Board of County Commissioners on 2026-01-06 9:00 AM

welcome everyone to January 6th Board of County Commissioner meeting, and we would like to start our meeting with first saying Happy New Year to everybody, and second, if we would stand for our invocation and our pledge. Good morning and Happy New Year. I would invite everyone to pray. Heavenly Father, this time of year represents a sense of renewal, so as we enter into this year with all of its opportunities and all of its challenges, we trust that you are always with us may we find peace in knowing you are close. With you, we can be strong and courageous. Thank you for being our guide and our protector, and I ask this prayer in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen. Chaplain Hanley, I just want to publicly say thank you so very much for your dedication, for being here at every board meeting, leading us in prayer, so we really appreciate that, and we just wanted you to know that, so thank you. Thank you. Okay, we're moving on. We have public comments concerning agenda items. Ms. Amber, do we have anybody? We have Mr. Mark Bowen, I think it is. Mark? Okay. Mark, please state your name and address, and you have three minutes. Yes. Thank you. My name is Mark Bowne. I am with MedFleet Ambulance, which is 3706 DMG Drive in Lakeland. So I am here on behalf of MedFleet Ambulance. Some of you may have spoken to my COO already, Jeff Taylor. He is unable to be here today, so I am here in his place. As I said, my name is Mark Bowne. I'm the Operation Manager for MedFleet Ambulance, formerly known as ATI Ambulance. I am here today to formally oppose the application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity submitted by Panther Mountain Enterprises LLC, operating under the name Express Medical Transport. Our position is not driven by competition concerns. It is grounded in patient safety, system stability, and adherence to Florida law. To begin, the applicant is a newly formed entity established over just 100 days ago. There is no verifiable operational history, no demonstrated financial stability, and no track record that would allow the county to evaluate any long-term viability. Additionally, the business name Express Medical Transport does not appear as an active or recognized DBA associated with this LLC in Florida. As a result, there is uncertainty regarding the legal identity of the operator being proposed. Second, based on the Florida Department of Health Bureau VMS provider reporting, neither the applicant nor stated operating name currently holds an ambulance service license in the state of Florida. Authorizing a COPCN prior to licensure introduces unnecessary risk and places the county in a position of approving services that is not yet met state regulatory standards. Third, Polk County already has a robust transport system in place. There are currently 18 ambulance ground providers and three air providers in the county. MedFleet alone, together with ATI Ambulance, maintains the capacity to deploy more than 65 ambulance for daily operation and emergency responses. Introducing additional providers into an already saturated system will not improve access. Instead, it risks fragmenting coverage and reducing the availability of resources dedicated to Polk County. Fourth, the applicant's justification for need is unsupported by objective data. Statements regarding extended hospital transfer delays are presented without system level matrix. Fifth, the application does not satisfy statutory requirements related to medical oversight. Florida law requires ambulance services providers to designate a licensed physician as medical director responsible for clinical supervision and QA or quality assurance. No such physician is identified in this application. Listing a physician assistant is not legal and it does not meet the requirement. In addition, this applicant claims the ability to provide continuous ALS coverage with only two paramedics. This staffing model raises legitimate concerns regarding crew fatigue, patient safety, and operational sustainability. Not at my time. That's your time. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. And Madam Chair, we had received, my understanding, fire rescue and the county attorney's office had reviewed the objection, which was just summarized, that was dated December 2nd, 2025, and we did not see any issues with issuing the COPCN. We have had startup groups come into Polk County for before they can actually start operating. They do have to meet all the state requirements. One of the issues they often run into before they can start with the state, they have to have a COPCN. So if there was a requirement that before you can get your COPCN, before you get your license, before you get your license or COPCN with the county, you have to have your license with the state, you will run into the issue that they couldn't get either. So as a condition, they always have to still meet all the state requirements and get the license from the state before they begin to operate. So we've had other companies before that have came into the county to start up and they go through all the state requirements and meet all the state requirements before they begin to operate. We also confirmed that there was a feticious name for the Express Medical Transport, that that was confirmed, that what had been filed with the state. So we believe we're comfortable with moving forward and keeping this on the consent at this time. And if there's an issue, they've got the right to appeal it, and the board can hear it at that time. Just one question on that. So as far as the rules go or the requirements go, there's some to be able to apply, and then there's other conditions they need to meet before they get to operate. Yes, sir. So this is just giving them basically an authorization for the application to say, check that box, now you need to go forth and go through all the requirements. Once they meet all the state requirements, then they can operate because they'd be in violation of state law. Okay. Right now they're only getting the ability to operate in the county once they get their license and stuff through the state. Do they have to do any other application with us once they get those state requirements met? No, sir. They would have to show us that they have the license and stuff from the state, and they would need to file that with our fire rescue at that time. Before they could operate. Yes, sir. Okay, so there is a secondary check. Yes, sir. But there wouldn't be another application because this is the application. Right, but formally, we would still verify that they have met those state requirements prior to them starting to operate. Yes, sir. And a while back ago, we used to have our own regulation, and it was really duplicating a lot of what the state was doing. So we took and said, hey, as long as you meet the state requirements to operate, then you can operate in Polk County. Okay. Thank you. I think that was like four or five years ago that we had this conversation. I actually think it was a lot longer than that. I think in 2012 or so is when we kind of moved away from that. I just wanted to clarify, so Randy, based upon the objections that were just voiced, do you feel that the county has met the obligations and do not find that those objections are valid? At this time, yes, Madam Chair. Thank you. And so we would recommend it to stay on consent agenda. Okay. So let's move on to the consent agenda. Actually, Madam Chair, before we move on, we did get one request from the public, a Jennifer Batts. She put item three. We're assuming that was item 03, the public hearing on crucial. Okay. Just won't confirm. Thank you. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions or comments? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Stacey, but if you like, Comptroller, it's up to you. Good morning and Happy New Year. We have for you to approve and ratify payroll checks numbered 04356 through 04374, totaling $20,604.93. We have 2,991 direct deposits in the amount of $4,660,656.46, and those are dated December 24th of 2025. We have wired and electronic funds transfers of $61,866,692.55, dated December 16th of 2025 through January 5th of 2026. We have invoice checks numbered 496, 454 through 497, 311, totaling $42,100,107.21, and those are dated December 16th of 2025 through January 5th of 2026. For you to approve and ratify, please. I have a motion and a second. Any questions for Stacey? Hearing none, all in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. We also request the approval of your minutes of your regular board meeting that was held last year on December 16th of 2025. I have a motion and a second. Any questions for Stacey? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Anything else, Ms. Butterfield? Just an early reminder, because it is early in 2026, but before we know it, the sweetest day of the year will be here, which is February the 14th of 2026. That is a Saturday. And the clerk's office will hold its annual Valentine's Day group wedding. Anyone wishing to participate can go to our website and find all the information, and we're looking forward to another wonderful event. So thank you. Thank you. Okay, moving forward, we'll go with the county commissioner, Andy. Do you have? No. Okay. Then, before we go on to our county manager, we do want to say that he has a birthday today. He thought he was going to get away with that, so we want to wish you a happy birthday. We thought about singing. Happy birthday to you, but we don't want to embarrass you. Bad idea. Bad idea. We want to embarrass ourselves. We will embarrass you. But anyway, happy birthday, Mr. Beasley. Are you 37? 36? No. This one's tough. This one, I'm getting up there. Don't talk about age. Don't talk about age. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, members of the viewing audience. The manager's office will have four items for board consideration this morning. The first item, item G1, I think it's the heavy lift of the day, amongst other public hearing-related matters, but item number G1 is to request the board to approve a professional services agreement with WSB LLC for the provision of construction, engineering, and inspection services in connection with the County Road 557 widening project. This will be a contract total expense not to exceed $7,671,349.67 to occur over a drawdown period of approximately three years to coincide with the anticipated construction contract period for that roadway. Polk County has identified construction of County Road 557, the County Road 557 road widening project as a priority project given the population and employment growth projected for the land areas surrounding this corridor. The expected growth is evident by way of the increased traffic demands along adjacent roadways and the anticipated development projects either ongoing or projected along the corridor. The County Road 557 project will create a proposed four-lane urban collector roadway located north of the Lake Alfred downtown area and extending northward for approximately six miles to just south of the I-4 County Road 557 interchange. As is typical with roadway projects of this size and complexity, independent contract management, construction administration, field inspections, and overall quality control services are required to support the roadway construction contractors' efforts. This past summer, Polk County initiated a public process to solicit proposals from engineering firms for the purpose of providing construction, engineering, and inspection services in connection with the County Road 557 project. Request for proposal number 25388 was released and five firms submitted statements of qualifications. In September of 2025, the Board approved the Selection Committee's recommendation to enter into contract negotiations with WSB. The basic scope of these professional services will include the following responsibilities, general construction contract management, on-site inspection and oversight, materials sampling, testing, lab analysis, stormwater and environmental compliance, utility coordination, scheduling and inspections, overall project quality assurance and documentation, contractor invoicing and pay application management, as well as all public communications and documentation requirements. Staffing to support these professional services includes, but is not limited to, providing a senior project engineer, project engineer, project engineer, project administrators, contract support specialist, project secretarial and clerk support, senior field inspector, field inspectors to include utility inspectors, inspector aides, as well as environmental specialists. The project construction efforts are expected to begin in the spring of 2026 and conclude in the summer-fall of 2029, subject to site unforeseen conditions and excessive inclement weather. Funding for this major roadway improvement project is budgeted in the Transportation Zone A Impact Fee Fund, and this is an approved project included in the Board's adopted five-year community investment program. So, Madam Chair, members of the Board, I think in keeping with the Board's priority commitments to major roadway improvement projects, I would request the Board to approve the proposed agreement with WSB for the provision of providing both professional and technical construction, engineering, and inspection services in connection with the planned County Road 557 improvements project at a cost not to exceed $7,671,349.67, all of which is to be drawn down over a three-year construction period. I make that in the form of recommendation, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, a motion for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Madam Chair, members of the Board, item number G2 is to request the Board to approve a consultant services authorization with the Jacobs Engineering Group to provide professional engineering and design services for the preparation of final plans, specifications, and construction documents in connection with the County Road 542A Galloway Road at Swindale Road, an intersection improvements project. These professional services are to be performed at a cost not to exceed $495,095.89. Over the past 10 years, traffic movement along the North Galloway Road at Swindale Road intersections has increased to the point of requiring needed improvements along a segment of these corridors. In February of 2024, the County sponsored a community meeting in order to gain community consensus as to the preferred improvement options, and in May of 2024, the Board was presented with those community concerns and desired preferences for planned roadway improvements. Based upon the Board's direction at that time, a final alignment study of the preferred community option has been completed, and the project is ready to move into the final design phase that will reflect new traffic signals at the two intersections of Galloway Road and Swindale Road. This option will require limited right-of-way acquisition and will keep all construction activities within the Galloway Road corridor. The proposed consultant services authorization will include all professional design and engineering services towards final construction documents, utility relocation plans, environmental permits, signage and pavement marking plans, traffic signalization plans to include structural design, project cost estimating services, construction quality assurance, quality control services, project bidding services, and to provide technical support towards the County's actions regarding right-of-way acquisition. Funding for this planned roadway improvement is available within the Zone B Impact Fee Fund, and this project is an approved project within the Board's five-year adopted community investment program. So, Madam Chair, here again, consistent with the Board's priority commitments to roadway infrastructure improvements, certainly where feasible and appropriate. I would request that the Board approve CSA number 2022-089-04 with the Jacobs Engineering Group in connection with the County Road 542A Galloway Road at Swindale Road Intersections improvements project at a cost not to exceed $495,095.89. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Madam Chair and members of the Board, item number G3 is to request the Board approve a utility infrastructure agreement with the Clayton Properties Group in connection with the Myrtle Brook Development Sewage Lift Station upsizing, force main upsizing, and the abandonment of a nearby small diameter sanitary force main and potable water line. The County's expense to implement these infrastructure efficiency improvements is not to exceed $313,838.72. The Myrtle Brook single-family residential development is located off of Myrtle Road within Polk's Northwest Region Utility Service Area and includes the construction of lift station number 408 to serve the wastewater flows generated by that development. During the County's standard development review process, staff identified an opportunity for the utility system improvement by suggesting to the developer that current wastewater flows into a nearby 20-year-old existing lift station number 73 could be rerouted to a slightly expanded new lift station number 408 planned for the Myrtle Brook development, thereby eliminating the older lift station number 73. In order to accomplish these system efficiency improvements, the depth and diameter of lift station number 408 would be increased slightly, the station pump size would be increased, an emergency generator would be installed, the sanitary force main from the station would be increased in diameter, a nearby 8-inch water main would be abandoned with service replaced as part of the looped water main from the Myrtle Brook subdivision, and a 4-inch sanitary force main serving lift station number 73 would be abandoned. The Clayton Properties Group has agreed to complete these work tasks for a reimbursable amount not to exceed $313,838.72. Funding for these utility infrastructure efficiency upgrades and system-wide improvements is budgeted within the Water Connection Fee Fund identified within the adopted five-year community investment program specific to the developer agreements project account. So, Madam Chair, members of the Board, I think consistent with the Board's priority commitments to Polk County Utility System-Wide Improvements, I would request that the Board to approve the proposed utility infrastructure agreement with the Clayton Properties Group in connection with the Myrtle Brook Development Sanitary Lift Station number 408 upsizing, force main upsizing, generator installation, and associated abandonment of utility piping, all at a cost of not to exceed, for Polk County, not to exceed $313,838.72. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions? Madam Chair, if I may, not related to the sanitary sewer, but this is the same project that we have, the stormwater improvements that should be coming online soon. That material is on site and that work is undergoing. Okay. Very good. Thank you. And I also want to make sure that Lift Station 73, once it's abandoned, it's taken care of, and it doesn't even look like it was there. Am I correct? Yes, ma'am. It is in a very kind of remote area in the very backside of that existing older subdivision, so its abandonment will look appropriate. We'll work on it to make sure that it looks good. Okay. Any other questions? Comments? Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Final item from the manager's office this morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Item number G4 is to request the board to approve a professional services agreement with GIS Jane LLC to provide forecasting, detection, and mitigation of harmful algae blooms along publicly accessible lakes across Polk County at an expense not to exceed $300,000. Harmful algae blooms present serious risk to public health, aquatic ecosystems, and water quality across the state of Florida, including Polk County. These blooms are primarily driven by increased nutrient inputs into water bodies and associated population growth and land use practices. Polk County is home to hundreds of lakes, many of which have experienced harmful algae bloom occurrences in recent years. These events have been documented and made publicly accessible via the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Algae Bloom Dashboard. Recognizing the growing impact of harmful algae blooms, the state of Florida has allocated funding to support the development and implementation of innovative technologies aimed at forecasting, detecting, and mitigating the occurrence of these blooms. In response to the state's initiative to better understand nutrient loading and harmful algae bloom trends, Polk County was awarded a $300,000 grant from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection under the state's Innovation Innovative Technology Grant Program. To implement the grant-funded project, Polk County completed a competitive process to solicit proposals from qualified firms to conduct studies on publicly accessible lakes and streams for harmful algae blooms in order to conduct predictions, monitoring, and mitigation efforts. In September of this past year, the Board approved the Selection Committee's recommendation, authorizing staff to negotiate an agreement with GIS Jane for these required professional services. The term of this agreement is for two years, but will continue until completion of the services to the county's satisfaction. Funding for these environmental preservation initiatives is available in the Parks and Natural Resources 2526 Community Investment Program budget specific to the Special Revenue Grant Fund and is 100% funded by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. So, Madam Chair, members of the Board, I think in keeping with the Board's priority commitments to environmental preservation, especially pertaining to surface waters across Polk County, I would request that the Board approve the proposed professional services agreement with GIS Jane for the provision of forecasting, detection, and mitigation of harmful algae blooms across designated Polk County publicly accessible water bodies at a cost not to exceed $300,000. Madam Chair, motion for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Questions? