit of concrete. That's what a directionalized meeting is. They might do that. They might close it. We don't know. There's nothing to defend. They might leave it. It might be 10 years. It might be five years. It might, We don't have any idea. So I think it's just best to keep that in mind when we talk about the access to say, okay, we are in front of it now. We have the most ideal access with existing turn lanes, and it's the safest location to put a driveway. At some point, if something changes in the future, we will adapt. And the second way that we address that is, like Mark said, through a trip count to say, well, just keep it lower trip count, that keeps it safe as possible, that fully meets our use. Again, this is a conditional CPA, so we've taken an industrial category and we've really trimmed it down, down, down, down to a very specific set of uses that's allowed and even further so with what Mark has presented as a limitation on the trip count. It says you can have those types of industrial uses minus the list that he showed you in the appendix that's provided as the text amendment as well, also conditioned with that trip count. We're going to be fine with being compatible with the infrastructure that's available both now and in the future. I just want to make that clear. One other thing that we have, I want to show you with some of the adjacent uses to give you an idea. of what it actually looks like around here. So you can say, well, this is residential. It's, it's not, it's clear. We are the last parcel at the end between pulley creeks, wetlands and, The across the street, the Sizemore storage to our immediate south is the welding shop that I mentioned. And this is that access drive that they wanted us to utilize. Obviously, it'd be better to space us further away, but also this is for residential use back and behind. As you go down that access area, this is what it looks like. So in terms of compatibility, We're going to be right next to something that's part of the welding shop, so there's not a residence even as you go back behind the welding shop. This is the back of that building. So this is the building, their outdoor storage that they have, an old wall that's kind of screaming some of their outdoor storage, but that'll show you what's right across from what our building is going to be. It is compatible. There's only just space for that little driveway in between us, so you can't build a residential house, for example. Anyway, it's linear commercial corridor within that driveway, within that welding shop. Then this is a ground shot of the power line easement running through our property. Our access will come from the right. There is a small wetland impact that is allowed through the comprehensive plan for access that's clearly stated in the comprehensive plan. We've tried to avoid everything else we can by trying to utilize the existing driveway. We were not granted that. And frankly, for the use that we have, we think our separation of our driveway further to the west is probably safer, more ideal. And of course, we'll mitigate for those impacts and make sure that's the least amount possible. We must have gone through 10 more, I don't know, I've lost count of how many official renditions of this generalized layout to get it just right so we stay out of the wetlands as much as possible. As you notice, it's just for the access drive, and I want to point out even the curved access is because, you know, I had said let's keep it, let's curve it as soon as we can, get that drive, and not straight into the site, coming straight through here. We even, you know, are staying out of this little triangle of wetlands. to try and keep it the tightest we can and preserve as much of that existing vegetation and wetland area. The power line easement is shown in the middle, that big cut through the center, and then our building envelope essentially is what you see outlined in black. The reason why it might be a little interesting with this notch, the Section 220 compatibility for setbacks from residential, we can show you that we're going to meet that requirement and we've gone through all those in our site plan proposals and renditions, review those with staff and show that we can meet all of those, even land development code standards down the line. So this is a very well planned out product that you have in front of you and the process that we've gone through to work with staff has been extensive and very detailed to make sure that we are mitigating or staying away from the issues we need to stay away from, dealing with the ones that are most important and then conditioning to make sure it's going to be a good fit for what's around us. The only last thing I would say is that we had some discussions with staff relating to general manufacturing. We are an enclosed building. We're proposing a metal building. We've conditioned ourselves to be only 50 feet in height, whereas industrial normally, like Mark said, can go as high as you want. We've done a lot of things to condition the overall look and feel of the site to be a great fit. And our doors will remain closed. We're going to be doing the manufacturing inside. We spoke with Mark about general manufacturing and thought, well, with all the conditions that we have in place, we are light manufacturing. What we what we develop is high tech manufacturing. We don't anticipate anything right now on the radar screen. But we just after speaking with them, we said that it might be good to allow us to go ahead and have general manufacturing provided it can meet all the other conditions, the trip count, everything else. and the fact that we have to keep our doors shut and the building low. So it's going to put us in a small box. If there is something that comes available that is ancillary to our light manufacturing that kind of bumps into general manufacturing, I would hate that to be a snag for my client and his manufacturing process. Clearly he is well within light manufacturing, but in discussing with all the conditions that we have in place, we just thought can we remove that because we feel the protections are there. We're not going to be doing outdoor things. We're not going to be creating smoke, dust, noise, vibrations. This is high-tech electronics. You won't be able to hear it. So we said, can you please consider removing the general manufacturing prohibition from that list of conditional uses? That's just the one thing I would, I think, ask perhaps to be covered. Thank you for listening. I'll stand for any questions.

Any questions of the applicant?

Curious why industrial if there's welding in LCC right next door is that not does that not Non-conforming not conforming right like I mean welding to me seems industrial Yes, and there are a lot of uses especially in Willow and all throughout the county Within LCC it almost functioned as a flex fix all in some cases because it was what is the best use we don't want necessarily want to you know, put this land use and that land use and this land use, this is kind of all kind of a commercial corridor. And back a long time ago, they referenced as commercial as everything that wasn't residential. And I think the mindset was different. And so it was kind of a fix for everything that shops clearly have been around for a while. So it would be, if it's legal and non-conforming, Not legally nonconforming, that's not from my decision to make, but that's likely how that came about. And there's probably others and other LCCs nearby that aren't a perfect fit, but have just been there for very long.

If I may offer an expanded answer. There are clusters of LCC that are meant to be industrial, and those can have infill uses, new uses, but LCC can't be expanded linearly. So in this case, LCC's not an option for us to recommend approval of based on the location criteria for LCC. If it was further up on 60, we can do infill of LCC, but that's not an option for us. So they had to pick something else that could be located. But there is significant residential nearby, which is why you have the recommendation before you to make it more like Business Park Center than industrial.

Well, that concerns me, being industrial, being an environmentally sensitive parcel there. and with the residential immediately on the other side of the wetlands, future of what industrial could open it up. If we change this to industrial now with just light manufacturing, doesn't that make it an easy gateway to expand that and ask for removal of those restrictions in the future?

I'm not sure if that's for me, but I can...

Which is partly why we're requesting that general manufacturing be prohibited.

But how easy is it to remove that?

They'd have to come through a level four. Once you change that zone... Well, certainly we do think about that, but we also think about it's got a... power line easement through it. And the residence has been vacant for some time now, so I'm not sure how viable the residence is either. There's really no other land use that we can think of that could fit on this site to allow some non-residential use. So this was our best option. But certainly if they wanted to add, if the board approves the text amendment as proposed and they wanted to add general manufacturing back, they'd have to come through a level four review, go back to the planning commission and the board of county commissioners to have it added or have it amended.

Yes, exactly. And these conditions, they go into the land development code. It's like Shonda said, that's why it's a level four review. They go into these documents. So you can't just come through and scrape it away or quietly talk to somebody or whatever. That's not going to happen. It'd have to come through the full process, get the full review. And then with these exact questions and concerns, people would say, well, now you're allowing this, this, and this, where we thought you weren't going to do that. And again, through the text that we've proposed, we said, hey, these are things you can't do. We can't do all the uses that Mark has shown you on the list of text that he's provided. And there's also lighting limitations and so many things that, you know, keeping the doors closed and so many things that keep this as like, you know, like I point out as the size more across the street is the BPC look and feel. We should be something that looks and feels kind of like this. And, you know, that's that's. Basically, what you should be expecting is something like that. It's all indoors. It's a metal shelf on the outside. We're going to be behind the wetland. They'll be able to see, and we'll have some buffering out front, which they don't. That was built a while ago and doesn't have a type A buffer across the front, which will require to put buffering in there. Everything you see in the bottom left will stay, so the building will be tucked back in there. On the left of where you see this bottom site, so somewhere over in this side of the site,

So who, with the DOT concerns with the access, who monitors or manages those trip restrictions?

We're going to be required to issue a full permit for our driveway, and at that time we'll be providing DOT with additional data to show what we do and what we are before they issue us a driveway permit. So we won't be able to do really anything you see here until we get those permits in place. So it's very important that we get that full review. We've initiated that process now so that we can be aware of what we'll have to be considering. And staff has been coordinating with DOT. We've all been coordinating together on this. So the three parties, us, the applicant, county staff, and FDOT have been working together to make sure it's a good fit. And we have the calculations presented to you all that is the result of that.

So it's your request that we, if we approve this, that we remove item, well, item 3H, which is general manufacturing from the prohibited uses under Section 1, Appendix E?

Yes. And with regards to the drone usage and that, there aren't any. This is an unrestricted FAA zone, according to my client, Hunter. who works extensively in this field. And so we're confident that we're not gonna have any conflicts or issues with the airport that was presented to you because that's not an airport that has the type of restrictions of your typical airport where you'd have those sorts of drone restrictions.

How about the neighborhood next door? Are they going to have drones tested above their homes?

No, and speaking with the client, we're not flying at 300 feet, and that's everywhere else you go nowadays. Drones are all over the place. We're going to be keeping it. I mean, our building is 50 feet high. Are we even going to be higher than 50 feet?

Not on a normal basis.