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. That's it, Madam Chair. Thank you. We'll go on to Commissioner's District, Becky Troutman. Thank you, Madam Chair. We have a packed audience today, and I just want to say real life happens, and so y'all saw me just step out. I had a daughter that just swallowed a filling in process. So, if you see me looking at a phone today, please know I'm attending and being a mom, and that, of course, is a very important job. But just want to say thank you. This is a new year and look forward to doing great things in Polk County. I hope she's okay. She is okay, but they're having to send her to go get an x-ray to determine where the filling is, because it's not in her mouth. Okay. Commissioner Wilson. Yes, I have a reappointment of Charles R. Walter, PG, as a member to seat one of Polk County Industrial Development Authority for a three-year term, February 6, 2026, through February 5, 2029. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. No. Just wanted to wish everybody a happy new year. I mean, say to everybody a happy new year, and happy birthday to Mr. Beasley. You're not going to say how old you are? Okay. Never mind. This one's hard. This one's tough. You're running out of fingers at all? We should make it public soon. Commissioner Braswell. Yeah, every morning we all get the email from the EOC, and looking at it, especially since the rain, the other day, it looks to me like we should reconsider this burn ban. Is that from the fire chief? Is he the one who makes that determination? Normally, it is from the fire chief, although the board has some discretion. We'll get with the fire chief. I'm not going to try to preempt him or overrule him. I don't want to get into that, but just from my viewpoint, if north of 60 got the relief, I mean, it still looks like 60 south is dry, according to what they send out every morning, but I know where I'm at, it ain't dry. That might be the holdup and stuff, so I will get with the fire chief and see exactly his thoughts on it, and you may see something soon. He may already be looking at it and stuff. They usually like to look out pretty far out and just make sure that they're not going to repeal it just to react it and stuff, but that does come, to answer your question, the fire chief usually is the one that issues the repeal, and then it comes to the board for approval. Okay. We come to the board, Mr. Braswell, come to the board kind of after the fact. If we think that something merits the indices measure that we could give some relief to the burn ban, the board would ratify that after the fact at the next board meeting. It is immediate. If you recall, we actually made changes. So it could happen quicker and stuff. So the minute that it happens, we post it on our webpage, it's in effect at that point in time. And it's not like we're having, we can still get burn permits through the forestry service. Yes, sir. And as you pointed out, ag can get burn permits in a whole separate deal. I don't know if everybody's aware of that. I think we put it on the bottom of the fire burn ban or something, at least in the template that there's that ability to exempt out. Yeah, because we're doing a lot of renovation and a lot of work. And I think we had ran into that in the past when we had fire bans and stuff and the ag community could not do what they needed to do to work their crawls. That's all. Commissioner Scott? Yes, ma'am. I'd like to appoint Julie Jackson as a member of the Polk County Planning Commission for the remainder of the three-year term, January 6, 2026 to August 31, 2026. I have a motion and a second. Any questions? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. And the only other comment I had was to applaud the residents of Polk County, at least in North Lakeland, most adhered to the burn ban and the fireworks ban. It was actually fairly quiet on New Year's Eve. There was a little bit, but not nearly as much as there is. So as dry as we were, I do appreciate the residents heeding to that and keeping the whole community safe. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. We have a labor appointment. Yes. I would like to appoint Kellyanne Beach as a member of the Tourist Development Council to fulfill the remainder of Dexter Pagara's four-year term, which ends on August 31st of 2027. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. And I skipped myself. So I just want to say that yesterday we participated in the ribbon cutting for the sheriff command station in Point Siena. And it was well attended. It was a great event. And we're excited to see the public funds being put where they need to be put to serve our communities. So that was very exciting on that. I don't have anything else. And we're going to go straight into the expedited hearings. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before we begin the hearings, I'd like to go over the public hearing general procedures. First, I'd like to remind everyone, if you wish to speak on any of the public hearing items, that you fill out a speaker card in the back and give it to one of the communication staff members. We ask that you please turn off your cell phones and other devices that may distract from the public hearings. Please adjust the microphone and state your full name and address for the record record before you begin speaking on the topic. Individuals speaking during the public comment section of a matter will be strictly limited at three minutes. The board is experiencing these matters and is able to discern what is legally relevant to an issue and what is not. Information that is irrelevant or repetitive only serves to frustrate and necessarily prolong the day's business. The commission expects civility at all times during all public hearings. Speaking out of turn, shouting out from the audience disrespectful sounds or utterances while another is speaking are unacceptable and you will be asked to leave the chamber's remainder of the day. If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the board with respect to any matter considered here today, you will need a record of the proceedings and that for such purpose you will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, which you must gather at your own expense. Yes, ma'am. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak and present testimony today must be sworn in. All testimony given during public hearings shall be deemed to be sworn. At this time, if you're going to address the commission or speak on any case today, please stand, raise your right hand, and answer out to the following question. Do you swear or affirm that testimony or evidence you provide to the commission today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? All right. Thank you. Prior to the expedited hearings, I will go over the expedited hearing procedures. Expedited hearings are held pursuant to resolution number 2022-089. Expedited hearings are used when no opposition was present at the Planning Commission hearing. The applicant agrees to the expedited hearing and the recommendation of the Development Review Committee is for approval. Expedited procedures are the fallen. After staff briefly introduces the case, the hearing will be open for public comment. If one speaks during public comment, the applicant will be given the opportunity to respond. After public comment, the board will consider the land use case. At any time, a full presentation from the staff can be requested from a commissioner, the applicant, or a member of the public. All documents attached to the agenda are deemed part of the record of the land use case. Unless removed from the list of experts, by motion of the board, all individuals on the list of experts attached to the agenda are deemed experts for the purpose of the land use case. At this time, I will turn it over to Mr. Ziskell to present the expedited hearings. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Mink. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the commission, members of the audience. My name is Ben Ziskell, Land Development Director for Polk County. There are five items on today's expedited public hearing agenda, two of which are companion items. Item number N1 is an expedited public hearing for case LDC-PAL 2025-6, Poinciana-Bayberry Street CPA, to consider a future land use map designation change from DRI, Development of Regional Impact, to Institutional, on approximately 72.27 acres. As you can see on the screen, the subject site is located to the east of Marigold, south of Poinciana-Bayberry Street. As you can see, the subject is an undeveloped piece of land that was originally designated as Development of Regional Impact in the Poinciana area. The subject site is the future site of a high school for Polk County Public Schools, and the request today is to change the future land use designation from DRI to Institutional to facilitate construction and development of that high school. This item appeared before the Planning Commission and received unanimous recommendation of approval. It was also transmitted to the Department of Commerce and received no comments, and today is the adoption hearing, and following any questions or comments from staff or the public, staff recommends adoption. Any questions for staff? Seeing none, ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If you have anything to say on this matter, please come forward, state your name and address, and you have three minutes. Amber, do we have anybody? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Motion for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Not discussion, but I just want to point out that I appreciate our superintendent being here to discuss this or answer any questions if needed. Obviously, it's important that our school system continue to be able to meet the needs, so I appreciate him being here. Thank you. Anything else? Yeah, I look forward to this high school when it starts being built. It's well needed in that area. That's where we had more or less the ribbon cutting yesterday for the command station. That's the fastest growing area. Absolutely. Yeah, they always have something to say about that. All right. Any more questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Item number N2 is an expedited public hearing for case LDCD 2025-10, Poinciana-Berryberry Street sub-district change to consider a sub-district change on 72.27 acres from institutional one to institutional two. This item is a companion item to item N1. By default, when a piece of land receives a land use designation of institutional, it is assigned the institutional one land use designation. What that means for a school is that a binding site plan for a school site within institutional one requires planning commission approval and any subsequent changes to that site plan or to that property would require planning commission approval. The request here is to change the designation to institutional two, which would make the school a permitted use and would allow administrative review of site plans and any amendments thereto. This item, again, was reviewed by the planning commission and received unanimous recommendation of approval and following any questions or comments from the board or the public, staff is recommending adoption. Any questions for staff? Hearing none, ladies and general, we open this public hearing. If you have anything to say in this matter, please come forward. State your name and address, and you have three minutes. Amber, do we have anybody? Okay. Seeing none, then we close the public hearing, bring it back to the board. Second. I have a motion. I have a second. Any questions or discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Item number N3 is an expedited public hearing for case LDCT 2025-21, Lake Gibson Estates text amendment. To consider a text amendment to the land development code to limit the allowable uses and density for a property subject to case LDCPAS 2025-30. As you see on the screen, the subject site is located on the north side of West Autry Road. And you may remember this property from a case back in June where there was a request to change the designation from residential low to residential medium. The subject site is directly west of an existing assisted living facility that contains 62 beds. However, the surrounding properties all have the residential low designation. The concern at the time, as staff understood it and the applicant understood it, is that a change to residential medium with the full allowable uses would allow approximately 30 units on this site. That application was denied by the board with a 4-1 vote. The applicant has resubmitted the application to amend that land use designation. But what they have done this time is submitted this item, which is a companion item, voluntarily restricting the property to 16 dwelling units and also specifically prohibiting such items as group homes, mobile homes, emergency shelters, any recreational facilities, bed and breakfasts, any telecommunication towers or schools. So it is the same property you saw in June with enhanced restrictions. This is the text amendment that is a companion item to the land use change. The land use change will be before you in two weeks, as will the adoption hearing of this text amendment. This is the first reading of a text amendment. So following any questions or comments, there is no action required by the board today. Madam Chair, if I may. Yes. So I know this was before us before. And while I appreciate the applicant's willingness to strike some of the conditional use on a level one or two review, speaking with residents in the area, they kind of feel like they're getting worn down because this was denied before. And then it comes back and it's kind of like a redo and repeat. And they just some don't have time to come here during the work day to speak this morning or to object because they feel like they're getting unheard. This area has a mobile home park that's not adjacent to it. It's on 98. So when we look at what's currently proposed, they're stricken the conditional use level one or two review requirements. I'm sorry, strike those as a possibility. But they still leave the level three or four, which does have a mobile home park in there and other non-compatible uses comparative to the surrounding area. So while I understand they're trying to put duplexes in this, you know, when I look at it and speaking to the neighbors that are directly around this property, absent of the group home, the RL3, they could go a level three or four review and accomplish duplexes on the property. So in speaking with those that feel that they're tired and unheard around that neighborhood, I still see this needing to stay RL3 and RM being incompatible, not compatible. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or statement? Do you have anything to say on that? Okay. Anything else? Comment? My question is, giving those comments, I know we're under expedited hearing procedures, but could we bring the applicant if they are here? So wishes to come up and respond. I don't see an issue with that. Okay. Good morning. For the record, Sarah Case. I'm with Next Level Planning and Permitting. My address is 3825 South Florida Avenue, and that is in Lakeland. Thank you, Ben. A fantastic job. He said everything that I was going to say if I was asked to come up here. So, but in summary, from our perspective, we got a 7-0 approval from the Planning Commission initially, and then it came before you in June earlier this year and received a 4-1 denial. And after watching the videos and seeing the comments, it seemed that the concern was that if it was straight RM assigned to this parcel, that there would be some leeway to develop it in any fashion that would be allowable under the RM. So, I was retained. I went and visited every single one of you commissioners and decided we would do a companion text amendment that rules out all of the other things that we can do in RM, and we went as far as to submit a site plan that accompanies this. This is all of the assurance that you have that we are not going to do anything else other than these units that are shown. So, this is the companion. You'll hear the full CPA next month for our request. But we've limited everything in this ordinance draft before you. Everything that is underlined is what is prohibited parcel-specific to this piece. I feel like we've met every concern that you had initially June 17th when you denied this project, and I'm asking for your consideration of approval having taken these additional steps to move forward to get this request before you. I would appreciate and entertain any comments, and your consideration of approval would be much appreciated. Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If you wish to address the board, please come forward, state your name and address, and you have three minutes. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Madam Chair, I know there's no motion needed today, but again, just... Oh, that's right. There's no action today. Yeah, no action, but again, just in speaking with the residents that are around this area, there's still concern, again, from the RM having it not strike out mobile home parks and others. It's a conditional use approval, and I'll explain that to some of them. They're aware of that, but again, looking at what the perception is in that community, they don't see RM being compatible with everything else being RL3 around it. So I'll leave it at that. I know in a couple of weeks we'll have a formal action. Yep, thank you. Okay, Madam Chair, may I? Yes. Maybe I'm missing something, but it clearly says it prohibits mobile homes. Have I missed something, staff? Okay, thank you. Yeah, I think it's just from what people are understanding, what the application was to go to RM. Again, it's not maybe conveyed in a way that's assurance to them enough to say it can't come back later on and be like, oh, well, we said that, but now we're going to go and amend it. That's what they're concerned with, because they've seen it happen before. Absolutely. Well, I think that this, again, I just wanted to ensure that I wasn't missing something, that it clearly states that that is prohibited. So hopefully that can give them the assurance. Just the voice of the community passing it on, for sure. Well, we'll have a, that'll come before us, if I'm correct, in a couple of weeks, and we can iron all that out. All right, moving on. Item number N4 is an expedited public hearing for case LDCT 2025-23, alcohol separation requirements and hours, Land Development Code text amendment, to consider an amendment to the Land Development Code to change the method of distance measurement, reduce the distance separation, and adjust the Sunday hours of operation for alcohol sales. This ordinance is an attempt to align the county code with similar codes from municipal partners across Polk County. During a briefing to the Board of County Commissioners during an agenda work session, we presented a table that showed that there is a real inconsistency amongst municipalities in the county for how alcohol distance separations from alcohol-serving establishments and churches and schools are measured, and the hours of sale, particularly for Sundays, is inconsistent. Per the Board direction, staff conducted research and drafted this ordinance, and the recommendation will accomplish three major things. One, it will reduce the distance separation from alcohol establishments, from churches and schools. For those facilities that serve beer and wine on-premises, it will reduce that separation from 1,000 feet to 500 feet. For facilities that serve beer, wine, and liquor for consumption on-premises, it will reduce that separation from 2,500 feet to 1,000 feet. And for liquor sales that sell package sales only, for retail sales, not for consumption on-premise, it will reduce that distance separation from 2,500 feet to 750 feet. In addition, the method in which distance is measured will change from what we call as a crow flies to a pedestrian, a lawful pedestrian movement, meaning that the distance will be measured from the front door of an establishment, as a pedestrian, traveling sidewalks using lawful crosswalks, and then getting to the establishment that is protected, i.e. a church or a school, rather than having just a straight-line measurement. And what we found was the straight-line measurement significantly changes, and you could have a facility that is within the required distance separation, but it is impossible to walk that same distance. It may be two or three miles to walk to that facility, but with the crow fly measurement, it could be within this distance separation. The third component is looking at Sunday sales, and this would extend the hours for which beer, wine, and liquor can be consumed on-premises on Sundays by one hour to move that from noon to 11 a.m., and then the final component would be to permit liquor stores' package sales to open on Sundays from noon to midnight. We presented this to the Planning Commission, received a recommendation of approval 6 to 1, and presented to you today for your review. Following any questions or comments today, this is also a first reading, so no action is required by the board, and we will present it to you for adoption in two weeks. Any questions for staff? Madam Chair, if I may? Yes. Just to confirm, this was the one we had looked at the surrounding counties and municipalities and kind of took the aggregate average, if you will, and applied it to our county, correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If you wish to address the board, please come forward, state your name and address. You have three minutes. Amber, any? Okay. Then I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Well, no action, so... Madam Chair, one other question. As far as the Sheriff's Department goes, we had no feedback at all from Sheriff's Department, any concerns of these chains either, right? That's correct. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Anything else? No. All right. Moving forward. Madam Chair, the final item for me this morning, item number N5, is an expedited public hearing for case LDCT 2025-24, Powerline Landscape Buffers Land Development Code text amendment, to modify the landscaping requirements of the Land Development Code to provide a prescriptive and specific buffer type for utility lines and utility areas. This was also presented to the board at work session, and the intent here is to recognize that how we landscape and provide buffers near utility lines is unique and different. And the current code really, really forces almost every instance near utility lines to seek a waiver, which is not prescriptive. It does not provide specific guidance for the development community or the design professionals. And quite frankly, almost every waiver, if not 100% of the waivers, were granted. So staff has found that creating a separate landscape buffer for utility areas to allow understory trees but not require canopy trees, not require the type of landscaping that will interfere with electric service is beneficial not only to the electric providers but to the county and the development community. This will also streamline operations by eliminating the need for waivers in these instances. This draft ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission and received unanimous recommendation of approval. And following any questions or comments for the board today, this, again, is first reading of a text amendment. So no action is required, and we will present it for adoption in two weeks. Any questions for staff? Hearing none, this is a public hearing. If you wish to address the board, please come forward, state your name and address. You've got three minutes. Amber, any? All right. Seeing none and hearing none, I'll bring it back to the board, and we have no action, so it'll be for the future. Madam Chair, that concludes the expedited portion of today's agenda. Thank you. We will move now to the regular public hearings. Good morning. For the record, Scott Lowry, Real Estate Services Support Manager. I have two items today. The first is a petition from Stephen and Bobby Anderson to vacate any public interest the county may have in a 30-foot-wide strip of land lying south of Herndon Road and adjacent to the west of their property. Herndon Road is an unpaved, dead-end, county-maintained roadway running south off of Old Bartow Lake Wells Road. In 1982, a maintained right-of-way map was filed for Herndon Road, recorded in Map Book 7, page 31, delineating the county's maintenance limits, which extends approximately 900 feet south of Old Bartow Lake Wells Road. The property depraiser depicts a 30-foot-wide strip of unassessed property which runs south of and beyond the limits of the maintained right-of-way map. By about 420 feet. However, no evidence could be located showing that the strip was ever conveyed or dedicated to the county or the public. It appears that the county is not currently maintaining the portion of Herndon Road beyond the limits of the map. The petitioners are requesting the vacation to remove any public interest that may exist in that portion of the 30-foot-wide strip lying adjacent to their property to allow for the installation of a gate to secure the entrance to their property. Vacating the subject area would remove any public interest that may exist in the strip of land in an effort to allow the owners to assemble it with their property. The appropriate utilities and county divisions were notified and no objections were received. Duke Energy did request a utility easement for existing facilities, and the petitioners have complied with that request. Staff recommends the board adopt a resolution to vacate any public interest which may exist in the 30-foot-wide strip of land as more fully described in the legal description containing the petition and the resolution. And I'll remain standing for any questions. Any questions for staff? Seeing none, ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If you wish to address the board, please come forward, state your name and address, and you have three minutes. Amber, anyone? Okay. Then I close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Motion for approval. Second. I have a motion, and I have a second. Any discussion, questions? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Next. All right, my next and last item. This one's a little more involved, so bear with me on this one. Staff requests the board by its own motion adopt a resolution vacating a portion of platted, unopened, and unmaintained right-of-way shown as Bryan Avenue on the map of Jester Subdivision. As part of this, we are also requesting the board declare surplus and authorize the private conveyance of a county-owned parcel, which is next to the area. Mrs. Bowers, a property owner, contacted the county with questions regarding her property. After a review, it was determined there was platted unmaintained right-of-way along the west side of her property and a small county-owned parcel to the east of her property. As for the right-of-way, the map of Jester Subdivision filed in 1926 in Platte Book 18 at page 1 dedicated various rights-of-way throughout the plat. Through a series of replats, nearly all of the right-of-ways were platted over and vacated. However, the property Mrs. Bowers owns and the adjacent platted right-of-way known as Bryan Avenue were not included in any of the replats. The first replat contained an ambiguous statement about rights-of-way being vacated. However, this replat, along with subsequent replats, continued to depict the right-of-way so it's unclear whether or not this had any impact. And the title of Mrs. Bowers' property is potentially clouded by the matter. Research as to the county-owned parcel revealed that a replat known as Heath's Addition established a narrow tract identified as Tract A. The tract is located between Mrs. Bowers' property and the right-of-way for the subdivision road, Adamson Court. The platt makes no mention of the purpose of the tract and in 1985, the property was conveyed to the county through the achievement process by a tax deed. As we result of ongoing discussions with Mrs. Bowers, basically the county has requested the amount of $1,000 for the conveyance of Tract A and in consideration, the county would process the vacation of the right-of-way and she's agreed to the county's request. Vacating the subject right-of-way will remove the public's interest and allow Ms. Bowers to assemble with her property and also clear any potential clouds on her title. Declaring the county on tract a surplus and authorizing the sale will allow her to purchase a parcel, place it back on a tax roll, and remove the property from the county land inventory. Appropriate utilities and county divisions were notified and have no objections to the request. Staff recommends the board adopt the resolution to vacate and close a portion of platted, unopened, and unmaintained right-of-way shown as Bryan Avenue on the map of Jester's subdivision as fully described in the legal description contained in the resolution. Also requests the board declare surplus and authorize the private conveyance of Tract A to Mrs. Bowers. And I'll remain standing for any questions. Any questions for staff? Madam Chair, just one. Once we, those two tracks are there, will we end up collapsing all that for her as well? So it's all one tax bill, or does that stay separate, three separate parcels on? As far as the right-of-way on the west, the property appraiser would assemble it with her current parcel. As for ours, she would have to request most likely it be assembled with hers. Okay. It will remain, it's currently a number, and it will remain a separate number. Okay. Unless she requests the combination. Okay, very good. Any other questions for staff? Hearing none, ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If you wish to address the board, please come forward, state your name and address, and you have three minutes. Amber, anyone? All right. Seeing none, no one, we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Move for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. All, any discussion, questions? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before we move to the next item, this is a de novo hearing. I will be going over the de novo hearing procedures. I apologize for this, Madam Chair, and I ask, could we take a five-minute recess so that I can attend to what I need to do and be present for this hearing? This is in my district, and it's very important. We'll be back at 10 o'clock. Thank you. And then she'll come in. Oh, there she is. She's coming in. Okay. So... Yes, Madam Chair, before we begin the de novo hearing, which is 03, I'm going to go over the de novo hearing procedures. These are pursuant to Resolution 2022-090. The procedures are the following. First, staff will present the staff report and recommendation. After staff presents the staff report and recommendation, the applicant will have 30 minutes to present the applicant's case. After the applicant's presentation, any organized opposition will have 30 minutes total to present their case. If more than one person or entity qualifies as organized opposition, the 30 minutes is split equally amongst them. For example, if three individuals qualify as organized opposition, then each will have 10 minutes to present the case. Organized opposition shall consist of an entity or individual that has filed an application for the de novo hearing or which has received written authorization from at least five entities or individuals speak on their behalf, and those entities and individuals have agreed to waive their ability to speak during the public comment portion of the public hearing. After organized opposition presentation, the public comment portion of the public hearing will be opened. Each speaker during the public comment will be allotted three minutes. Individuals who are represented by organized opposition will not be allotted three minutes during the public comment section. Once public comment has been closed, the applicant will have five minutes in any time reserved from the applicant's case presentation to respond to the organized opposition and public comment. After the applicant's response, the chair will close the public hearing and the board will discuss and vote on the matter. The de novo hearing record. All documents attached to the agenda and presentation given shall be deemed part of the record unless removed from the record by a motion of the board. County staff submitting the staff report shall be deemed experts in land planning unless disqualified by motion of the board. Applicants, organized opposition, and public may request documents to be entered into the record during their presentation. Applicants, organized opposition, and public may request a witness to be recognized as an expert during their presentation. Applicants, organized opposition, and their witnesses are subject to cross-examination by the other party. Ex parte communications. The board members receive numerous communications from the public. Unless otherwise stated, it should be presumed that ex parte communications have been made to the members of the board regarding this matter. During the hearing, the applicant, organized opposition, and the public may request the board to discuss any ex parte communications or site visits that they had had regarding the matter and question the board regarding these communications and site visits. Unless the board member accuses himself, they have determined that he or she is able to hear the case and fairly and impartially make a decision on the matter based on the substantial, competent evidence in the record. Decorum. Just a reminder, the commission expects civility at all times. The commission's review is limited to determine whether the application is consistent with the Polk County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code and determine whether the application is compatible with the surrounding area. Therefore, the evidence and testimony you give must be relevant to whether the application is consistent with the Polk County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code and whether the application is compatible with the surrounding area. Information that is relevant and repetitive only serves to frustrate and necessarily prolong the day's business. Quasi-judicial. The no adherence are quasi-judicial, which means the action tells 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 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, evidence, at the hearing, both written and oral. By the law, the only evidence the commission may consider is competent, substantial evidence, which means evidence that is significantly 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. It may include testimony regarding subjective matters that do not require expertise such as aesthetics and compatibility of a project with the surrounding neighborhood. However, popularity polls, petitions, testimony that is hypothetical based on fear or consists of generalized statements that do not address the land development criteria are not competent in substantial evidence. For example, fear that a project will cause increased traffic or crime is not competent in substantial evidence. Lastly, when expertise is required for technical issues like traffic, engineering, drainage, wetland impact, school and utility capacity, light and noise pollution or the application's impact on property value, citizen's testimony is normally not competent in substantial evidence unless the witness is qualified as an expert in that area. Also, I understand there's a few of you that may have came in after our sworn-in individuals. If you're wanting to present testimony to the board and you have not been sworn in, I'll ask you to stand up at this time and be sworn in. Is there anyone else? All right. At this time, do you swear or affirm the testimony or evidence you provide to the commission today is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? All right. Thank you. At this time, I will turn it over to Mr. Peterson to present the staff report. Yes, sir. Do you swear or affirm the testimony that you will present testimony or evidence that you will present to the commission today the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. At this time, I will turn it over to Mr. Peterson to present the staff report. Thank you. Eric Peterson for the Land Development Division. uh seeing it okay the uh this is ldpd 2025-9 known as the highlands club pd uh there were 95 mailers sent on december 12th one legal ad was published on december 17th and four signs were posted on the property on december 15th so far we've received 77 emails this is as of four o'clock yesterday 77 emails one letter and one phone call in opposition and nine letters in support uh drc recommendation was approval with conditions and the planning commission voted 6-1 for approval yeah before you uh break down of the request 747 single family detached units the uh the amount of open space is over and above the the required amount uh i'll go into further details with regards to the site plan as we move through the presentation as you know this is located in between city of lakeland uh in an area called the lakeland highlands this area has been planned over the last 40 years the the county uh looked at this in the comprehensive plan this is one of the major areas of focus so when it came to the build out you can see how over time it has fulfilled this plan when you look at the future land use map you see rl rl1 there's different options in rl1 and i'll talk about that in a moment but understand that we don't have zoning in polk county this is just in a a layer that is attached to our comprehensive plan it's part of our land development code but the underlying impetus of the comprehensive plan for which we'd say this is consistent with the comprehensive plan is this is an urban service area for which we are investing in public infrastructure and because we're investing in that public infrastructure we're expecting a return on it that investment as part of our plan such investments like water and wastewater have been extensive through this area and it's continuing to grow as more development comes online there is a dynamic collector road network uh that serves this area and there is actually a connection that you won't see on most on the recent aerial photos but that connects through a development known as wind meadows in the city of bartow to ef griffin road there are a number of other collector roads when approaching or leaving this property there's six different ways to sunday to go to where you want to go in polk county the ldc there's two options they have for development in the rl one of them is a district change that's prescriptive a certain lot size uh limited standards for how they develop the other option is a plan development and that is based on three criteria the timing the internal design and the external design essentially where it is what's in it and how it fits the infrastructure in this area goes beyond water and wastewater and roads the infrastructure includes public safety facilities parks network it includes uh school board investment as well that has occurred over time our plan is consistent with the school board's plan we work together in harmony it's also uh in an area in which there's been a lot of investment in commerce so this is an urban area now this is this area is filled with urban services for that reason in our land development code we have a an algorithm that that determines what the carrying capacity of the land is based on the infrastructure available at this point in time this development would qualify for five units per acre under that algorithm they're asking for 2.74 so just barely over half of what this this plan could support the site plan which is turned on its side so you can see it a little better is made up of of uh five different sections four of them are relatively the same one of them is is comprised of much larger lots and you'll see how this fits in to its consistency with the area and its compatibility it's made up of uh setbacks of five feet on most on most of the six thousand square foot uh properties uh five feet on sides uh and um rear uh five feet as well that gives a lot of flexibility not all of these these these portions they're they're separately organized by the developer the minimum is six thousand square feet the outcome may be less intense they might be wider depending on who the the buyer or developer is at the time they come in however the minimum set for the area here will be set at a much larger 130 feet wide and somewhere around 31 uh thousand square feet the amenity plan is over and above what's required in in the for a plan development this amenity plan that they've presented could support 825 units the request is for 747 it's a it's a network that's that's bound together every lot is within a quarter miles walking distance of any one of the park facilities or recreation facilities it also has more than the 20 percent required open space it also has additional buffering around the perimeter over and above what would be required of the code and how this plays in is how it fits you can see the larger lots are abutting the larger lots nearby the smaller lots are abutting the smaller lots you see in in the city of bartow and within the touchstone development approved and under construction today the additional buffering speaks to also how it is is fitting in to the area much more than previous developments in this area this fits in by matching like for like on all of its boundaries and and throwing in additional buffering on top of that have some aerial photos we can scroll through uh this this is the side that will be lower intensity lots up against the larger lots abutting you can see dead city out in the uh the after the neighboring property this is the the one after this one there's really only two large properties to be master planned in the lakeland highlands that will be it it's this site and the one next to it you can see how uh the the other uh parts have developed in the distance there and their their standards you can also see the area to the north and this is the the area where it'll transition from the larger lots to the smaller lots relative to the abutting developments abutting the larger lots you can see the touchstone uh development under construction here there's been some traffic improvements uh as part of that development that you will see formed there some other improvements that have come with the touchstone development the addition of hydrants and and water lines and sidewalks and numerous other things along yarborough lane this slide uh gives you uh data on the surrounding developments and the widths of their lots or future reference this is the next step if if it goes beyond this hearing and is approved it goes to level two review and that's where we get into more the nuts and bolts of the development that's where things get uh reviewed by uh experts in their fields uh this this approval you're granting today is is based on compatibility and and consistency with the land development code and comprehensive plan all this other details those get worked out those are uh engineering most of them engineering level details that get worked out in level two review so in conclusion staff recommends approval we find it is compatible it's matching like the like it meets and exceeds the plan development standards that we just revised not too long ago there's urban levels of service with ample capacity to serve the development