So there's... We'll need them to come up for it. We're going to stay over our property. We won't be flying over. I'll just reiterate what he said. We won't be flying over the neighboring properties. Mainly in our discussions, we're going to be staying below that 50 feet. There's a chance that we will go higher, but it's going to stay over our building footprint, and it's going to be very infrequent if that occurs.

I just want to emphasize the point that to address those concerns, that's why we're asking for a testing operations plan, a review and approval to understand what may occur make sure the impacts are addressed. So that was the rationale behind that.

But while you're up there, Mark, what is your thought or opinion? I know you're recommending that general manufacturing be included as a prohibited use. I guess elaborate a little bit on his request to remove that briefly.

Sure. I guess the best way, well, two points. One, general manufacturing allows for activities in partially enclosed structures, as per the definition. Secondly, the intent here was to minimize any potential impacts. So we thought the best way of doing that was to just not allow it. The definitions between light industrial and general industrial... You know, focus on the structures, focus on impacts, doesn't really address uses. In other words, there's really not a difference between what's allowed in light and general. It's more how it's done, that being in the structures and the offsite impacts. That's the best answer I can give you as to why we felt, even with the additional restrictions and requirements, it was just best to limit it to light and not allow general.

To offer, there are some homes adjacent to this property, so general manufacturing could have noise and vibration and odors off-site, and we didn't think that's appropriate.

Is the size of the proposed building, is that going to require any infill being have that building built up Significantly with it being so close to that floodplain and wetland area that it could potentially push water into the neighborhood on the other side of the creek and let the applicant speak further, but my Understanding is that the site is not is outside the floodplain area so

And even if it were, the building would have to be, I think, one foot above base flood. But my recollection is that the floodplain is more over here. So in other words, we're staying out of the floodplain altogether. Tom, if you want.

Yes, thank you. And as part of that, as part of the multiple iterations that we've done on the site, we've kept everything out and away and above. And we've also been designing storm water to accommodate the footprint and the parking open a building in the parking that we have that would be considered the impervious areas of the site. So we've we've we're neck deep in all those calculations and feel confident that we've got more than enough. The orange area that you see is that's not it. We're not developing all that. That's kind of like a building envelope or an area that would that could fit some things, including drainage. But we're not even anticipating to use all of that for building area. Of course, we'd have retention to accommodate. So we feel that we've got plenty in place and plan to accommodate what we're proposing. And in terms of the general manufacturing, that was our request. We have a lot of conditions in place to safeguard against the noises and lights and vibrations and things of that nature. We also understand staff's concern. It was our intention to just have a window open in case that came open. We didn't want to have a hard door slammed. So if as conditioned, it can be accepted, that's great. You know, we would prefer that, but it's not, you know, we've been working with staff for a long time to come to where we are, and that was one of the things we discussed during our meetings, and so we're still kind of requesting that, because I guess I wouldn't bring it up. So are there any other questions for myself? Any other questions?

Seeing none, I'll ask, I'll open the meeting up to any public comments and ask is there anyone present that would like to speak in support of this application? Seeing none, is there anyone present who would like to speak in opposition to this application? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for any discussions, further questions or a motion.

I'll present a motion for LDCPAS2026-10 for approval. Second.

Motion second to approve. And just for clarification, that does include the staff recommendation that keeps the general manufacturing as a prohibited use. Oh, okay. You're right. You're right. You're right. I'm sorry. Okay, motion in a second to approve the application. Roll call, please.

Cindy Janamasso. Approve. Merle Bishop.

Approve.

Brooke Agnini. Approve. Mike Hickman.

For the motion.

Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. Against the motion.

Linda Schultz. For the motion.

Motion passes.

Okay, the next case, I don't believe we need to, I mean, you've already presented the information. So the next case is LDCT 2026-7. Any discussions on this? Do I have a motion?

We do still need to have a public hearing.

Oh, yeah, you're right. Anyone present who would like to speak for or against the text amendment for this case, which is LDCT 2026-7? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for a motion.

Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDCT 2026-7. Second.

And that does include keeping the restriction on general manufacturing. Yes. Okay. Roll call, please.

Cindy Janamaso for the motion. Merle Bishop.

For the motion.

Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Linda Schultz.

For the motion.

Motion passes. Thank you. Next case. Thank you.

Next case is LDCPAL 2026-4. It's a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment. Mark Bennett is the case planner. And also I need to note that the staff report ordinance and applications have been submitted into the record and are attached in the agenda software you use to review the cases. Thank you.

Good morning again. For the record, Mark Bennett with Land Development presenting. LDC PAL 2026-4, known as the Organic Matters Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The request is to change 71.26 acres from business park center to industrial for property located in the rural development area. Regarding notice requirements, 13 mailers were sent to area property owners on May 15th. Seven boards were posted on May 18th. Legal ad published in the Lakeland Winter Haven Sun on May 20th. No response from the public and staff recommends approval. The site is located generally south of the city of Bartow on US 17. The area on the right shows the general location of it between US 1798, Old Homeland Road. Homeland is located here. And this white area here is the Metro Mont facility, if you're familiar with that. This is the current land use map. As you can see, there's industrial to the north and south of the site. Also within the city of Bartow. The property is designated as Clear Springs Industrial. Property to the west within the city is Clear Springs Agricultural and does have a solar farm here. So as I showed earlier, there are industrial uses to north and south. And this is the proposed change to the land use map. And that the site would be changed to industrial for approved. Aerial photo. The site is currently vacant. And here's some aerial photos showing the site. It does have a... I'll call it an access strip to Austin Phillips Lane, which then leads out to a... Full median opening to U.S. 1798, and just like the previous case, one of the things we look at when designating land for industrial is access points. View of the site looking to the south, east, and west. As far as... Impacts on infrastructure, we do not anticipate any adverse impacts. And our justification for approval, surrounded by industrial uses and property designated industrial, has direct access to an arterial road, access to a full median opening. compatible with surrounding uses, and therefore is consistent with the comprehensive plan. And I'll stand for any questions. Thank you.

Any questions of the staff? Just curious, did you get any comment from the City of Bartow?

Yeah, I reached out to them, got a copy of the land use map. Their only comment was that Even though it's in their water, sewer, and electric service area, they do not have sewer. Yeah, email sent to Bartow Plain staff Wednesday, April 15th. Site is in the City of Bartow water, sewer, and electric service area, but only electrical service is available.

Mark, is there a user at this point?

That's I don't believe so. My understanding is they have the property for sale, and this is the purpose of the action to facilitate a future sale.

There's no further questions. I'll ask the applicant, if he's present, to come forward, please. You need to come forward, but if you're here for public comment, I'm going to open that up in just a minute. I'm asking the applicant, if he's present, to come forward, and if he has anything to add to the staff report. State your name and address, please. This one's fine.

Ronnie Barron, Organic Matters. I'm the general manager. And I've been general manager for the past 28 years. And Organic Matters has been in business for 28 years. And we didn't just put lipstick on this thing to sell it. It's been for sale for many, many years, and we happened to buy it two or three years ago as an investment. And we wanted to be able to pick out who our neighbors were going to be because we have 21 acres adjacent to this property with a manufacturing plant on it. And we're not going anywhere. And we're family owned. And again, it gives us an opportunity to sell it and pick our neighbors. And I think that's good for the county.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Yes. Now, is there anyone present who would like to speak in favor of this application? Anyone in opposition? Yes, ma'am. Would you come forward, please? State your name and address. And were you sworn in?

I don't know. Were you here? Go ahead and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you present to the board today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I believe so. This is my first time ever in front of a board. I just need a yes or no. I swear I'll tell the truth. Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

I just want to know.

Could you state your name and address, please?

Diana Seyfried, 239 First Street, Homeland, Florida. I just want to promise from the people buying the land, they're not going to put a data center there. I was just in Fort Meade last month or whenever they had the meetings over there. And we don't need no data centers in our neighborhood. They may be good for computer stuff, but they're not good for the groundwater. Recently with the little drought we had, well, the big drought we had, the big drought we had, I noticed... My toilet taking 10 to 15 minutes to fill back up with the groundwater not replenishing and everything with the zephyrs and everything. So if they're thinking about selling to put a data center in the future I would pray you did not think about that and not do that and my objection to putting it to industrial is that they will not sell to make a data center.

Okay, thank you.

And I would like a promise from, what's the name of your company, sir? Organic Matters. Organic Matters sounds real good. Organic does matter. And if I could get a promise from you, and you would not sell for a data center, I would not object.

Okay, thank you. Any others like to speak in opposition to this application? Staff, would you address the concern for data center briefly?

We don't have criteria for data centers in Polk County, so they're de facto not approved use for any land use district at this time.

So they wouldn't be able to do a data center? I'm not sure there's even enough property here to do it.

I can't speculate at that.

Right, I know. Okay.

I was just going to, Ian is correct. We don't have, we have language in the land development code that says if it's not a specifically prescribed use, it's not permitted. And we do not currently have definition for data centers or land use for data centers.

So with that, I'll bring the, close the public comment portion of the item and bring it back to the board for further discussion and a motion.

Motion to approve LDC PAL 2026-4. Second.

Motion second to approve. Roll call, please.

Cindy Genomaso. Approve. Merle Bishop.

For the motion.

Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman.

For the motion.

Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Linda Schultz. For the motion. Motion passes.

Thank you. Next case, please.

Next case is LDCD 2026-3. I'm sorry, LDCT 2026-14. It's a Land Development Code text amendment, specifically within the Polk City Special Protection Area of the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. Robert Bolton is the case planner, and the staff report ordinance and application have been included in the agenda software you use to review the case and submit it into the record. Thank you.

Motion to expedite.

We have a motion to expedite and a second. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in favor or opposition to this request? Seeing none, then...

I had a question on it that I just wanted to clarify. If this is going to make it easier or harder... to allow development here. I mean, is this tightening restrictions or is this loosening restrictions?

Let me take the motion first to expedite. If we're going to expedite or not, then we'll have opportunity for questions. So all in favor of expediting this case, signify by saying aye. Aye. Okay. Now you can ask your question.

Would you like me to do a presentation first? Yes.

Give a presentation.

All right. Great. Thank you. Good morning. Robert Bolton with Land Development presenting the LDCT 2026-14 Polk City Spa LCCX Land Development Amendment. In addition to what Shonda said, We also have submitted the former staff report and formal ordinance that implemented the footnote that the text amendment is looking to eliminate. The text amendment, or the footnote, states comprehensive plan amendments to change the parcels to future land use district to linear commercial corridor within the Polk City special protection area are prohibited by policy 2.32-C3 of the Polk County comprehensive plan. Only parcels within the existing LCCX future land use district are allowed within the Polk City special protection area. The reason we're looking to eliminate this is that it contradicts actually the, it says, it's basing that the existing LCC cannot be expanded. In section 2.111 of the comprehensive plan, which has all of the land uses, linear commercial corridors existing, and it goes on in here to explain that we aren't going to create new LCCs. The Polk City Spa is the only spa between the Ridge and the rural spa that has this restriction. This is a map of the spas in the Green Swamp. The orange is the Polk City, the rural spa, and the ridge spa. This footnote does not apply to them. It applies nowhere else in the county for LCC, whether it's an X or not. The same policy within the rural, there's LCC in this area right here. that could be expanded into the rural spot. The footnote does not apply to the rural. One of the other main things is this dictates the LDC to the comp plan. The comp plan by state law is to dictate or give the path for the land development code. So by removing this footnote, it brings the land development code and the comp plan into compatibility with each other along with state law. And there's two different ones that I had cited. Statute 163.3194 and 133.320. As to the specifics on would it make it easier, it would make it the same as expanding the LCCX within the Green Swamp area of critical state concern. It would level the playing field. Does that answer your question?

So it allows more development in the Polk City spa area?

At this point in time, right here... Again, this blue, the Polk City Spa is sort of scattered. This area here is where the location of the only LCC is. This is an overlay of the Polk City Spa right here. This is the LCC parcel. Our mapping system maps it to the center of the road, so there's really not two parcels there. This is actually US Highway 98 right in this area. It could potentially apply to this one parcel that is here that is currently a church or to this parcel right here. Part of the location criteria, the criteria for expansion, is a depth criteria to the area activity centers. So this is the deepest the activity centers go. So it really applies to this one or a portion of this parcel. Once you go north of this church parcel, you're into the rural. That footnote would not apply to the rural.

So you're saying it could become LCC, could be applied to the rural special protection area?

Correct. These LCCs up here?

Yes.

Could be expected. They could apply to take these parcels here.

So if the footnote prohibits it and it's just a footnote, Other than the footnote, it's allowed. I'm just wondering how staff would respond to an application that came in. I guess a companion question to that is, have there been any applications that caused staff to become aware of this conflict?

LCC is not allowed in the rural special protection area. So if anyone wants to do a land use change to LCC in the rural special protection area, they've got to do a text amendment to the comp plan in addition to a map amendment. That could happen no matter where you are in the rural swamp. Second, this is only in the Polk City special protection area. And the Polk City special protection area was meant to have some development opportunity. This change allows someone to ask for a land use change. It doesn't allow the development automatically. They have to go through you, the Board of County Commissioners. They have to abide by 30% open space and all the other rules that's required in the green swamp. But yes, there was the parcel that Robert pointed out that's due east of this site. You will see, I think, next month for a land use change to LCC. But we were processing it with... thinking it's meeting the expansion criteria for LCC. And then we found this section in the code and needed to clean that up. But honestly, I had not even realized it was there for as long as I've worked here. So it was a surprise to staff.

Okay. Any further questions? I've already asked if there's any comment, but I'll open the public hearing just to be sure if there's anyone to speak for or against this application. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for a motion.

Move to approve LDCT 2026-14. Second.

Motion second to approve. Roll call, please.

Cindy Janamasso, approve. Merle Bishop.

For the motion.

Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman.

For the motion.

Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson.

For the motion.

Linda Schultz. For the motion. Motion passes.

Thank you. Next case, please.

Next case is LDCT 2026-3. It is a land development code district change, sorry, from R01 to R04 in Port Siena. Robert Bolton is the case planner. And just the staff report ordinance and application are submitted into the record. They're in the software for the agenda that you review. Also, there have been no responses to the advertisement in case you wanted to consider an expedited hearing.

Motion to expedite.

Motion.

Second.

And a second to expedite. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in favor or against this application? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for a decision on the motion. All in favor of the motion to expedite, signify by saying aye. Aye.

Okay, we'll expedite. Good morning. Robert Bolton with Land Development presenting LDCD 2026-3, the Goldenrod Lane Land Development Code. Sub-district change map from residential low 1X to residential low 4X on approximately 17.1 acres. For the record, 166 mailers were sent. On May 15th, 2026, one sign was posted. On May 18th, 2026, a legal ad was published in the Lakeland Winter Haven Sun. On May 20th, 2026, no response from the public had been received. As Shonda mentioned, the staff ordinance, demonstration need, impact assessment were submitted for the record. This is a level four review and will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on July 21st. The request, as you can see, this is the existing land use. This is the RL4. What this will allow is the surrounding development here has densities depending on which side you're looking at. from approximately 3.75 units dwelling acre upwards of about 4.17 dwelling units to the acre. RL4 will give them the ability to develop this site at some similar densities. It is consistent with the land development code and the comprehensive plan. With that, I'll submit this presentation and stand for any questions. Any questions of staff?

Seeing none, I'll open into public hearing. Anyone speak in favor or opposition? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for a motion and a second.

Make a motion to approve LDCD 2026-3. Second.

Motion and second to approve. Roll call, please.

Cindy Giannamasso for the motion. Merle Bishop.

For the motion.

Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson.

For the motion.

Linda Schultz. For the motion. Motion passes.

Thank you. Next case, please.

Next case is LDCPS 2025-36. It's a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. Robert Bolton is the case planner. Staff report and application are submitted into the record in your agenda software. And in case you wanted to consider expedited, there have been no responses to the advertisement.

Motion to expedite.

Second. Motion to expedite. Is there anyone in the audience? wishing to speak in favor or against this application? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board and ask for a presentation by staff.

Good morning, Robert Bolton. Oh, wait, we got a vote on the motion?

Yes. All in favor of the motion to expedite, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Okay, now you can.

Good morning, Robert Bolton with Land Development presenting LDCPAS 2025-36, a future land use map amendment from residential suburban X to office center X in the suburban growth area and the U.S. 98. For the record, 73 mailers were sent to area property owners on May 15th, 2026. One board was posted on April 16th, 2026. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland-Wonderhaven Sun on May 20th, 2026. No responses from the public have been received. This is a level four review and will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on June 16th for adoption. This will take the parcel that's about 1.35 acres from a residential suburban, which has a use of one dwelling unit per five acres. So it's going to be very difficult to develop residentially. puts it to the office center, which is allowed through some new changes to the comprehensive plan because it is by a legally established non-residential use. All the infrastructure and amenities, public services are available, and it's consistent with land development code and comprehensive plan. With this, I'll submit the presentation for the record and stand for any questions. Any questions of staff?

Seeing none, I'll open up the public portion of the item and ask that anyone speak in favor or opposition. Seeing none, bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion.

Mr. Chair, move to approve LDC PAS 2025-36. Second.

Motion second to approve. Roll call, please.

Cindy Genomaso for the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Linda Schultz. For the motion.

Motion passes. Thank you. Next case, please.