it offers a variety of housing options but most of all it makes it creates a return on investment for our community investment projects that have been planned and programmed in this area and therefore i will stand that it was it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code and i'll stand for questions any questions for staff okay and if it may madam chair one things uh i had spoken i think mr richard grosso is here he's the uh he represents the individual who has requested de novo hearing so currently they are the organized opposition and he had asked me about um possibly crossing witnesses i think this is appropriate if you have any questions for mr peterson to do it at this time and then course bart as the applicant if you have any questions you'd like to speak or ask mr peterson you can do at this time so you have no questions for mr grosso do you have any questions at this time okay so at this time um no questions no questions for peterson so we then we'll turn it over to the applicant we'll turn it over to the applicant and he will have 30 minutes and is our timer working now okay timer does work and madam chair um mr mink covered it but i do just want to say obviously um there has been ex parte communications on my behalf both with um the applicant as well as members of the community with this as well as site visits and you're still able to hear the case and base it on the competence of essential evidence that presented today yes in a partial manner and that goes for the rest of the board does thank you guys just one second before we start the timer i just want to get myself sorted here a little bit all right for purposes of introductions my name is bart allen i'm a land use attorney with the peterson and meyers law firm my address is 225 east lemon street lakeland florida i am here this morning on behalf of the applicants warnock wakeman um real estate and i have mr chuck warnock mr michael warnock and mr bill wakeman in the audience as as the managers of the of that organization but also with rja land investment llc and and with me uh is mr bob adams and um really appreciate the fact that we have mr bob with us it's a pleasure to represent somebody with such a long-standing reputation in our community um i'm gonna just kind of jump right into it i've got a 30 minute shot clock here that i'm going to try to save a little bit of time for rebuttal because i know there's some folks that are going to want to talk afterward but as i get into my as i get into this powerpoint what i want to make sure everybody's clear on the documents that are shown in my powerpoint are already of record it's based on the applications that have been presented and reviewed by your staff by your staff report as well as the site plan that was prepared by mr john mcveigh who's a long-time land planner layout designer in this community and it's also been reviewed and um and evaluated by mr brian hunter who's a professional engineer um with hunter engineering so those are the those are the the basis of of all of my argument this morning um i've got it i know you've mr minks referenced those as being in the record already however just to make sure it is clear i have a binder with the actual printouts of all those documents just to make sure that the make sure we've got everything so if we before before as far as experts do you have anyone you're tendering to the board at this time at this time okay those are all based on this that is correct thank you thank you mr mink uh just real quickly uh this is just a real quick timeline here of of where this project's been a little bit of history uh going back to september of 2025 uh bringing you forward to today again mr peterson doing a great great job providing you his opinion and testimony relative to the project it was uh recommended with conditions by your drc and it was uh recommended approval six to one by the planning commission and we are here this morning on the de novo this is a property overview i'm not gonna this is essentially the uh just the same exhibit it's a 300 acre site on the south side of uh cruise lake drive west of yarborough lane looking at the area again mr peterson showed you the history of the timeline going back to the 70s of how this area developed one of the things that i think is really important that what one kind of illustrated on on his exhibit as we look at this from a development perspective these are the areas between us 98 south florida avenue and the parkway where development has occurred going back to the 70s and it has occurred and moved southward and eastward to those areas as it reaches the southern boundary of that development area and you can see there's pretty much a hard line that goes across this area that is where the phosphate mining ended that's why that line is there so these are again as mr peterson testified to some of the last parcels to be developed in this um in this quadrant so and within this development area you've got a tremendous amount of different types of development whether it's commercial multifamily office all mixed into this this region um again just reiterating what mr peterson talked about in his presentation it this property is in the uga a piece of it's in the tsda but the primarily most of it's in the uga which is as you look at your comprehensive plan and you look at your comprehensive plan policies that is where utilities are in place that's where infrastructure is in place infrastructure does go beyond water and sewer and roads it's all of those services um this is where we are looking for and the comprehensive plan drives urban development the site the parcel the 300 acres does have a residential low classification which again um residential low and i'll show you the policies in just a second residential low whether it's one two three or four provides for up to five dwelling units per acre if you go through the pd process which is exactly what this applicant and property owner is is seeking this is the site plan really nothing new to add to to the conversation it is broken into five five sections um with larger lots minimum of 30 000 square feet on average within this layout they're 50 000 square feet so while we have a minimum lot size there is there are many lots within this area a that are larger than 30 000 square feet then you have the balance of the project the other four development areas with 50 foot lots please note that the site plan does not have any transportation interconnectivity between pod a area a or and with b c d or e the point of that is only area a will have access to cruise lake drive which is a limited number of of units of the larger lots which is as mr peterson pointed out in his presentation exactly what's going on around this particular area now that's 100 acres excluding the lake that leads it's a private lake as well it's owned by this property owner so if you included the if you included the lake you're over 127 acres so that's a significant portion of this project there's been a tremendous amount of emails that i've seen public you know saying that it's nine percent of the project on a unit perspective yes it is a third of the project when you look at it from an acreage perspective and that's excluding the 27 acre lake so that percentage goes up if you do and i think that's important looking at it again it's very similar slide to what mr peterson pointed out with the circles that was unintentional um but you've got a we are reviewing this from your comprehensive plan under several different components is it consistent with the comprehensive plan is it does it meet your land development code standards and is it compatible with the area and when those three circles overlap in the venn diagram of development the answer should be yes for the project and you just heard your staff go through their presentation and say that it meets every single one of those circles and that they are recommending approval so comprehensive plan just quickly um again similar to what mr peterson showed you these are the specific policies uh relative to section 2.120 c of your comprehensive plan that define residential low again number of policies within within this um within this section that indicate residential low again that's inclusive of all the subdistricts allows up to five dwelling units per acre and that is allowed within the uga as highlighted on this on my slide as well as um in policy 2.120 c4 so clearly the request at 2.74 dwelling units an acre is within the range that's allowed in residential low and there's no question about that even if you wanted to look at them as separate developments which seems to be what has been done by the email correspondence that i've reviewed area a is less than one unit an acre areas b c d and e as a whole is 3.8 either way you cut it it's still within the five dwelling units an acre that's allowed in the residential low so consistent with the comprehensive plan the answer is yes again this is just some additional slides kind of going to the points um i tend to do that get skip right over to the next slide in my while i talk but again 2.7 dwelling units an acre as the entirety of the pd that 2.74 again i just want to be clear does not include the area of the lake that is only uplands if you add in the area of the lake into the gross density calculation the entire number comes down even further but that's not how we calculate it that's not how your comp plan defines it so we're not doing it that way so once you've determined you're consistent with the comprehensive plan as mr peterson pointed out where you go and look at chapter 3 section 303 the new standards for the pd criteria location eligibility amenity standards and open space um mr peterson did a better job going through those than than i will so i'm going to move through these slides very quickly they are very similar in nature one thing i want to point out is that based on the staff report if you look at page 12 of your staff report you conclude that you can get 30 points on the eligibility score that actually moves you up over the five dwelling units per acre but you can't go over the five dwelling units an acre so we're capped there but at the end of the day we have three times as many points as is necessary to get to the requested density of 2.74 dwelling units an acre and again even if you look at it on a if you want to break the two pods apart we the math still works and we still achieve more density points than is required to get to that requested density mr peterson went over the criteria for open space this is more detail there's a direct land development code criteria cited on the page this is a table directly off the site plan that indicates again 23 open space within the within provided within the project again that open space does not include the 28 acres for the lake this is just a demonstration of the open space plan that was submitted as part of the application the amenity package mr peterson went over that as well all of the amenities when you add them up generate significantly more amenity bonus points to establish the requested density than is what is required as as a result we have extra amenities with it's over amenitized and all amenities are within 1300 feet quarter mile of the request of the dwelling unit sorry and this is again just for purposes of the record the amenity plan that was submitted as part of the as part of the application zoom in pool house this is the the largest amenity this is the type 4 amenity that's provided cabanas pool courts playgrounds dog parks things like that that's the primary main amenity there are amenities scattered again throughout the development um for the project so this project will have its own areas for people to work and play or play at least we don't have any offices in in here but um so evaluating the site there were some concerns about a park not necessarily being uh up and open up i've looked at that this site isn't relying on those to satisfy their recreation and their their amenities that's a locational criteria we are providing for recreation on site through an amenity package this is just a summary uh kind of going through the staff report and summarizing all the criteria again demonstrating that we are meeting all of your additional pd requirements that were recently adopted this provides for the additional parking this provides for the additional amenities open space things like that this project meets and exceeds every one of those and that's exactly what your staff said after they reviewed it concurrency there's uh within the volumes of emails that are reviewed yesterday a lot of the issues that were discussed really relate to concurrency related to levels of service things of that nature under florida law chapter 163 3180 concurrency has to be established at the time that the of the issuance of certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent we're not even close to that yet mr pearson kind of concluded some of his presentation talking about level two that's where all those issues get resolved level two we are at an entitlement stage we're adopting a site plan that allows us to actually go and evaluate those issues on a very specific basis relative to whether or not the project can meet concurrency if it cannot meet concurrency it is not allowed to move forward under state law but also as well as your land development code here is your land development code section again concurrent with the impacts of development if this was approved today not a shovel of dirt could be move tomorrow based on that vote we still have all the other review to go through we have to get to final development plan approval before we get to locking in concurrency so talking about a few of those these are again right out of your staff report there's plenty of capacity you heard about the investments in infrastructure in this area looking at utilities there are ample water and sewer capacities available there's a new line that was extended to the area that this project will connect to that line was done in partnership with this organization you all recall that development agreement coming through for the purpose of providing the ability for future development in this area that in the urban growth area this is it this is an exhibit out of that agreement showing where the new line was constructed these are some of the planned infrastructure implemented infrastructure improvements very similar um exhibit to what the uh what mr peterson presented this is you know demonstrates to you that there are exactly what mr peterson testified to multiple ways to get in and out of this project one thing that uh has is on the books that i want to point out lyle parkway as you are now able to connect from yarborough all the way down ef griffin to lyle parkway that is planned for signalization by fdot that's been funded and will be begin construction this year from what i've been told so that signal is coming online you're now going to have multiple ways to get in and out of here for purposes of whether you're going to shopping or going to recreate or going to work so again this is the concurrency timeline looking at it where are we we're at the level three review on a de novo appeal um so we do assuming a favorable vote today we would have the pd would be approved we would then finalize all the rest of the studies the traffic study is uh been submitted it's not what i would consider final at this point um it's been submitted to your staff for review we will be uh looking at erps we will be looking at binding school capacity we'll be doing the full um protected species whether that's flora or fauna uh providing binding utility capacities working through recreation all the other all the other concurrency items that we have to have to evaluate at level two review and it's not until at that time that then we can begin development once it's all determined that the project can be served and this is your methodology uh just again just for purposes of the record it is what is the capacity what is the demand from existing development what is the demand from vested development and what is what are we requesting and if that math works out and the number is greater than zero we have concurrency and then that's when the project can move forward if we can't meet concurrency of any of these items the project cannot move forward so compatibility being the last thing um again mr peterson really kind of hit the nail on the head and had some really great aerial exhibits to show but what we are requesting is very much compatible with the area um that's what your staff has indicated that's what drc is recommended again looking at the buffering mr peterson already talked about that again you have the larger lots adjacent to the larger lots you have this do you have the 50 foot lots adjacent to 50 foot lots like versus like um that is again 100 acres of pot a between the folks to our west miss andrews the de novo applicant who who owns the property immediately to the northwest corner um those are minimum 30 000 square foot lots what does that mean when you look at it just kind of throwing it putting putting some pencil to paper drawing it out you are looking at 2 000 feet of separation between miss andrews and the closest 50 foot lot going east to west from the southeast corner it's a thousand feet and in between you have 100 acres of large three 30 000 on average 50 000 square foot lots between them so they are not adjacent to those items we're not introducing anything new as mr peterson showed you with the touchstone approvals there are already 50 foot lots all along yarborough lane as as well as on the south side of cruise lake drive those are under development today so we're not introducing anything new we're introducing again like versus like so looking at your again kind of to wrap up i was going to try and save 10 minutes of my time it looks like i'm kind of making it there um your staff has found that this meets all of your criteria it's been reviewed consistent with chapter nine of your land development code it is consistent with your comprehensive plan again residential low allows up to five dwelling units an acre and this pd is asking for 2.74 this is project is compatible with the surrounding uses this is straight out of your staff report um and we will go through the binding concurrencies as we get into level two assuming a favorable vote so with that we have we have um satisfied the three pillars if you will for correct approval of a plan development and we would request a favorable vote this um morning or afternoon should the case may be um uh this was approved six to one by your planning commission back in november and i think that's important they are the they are the first people to review this from the public um but you we we now have staff recommendation of approval drc recommendation of approval and we would respectfully request a favorable vote this morning on this ldpd 2025-9 thank you we'll be here for any questions any questions for applicant yes commissioner braswell the um water and wastewater provided by the county right correct what where does where's it coming from it will come from the new uh lines that were extended down the arbor lane on our on the northeast corner going to where i can't picture a sewer plant or water plant wastewater is the southwest plant off of uh um shepherd road over by mulberry right yes sir yeah okay all right now water's up there by the school pollard road site is a production facility can you oh no there it is right there um the homes on the west side of the development i see a central road is there another road uh between there and the uh the the what's it called whatever this development's called is there another road to the uh east the so the the back of the the homes right there their eastern there is no road side has no road it's just they'll back up right to this property all right those are the those are the larger 30 000 square foot minimum lots there's that shit that white right there i believe is just a cut is from the site plan it's just a copy it's just a copy and i and i believe you said it um it's yarba yarborough already has a light was there where it was no yarborough doesn't no i mean out on 548 yes on 548 yes yeah i don't they're not planning one here on cruise like surely that traffic study will you know will determine what it is i you know it's not final at this point but but up on 548 you've got yarborough to the east of there was there another uh road that intersected 548 with the light coming out east i don't i don't is there another one so this is yarborough um yeah this is cruise lake road so that's okay all right so the i i misread that the red x is the red x is yeah our signals yeah okay i'm just and then this plus that's y'all's new joint located fire safety station with you got it madam chair yes right if i may on the understand on the next steps is when we get into the flood studies and the storm water just on the the site map that was shown it was calling out 100 year flood elevation for cruise lake at 148.1 i think is what's the it's kind of small text but i think it's 148.1 uh some believe so yeah that one yeah it was well that i was trying to find the blow up where you can read it maybe you can't sorry so we'll assume it says 148 just for sacred conversation again i know this is at a conceptual level um and then for how the county operates now you know it's at later dates that we do more formal flood studies my concern obviously is we've had other communities or other developments within the county flood uh during milton because you know closed basin scenarios we have issues with assumed high water levels um this one just i'm looking at the and this is a comment not necessarily a rebuttal um but with that 148 i mean there's land elevations on the aerials that are at 148 showing the water level already there i don't necessarily think that google earth pro took the photo during milton so i'd assume that's probably not the highest of water levels um but nonetheless uh just in a