Next case is actually tied with the case after that as well, LDCPAS 2025-24. It's a comprehensive plan amendment that also has text amendment to the comprehensive plan and associated with the text amendment to the land development code, LDCT 2026-5. Robert Bolton is the case planner, had the staff report ordinance and applications submitted into the record in the agenda software. We didn't have any response to the advertisement. However, the applicant did host a community meeting with some concerned citizens that did come. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Robert Bolton with Land Development presenting two related requests, LDCPAS 2025-24, a future land use map and text amendment on approximately 3.87 acres from residential load to community activity center with a comprehensive plan text amendment to section 2.135. parcel-specific future land use map amendment. That's LDCT 2026-5 to Appendix E, adding a condition to ensure interconnectivity with the activity center expansion. These will be presented together but need separate actions. For the record, 43 mailers were sent to area property owners on May 15, 2026. Two signs were posted on May 19, 2026. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun on May 20, 2026. These are level four reviews. The LDCPAS 2025-24 will be heard by the Board of Commissioners on July 21st. LDCT 2026-5, the text amendment, will have a first reading by the Board of County Commissioners on July 7th. An adoption hearing is scheduled for July 21st. Request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code. Staff does recommend approval for both of these. The subject site is located on the south side of Shimmering Drive, approximately 300 feet east of State Road 37 or South Florida Avenue, west of Clark Lake, north of West Carter Road, and north of the city limits of Mulberry. This is 2023 context aerial. The site is located east adjacent and to the south of the Imperial Christina Plaza and set back from the intersection of State Road 37 and the Shimmering Drive-Shepherd Road intersection. This intersection includes the Imperial Christina Plaza here. There used to be an out parcel for a bank there. You have Walgreens. You've got in the city of Mulberry shopping center here. Down here you have a tire store. All along 37 on both sides is basically fully built out. This section we have current level twos in for different properties. So from Yule Road all the way down is quite well built out. This is a 2023 image of the site showing better context of the site's location within the plaza with Burger King at the hard corner. This is the former bank location out parcel. The Shimmering Drive was originally the southern entrance and built as a boulevard entrance for the Imperial Christina Plaza. It now acts as still the southern entrance but also the entrance to the Twin Lakes at Christina subdivision. Adjacent to the property right here is a dental office. The subject parcel has historically operated as plant nursery. There are wetlands on the southern part of the parcel and that at a level two review that would require a wetland delineation to make sure there weren't any impacts to those wetlands. This is current land use districts in the area. This is the city of Mulberry. This is the city of Lakeland. For reference, this is Shepherd Road here. This is the site, Yule Road. You can see this is the community activity center that is being expanded. Community activity centers are, by our code, more than 20 acres but less than 60. This is roughly 93.5 acres currently. Okay. You can see how 37 has built out that we have quite a bit of activity here. Also, for context, this is the city of Mulberry. The red here is Commercial Highway. It is still an extension. This parcel creates a good extension with that. This is a closer look at the specific area with the RL1 land use. This is what it would look like with the CAC. This is the Imperial Christina Plaza. This is the Twin Lakes at Christina subdivision. The entrance is a gated entrance right there. The LDCD see text amendment LDCT 2025 provides for an activity center plan that provides interconnectivity for the expansion of the activity center. My apologies for the quality of this plan. We are still working with the applicant to get a better quality plan that shows the interconnectivity and we will get that worked into the ordinance. I apologize that we were not able to get that at this point in time. This is the site on the left looking east along Shimmering Drive, excuse me, west along Shimmering Drive toward State Road 37, South Florida Avenue, and Shepherd Road. The Imperial Christina Plaza would be over to the right. This is Shimmering Drive looking west with the Twin Lakes at Christina in the rear background with the plaza on the left, the subject site, is on the right. This is from the subject site looking at the plasm. And this is what the current, the way the subject site currently looks. The site is serviced by a full array of public services and is not anticipated to have any negative impact as non-residential land use it is not anticipated to have any negative impact impacts on school system. The subject to requests or future land use map and text amendment LDCP as 2025 dash 24 from residential low to community activity center with a comprehensive plan, text amendment, uh, to the Land Development Code, LDCT 2026-5. The site is approximately 3.87 expansion of an approximately 93 1⁄2 acre CAC district site. Location is approximately 300 feet east of the intersection, State Road 37 and Shepherd Road. The request would provide the site with the same development abilities as the properties to the north and the west on a road that is one of two primary access points for the shopping center. The text amendment will ensure proper interconnectivity with the activity center and shimmering drive. The request is consistent and compatible with the comprehensive plan and land development code. Again, they require two separate actions. I submit the presentation in for the record and stand for questions.

Any questions? Robert, that was a commercial nursery there before, is that correct? Yes, it was. Was it just non-conforming?

I believe, as I could tell, it was non-conforming.

Okay.

That was one of the questions I was going to ask. In fact, I bought some plants from there before.

It's a strange place.

Yeah, it was.

How did the... dentist office get there? Best I've been able to find is it looks like it was included in somehow through the PUD of Christina, even though our maps do not show it as within the PUD. It appears that's the way it was permitted. I don't have definitive information. Absolutely.

And is there a specific use planned at this time?

The applicant is the owner, and he is looking to, at this point in time, develop it with some retail office.

Any comments from the City of Mulberry? No. Okay. Any other questions? I'll ask the applicant if he'll come forward, please. That'll be fine, yes. Good morning, everybody. Good morning. Were you sworn in? Yes, sir. Okay. Name and address, please.

My name is Dario Cardona. I'm an internal medicine physician, and I live in 990 Ashton Oaks Circle, just in the Carter Road, close to the property that we are talking about.

Anything to add or...

Thank you, Robert, for the presentation. I think he described everything that we need to know about the property. I think I love this property because it has a big potential to improve the value of the residential and the commercial properties that surround the location. Then, if the Board allows me, we have good plans to have a small strip retail Storage and there may be restaurants medical offices. We'll see what we can do.

Okay Any questions of the applicant? Okay, seeing none I'll ask is there anyone? Thank you, sir. Is anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in favor of this application? Anyone to speak in opposition to this application? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion.

Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDCT-2026, 2025-2024. Second. Motion is seconded to approve.

Roll call, please.

Cindy Giannamasso, approve. Merle Bishop.

For the motion.

Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman.

For the motion.

Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Linda Schultz. For the motion. Motion passes.

Okay, and the next case, can I introduce the case?

LDCT, yeah, CT 2026-6, dash 5.

That's 5, okay. And this is a companion text amendment to the previous case. Yes. So I'll open, and you've already presented the information for this. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone to speak in favor of the application for a text amendment associated with this matter? Seeing none, any opposition? Seeing none, I'll close the public portion and bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion.

Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDCT-2026-5.

Second.

Motion is seconded to approve. Roll call, please.

Cindy Giannamasso.

Cindy Giannamasso for the motion. Merle Bishop.

For the motion.

Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Linda Schultz.

For the motion.

Motion passes.

Okay, next case, please. All right, next up and number nine on the agenda is LDCU 2026-9, the Waffle House Highland City TCX case. For the record, the staff report and slideshows and application materials have all been submitted to the agenda, and Andrew Grohowski is your planner.

Good morning, Andrew Grohowski with Land Development presenting LDCU 2026-9. The applicant is requesting conditional use approval for a sit down restaurant within a town center land use district in the US 98 selected area plan. The request calls for deviations from the LDC standards shown on your screen. The request would allow the construction for a 1900 square foot sit down restaurant on approximately 0.75 acres. of a larger 2.27 acre parent parcel. On May 15th, 15 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on May 15th and a legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun on May 20th with no public response. Staff is recommending approval. The subject site is located in the northeast intersection of Clubhouse Road and Wallace Court on the east side of US Highway 98, south of Lakeland and northwest of the city of Bartow. The entire site is approximately 2.27 acres within the TCX land use district in the US 98 selected area plan. Per section 401.04 of the LDC, the TCX district has particular standards that development must adhere to. This includes bill two lines and parcel frontage requirements. A conditional use allows flexibility to deviate from these standards should hardship be demonstrated, so long as the remaining TCX items in the section are being met. It is not uncommon to find deviations from these standards in this TCX district. As shown on your screen, four requests to the west of the subject site were approved. Due to the circulation requirements drive-thrus and gas stations typically present, the uses fronting US Highway 98 received level three approval within the past decade or so to deviate from TCX standards. The subject parcel will be split for a retail store and a sit down restaurant as shown with the red lines. The retail store will be about 1.22 acres, while the conditional use request for the restaurant will be approximately 0.75 acres. The retail store to the north is not part of this request as it meets TCX standards. Here's the site plan submitted into the record. The request is 0.75 acres of a larger 2.27 acre parent parcel. the sit-down restaurant will have access to Wallace Court through a cross-access easement agreement with the retail store to the north. In short, the TCX requires Bill 2 design with maximum 15-foot setbacks from the road right its way. This requirement, however, is too restrictive for the sit-down restaurant as there is a 50-foot wide utility easement on the southern portion of the property outlined in red on your screen. Additionally, being a corner lot with an irregular shape, it is impractical for a restaurant of this size to meet the parcel frontage requirements without having to go through level three review process. Despite all of this, the remaining TCX criteria are being met by the applicant, which includes pedestrian interconnectivity, a pedestrian amenity area, and preliminary architectural designs. Thanks to county surveying, here's how the request will fit in with the surrounding area should it be approved. A handful of non-residential developments have received level two approval, but are not reflected on the base map. This includes a daycare facility as well as a retail and sit down restaurant to the north. As you can see, you can see where the building footprint for the sit down restaurant will be located in relation to the other structures facing Wallace Court. Here's an aerial in greater detail. As mentioned earlier, the proposed retail to the north is not part of this request as it meets TCX criteria for the bill two lines. Consistency in design is a critical feature in the TCX land use district. Per LDC Section 401.04, development shall have a consistent streetscape and architectural style. While not strictly defined, staff encourages the streetscape design such as terraces, awnings, and roof overhangs, as well as pedestrian-oriented features. The applicant has provided preliminary designs which have been incorporated into the record and are shown in exhibit A in the staff report. As part of the conditions, the project shall closely adhere to these renderings to the greatest extent possible during subsequent reviews. And here's some photos from staff site visit. You can currently see this is the retail and restaurant directly to the north of the site that is under construction. just another angle of the site facing west so staff is recommending approval the request is consistent with the relevant sections of the land development code and comprehensive plan Staff finds adequate hardship on the property to recommend approval of the stated deviations to the TCX criteria in the U.S. 98 SAP. The use is compatible with the surrounding area. Remaining TCX items will be met, which includes architectural standards, monument signage, and pedestrian-oriented design. Emergency services are nearby, and utilities have available capacity, according to the City of Lakeland. With that, I thank you and stand for any questions.

Any questions of staff? I'll ask the applicant, if he's present, to come forward, please. You were sworn in.

Yes. And name and address. My name is Robert Alley, Walthouse Inc., 5986 Financial Drive, North Cross, Georgia, 30071. I think Andrew did a fantastic job presenting it, so I'm not going to take up any more of your time. I'm here to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Seeing none, I'll open up the public hearing portion and ask is there anyone present to speak in favor of this application? Anyone to speak in opposition to this application? Seeing none, I'll close the public portion of the item and bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion.

Motion to approve LDCU 2026-9.

Second. Motion second to approve. Roll call, please.

Cindy Giannamasso for the motion. Merle Bishop.

For the motion.

Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Linda Schultz.

For the motion.

Motion passes.

Thank you. Next case, please.

All right, number 10 on the agenda is LDCU 2026-2, the Toho Water Authority case. For the record, the staff report and exhibits and application have been submitted to the agenda. Kyle Rogas is your planner.

Good morning, Kyle Rogas for Land Development presenting LDCU 2026-2, the Toho Water Authority. The applicant is requesting a conditional use approval for two new production wells and associated infrastructure improvements, which are a utility class three for the expansion on the Huron water treatment plant capacity. On May 15th, 115 mailers were sent to area property owners. Two boards were posted on the property May 15th. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun on May 20th. Staff has received no response from the public. Staff finds this request compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code. Staff recommends approval. The subject site is located at the intersection of Marigold Avenue and Hemlock Avenue, north of Lake Hashton Hall Road, south of Pine Street, east of Lake Marion Creek Drive, west of Laurel Avenue in Section 2, Township 28, Range 28. The subject site is located in the Institutional Future Land Use District in the Utility Enclave Area. Chapter 2, Table 2.1 of the Land Development Code indicates the placement of Class 3 utilities within institutional land use districts require conditional use approval via Level 3 review. The property is at the intersection of Hemlock Avenue and Marigold Avenue, surrounded by single-family residential and commercial uses. The existing Toho Treatment Plant is in close proximity to the south and southwest, which makes this an ideal location for the new well production sites. Toho's water treatment plant requires expansion based on the latest portable water master plan demand projections. Due to growth in the area, water demands in the Point Siena service area are projected to exceed the treatment capacity of the existing water treatment plant by 2031. The existing water treatment plant's permitted capacity is 4.81 million gallons per day. The projected capacity required to meet the future water demands is 7.5. This use represents a low-intensity use with only traffic to and from the site for occasional monitoring of the well. The site will adhere to the development standards of the land development code. The northern or rear side is separated by residential development by a 60-foot wide open space, which is part of the Poinsettia Master drainage system. The northern side is also where the location of the proposed utilities class three are, exceeding any required buffer from the residential and provides proper landscaping screening. The proposed utility improvements are not expected to have any impact on school concurrency as the use will not generate the need for children to attend school. Water and wastewater is serviced by Toho Utilities and are reported to have capacity within the area for future development. Through site design and conditions of approval, staff finds the request is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the land development code and comprehensive plan. Staff recommends approval of this application and I request that the presentation be submitted to the record. And with that, I will stand for questions. Any questions of the staff?

Now, is the applicant present? You were sworn in? Yes, sir.

Good morning. My name is Micah Smart, for the record. I'm the engineer from Total Water Authority. Address is 951 M.O.K. Boulevard. I can answer any questions you may have. Kyle did a good job presenting our case.

Any questions of the applicant?

Is there no concern of adding wells during an extreme drought period?

Not in this case because we did our modeling, and our modeling takes into account high stress, high volume considerations, so droughts as well. So we're not having concerns of this well in this location.

Is your area that you service currently under water restrictions?

No, not that I know of.

Okay, any further questions? If not, thank you. If not, I'll open up the public portion of the item and ask, is there anyone present to speak in favor of this application? Anyone to speak in opposition to this application? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion.

Mr. Chair, move to approve LDCU-2026-2.

Second.

Motion second to approve. Roll call, please.

Cindy Giannamasso for the motion. Merle Bishop.

For the motion.

Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. Oh, Mike's not here. Julie Jackson.

Against the motion.

Linda Schultz.

For the motion.

If we don't, Mike's not abstaining, is he? Okay, can we just pause for a minute?

Yeah, okay. Okay. I haven't voted yet.

I'm sorry. I'm so sorry, I didn't realize you were. Did you call? I'm sorry, you want to finish the roll? If you have, I didn't realize Angel had.

I finished, we're just waiting. Oh, Angel didn't. Oh, Angel.

For the motion.

So we'll just pause for one moment. I can get the full vote. Unless he wants to abstain.

We're waiting on your vote.

Okay.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Next case, please. All right, number 11 on the agenda is LDCU 2026-8, the Reynolds Road Event Facility. For the record, the staff report and slideshows and application materials have been submitted into the agenda for the record. Kyle Rogas is your planner.

Good morning again. Kyle Rogas with Land Development presenting LDCU 2026-8, the Reynolds Road Event Facility. The applicant is requesting conditional use approval for a 10,584-square-foot event facility approximately 7.17 acres within an agricultural residential rural land use district. On May 15th, 18 mailers were sent to area property owners. Three boards were posted on the property on May 19th. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun on May 20th. Staff has received two emails in support, one email in opposition, and then we also have 150 signatures from a petition as well.

We don't have copies.

Is that in opposition? Yes, in opposition. Staff finds this request compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. Staff recommends approval. The subject site is located at 3115 Reynolds Road, north of Alturas-Babson Park Cut-Off Road, south of County Road 655A, east of Wallace Road, west of Perch Lake Road in Section 19, Township 30, Range 26. The subject property is located in an Agricultural Residential Rural Land Use District, in the rural development area. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 205, Table 2.1, an event facility is allowed in two land use designations, agricultural residential rural and residential suburban. In both land uses, an event facility requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission prior to any two-level review. The property is at the intersection of Reynolds Road and Waida Road, surrounded by large tracts of vacant pastures and single-family residential. Reynolds Road is a county-maintained paved rural minor collector roadway, and Waida Road is a local commercial roadway. This classification, as well as the intersection location, is suitable for development. This location will not have any outdoor gathering or amplified sound. As such, this facility will not be utilized as an outdoor concert venue. If the applicant wishes to introduce outdoor sound, In the future, a modification to this conditional use will be required. The structure will be fully enclosed, and the near structures to the vent facility are approximately 500 feet away within this radius. So you have one property just about outside here, one to the north, and then another structure here to the south. THE PROPOSED EVENT FACILITY WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 10,584 SQUARE FEET AND FULLY ENCLOSED. THE EVENTS ARE OFTEN HELD OUTSIDE THE PEAK TRAVEL HOURS AND MOST EVENTS ARE HELD DURING THE EVENINGS AND WEEKENDS. ACCORDING TO THE EVENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, HOURS OF OPERATION WILL BE FROM 12 PM TO 11 PM FRIDAY THROUGH SUNDAY. AGAIN, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR AN EVENT FACILITY, NOT AN OUTDOOR CONCERT VENUE. THERE WILL BE NO OUTDOOR AMPLIFIED VOICE, MUSIC OR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AS CONDITIONED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT AND SECTION 303 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. The venue will provide spaces for up to 125 attendees while exceeding the 71 space requirement. And then the following are going to be photos provided by staff during our site visit on May 19th. Here's Reynolds Road looking north and then south. And that was that structure that you saw to the south. That was around that 500 square foot radius. Here is why you're looking northwest. southeast and the subject site to the rear with the approximate event location. And again, here's Reynolds Road looking or wider road looking southeast towards the site event facility will be to the rear and then wider road looking west with the site to the left. The parcels directly surrounding the subject property are residential land uses. The acreage of the site and a required roadway landscaping will buffer the events from off-site, making this request compatible. Through site design and conditions of approval, staff finds this request is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval of this application. I request that the presentation be submitted to the record. And with that, I will stand for questions.

Any questions of the staff? If the applicant's present, I'll ask the applicant to come forward, please.