general concern when we look at the ditch coming into this site going to cruise lake i know that has some adjoining property off site of this development that that serves uh just then understanding the retention area is shown do we know for this concept was that assumed that a 25 year 100 year as far as the retention ponds we're conditioned to do 100 year stormwater pond okay that's what's one of the conditions of approval of the pud gotcha and so what's kind of represented here showing the layout would assume that there's enough room for the 100 year ponds those are all design issues that yes i i understand it comes later but again it's a valid point when i have people that flood out during major storms so i if i get the line has to move that's something that gets moved during level two i mean if it has to shift a little bit it will be you know just to meet the criteria absolutely and would you guys if there's a larger space needed for retention with that uh would you truncate some of the recreation areas or would you do you would affect the lots before you affect the open space as far as like when we look at amenities for the future homeowners in here you know what what comes first on uh you know whatever operations when when modifying the site it would depend on which area of the property it was impacted and given that we can't figure out that out at this point it would be it would not be uh wise to speculate on to what would what would happen if it was only an area where a lot could be affected only a lot could be affected yeah so make sure again we were one of the one of the things i think that uh that was represented by the county at first is is uh well i think promoting how the site has over an abundance or and exceeds their their minimum requirements and while that's good i just wouldn't want to see that trimmed back uh for the sake of needing more storm water and they're like oh well we pitched the site that had you know excess points and excess open space but now it's removed because we need more retention i think that's misleading to the public so that's all i have for comment thank you i got one more yes good well that brings up a question in my mind um i'm looking at the map there cruise lake the south west corner is there an outfall onto the phosphate land there it does it falls to the south and goes out and we've and that line's been already been delineated the wetland lines and that's been accepted by the water management district so we'll we're staying out of any of those areas okay as would your comprehensive plan require just to clarify the survey data on the county the water actually flows towards cruise lake from the south west to the northeast it's not flowing south out of the site so i guess that's i know the site has a lot of land area but cruise like itself doesn't have an outfall from what i'm seeing on the map anyways i'm going to give mr hunter to speak to some of that yeah see it's it's all here and now i am going to ask this is mr brian hunter purposes of the record he's uh went to usf in 1993 he's got a bachelor's in civil engineering and has had 30 i know your resume says 29 and i don't mean to date you 30 some odd years of uh engineering practice within this county doing this as such i would request a rep a motion that he be accepted as so moved all in favor opposed motion carries good morning as bart said i'm brian hunter with hunter engineering uh for the record my address is 4900 dundee road winter haven i think maybe both comments are right the predominance of the site flows uh drains and uh from the south and southwest and southeast into cruise lake road it is indeed a closed basin as an engineer of record and design engineer i may be the one that will be most concerned and most uh focused on the fact that it's a closed basin and we'll go through uh we'll go through way more analysis on our end than the code requires presently um as a there is a bit of the land on the south that does drop back off to the wetlands to the south but uh commissioner scott your comment was correct that most of the site does drain to cruise lake road which is a closed basin cruise cruise lake road i mean it's cruise lake cruise lake well in the direction of cruise lake but but on that note i'm glad you mentioned that the cruise lake road is they roughly you know 10 to 12 feet higher in elevation than the 100 year flood plane of cruise lake yeah i think the road access i'm not concerned with it's more so and again i appreciate your willingness to have diligence and processing it but again having gone through what we did as a county the pe has liability insurance the pe doesn't have uh tens of homes that are representing hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars of damages post a catastrophic event such as a closed basin flood uh scenario so i appreciate that understood 100 and i'm just a short anecdote is my first job and it's on my resume was with the water management district starting in 1994 and the one thing i'll say about that is i worked there through the el nino winter in 1998 when we had flooding in milton it was bad but that was systemic flooding throughout the county and it was very formative uh a formative education to me because one of our jobs we kind of stopped what we were doing and we we inspected sites that had not flooded anybody's lifetime and it it was the closed basins when you got rain event after rain event after rain event uh with no evaporation or transpiration that happened mainly through the winter so those those stories are forged and i remember houses with the water up to the window so i'll just say that maybe to instill a little bit of confidence that i hear you and um and we're not we're going to take um we know how to design to prevent those things and we know what information to get in design to make sure and we know what storm events to run and so forth and um and i think you the commission has rightly encouraged staff so that they're now asking those questions in ways that had not asked them before uh potentially so i mean the red flag for me was that again the cruise lake to be stated at 148 and again this is not a formal document for stormwater i get that but misinformation provided to the public at times can be deceptive so i just want to make sure when i saw that 148 for cruise lake and there's land surface elevations adjacent to the lake at 148 um that are submerged then i would say likely there's you know some mapping issues possible but likely not uh you know to that significance so again just a point of of design when you guys get to that point uh just uh to be uh very mindful of that thank you that's just a copy of mr hunter's resume for purpose barred uh my question is the phosphate mining area have you heard do you know have anybody said anything what's gonna happen in that area i have not not at all i'm not it's gonna stay just like that for forever i i would speculate 20 years from now there'll be houses right there yeah well that's that's every square inch of house failing is going to be a house i mean that's just probably what i was alluding to what what yeah what probably is going to take place there any further questions for bart okay thank you at this time madam chair the only organized opposition i have is miss barbara andrews who had who filed the request for de novo hearing i believe is represented by mr grosso um mr grosso and i believe only just for the record on the application it said barbara andrews at all my understanding that it is only miss andrews who is the appellant at this at this case at this time so they will be given 30 minutes to present their case so the opposition is representing only one person is that what you're saying yes ma'am that's my understanding at this time you're only representing mr mrs andrews and it was only attended that she was the only one filing for the de novo hearing correct good morning that is correct mr grosso before we start your time they did have some questions of mr hunter just to make sure do you have any questions of mr hunter at this time excuse me no i do not thank you thank you um did you have any witnesses you want to tinder at this time as experts yes yes uh madam chair members of the commission my name is richard grosso i'm here i'm an attorney land use attorney representing uh miss andrews we uh we have as part of our presentation uh a neighbor uh sue nelson and uh um a land use planner mr max um forgy and are you um want to tinder mr forgy as a expert at this time yes sir and you do you have his resume or something i'll have mr forgy with me and we do have a copy of mr forgy so i can have it for can you just give us a quick if you want him to give us a quick background so we can tinder him as expert i thought what i would do i'll give a quick introduction and i'll turn it over to him if that's okay that works i just want to make sure we keep everything going moving smoothly thank you thank you very much again i just wanted to clarify is this miss andrews behind you no okay no it's andrews okay thank you just just wanted to be aware thank you thank you uh richard grosso again uh my client uh miss andrews is here in the room with us uh has authorized me to speak on her behalf today i appreciate the opportunity um uh miss andrews it's a matter of public record lives at 3325 cruise lake drive uh she's adjacent to the project she owns a 60 acre uh horse ranch and five acre uh homestead uh we will present mr forgy's uh land use planning uh testimony and uh i've got a report for the record uh that makes a few points relative to transportation planning by mr alex work a certified transportation planner and i've got a a memorandum on legal and policy issues i'd like to place into the record if i may as well and with that i would like mr i'll turn it over to mr forgy to prevent uh his credentials and a planning analysis of the application if i may thank you good morning commissioners max 40 uh 236 southeast 45th street cape coral florida doing business as forgy planning llc uh my past is that i uh have been a member in good standing of the american institute of certified planners for 32 years i have a master of public affairs degree in urban and regional planning from the uh o'neill school of public and environmental affairs at indiana university bloomington famous football school and um i have worked in florida for um something like 35 years actually my first work ever was uh a summer summer job in the city of lakeland and i've gone on to be a planning and community development director in uh charlotte county and have been uh had my own uh solo practice for the last 15 years in cape coral and i'm do we need a motion to so moved i have a motion and a second any questions or discussion hearing none all in favor you accept him as a expert witness yes sir okay and land planning land use now do i begin my presentation now or we already passed the motion we did all in favor aye opposed motion carries thank you uh first of all i want to point out that i have presented you with an expert report uh and you have several copies of it i'm not going to go into detail on the first section which relates to the quasi-judicial nature of the application because i think you've already heard that from your attorney uh it this is quasi-judicial not legislative i want to address in the relatively brief time that i have uh the criteria for approving plan developments and followed by uh the compatibility issue which i think is paramount in this case and then to uh give you a review of the staff report uh there are some places where i'm disagree with them all right if i have possible one sec do we have multiple copies of the report he's referring to because i don't have a copy of it i think he's getting it we have more so i can be purview to that thank you and and i've given the applicant a copy as well according to chapter 3 section 303 of the polk county land development code a plan development is a special approval that allows for project design flexibility and attaching conditions when warranted a pd approval must be consistent with section 2.15 m of the comprehensive plan it requires economic and efficient utilization of land it must be compatible with adjacent and surrounding uses uh flexibility is a very appealing word if i were representing an applicant i would say it as often as possible and it's not a bad thing in itself but flexibility is not merely the opportunity for the applicant to have a shorter setback or a taller building height for instance it's also an opportunity to blend new development with patterns that are already in place in the immediate neighborhood and to reduce impacts uh for example mixed with using things like mixed uses to reduce traffic through internal capture that's an example there are three paragraphs that follow and a which is important is applicability and purpose and c is timing of development and there's a dynamic tension between the two a the approval of pd is a function of location internal design and external design relative to their proposed intensities uh my client is concerned in particular concerned with all those but in particular with external design because my client lives on a i've seen 60 or 70 it's a large horse farm with horses with a racetrack everything is equestrian and it is not compatible with 30 000 square foot lots needs to be a little larger paragraph a says that plan development approval is an optional land development opportunity in all districts but may not be appropriate in all locations within a future land use map this is essential to our understanding goes on to refer to higher development standards uh i disagree that this constitutes higher development standards because it would triple the overall density and would cause a visual clash particularly on the north and west sides going to paragraph c the timing of development raises the issue of timeliness we don't really know how long construction will take place to build out 747 units uh it also says that the maximum density in table 3.4 is not guaranteed it's it's up to your judgment uh the application does not satisfy uh paragraph c because the site plan packs 747 units into an oddly shaped perimeter with rear lots in the long arrays facing existing residential developments and rural properties this is not the quality of life that is anticipated in paragraph c i'd like to refer to section 2.125 plan development says that plan developments may be permitted under certain circumstances or using in of or using innovative design techniques or providing a mixture of land uses plan developments may also be used to gain project design flexibility and attach conditions where warranted there is not a whole lot of design flexibility here it is mostly single-family residential with some open space going to the matter of compatibility i won't read the definition in the polk county comprehensive plan but it's the same that appears in florida statutes 163 but any analysis of the compatibility of this subject property with existing neighboring uses should examine whether the two uses can one coexist with each other two whether the coexistence will remain stable over time and three whether no use will negatively impact another use or condition either directly or indirectly i will say that uh along yarborough road i cannot uh dispute that the densities are comparable it's not a problem there but along cruise lake drive and along mccall road that is not the case the that particular citation also says the compatibility of proposed residential uses in proximity to existing residential densities of a significant significantly different density these are significantly different in this case the applicant proposes a breathtaking increase in density from the current permitted 249 units to 747 which is a tripling of overall density on 300 acres the plan development would if granted be incompatible with the character and lifestyle enjoyed by mrs andrews on the rural property by imposing a large irregularly shaped subdivision at a significantly higher density with construction noise dust glare odors and noxious runoff on the edge of an existing rural residential equestrian neighborhood i want to call your attention before i wrap up that there was a the touchstone residential staff report of september 21st 2021 referring to link 8082 and i have a copy of it it says cruise lake drive has the capacity to assimilate 585 trips before this link's level of service is degraded that's exactly the same words that this report says apparently the touchstone numbers have not been incorporated into the this study and i think that needs to be cleared up before you decide whether to approve it to wrap up the staff report provides a a starting point for this case it claims that buffering and screening strategies mitigate any perceived incompatibilities the dominant surrounding uses are single family subdivisions on both the north and east sides of the property making the request essentially infill development this is not infill infill for a planner at least is you got residential here you got residential here and in between you have a vacant lot uh it it's filling in what's already on both sides that is not the situation here with buffering and while buffering and screening are essential to blending new development with existing uses a 747 unit subdivision does not blend easily with existing well-established land land uses especially the large lot agricultural uses along mccall road in the northwest portion of the subject property the existing density of 249 residential units on 300 acres is an acceptable i would even say a bountiful entitlement and it is quite consistent with that of the neighbors i urge you to deny this application outright are there questions can we ask questions now questions and if we just pause the time at this time to allow questions of the expert well i have one question i had miss trotman um you have mentioned a couple of times mccall road this development does not abut and or touch mccall road so you're making references to mccall road could you explain that to me how i got mccall road as a shorthand is based on something that was said in the staff report i'm talking about the northwest portion of the the property okay so the northwest portion of the property it's my understanding that is abutting your client's piece of property and then there's a distance from then what would be her north east or northwest corner that then still has to continue to get to mccall road so there's a a significant separation between the edge of this project and mccall road if i'm understood okay just wanted to understand thank you anything else just a question were we able to ask him questions later on or is now our only time that we were able to ask him i think the board if the board wants to call call him back to ask questions i think that's in the board board's product and before you mr before you leave mr allen do you have any questions no questions okay thank you mr grosso miss nelson all right we can begin the time again okay this falls in the 30 minutes correct yes we can begin time again that was me asking thank you i won't say good morning my my name is sue nelson i live at 2920 crease lake drive i'm a former polk county planning commissioner what factors do you look at when addressing compatibility section 906 parentheses 12 the commission shall consider the following factors whether the proposed development is compatible with the general character of the area including such factors as density intensity and traffic so yes at this level you can assess traffic impacts as they relate to the character of the area compatibility in the traffic if the traffic impacts are not characteristic of the area simply reduce the density character of our area facing north a 15 acre sheep farm one acre lots one home on two acres walkers glenn subdivision 1.0 dwelling units per acre northwest a 60 acre horse ranch looking west cruisewood lane one home on 5.2 acres one home on two acres seven homes on 1.2 acres each and one home on 2.5 acres and below that 151 acres of pasture land complete with a herd of cattle the applicant in this case looks directly east crosses over yarborough lane looks directly east again looking for compatibility reassurance the applicant is not taking into consideration any other direction all of the properties along the north side of cruise lake drive are on septic tanks indicative of much larger lots even in our various subdivisions recently a wastewater line was brought in from over a mile away leapfrogging over all of us just to accommodate the touchstone development and now suddenly we're higher density this is a textbook example of incompatibility this 20 acre parcel residential low one meaning one acre home sites conveniently labeled not included in your in your staff report will now be surrounded by 50 foot wide lots this property will be isolated unduly burdened and nearly encircled by this development using their legal 1988 grass easement named lee wybert lane the two property owners will now have to traverse an area of 85 lots in order to access their property literally crossing over two roads within this development will the residents and the plan development start using this grass easement for a quick access out to a collector road which defeats the original intent of a plan development in the first place plan developments voted on at this level require development criteria in order to ensure they are not harmful to the health and safety of the surrounding residents and their surrounding properties on cruise lake drive we've had not one but two fatalities poll county transportation was so concerned about the crashes they applied for and received highway safety improvement funding from the federal highway administration construction crews came out resurfaced our road but never completed the required safety measures in 2017 the federal highway administration realizing the project was only a resource resurfacing resurfacing project withdrew all federal funding the county had to pay back an