Good morning, everyone. For the record, Tom Woodridge, TDW Land Planning, here to present on behalf of the property owner our request for this conditional use application for an event venue. We wanted to first clarify what our request is, what we look like, how we operate. I think our events management plan provided a lot of details of what we won't be doing, which is we won't be making a lot of outdoor noise. We won't be having those things outside. We're an enclosed building. We have limited hours of operation. We have limited days of the week that we're in operation. But we do have sufficient infrastructure to support this. I'm going to show you some of the roads in the area. Weeder Road. which is a local commercial road, as you saw in your staff report, though not paid for this time, it is well maintained. It is well maintained and I would suggest that the surrounding roadways do provide a good network for people to get to and from the property. We don't have any environmental limitations. There's no floodplain or wetlands on our site. The drainage that we've provided on site is more than adequate and we have even more space to provide that. So we have plenty of room to put the amount of things to make this a great functioning and useful use in the area. We have two access points and we have enough space that we put the barn venue in the center. It's going to look like a barn from the outside, which fits the character of this area. Staff said this is a residential district. It's technically agricultural residential rural, so it is both agricultural residential. A barn structure fits well within that as compatible and look and function. And if in 10 years this ever changes, you'll have a functional barn on property that can be utilized by the next owner of the property. So this is not something we're designing that's going to be functionally obsolete. It fits in well with both the character, the function, the look of the overall area. And we're here today to talk about how this can be a fit within the community and conditioned as such that it's a good neighbor to everyone around. We understand that there's a lot of people in the audience. We heard about the letters, the signatures in opposition, although we know that's not competent substantial evidence. It's just a list of signatures. We are anxious to hear what the people have because we're here today to try and mitigate those concerns and to deal with this from a design perspective, from a limitations standpoint, understanding that we have already limited our use our hours of operation, our daily occupancy of the properties to the point where it's very calm and fits in well. But let's talk about why we're even here today. Barn venues are huge. It even shocked me when my client came to me and talked about it. I had no idea that over the last 17, 18, 20 years how much this has grown. We're talking about nearly one in five weddings are held at barn venues. venues so while the people in this room and the people that you know and the people you might have talked about barn venues you know have their particular perspective on it you might have also talked to somebody who said oh yeah I actually had my wedding or their wedding at a venue type thing so they're very common they're very much in demand and it's a way to make them work so that they fit in obviously that's why we're here at the hearing today how can we talk about conditioning and how can we put place it on the property so it functions well this is not just for weddings i think that's the the use that everybody sees is you know where is there going to be a problem with that okay there's a lot of assumptions along with that you know how some people hold their or conduct their weddings or how they might have experienced at other venues that's how they operate we're not interested in creating an impact to the community with this venue the property owner is well aware of how they need to be good neighbors from the onset of our application process i said talk to the neighbors This is going to be something we need to discuss with them to be prepared to make this a good fit. This is not we're going to ask it and we get it, no problems. From the very onset, we knew we'd have to talk to the neighbors. We'd have to come to a hearing where we address these concerns. So we're fully ready to have that conversation and to be responsive to what the people here today bring. And we look forward to giving that chance to respond and provide that. But aside from weddings, we're talking about birthday parties, family reunions, other get togethers that are people coming together, but they don't have space, especially in this area to do it. And this is a great venue to allow people to gather together. As you see from the pictures, I've tried to provide examples. These are not architectural drawings, obviously, from our building. The barn is not there on site. This is meant to provide the scale and size. As you see, I didn't put anything, you know, 50,000 square feet in size here. I didn't put anything very tall. The architectural character is probably somewhat similar, but we're not being held to this. But this is probably what it would look like, a barn, a metal barn on the property with walls to keep everything inside. When we submitted our application and staff reviewed it, staff compared us to the impacts that we have, similar to a church. And if you think about it openly, you say, okay, well, that kind of makes sense. You know, it's not 24-7 that's happening. There are certain events that a church has. There are, of course, church activities that happen on the weekends typically and maybe sometimes during the week. We're not even going to have our activities during the week, only on the weekends. But churches also have weddings. Churches have funerals. Churches have potlucks. Churches have fundraiser. Churches have all sorts of things that are get-togethers. Churches have amplified music and sound that can be heard off property. Churches have a lot of those things. So we're not saying we are a church, but I can understand why staff compared us to that and our traffic impacts. It's the category that they use for traffic impacts, so we're similar to a church. Once in a while, there's a few days of the week where you have the main activities and the rest, it's pretty quiet. And I just want to keep that in mind that the evaluation the staff gave, I feel like it was fair to consider a similar to a church. And our location, we feel, you know, if a church came requested here or if there was something in this location that was a similar use, you know, this is a location that at least it's at an intersection on a rural collector roadway. Staff provided this aerial photo. But again, this just shows the sparse population. of the area around this. While you have 100 or 100 and something signatures, you can see from this aerial, there's not 100 home sites on this photo. So with numerous people living in the house, it's possible there's some magnitude of people from that signature page that are close by. But you're looking at about a half mile to three quarters to a mile in this picture around the site. And we still don't have 100, 150 people This is a very sparsely area. There's grove trees, pasture, more agriculture that still is very vibrant in this part of the county. Our nearest residential site formerly consisted of five homes. The current owner purchased this property and is removing some of the remaining development that was there when he purchased it so that's something that is ongoing but you can see that at one point there was five homes of impact on here and now it's down to just the one home that's going to be the caretaker's cottage which I'll point out because it's part of our discussion on the site plan here this home is being renovated and will remain part of it but your other homes that have been removed lead way for the space that we would be using for The buffer zone is actually for the facility that we're proposing. We are about 500 feet from the barn to the nearest home, and that nearest home is actually at this corner, but it's well buffered by existing vegetation and trees and pretty far away. The barn facility is somewhere around at this location. I'll show you in the site plan in a moment, but I wanted to show you that's really our closest home. The other homes that we have on the site, if you look to the bottom of the screen, we have the three where the three stars are. The property owner did reach out and try to talk to the neighbors that were at least adjacent to his property, and we do have signed support from those neighbors. I will say with a caveat that one of them then sent in an email saying, wait a minute, I actually am concerned because it's an open pole barn. And there was some miscommunication there. It's not an open pole barn. So that was one of the concerns. And then the other one was that there's going to be flooding, but there's not flooding because we're going to have retention ponds. We have plenty of room to provide for more than adequate drainage that is needed for this use. And we're not in a floodplain, wetland, or have any other issues that would make it so that it's going to be a problem in this area. But I want to point out that my client, he did reach out to neighbors, neighbor properties, say, hey, here's what's coming. And we're quite a distance away from the other property owners in the area. Some of the roads in the area. This is 80-foot road as you come down from State Road 60. I just want to show you the actual services and the traffic on them. This is just, you know, what you see as you drive down the road. This is Cox Road. It runs east-west. And this runs parallel to WIDA. does come up on a Google Maps search when you put the address in for the venue. That's something that, you know, potentially we can work on. But, yeah, WIDA is an unpaved clay road right now. And Cox Road would be the preferable, or ABC, which I'll show you in a moment, Cut-Off, which is another great collector, rural and collective road with excellent pavement that runs east-west as well. And here's Reynolds Road. This is south of our site. When you come up to the corner of WIDA and Reynolds, you have to the northeast, the Reynolds business there that there's semi trucks and storage buildings, things like that. Directly to our east, to the bottom left is pasture and there's a home in the back. You can see in the far distance. North of us, there's a mobile home in the top left and you can see the home behind the oak trees that I mentioned. There's plenty of trees and buffering from that home to the property line and then again to our actual a barn venue and then to the northwest of that is the pasture that I mentioned earlier. So quite rule, quite open, quite distanced from actual homes in the area. I'm trying to point out everything that is right next to us and in the previous slides showing you where the other homes are right next to us. But we spoke to those homes to the southwest, west and south. So this is the site plan that we came up with. Our initial uh, intent was to put this so that the building itself was far from residences. Where on the site can we put it so it's kind of equidistant from residential while still allowing for the parking that's necessary? The structure has grass parking with gravel drive aisles so it keeps it kind of a rural low impact look and not a paved parking lot type thing. You do have parking areas adjacent to the building for ADA accessibility which of course is required and for safety. But overall, it's going to be a barn with a gravel drive and two points of access on Reynolds Road to make flow of traffic coming and going from the site both easy and manageable. We also know that people will disperse in multiple directions. You've been to other venues, say it is church, say it is another venue you go to. And at the onset of people leaving, there's several cars that are waiting to leave on Reynolds Road. But as I showed you earlier, the amount of traffic currently on those roads, as you see in your staff report, there's plenty of capacity on these roads. It's not something that we're dropping a use into a busy area that's gonna cause congestion and problems. Just like a church, there will be peak hours where people leave when they're done with the event, and they will get on the roads and get back to the multiple places where they go to, and they can do that turning right or turning left on Reynolds, going up to Cox, going to ABC Cut-Off, depending on which way you're going, north or south. You can get to all over the county from this venue. Again, it is enclosed, and we are on a rule minor collector road. I guess the main point is that we've conditioned ourselves, we've designed the site, and we have prepared to make this so it's a good fit for the area. The concerns for noise and outdoor impacts we've mitigated with both distance buffering enclosed building, limited hours of operation. We're going to be open limited days of the week. This is a once in a while venue. This is not a daily venue. This is something that would be open. The property owner is open to sharing the venue for even if there was a community service that needed to be done or a funeral service that people would rather have in a bar and venue. I mean the viewing, not the actual no preparation, obviously, but things of those nature. It's meant to be something that community can get around and to utilize. The demand is there for some of the things I mentioned, like weddings and family reunions, other events. But we are still going to be limited on what we can do, when we can use it, and how often we can use it. And staff has showed that we are consistent with the infrastructure that's already constructed, the comprehensive plan, and the land development code. With that, I'll answer any questions that the planning commissioner has at this time. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant?

Mr. Chair, I don't have any questions, but I am recusing myself from this case, and I will not be voting or commenting on it.

Okay, thank you. You say you're restricting the days of the week to weekends only?

Fridays through Sundays, yes. And times? We put noon to 11 p.m. That's somewhat flexible. We were providing something we thought would be not too early in the morning. There are typically preparations for weddings that sometimes happen around noon to 1 if the wedding's a 4 o'clock wedding, so we didn't want to cut it too short, but we're still open to that. as discussion if there's concerns that you'll have.

What is that area on the site plan that has the polka dot pattern?

This is the retention pond that we've provided. The site generally slopes from this corner to the Reynolds Weeda corner, and it's only four feet of fall, so it's relatively flat, but we have plenty of room for swales and other drainage features to make sure that everything is maintained in this location.

What's the expected occupancy?

We had put, like Kyle mentioned on his slide, Maximum of 300 at the most, plus or minus 300. But we anticipate much of what we'll be doing would be in a range around there. But if you want to cap it at 300, that's why we put that number out there. We don't have a limitation on that higher end at this point that we would be concerned with if you wanted to put something on there. We'd just like to talk about it.

So Tom, with 300 people out there, would the owner have some type of security or anything happening out there?

Great question. Thank you for asking that because we had talked about that previously and said if necessary, we're prepared to provide a sheriff deputy or some police, off-duty police officer to ensure for those activities that you know, people would think would warrant it. If they're concerned with a wet wedding and there may be alcohol consumption, that's fine. I want to say also this is include closed, fenced and gated property will remain as such. The security residence that's located here will remain a security residence to maintain order and to make sure that things are happening and flowing well and locked up at night. But in terms of the actual activities, if there's a desire, we would be more than happy to provide that police presence for those people events. I just don't want to paint this as, oh, it's always going to be needing that sort of thing. But if there was some condition that you wanted to place, for example, if alcohol is to be served, then they should hire an off-duty deputy or police official or private security for that purpose.

How close is the fire department in EMS?

Please don't respond from the audience. We'll have a public hearing momentarily.

Thank you. They're quite far. The sheriff deputy, I believe, is 13 or 14 miles, if I'm correct from our memory. So we've got some distance. We're obviously in a rural area. I think that Alturas has an EMS station. Is that correct?

No.

Wow.

It's on page 7 of the staff report under near share fire and EMS stations. The nearest fire and EMS station is going to be for station 10 located at 1235 9th Street and for me that travel distance is about 13.1 miles.

Where is this in proximity to, I'm just curious, to Leland Young's barn? Oh, it's a ways away. Is it?

Please don't respond from the audience.

I'm not familiar with the distance of how far this is, so I don't want to answer. I'm sure that we have responses. Yeah, it's a ways away.

I assume that's a county road and meets county standards and they maintain it?

Rowell's Road is narrow, but it is paved and it is a rural minor collector road. All the other roads are, I believe, up to standards, the other roads as well.

Okay. Any other questions?

I was able to pass freely with other oncoming traffic while visiting the site.

Can you bring the Reynolds Road photo back up, please? Is it the one that there were?

Thank you. Just be patient.

So no lines?

There we are. I feel hanging ten a second. Hang on. Okay. So that's Reynolds Road. And the grass is a bit overgrown in places on it, but...

So what is the width of that payment? Do we know? That's it.

It's that information is also available in the staff report. It is on page. I just lost it. Apologies. It is page 9 number C under roadway conditions. Reynolds Rd is that rural minor collector roadway with an 18 foot wide pavement surface. And then County Rd.

655a is a county maintained 25 foot wide rural major collector roadway thank you and i'll say i mean you can you can hear some of the noise and coming from the audience and concerns and that's fair but i think it's imperative to remember the frequency of the use that we're proposing they may illuminate some frustrations that they had from the venue that you um mentioned Commissioner Bishop, I'm not familiar with that in this neighborhood, so being compassionate to that, they may have some concerns or objections based upon the experiences of other operations in the area. I don't even know if it's similar to what we're doing, but it's important to consider us independent of other parties that we're not associated with, nor do we operate their business. We are proposing what we are today. We are an enclosed barn. We are a rural looking use in a rural area. We're center of the site. Plenty of parking and circulation. We're built to new code. We are going to be providing buffering. We have the streets and roads in the areas that will support the intermittent use that we're having. This is not an all day long facility. This is a once in a while events facility.

Thank you. A technical question for county. Past cases, we've been required to have a 25-foot easement for EMS fire. And did you say this was 18 feet, this width of this road?

Reynolds Road is 18 feet wide pavement. Correct.

So it doesn't meet what we require for... A typical easement at 25 feet?

The pavement is 18 feet, but the right-of-way width is 30. That's where you get that 25 and 30.

And just for clarity, that's for access via easement for residential building permits. We require a minimum 20-foot easement width and usually a minimum 12-foot of compressed surface, but that's not relative to this. Thank you.

Okay, I'm going to open the... agenda item to public comment and ask is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of this application seeing none I'll ask then if there's anyone to speak in opposition to this application and I would suggest that you line up along the wall here just in the interest of saving time I don't know who's going to go first and I would also like to emphasize please do not repeat What has been said, you can just say I agree with this rather than taking time to give us repetitive testimony. That would be helpful, I think, for everybody. And you have three minutes to give us what you would like for us to know. Yes. And I assume yours.

That's all I have. When you read it to yourself, I'm under three minutes. Okay.

So you were sworn in.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Sir, so that you're fully aware and the board's aware, I actually have, I'm speaking on behalf and I have affidavits of other families I'm speaking on behalf. I would like to have an exception to speak beyond the three minutes, and I have a list of families as well as a USB drive, which I'll be presenting as I will.

I'll give you a little leeway. Thank you, sir. Okay. You're not with him, though.

We're all together.

I understand that. I understand that. But she came up, and I just wanted to clarify that. Okay.

Hello. My name's Chad Holmes. I live on Weta Road, two houses down from this proposed facility. I don't know who was running the transit when they said this property flows through the road because it doesn't. It flows to my property and my neighbor's property, and I've got $10,000 invested in my pond the last two years to try to control the flooding because of the rainy season. Part of living in the country is totally fine. I've lived in this community for almost 50 years. Four generations of my family live on three properties. One of them is where the star was, the other two are behind me. This is a quiet, peaceful community, and we don't want things like this. The last thing that we need are people leaving this event and thinking they're Bo and Luke Duke on our dirt roads. I drag these dirt roads probably once a week to maintain them because the county can't keep up with it. This is very passionate to me, my family, and everybody that's in here. This should not be allowed. This is agricultural residential property. Agricultural. If you want to make money off the property you invested in, buy cows, roll hay, sell sod, whatever else supports it. You don't build a facility and put everybody else out. The hours are limited to the reduced hours to the weekends when we're trying to unwind, enjoy ourselves on our property that we've lived on for 50 years. Be thoughtful of everybody else that lives around here. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. My name is Nick Salisbury, 2540 Wallace Road. I just want to start by saying hats off to the county people, whoever takes these pictures. I've watched so many of these pictures that are so inaccurate. You guys just take pictures of whatever looks good. Go by there right now. Right now they're building illegally onto a mobile home, putting a front porch on, putting windows in. They're saying that they're doing this illegally. They're constantly over there partying, drinking. It's a mess. They've put culverts in the ditch that were unpermitted. The county's had to remove. As my neighbor said, the roads are terrible. I have to go out there every single day. I did it this morning because it rained last night. The county can't keep up with the roads. Our wives get stuck. So we have to go out there. We have to maintain the road. I drive a dually. When somebody comes down the road, I have to put my duals down in the ditch to pass oncoming traffic. And the last thing I'll say is I brought my two kids here today. The emergency services out in Alturas suck. My kids were involved. I don't know if anybody knows two years ago there was a side-by-side accident where a 10-year-old girl got killed. My kids were on that buggy with them kids, with their girlfriend that died 10 years old. We waited 15, 18 minutes for the first EMS to respond out there to try and save a 10-year-old girl that was trapped under the side-by-side. But luckily, I had the time to drive back to my barn with my tractor, get in my personal truck, and go over there and try and perform life-saving measures on that girl. But we don't worry about that. We don't worry about the cops. Let's just keep trying to make money. More money, more money, more money, right? It's all about the dollar. The second accident, my wife got the phone call because the first responders couldn't get there. On ABC Road, where he's talking about his proposed entrance, right there, two adults got killed on a go-kart. We waited there for 17 minutes for EMS with people's brains laying on the curb. And then we're going to attract the venue with drinking, driving. Something happens to my kids on those roads, I'm going to come and I'm going to look each one of you in the eyes, and we're going to talk about what we talked about today. That's all. I appreciate your time. Please use that for consideration. Thank you.

Well, sir, no, we'll give you a chance to comment.

It's the applicant that wants to. It's the applicant that doesn't want to proceed.

I'm sorry. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. I'm going to give the applicant a chance to comment.

Pardon the interruption, I think, and I pardon the interruption to the respondees, but it sounds like the applicant is requesting to rescind this application, so that would stop people from needing to, if you want to still testify, we're not trying to take your voice away, but the point is he's...

I'm not out here to ruin, I've been in this... Sir, could you come up, please? I'm sorry, but we just need your comments for the record.

I'm fifth generation Floridian as well. I got sixth generation kids. I don't want to ruin y'all's community, so I rescind it.

It's fine.

I understand. That's good.

Okay, I'm sorry. We need to stop. We need to stop comments directly from the audience. I mean, if you still want to speak, but you need to come up. But he's rescinding this application, so we will not proceed any further if that's... That means he's withdrawing the application.

We're being so hateful. Mr. Badcock, if you want to come and build a house and be part of our community, you're welcome with open arms, sir, and we look forward to it, and we look forward to being neighbors. We just don't want something like this coming into our community. It only took two people to say it.

All right. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Tom. And he did a great job.

All right. The case is withdrawn.

That's a first.

There's nothing to vote on.

No.