estimated 1.3 million dollars fast forward to today 2026 no new roadway improvements cruise lake drive is still striped with 10 foot wide lanes i pulled all of the traffic crashes 11 of them in the last four years 22 crashes 11 of them hit power poles that line our roadway cruise lake drive currently generates 5 700 vehicle trips a day this one development will generate 5 834 trips after hearing all the evidence ask yourselves is this current proposal compatible with our area and most importantly is it safe this board decides this at this level and on a side note staff told me one of you had inquired about crash reports on our road i can do even better than that i can provide you with two autopsy reports of the fatalities thank you to violate hipaa if you'll pause the time real quick mr allen do you have any questions of the witness any questions but miss nelson just uh testified to a number of trash data uh trash data crash data relevant to uh cruise lake drive i would love to see copies of that because um i would love my transportation engineer to evaluate it and i think miss nelson is offering it to you all to review thank you very much yeah thank you thank you richard grosso i'm sorry richard grosso again the the law your comprehensive plan it requires that everything in the comprehensive plan matters it's not just the future land use map the law is real clear your plan is real clear you don't just look at a future land use designation and say oh they could go to a maximum of whatever and so as long as they're inside of that everything's good that's certainly not how planning works it's not planning by the numbers it's not just traffic capacity and it's not you know those helpful amenity scales and the algorithms it's not math that's part of it but it's about the human element of character of community characteristics and compatibility it's about the idea that as this county grows like other places in florida are growing there's a balance that has to be struck accommodating new population looking long term at population trends yes and you can look at one side of the one side of this property and you can see obviously there's been some trend a lot of it not at your making but of your adjacent city but then it's kind of striking and i know doing local lane use planning is really hard it's a hard job but it's kind of striking and a little concerning that when you look at the staff report here it's as if my client's property the properties to the north other properties to the west and southwest it's as if they don't exist all the the mapping that ms nelson just showed you and what she described based on her own personal knowledge of the area i don't think i've ever seen it to be honest a staff report that just excluded whole other parts of the adjacent and surrounding properties that's a really big kind of legal and planning flaw about this analysis here that's a really huge problem given what the law requires of strict scrutiny given what your own plan requires we think this violates at least four parts of your comprehensive plan and code section 906a2 section 906d12c of your code is violated comprehensive plan policy 2.125-m is violated plan policy 2.102-a2 is violated i'll describe those for you the code requires that it be development be consistent with all relevant requirements of the code all applicable policies of the plan and it must be compatible with surrounding uses not some of them but all of them and that's where the balance comes in and it must be compatible with the general character of the area now i think staff suggested this entire area is urban parts of it adjacent are early suburban but there's this other entire part of the immediately adjacent surrounding properties that are not urban they're rural semi-rural at best for some of them and so the right decision on a piece of earth like this requires much greater balance than was applied for and is being asked for today the other things that you look at with compatibility under your code density height bulk scale intensity traffic noise and appearance so it's not enough just to say adjacent on one side there's a sub subdivision about the same density you got to look at the scale you got to look at the character you've got to look realistically on the ground at the my client's property the others in that area and say really does what they're proposing look anything like this it doesn't it's a huge change it's a huge departure scale density all those factors that matter under your code we're not asking that this property never be developed we're asking that the dent this be denied without prejudice to apply for a lower density that has much greater sized lots on the western side it's not like for like those lots the larger lots in this site are not anything like my clients lots the other lots that are on that side of this property bulk scale intensity it just doesn't add up the policy the plan requires compatibility with all adjacent and surrounding uses you can't just cherry pick the one side of the property that doesn't work again a huge flaw with your comp plan with the analysis relative to your comp plan compatibility also requires an analysis of traffic traffic is a component of compatibility traffic concurrency is one animal that's not what we're talking about here you can't just kick the traffic can down the road and so we only deal with that at traffic concurrency where you crunch the numbers your code and plan says traffic and all the things that it generates all the changes that that makes the people's everyday life that's a huge element of compatibility that's what's missing and you know the this the staff report talks about how the traffic will be very significant from this project even just knowing what we know now and the staff report tells you that the uh the peak hour traffic the peak hour conditions at full build up may be significant they will triple the peak hour traffic conditions will be significant the staff report tells you there is limited traffic capacity available to support development in this area it's not hard to look at that and say you are creating in terms of traffic at a minimum a major incompatibility here there's too many homes asked for on the site from a scale a bulk a character a way of life and a traffic everyday perspective that's the real problem here you know it's not planning by math it's not planning by algorithm there's the human character scale dimension what this means to the everyday lives of the people whose investment in their own property has made this an attractive place a special place a place that is a lifestyle that is diminishing in florida right as population growth goes as we run out of land it's more important every day to make the very most appropriate decision on every piece of land when we make these out these decisions on these applications and that human aspect of are we really going to run out the horse farms the sheep farms that way of life are we really going to encircle those people with nothing but dense suburban development or are we going to find that balance where an applicant land landowner like this can get a decent return on their investment an adequate amount of development but it's not at the complete forever expense of the people who have made this community and who've made their own investments and so it's balance it's my understanding that this application is that you're being asked to approve the application as applied that there hasn't been a reduction as a consideration of all these factors happen that's what we're asking for we're asking to deny this amount of density this request without reservation to come back and apply for something that's a lot more appropriate to this specific location in terms of density uh in in terms of of scale um you know i have been doing this kind of work for a long time and i realize the difficulty of these kinds of decisions but i i can't emphasize enough that when a site plan like this a a an application like this is approved and there are assurances stated that well we'll fix those issues down the line that that's not really what happens maybe a concurrency review maybe a flood plain review will chip away at a couple of units but you really are deciding the fate the basic scale of the development on this piece of earth today with this vote uh you know people it's not just that people are concerned about change it's not fun to show up and you know be the fly in the ointment to argue against an application it's not a fun job for people it's it's not something they do lightly and and we would ask you to take very seriously all the concerns that people have expressed to you about what this will mean in terms of a forever change to this slice of you know life heaven that they live in in this particular part of the county it's unique it's hard to drive drive around there drive those roads walk around there and and say this is entirely an urban area this amount of development is consistent and compatible with what's there you know it's just not i don't know that you need to be a land use planner frankly to to look at that and make that decision so we we are asking for we would ask you to enter to take a vote and enter a final order that finds the proposal incompatible with the surrounding and adjacent uses that identifies the policies i've i've i've read to you today as inconsistencies that this application violates those provisions of your code and your comprehensive plan deny it without prejudice to try again at a much reduced scale certainly in terms of the the lots on the western side and the northern side yeah they're larger but they're not anything like the surrounding areas uh that would be our ask that would be our request uh i'd be very happy to answer any questions i'm sure the rest of our team would uh and i really thank you for your time i thank mr mink for his courtesies and guidance on how you all handle these these hearings very much appreciated thank you madam chair members i just want to ask i want to clarify when you say a request for lower density did i hear you say reduce from 748 to 249 is that did i hear you throw that number i don't think i said said that i think mr forgy may have said that's what the current is the current entitlements are 249 correct is what it is as as it is it's 249 747 proposed yeah okay so i have to make sure that i heard when you say what because because i want to make sure that that's what you're referring to when you're saying lower density you know i i don't know what the specific number would be uh certainly somewhere between those two i think that the number they're asking for right now is just way off the charts too high from from our perspective and i know from the perspective of many folks that you're fixing to hear from today thank you madam chair thank you members anybody else yes i just wanted to there's one point that you made that concerns me when you say that our staff and our report does not take into account all of the properties in looking at the staff report if you clearly go to page nine it is well laid out in a table that's very succinct that shows the comparison of all the properties so i i it is not as represented by your statement that other properties were not considered that um is clearly not the case if you look at the staff report and i'm familiar with the chart you're speaking about um and yes it does say that but there's no narrative there's no discussion there's no explanation that those are rural in character that they're really really really different from what's being applied for but yet when you look at the narrative and you read the characterization in the staff report with all due respect it's all about how suburbanized the other side of the property is it's just not in in our opinion just not a fair balanced completely accurate analysis and characterization the table's there yes but it's just there it's left alone it's not analyzed if i if i may on page 10 and i was going to ask uh but nothing else i'll follow up with staff on page 10 uh under compatibility with surrounding land uses and infrastructure the statements made and i love our staff i'm not saying this is an issue of staff but i have an issue with the statement says the request is compatible with the surrounding area as the residential density in the area is very similar to what is being requested and will not adversely affect the city of citizens of the immediate surrounding area um to me that's when i do look at this i mean to our west there's 50 foot wide lots abutting rural lands i'm assuming from the developer standpoint they presume at some point in the in the future that it's 50 foot wide lots to get placed in that cow pasture but as existing uses which the following you know the paragraph following that talks about existing uses not future thought of uses is what we're looking at as compatibility so when we make the statement that it's not adversely it will not adversely affect the citizens of the immediate surrounding area i don't know how we make that statement in our staff report because again if you only look to the east it's compatible if you look to the west to the north to the south there's nothing around that's compatible so this is a daisy chain domino you know from one doorstep to the next kind of hopscotching if you will but not not a whole surrounding area so i'll just leave it at that thank you thank you sir thank you thank you madam chair thank you i think madam chair at this time we will open up for public hearing for individuals who have signed up to speak um three minutes apiece madam chair and and then the um after everything yes ladies and gentlemen we're going to open it up for public hearing if you wish to address the board on this issue please come forward and state your name and address and you have three minutes i do ask that you've already heard the testimonies from the attorneys please make sure if you're going to say something that you add to that not say the same thing that they have said and that would help us expedite this i do have a list so i'm going to go through the list thank you amber i'm going to go through the list first and then after that i'll ask for anybody that wishes to address the board that is not has not filled a paper i'm going to start with ed smith hello my name is ed smith i live at 6850 bent ridge drive within the tremont community along cruise lake first i want to start with thanking each and every commissioner here for your time and service to our community i could barely sit through one meeting alone having to sit through meeting after meeting but thank you each for your time when i was a young boy every sunday morning i look forward to getting the sunday newspaper and i would grab the newspaper and the first thing i would do and i'd show my dad we'd read the blondie blondie and dagwood comic strip we did that the second thing we did is we would stare at these two pictures and it would say which one is not like the other and it showed one picture and then it'd have differences and i would be so excited to like circle what was different in the next picture and that's the way i view compatibility what does one look like and what does not look like for the other this area as it currently says it exists is rural in nature but it does have estate homes and does have large i shouldn't say large but has 80 foot lot developments along it there is nothing whatsoever with 50 foot lots anywhere along this way when you come from 540a down yarborough when you come down cruise lake they're all at a minimum 80 foot lots additionally to scale the sizes of the community the the smallest is 48 or 56 the largest is 190 nothing is 764 lots the roadways in this area are simply not acceptable for the amount of traffic this is going to develop i live in tremont and i can tell you with certainty that the number of amazon trucks that park along the side of the road the way the lawn services park along cruise lake with the school buses that come along it there's simply not enough capacity the way this area is designed additionally along cruise lake it's a winding road with this touchstone development coming out on i'm sorry not touchstone but highlands club coming out on that roadway and it's simply not acceptable because of the the amount of traffic and the way the road winds um i just want to finish with saying um commissioner scott brought up an issue that i wanted to address i live in tremont and beside my home is a retention pond and for milton when it did it completely filled overflowed into the street and then the water travels across what is proposed as a pulty development and goes into cruise lake and so i'm very concerned about the flooding that will occur here there is another right after this another 369 homes proposed in that development with 40 foot lots and 50 foot lots i want to thank you for your time next i have james cammerford cammerford hello thank you uh my name is uh james cammerford i live at uh 2976 tremont uh i mean uh pickers pass in the tremont subdivision and um it's very interesting listening to uh all the testimony today and uh my expertise is not in land management uh my expertise is in long-range planning but it was all in telecommunications so i'm familiar with looking forward and and all the things that come with that and i would just say that as board members you have to vote on the information you're given and i'm i know you like your staff and you uh depend on them quite a bit i think in this case the staff didn't do enough they did the number crunching it looks great but i think the human element of the neighborhood was not maybe taken into consideration so i would recommend to the board to turn this down today thank you thank you john sebring following john we have jennifer batts good morning commissioners uh my name is john sebring i live at 66 45 angle lake drive in the angle lake subdivision i'm a 28 year polk county resident and i don't really have a speech for it now i just have a few notes i did look at the county commission website in the planning and development section and there's a quote from there is the polk county office of planning and development makes sure growth and community development doesn't get out of control well i think the ropes are untied from that ship and it's about to sail because um excuse me with the um the touchstone neighborhood which is directly to the east of this proposed subdivision um i couldn't count how many houses or how many lots at least are are planned there i know there's five or six being built right now but it looks to be several hundred and you combine that with the um 747 in this uh in this proposed development that's going to be over a thousand houses i'm sure uh and everybody's talked about infrastructure i don't want to i don't want to labor that but i haven't seen any improvements on cruise lake road cruise like drive that is or yarborough other than the addition of a right turn lane from cruise lake drive on to yarborough i know the water line was added that's very nice but as far as the roads go and one of the previous speakers mentioned the curves of the road and the entrance to the subdivision being right on there that's uh to me it's going to be unacceptable also if any of you have driven down cruise lake drive in the last several years and i hope you have you know it's a really nice area it's my one of my favorite places to drive it's beautiful and a lot of that's going to go away uh if this development starts to get built um commissioner scott mentioned the flooding and another speaker did also and i uh i agree with that i know if we get some heavy rain that's something that really needs to be looked into the um the possibility of flooding with that whole this proposed area being more or less shaped like a bowl that's uh that could really cause some concern and i'm i'm concerned about that myself i think that's all that i have thank you very much for your time thank you for the opportunity to speak thank you jennifer batts after jennifer we have nicole lane my name is jennifer batts i'm at three four five zero cruise lake drive which is directly to the north of um the highlands club development so i i certainly expertise here in that lot and what what goes on there um is is what i'm here to tell you about uh i'm here to express our family's opposition to the proposed housing development of 747 homes currently under your review this project planned across the street from existing rural residential properties represents a dramatic and incompatible shift in land use that would permanently alter the character of our community our area is defined by large lot rural homes open landscapes and a quiet low density environment the addition of hundreds of densely packed houses will bring significant increase in traffic noise and light pollution all of which would diminish the rural character that long-time residents value and have invested in roads that were never designed to handle such volume will become unsafe and more congested especially for cyclists and pedestrians who now share these roads somewhat safely i certainly have expertise here in the and in the lot um and what goes on there is what it no sorry we are on the s curve directly across the street from highlands club we've had multiple cars breach our property line as well as knock out power and cellular services um with these instance i would venture to guess several of these are not in the uh traffic planning report because they're not um they the people that crash don't stay around long enough to have a report written about them beyond quality of life concerns this project raises serious questions about infrastructure and environmental impact the proposed development with strained water and sewer systems create runoff and drainage issues and threaten local wildlife habitats that rely on open space corridors while we recognize the need for managed growth in affordable housing such growth must occur in areas already zoned and equipped for higher density not in the heart of a rural residential area that