All right.

All right. Next case.

All right, next case on the agenda is number 12, LDCU 2026-7. This is the West Cannon Heights duplex. For the record, the staff report and slideshows have been introduced into the record, and Aaliyah and Gleema is your planner. Good morning.

Sorry. Good morning, Aliyah Anglimo with Land Development presenting number 12 on the agenda, LDCU 2026-7, the West Cannon Heights Duplex. The applicant is requesting a conditional use approval for a single family home to be converted to a duplex on 0.40 acres within a residential low three future lane use district. The subject site is located at 1210 Northwest 33rd Street, north of Avenue K Northwest, south of Avenue M Northwest, and west of the City of Winter Haven in section 24. Township 28, Range 25. On May 15th, 70 mailers were sent to area property owners. One sign was posted on May 18th. A legal ad was published in Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun on May 20th with no response from the public. The surrounding homes were built between 1960 and 1970. While no duplexes are located along the street, multiple can be located just south approximately 300 feet away. The duplexes are located off Woodhill Court and have been there since 1988. The subject site is designated as lot 118 and 119 of the West Cannon Heights subdivision. West Cannon Heights subdivision was recorded in September 10th, 1925 prior to the adoption of the comprehensive plan and land development code. The subject property is also part of the Inwood redevelopment district. So here's a picture of the site plan. The existing single family home will be converted into a duplex. The existing home will remain. It's just the inside of the structure is changing. And here's a picture from the site. So this is not a matter of density as this is a parcel comprised of two lots of record. This is about housing type and this project will utilize an existing house. Just the inside of the structure is changing to convert it to a duplex. The site is compatible with surrounding uses and is consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code. And I'll stand for any questions.

Any questions, staff? Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing for any public comment. Anyone speak in favor of this application? Anyone to speak in opposition to this application? Yes, ma'am. Would you come forward, please?

Good morning. My name is Mildred Smith. I'm the president of the Amway Association. I'm speaking against this. Our community is primarily older people. When people come in our community and they want to put these duplexes up, they raise the property taxes for the people that has been in our community for years. Inwood is built on people that has been there For 70, 80 years. And when people want to come in and they want to revamp our community, they raise our property tax. They raise the property tax where the low income people that are on a set income can't afford them. They're not there to help our community. They're not coming in our community to do better for our community. They're coming in there for sole purpose of money. They come in, they spend a little bit of money on something, then that almost doubles our property taxes. I'm here speaking for the elderly people. So we don't want that. We don't want no more. And I will be at more of these hearings since I've stayed here and listened today when it comes to my community. And that's all I got to say.

Thank you. I failed to ask the applicant if he's present. Is the applicant present? Yeah. Yeah. While she's coming up, did you comment about if there were other duplexes in the area? I thought I heard you say that, but I've forgotten already.

There is, just to the south off of Woodhill Court right here.

Okay. Are those all duplexes or just?

Yes, those are all duplexes.

Okay. Are they duplexes or are they single family attached? They're duplexes. Okay. Yes, ma'am.

Hi, I'm Angela Williamson. I'm just here on behalf of the owners that are trying to convert this single-family residence into a duplex. They're just going to demo the existing wall and put in a firewall. They already have two existing septics on the property, and I've got approval for the health department. I'm just needing approval from you folks in order to get the permit through the building department.

That's what I was here for.

Okay.

Thank you. Anyone else to speak in opposition to this?

So this would have two separate entrances then? Yeah.

Correct.

And it currently has that now. They just want to.

Just put the firewall? Yes.

I don't know why they just didn't do it.

Okay, I'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion.

All right.

I move to approve LDCU 2026-5.

Motion? No.

Oh, seven.

Sorry, I'm on the wrong, looking at the wrong one.

I second that.

I have a motion and a second for LDCU 2026-7. Roll call, please.

Cindy Giannamassa, motion to approve. Merle Bishop?

For the motion.

Brooke Gagnini? For the motion. Mike Hickman? For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Linda Schultz. For the motion. Motion passes.

Thank you. Next case. All right. Good morning. Ian Nance, Land Development. Staff recommends approval of LDCU 2026-5, a request for short-term rental on an unplatted residential lot north of Davenport. For the record, 17 mailers were sent on May 15th, and one sign was posted on the same date. A legal ad was published on the 20th. We've received no public responses. The site is located at 3119 North Highway 5547, south of Ernie Caldwell Boulevard, west of US 1792, in Section 22, Township 26, Range 27, in Northeast Polk County. This site is close to attractions in Orlando and elsewhere, which makes it an attractive spot. As such, short-term rentals are common in the area. Just last year, LDPD 2025 was approved to the west with approximately 1,600 units designated for short-term rental. The subject property is approximately 2.63 acres within a residential medium future land use district. Approval here does still require a Level 3 review, and unlike an approval within a platted subdivision, this approval would just be for the subject property. The property is shown to the right, and the house is to the bottom left. As I mentioned, it is a large property and the 3,600 square foot home on site is just about the size you could get for a lot in residential medium in this part of the county. There's a privacy fence and gate. The home is set back 60 feet from the home to the north and type B landscaping will be required and existing vegetation can be utilized. There's ample room for parking, which we really analyze with short-term rental because on smaller lots where you have these approved, there's often parking into the rights-of-way that prohibit travel and emergency vehicles. This site has plenty of room for guests. And one final note, no other construction is being planned. They're just using the existing home. According to the application, during the rental periods, guests will not receive meals or additional services. The typical duration of stays ranges from three to seven nights. Most bookings are vacation-oriented and do not exceed 14 days. The LDC has ongoing standards required for short-term rentals to provide enforcement of behavior on site to avoid disturbing neighbors. This request is compatible with surrounded uses, consistent with the land development code and comprehensive plan, and I think you'll stand for questions.

Any questions of the staff? So there's no other short-term rental uses in the immediate vicinity of this? You said they're pretty common in the area, I understand, but in the immediate vicinity, like those residences around north and south of this and across the street?

No, sir. Okay. I believe this is BPC across the street with a couple homes. And is this... This is part of Ridgewood Lakes, and all this came in and was approved for short-term rental options. This is Estonia. It was not, but right across the street here, North Estonia was approved for short-term rental.

Okay.

Further north, Solavita was approved for it, too. When did that regulation go into effect? It went back quite a few years. Look that up. I know it precedes the state rules on it because most municipalities are pre- It was back when I was here.

So that's quite a few years. Back in the Stone Age.

Yes. Let's see. Our short-term rental code was last revised in 2009, and the state preemption took place in 2011.

So if we change any- So these projects were after that that have been approved for short-term rental?

Yes, sir.

These aren't grandfathered in? Correct. Yes, sir. And so anytime you want short-term rental, you have to come before the...

Yes, most often we see it as part of a plan development approval. It's pretty rare we get these individual lots. We get a lot of requests for existing subdivisions with lots within them. But our code states that if you approve one lot within an existing subdivision, it applies to the entirety of the subdivision. And certain places aren't interested in that option.

If this is approved, would they be able to do any expansion to increase the level of use for this? You mean expansion of the home? The home or additional home or additional residence on the property?

There's no prohibition on it at this time.

Okay.

But they would have to come before? Yeah, it's conditional use, so we've presented a site plan, and that's what would be binding. Right.

Any other questions? Is the applicant present? No. I'll open up the public hearing portion of the agenda item and ask is there anyone here to speak in favor of this application? Anyone to speak in opposition of this application? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for further discussion and a motion.

I move to approve LDCU 2026-5.

Second.

Motion second to approve.

Roll call, please.

Cindy Giannamasso for the motion. Merle Bishop.

For the motion.

Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman.

For the motion.

Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Linda Schultz. For the motion. Motion passes.

Thank you. Next case, please. For the record, Ian Nance presenting on behalf of Eric Peterson for LDCU 2026-7, a request for a plan development to modify a sign plan specifications for an existing conditional use approval, a large retail center with gas stations, and the employment center future land use district. For the record, 55 mailers were sent to area property owners on May 15th. Eight signs were posted on May 18th, and a legal ad was published in the Lakeland Winter Haven Polk Suns on May 20th. Staff has logged no response. Here's a subject site north and west of Ridgewood Lakes entrance. This site was approved for a large retail development in October 24 without parcels including gasoline sales. Within this approval was a sign plan that deviated from the ECX standards. That sign plan approved, I'm sorry, the approved site plan included five plaza signs and two freestanding signs for the major retailers in exchange for pole or monument signs on the nine out parcels. Essentially, they reduced the number of signs but gave the existing signs they could have larger copy area. The previous conditional use was very specific and does require this hearing to make a slight change. And these are the two basic changes that have been proposed. The first is adjusting the copy area from one sign to the other. They're reducing this sign and moving some of the square footage to this sign, and they're adding the digital gas prices signage to one of their monument signs, and that's the effect of the request here. It's very minor. With this application though. We are suggesting suggesting conditions of approval to allow further changes to The area and height of signs up to five percent through the building permit approval in case you have different vendors come in or different Technology changes we don't have to keep dragging us back through But in case we do this is also being changed from a conditional use to plan development so we can track the changes that might come with that Request is compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with relevant sections of the code and comprehensive plan. That, I thank you, will stand for questions.

Any questions of staff? Is the applicant present? Yes, sir. Come forward, please. Were you sworn in? You were not?

Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you present to the board today will be the truth, the whole truth,