has tried to remain intent intentionally low density we respectfully request that you deny the approval of this development and or require the developer to significantly reduce its scale and redesign it to preserve the rural character and infrastructure and capacity of the rural character and infrastructure capacity of our community i i i just want to say while people are saying that it's urban and suburban that's because you're letting it become that way my home has been there since 1947 and had we had access to cruise lake at that point these homes on cruise lake woods have been there since the 70s and beyond we want to re maintain the rural integrity of the area and i thank you for your time thank you nicole lane following nicole will be richard lane thank you i'm going to try not to repeat some of the things that have been heard so i'm going to wing it a little bit um so with my slides she's going to bring up my slides um i'm also going to offer that i have a picture of the lake behind my house because i can see cruise lake every day from october 28th 2024 at 4 17 p.m time stamped and you can see the flooding and how it left its banks so mr scott if you would like to see it i'd be happy to share it with the engineer because i am concerned about that for the people who become homeowners there um i grew up in lakeland i graduated from lakeland high school in 1982 so i've seen all the change and um so if you can go ahead and zip along i'm just going to tell you that i would not be standing here if they asked for 249 houses 375 houses i wouldn't be here it's the 747 houses that's got me here so i'm going to jump to the next all the commissioners i sent you an email on the 28th of december with four handouts i have some here for you because what happened on the map on the staff report on page 35 is it goes to the east and it includes aniston a big neighborhood it includes touchstone at 3.5 duac it includes wind meadows at 3.06 duac but they want to jump even further so as you'll see each time an approval is going on to the east is going up but if you look at the median and the average when you take all the houses and you do take into consideration the sheep one and you take into consideration our lots and then you go down to the west to avalon road or avalon woods all those homes with five acre lots along cruise way cruise lake drive sorry and then there's other neighborhoods like highlands lake i have um let me oh sorry because i'm winging it now it's not as good but um you have cruise lake hills highlands creek avalon woods and so the density and the averages are not there and then i do just want to take if we go to traffic for a second just to speed us along that yarborough corner has a visual impediment today when you turn left from yarborough and turn left onto cruise lake drive you cannot see you have to pull out into the intersection because there's a hill a tree and a fence so that needs to be fixed before we put some type of high density housing there so i'm going to respectfully ask that we also consider that when meadows plans to put us an exit in the back of their neighborhood that's going to allow people to exit onto yarborough so that's another consideration that has to be thought about when you're thinking about the bigger part of this traffic and so with that i'll conclude because i don't want to duplicate what's already been set here thank you thank you richard lane and following richard we have danielle delango i have a video i think to present right video there's a brief video supposed to be ready make sure you state your name and address i'm richard lane i live 6704 cruiswood lane my property is directly adjacent on the back to this property again we're not asking this development go away we just want the community to be considered in this decision when a developer comes in they make a huge development make a nice profit and off they go but we're going to be living there the rest of our lives and so are the people who'll be coming in so all we're asking is you consider us thank you thank you danielle delang i think it is and following danielle we have brenda uh alma tara good morning i'm dan delang i live on two acres on 33 15 cruise lake drive in the cruise lake subdivision we live 400 feet away from you step closer to the mic yes we live 400 feet away from the adjoining from the pd we've lived there for 41 years so i'm reading from the de novo hearing staff report on page 19 quote the closest park to the subject property is highland city senior field at 5901 strickland avenue approximately 1.08 miles north there are sidewalks and crosswalks that signalize intersections along canon road 548 and strickland avenue to allow for safe pedestrian access unquote this quote access is to a park that is closed has not been open for years and if you want photos i have them here with me otherwise i've i've sent them also to all of you all it is closed i can give this to you if you'd like to see it and it's been closed for many years quote for repairs when it was open it was only open by reservation so if you walk down the slope into it you'll see that it is in terrible condition and actually dangerous the dugout roof is caving in the bathroom doors are unopenable with broken locks and the wiring to the light poles has been cut and pulled out from the conduit go see for yourselves despite its unusable state it was actually given two points by staff for the tremont subdivision it calls into question to me anyway the reliability of staff's other findings and comments quoting again further is north north as highland city poke located at 3930 ballpark road approximately 1.52 miles north unquote my son played in this baseball park 35 years ago and my 10 year old grandson plays there now the parking is so bad that people use the right of way to park it is so overfilled that eight-year-olds have to play until eight o'clock at night on school nights 10 year olds have to play until nine o'clock the county has had 30 years to address this while the area is exploded in growth and it's done what almost nothing i've coached soccer for 40 consecutive years and i know what goes on in the soccer fields the local field is lois harper park soccer field on quarter road and it's becoming decrepit conditions it used to have decent turf but now it's just mowed weeds filled with bare dirt and potholes unlike the city of lakeland which maintains their fields on a given saturday you will see two or three thousand children parents and grandchildren come on the fields plus practice on the weeknights they deserve better use of their tax money than paying for new sewer systems and road improvements caused by high new density development so do staff and the development review committee adding 747 lots most of which are higher density to 562 high density lots in tramont look nice on paper can you give me 15 more seconds please ma'am that's it thank you very much appreciate it i can i cannot cannot uh brenda say your last name for me al mutawa brenda al mutawa i live at 6633 cruise wood lane thank you and i have a video to share with you and i just want to point out in this video are two neighborhoods that have no less than 80 foot lots um everything else is much larger and this is directly behind thank you and but that's all i have that have and is there anybody else that wishes to address the board on this issue please come forward state your name and address and you have three minutes you could hand the speaker card to the communication staff please thank you everyone this is i'm dr mark lane i have a phd in finance and extensive experience teaching people how to do appraisal and all of those sorts of things i live at 6818 bentridge drive and i just want to harp on or mention two things one thank you for your time um safety every single day when you leave your home in the mornings their moms with their cars parked on the sides of the roads because there's no sidewalks particularly in the places that we're talking about adding all of the extra traffic is not a good thing something to consider you have to carefully consider the impact of all of this and like they've mentioned over and over again one of these is not like the other it's not compatible it's simply not so we ask like the rest that you say no thank you thank you anyone else see no one else then i will close it close the public hearing and bring it back to the applicant and bart i believe you had 10 minutes left in your presentation so that gives you a total of 15 minutes to respond to my comments uh you can start the clock for all i care um i won't take too long um i want to introduce mr don skelton don skelton is our transportation planner who's been working he's an engineer he's been working on analysis of this uh i have mr oh goodness i have mr skelton's resume but i think i left it at my chair and i'll get that but i'd like him to come up address some of the safety issues he's he is a transportation civil engineer i believe um practicing engineering in the state of florida and i'd like him to be recognized as an expert if he can just give a summary of his background and then we'll take a motion from the board good afternoon i graduated from usf in 2017 with a bachelor's in civil engineering with a focus in transportation and since that time i've worked at various consulting firms doing this kind of work board we have a motion to have a motion and a second any questions discussion hearing none all in favor opposed motion carries okay so i'd like to talk about the safety a little bit because safety had come up quite a few times and i can appreciate that everyone here cares about safety i do as well i pulled some crash data for the past five years and i did full calendar year so it's gonna be 2020 through 2024 i did it for all of cruise lake and then the portion of cruise lake that fronts the property line over the five-year period there was a total of 32 crashes on all of cruise lake but right in front of the property we're talking from the western limit to yarborough or just west of yarborough there were 11 crashes of those 11 crashes six happened at the intersection which we already heard you know some people say there's issues there of the 11 crashes that happened in that area though most of them i've got 55 did not result in an injury and then i compared the crash rates between the segments and the intersections for the entire project area so all of cruise lake to statewide averages um provided by the florida department of transportation and the crash rates on cruise lake were lower than the statewide average any questions of mr sculton yeah if i could when you say compared to the statewide averages that's like all similar facilities so not any excluding interstates is that correct excluding what excluding interstates or including interstates no because an interstate is a completely yeah yeah so this is classified in polk county's roadway network database as an urban collector so i did similar facilities it would be two lane undivided urban roadways okay very good thank you mr grussel do you have any questions okay thank you um then i'm going to ask mr hunter quickly he's previously been admitted as an expert just to talk about the there were some concerns about the location of the driveway access on cruise lake drive for for area a i want him to discuss that real quick yeah just briefly i think the comment was a brief comment about site visibility for the northwestern most interest entrance into area a that of course during the engineering process will be required to establish clear visibility triangles and ensure there are certain site distance that have to meet code i'm not concerned about at all about it meeting the site visibility we control the right of way on the south side so we control it looks like and the curbs are there but they're not uh and and it's posted at 35 miles an hour which is uh one of the criteria that sets the code site visibility left and right so just wanted to say that on the record that uh i don't think we're going to have a problem meeting site visibility and if there was a problem and i don't think there will be we have room to shift and we'll relocate the driveway any questions mr hunter madam chair i just want to clarify because um and this may be for the traffic expert if i look at the engineering and your proposal at this point the exit for the section a would line up in essence with walkers glenn drive is that correct that's correct were there any crashes near that walkers glenn drive yeah it looks like there was one crash that was somewhat close to that and it was one of the no injury crashes okay and that's within five years yes within five years and for purposes of the record the information and analysis that mr skelton just referred to is contained in this report for purposes of the record and uh mr grasso i have a copy of that if you'd like it okay just a quick question is that traffic data similar to um what was provided by the uh who was sorry somebody provided traffic data before on the de novo side from that was miss nelson that provided the traffic data her traffic data spanned the entirety of cruise lake drive all the way out ours is a little bit more limited in scope it would but we didn't get a chance i mean no i understand that yes to fully evaluate it but look generally generally similar okay thank you um that's one last thing uh speaking of miss nelson i'm glad you brought her up she referenced the letter from um dot and and talked at length about how the county did not do the right thing as it relates to the safety improvements on cruise lake drive and the grant funding and things of that nature that was contained in a letter that she provided at planning commission but as well uh delivered to you to the to the five of you on friday um i provided that copy of that letter to mr j jarvis who is your uh roads and drainage division director and asked him a little bit about that specific question and his response and i have a copy of his email which is public record with regards of the letter the county had requested and received funding to widen portions of cruise lake strap of cruise lake road some of the residents did not like the impacts of the front of their property and submitted a request to have the funding removed they succeeded and the attached letter was the result so i think it's a little disingenuous by miss nelson to indicate that or or insinuate that the county did something untoward or didn't do their duty as it relates to safety in this area when you know your own staff and recognize that it was really withdrawn at the behest of the residents out there so i think that's important and i have a copy of that letter as well if mr grasso would like a copy and i provided a copy for the record finally i'm going to kind of wrap up here um the the biggest issue that i heard out of the resident testimony and even mr grasso and and and mr forgy related to compatibility um they they want want to focus on the 50 foot lots and they want to ignore the fact that we are that this site plan lays out 30 000 square foot lots minimum on average 50 000 square feet which is we all can do the math that's over an acre um within the area a development those lots are the only ones that access cruise lake drive just so to insinuate that we are tripling traffic on cruise lake drive is is not accurate um what they are saying and i agree with this is if you look at the 249 if you assume that's what can be done by right and we are asking within the pd which is allowed by your comprehensive plan and provided for in your lane development code that we are going from one dwelling unit an acre to 2.7 dwelling units an acre that's what they're saying the tripling is it's not the capacity of the road it's not what's actually on cruise lake drive right now based on the transportation study and i have a copy that that's already been submitted to your staff cruise lake drive with the project improvements with touchstone the traffic methodology that was agreed upon included the transportation analysis from touchstone as it relates to vested to vested trips again looking at trips that are not on the road today making sure that when we put our project on top of it that we are assessing the actual impacts i'm glad you brought that up um i had a question about that please there was mention of i believe 542 trips associated with touchstone yeah i some number 500 and something and that same number was used or at least it was said it was used in your project but your project you haven't come up with anything yet have you this project has assumed 747 pm peak hour trips for purposes of the transportation analysis so you've got 500 of whatever from touchstone included on top of what we're doing as far as our transportation analysis now i want to make sure what we're clear on the record is all 747 of those do not access cruise lake drive we've got 69 lots in area a so there's 69 of those pm peak hour trips that are accessing cruise lake drive the balance are spread across three different access points on yarborough lane which has been improved now both of these roads are urban collector roads they're not rural roads they are classified and assigned trip calculations based on being an urban collector and with the project and with the background trips and the background growth cruise lake drive still operates at 30 percent of its pmp capacity which is where we really the standard for what we review transportation concurrency on is is that number and i think that's important the insinuation that we're tripling what's actually out there on cruise lake drive is just inaccurate all right may i ask you a question of course um to go to the exit on cruise lake if you're not in that area i think is that a is it what you call it hey when you're in the um south side of it is there can residents cross that section and go on to cruise lake and residents from b c d no no ma'am so they have to then go out through yarborough absolutely that's correct they cannot go through a and if that is something that cannot change without coming back to a public hearing that would be a major modification to a pud well obviously from a traffic perspective you can go down yarborough and go down cruise lake drive if that's right and none of us know in this room what split of traffic is going to go from yarborough to cruise or vice versa we just know that ones on the a are going to go to cruise lake for sure they could go cruising they could go kitty fox they could go through wind meadows they could go down cruise lake road there's about six or seven different ways that they can get out of here so that's the transportation conversation going coming back to compatibility um you know there were some conversations specifically about the de novo applicant about living on a 60 acre horse farm the 60 acre horse farm is split by cruise lake drive so they really live on like six acres more or less i i don't have the exact math in this upper corner here again adjacent to 30 000 square foot minimums and and 50 000 square foot average lot sizes the horse farms on the north side of the road we're not adjacent to that at all nor are we adjacent to the sheep farm but i did notice in the sheep farm video i'm not a budding there's a street between it yes but i'm not adjacent like i am miss andrews the sheep farm when i was watching the video had homes in the background i mean this is not an uncommon occurrence it was shown in their own videos where residential is abutting these kinds of uses today now that to me is the proof of compatibility right now today the videos that the resident showed showed some larger lots it showed some 80 foot lots it showed some smaller lots and it showed a couple pieces of agricultural land all of which exists today and what we're doing is nothing different than that and of all the people and i heard residents talk about you're putting 50 foot lots next to a a cattle pasture i said that you said that okay i just heard it said that property owner did not stand up and speak in opposition to this they weren't here i think that speaks volumes so from compatibility perspective when you go back and you look at my presentation and we look at it from a from a bigger picture perspective the growth has come to this area you saw your exhibits from in the staff report going through the history going back to the 70s of growth coming this way these this is one of the last pieces in this area again the phosphate mining begins to the south and then when you look on the more macro level you've got development to the west you do have a five acre home with a two acre ish parcel attached to it as the andrews parcel the rest of these are 80 foot lots and one acre tracks 1.2 acres there may be there it's a mix of sizes let me let me soften my statement a little bit i the groans um it is a mix of lot sizes in there two and a half dwelling units an acre they are adjacent to minimum 30 000 square feet lots a thousand feet and 2 000 feet away from a single 50 foot lot that's a substantial distance that's a quarter mile pushing a half mile densities in this area are 2.5 dwelling units an acre across the street across cruise lake drive 0.9 dwelling units an acre area a is less than an acre one per acre and then you have the transition of the 50 foot lots which is immediately adjacent to 50 foot lots and 40 foot lots within touchstone so you have a transition abuses you have like versus like and you have a compatible situation with different types of unit types that all fit in together and that's exactly what your comprehensive plan requires and that's exactly what this applicant has demonstrated you have a drc recommendation of approval you have a planning commission recommendation of not a recommendation approval final vote six to one now one of the couple things that i wanted to just briefly add the things that we've talked about internally and with staff and school board we would like we would propose a condition that require that would require the developer during the level two process to coordinate with the school board to facilitate some sort of enhanced drop-off location pick up drop-off location at project entrances on your on yarborough lane i've discussed that with uh josh macklemore from the pole county school board and he is in support of that condition that addresses safety as it relates to students um and movement of students in this area i think that is a something that is appropriate to be added and is um we are proffering that for you um for your consideration outside of that i got one last question and i um mr peterson one of the one of the things mr peterson your staff you have i've been practicing law in polk county for 18 years mr peterson was here the first day i walked through the door so i'm not gonna i know he's been here longer than that um he's an aicp planner he's been admitted as an expert to you guys he's done a tremendous amount of pds he's probably worked on the plan developments i got up that were done to approve tremont and the developments on the south side of cruise lake road immediately adjacent to it in 2004 he was probably here that's how those developments this exact process is how those developments on the south side of cruise lake exists today and now they don't want us so what i what i want to ask mr peterson is after hearing the arguments of mr grasso after hearing the arguments of mr forgy after hearing all the residents testimony has that changed your opinion at all as it relates to consistency with the comprehensive plan or compatibility no to me that's i will say this i heard that in prior bocc meetings prior to becoming an office i would never ask staff to admit they're wrong or right in front of a public audience and so i just find that question to be a bit aggressive i've heard it before and i'll never agree with it and i still don't agree with it today so i will say this i pointed it out when they're wrong without hesitation but it just with due respect i think the reason why that's asked is because there's language a staff report that says this staff report is made without the the the public hearing and evidence that may be presented at the hearing so that's why it's asked because they could have heard something that's been presented by the members of the public that says oh i missed that and my my mind has changed and i no longer feel it's compatible so i think that's the reason exactly it why the park that's closed and we state in the staff report that services are available at that park that's still adequate well i will address that yeah so um first of all this is in quote my district we all very well work together and we realize every decision we make affects everybody in polk county but i have read every email although 60 of them were exactly the same i've read every email every point that has been raised i loaded myself up i sat at the intersections that were discussed and i went to this to the park that park was used within the last two weeks now it's not the prettiest park i will agree with that but it is used and to make claims without the factual information i think is a disservice to yourself to your neighbors and to us i went to that park it was locked at the time i walked down i inspected the trash why did i look at the trash well because it was a salad that has an expiration date on it so i have a way to kind of judge when was this last used and i reached out to our director of parks and natural resources that park is used it has been it is on a scheduled basis so when you go there you do see the gates it gives you the number to call but as an ancillary park to support the other parks in the area so the park is not closed the park is open it's used by reservations at this time and it does serve the residents of of the community i want to go back to what you stated um commissioner scott i don't i don't have an issue with what bert asked i think that's important that that information is publicly shared even though we do have the report and we've had him ask or not only him but other applicants ask other um staff members and i think the staff members by saying no or yes or like you said uh randy by them saying well i've heard this testimony i need to go back i i believe they would do that so i have no problems with that question being asked i think just my reference to that is the meetings that i've been a part of in the past i've not had any where the staff went back and said yes i agree i need to go back and redress it if that has occurred in the past then oh yeah uh then that's great but again for my own experience that's always a reference in that question off of yeah yeah you know i've been here going on eight years and we've that's been brought up numerous times uh over the years and uh you know i've never looked at it anyway but you know hey did you hear something new uh so you know i don't have a problem with it and madam chair before we move on since commissioner trellman has brought up what she's seen and stuff i'm give mr crosso if he has any questions or anything regarding that of course mr allen if he has any questions regarding those comments um since that's something that's been outside of this meeting right and that's why i disclosed i had site visits thank you um a statement a representation was made about an action of ms nelson we would like 60 seconds for her to respond to that but it appears to have been very material misrepresentation um randy i think we need to just go ahead and proceed okay yeah that's a question for staff not not for you just for staff when we get back to that okay so at this time no no no additional testimony no additional we're going to go ahead and move on so the public the public hearings closed out mr allen you've completed your presentation now it's the board's discussion okay so now we bring it back to the board this is the question for staff please madam chair yes uh just on the reference that was made as far as the data being included for touchstone as far as the table goes that's talking about the densities that were approved or in process but then data and i can't find in the report on the traffic side when they're talking about the same numbers were used for the touchstone staff report versus the staff report for this project is there any clarity provided on that but i didn't really fully understand what that point was so i want to ask for that we use the most recent transportation planning organization's roadway network database okay and our staff report that's the only data we have to work from um if the numbers corresponded maybe it's coincidence uh maybe they you know they took into account the touchstone and then but also the capacity of cruise lake road also increased a lot of the assumptions they have for the total capacity of the roadway change over time got it but we're not sure yeah we we'd have to go back and look at the math i'd have to question the folks in tpo to say hey did you did you incorporate this when you did your last i think we've been through three or four iterations since touchstone of the roadway network database we're using the 2025 one you know that's the most recent so if it's not reflected in that database but that's how you would not know right it would be the most available data but not necessarily inclusive of even if you added just ballpark in my head if you added touchstone and you added this project there's still still ample capacity given the many routes you have to leave and enter and exit and connect to the places that people would be going like grocery like work things of that nature schools there there's plenty of capacity we'll see a more definitive staff report and yes there might be some intersection improvements that need to be made but generalized capacity there's a lot of capacity on all the roadways that surround this project okay madam chair yes can we go with a motion yes yes so i move for approval of this item seconded i have a motion in a second now we are ready for discussion and questions about this uh yeah on the discussion side i think again from an adjacency perspective of compatibility we look at only one side of the project having that to the point of several of the people that spoke a transitional area or development of this is certainly going to happen but having something on the west property line that more reflects a transitional area or something not 50 foot wide lots adjacent to a cow pasture to me puts us where we're looking at compatibility uh more appropriately and we talk about we say in our staff report ldc defines compatibility as a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition to unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition so again just in the adjacency of these other properties there's none that abut to it that would be you know compatible with this so again i would i would do you know a denial without prejudice or an approval with some kind of conditions that would offset some of those direct impacts on the western side and mount chair before we proceed just to clarify your motion mr allen had proffered a condition regarding and enhanced uh bus pickup for school children as that as that as a condition to be placed on there am i correct mr ellen is that part of your motion it well it wasn't it can be i mean um uh no it's not i mean my motion is as it is right i don't make sure yeah okay i i i guess the chair any other comments oh yeah um rena yeah so this is basically where lakeland meets bartow um and you know it's it's going to continue to be developed it's in my mind an urban area while we've been doing this i asked the staff to just go to the center of this development strike a one mile um arc around it and there's even including the fact that a quarter of that arced area is a phosphate pit there's 2 000 homes within a mile of this development uh this is a what i would call normal outgrowth you know of a city uh it's not urban sprawl which is what i really don't like it makes sense to me it's where the improvements have been made by the county it's where the water and the sewer is this is how growth needs to proceed through this county i mean um i get it you don't want to look out your back window you've been looking at somebody else's pasture all your life or somebody else's orange grove all your life and you don't want that to change but it's theirs to do with and you know they've they've elected to sell this pasture this i believe it was a blueberry farm at one point in time uh and move on and while you don't want it it is a sensible way to grow lakeland out and bartow uh north madam chair if i may and let's go on to the what i just had another comment you have another comment let's let's wait until the other ones and then we'll go back to you uh uh gentlemen yeah and if y'all indulge me with a little bit of time on this because again this is my district and i spent six years on the planning commission and i know and you've heard it everyone here we're talking about consistency and compatibility the consistency is to me is pretty straightforward we've we're consistent and um with our land development code and our comprehensive plan when we start talking about compatibility that's where you really have this thoughtful analysis and part of my thoughtful analysis included as i've stated multiple drives down yarborough lane down cruise lake drive looking at the neighborhoods and as i drive around what is being proposed is exactly what exists in the character of those neighborhoods it is there they are coexisting they have been coexisting since as you said the cruise road lane when that came on i think somebody said either in the 40s or for 40 years and this has happened around it as bart pointed out i had written myself a note you know the video showed that there are cows with houses in the background some of those who spoke are objecting to the exact type of neighborhood in which they are living now that's hard for me to really understand and when we talk about roads and concurrency i always try to educate people about this and state law is very clear of how concurrency is determined and how it's put into place do i agree with it that's not what we're here to debate and we're not here to talk about whether you agree with it but there are mechanisms that we are bound to when we talk about those issues and one of the things that i've had this continual thought about is you know when new development comes on they're not responsible for what i call the sins of the past whether the road needed to be changed power poles needed to be moved but as some of you testify and as we've received some emails you guys want to hold any new growth responsible for things already in place that you may find um unsafe and again legally we're not allowed to do that my biggest thing when we look at compatibility you drive down yarborough lane the entirety of cruise lake drive this is consistent with the entire area surrounding it where we have smaller lots this plan places smaller lots where we have larger lots this plan places our larger more estate lots you know we talk about affordability but one of the big things that's really lacking in polk county our homes where we want to be able to bring on doctors and our ceos and where we're really talking about having nicer estate homes which i think we will see around what is the private lake of cruise lake so again when i look at this my decisions are based upon our codes the evidence that was presented to us in the law which we all say what we took an oath to uphold i consider consistency and compatibility and i believe that that this plan better than almost anyone i have seen meets that those two criterias commissioner wilson i'm gonna make mine real short and sweet uh you know i've sit here and listened to a a lot of things and you know both sides uh know that area very well and you'll know what i'm going to do here in just a few minutes so that's it madam chair before we may have any more comments um commissioner brazil had brought up that he had received information regarding the the number the density within one mile and i want to make sure mr grosso had grosso had a chance if he had any questions of yeah ben can you come up as well just briefly explain that so that that was the information that was provided to him that was most of that that's what i used to do one mile radius yeah no it's uh while this was going on looking at the maps asked ben to take the gis information put a one mile ring around it and see how many homes are there yeah correct yeah we had our gis analysts upstairs do the one mile radius around this property and we came out of there it was about over 3 000 addresses but rooftops were over a little over 2 000 within that one mile radius thank you mr grosso you have any questions regarding that okay thank you sorry madam chair i'm gonna take it back to commissioner scott sure uh so again just the point i was making we talked about compatibility and commissioner trotman even said it as far as the touchstone to the east and those 50 foot wide lots adjacent to yarborough and across the street from touchstone perfectly makes sense to me on compatibility when we look at the west side where those 50 foot wide lots are abutting the open cow pasture that was my concern with this application again knowing that it's going to be developed supportive of that but in a way that at least would be compatible unless not unless for me but i'm assuming at some point that that open pasture that's left there gets developed as well but again you're looking at this as an opportunity for the bocc or for the county really to make sure we have a compatible transitional purpose for that but it has to be based on existing use not on hypotheticals in the future so if that cow pasture is there now then how can we approve a 50 foot wide lot to be compatible when we're saying it has to have something adjacent to it like on the east side to be compatible to me if there's more open space or if there's bigger lots that extend past area and go down further south and then have that kind of transitional more compatibility that makes sense but i appreciate the opportunity anybody else well here are my comments as i listen to you first of all i want to just say thank you to all the residents that took the time to email and send us your thoughts and your concerns we really appreciate it it's like commissioner uh troutman said we read every single one of those and um sometimes they repeat um what the other one has said but we take our time to uh to read it and uh so i just want to thank you on that a couple of things one of the things that i didn't mention was a phosphate area because i wanted to know there was any interested in and and actually you didn't answer it bart but commissioner brasswell did when he said within the next couple of years um there's going to be development taking place there um as i look at around the whole area i see both you know um high density and low density so you're this is smack in the middle of these of these high and low density areas so i i totally understand um one of the things that i do um appreciate about this this development is that you have people will have choices to select either a a huge or a big lot with a nice home on the lake or the smaller home probably more affordable um what i don't like is the uh number of 50 foot lots now i know that somebody wants to go from 748 to 249 lots and that's not that's not going to happen it's just not going to happen but bart i guess this is this is a question for you um on my part now because this could make a difference of which way i go um is there any way that um we can increase or decrease the 50 foot lots is there any could that be a condition that we put on on this let me talk talk to my client give me just 10 seconds okay madam chair may i discuss with you bring up a point so you know i never want to live on a 50 foot lot it's not the way i want to live but i think you know as we talk about affordability that that is again that's a segment that's needed and when we look at this you know i see that there would probably be educators and first responders and maybe they're considered quote the starter home or it might be somebody that's downsizing personally it's not where i would choose to live but i do believe that we continue sometimes to kind of overlook that that that's a vital part of having a thriving housing market and community is that we have all types for the various um desires yeah absolutely i agree with you and that's that's one i i think that's one of the pluses of this of this is that that um people will have a choice they can go ahead and get a more luxury home big a lot luxury home or as a teacher and my kids are teachers they probably go with a 50 foot lot because they can't afford anything else but i just want to see if we could create a little bit more of a less of the 50 and more of the other ones but i don't know what the answer will be well i commissioner santiago your point's well taken first of all and we heard a lot of the residents talk about what their lot sizes are and 80s and different things of that nature in in in planning commission and the emails and even today um what i think if you look at this picture that's on the screen and it's not it's not real real full there but if if you look at kind of what's going on around us if i'm describing it you've got large lots here next to large it's not up for the that's right you can't see my you can't know we could see it but up there yeah well want to make sure that people see well i was pointing with my glasses and realized that you were not going to be able to see on the screen what i was pointing at um it's been a long morning already and it's only noon um you've got large lots on this side you've got the 50s here 50s here you've got larger lots along cruise lake drive across the street from again larger lots those are the 30 to 50 000 on average square foot lots this area here has these are 80 foot lots based on on the other side of cruise lake drive kind of from the what i'll call the northeast corner of the project i think given that those 80 foot lots adjacent to 50 foot lots as proposed in the site plan probably makes sense and what my client would be willing to do is agree to a condition that says that the lots within area b only would be no less than 70 foot lots so area b is is it's would be this portion here that runs from yarborough in this area all the way down to our to this entrance down here okay i'm pointing but you can't see what i'm pointing i did the same thing so from the northeast down to where down to basically the middle of the project so all along so what you would end up having at the end of the day is you would have 70 foot lots within this area and then on the east side that's touchstone you have 50 50s and 40s so now what you're seeing you know and i'm certainly not an aicp planner but you're seeing a transition in lot sizes um from smaller to what would be 70s and then again the larger lots and we would do that what i would suggest is that become a condition of approval if we're going to do it uh we've all spent a lot of time in planning commissions and and de novos and to come back and do another hearing seems to be a lot of uh headache for nothing if we would agree we could agree to a condition that that area b would be 70 foot lots and that would be addressed at level two in the site plan without a major modification madam chair yes and bart you and i had talked and i'd asked the question before about doing larger lots because what i see when i drive through polk county and i get you know conversations going while the larger lots are nice we've got obviously several hospitals several er's opening there's a lot of what i would think would be clients for bigger lot sizes more than just uh i think it's 58 or so that you guys have around cruise lake but as far as extending that area a south that i mean again i know it disrupts some of the plan but as far as to offer more larger lots or to have that because right now we either have what's presumably a million dollar plus option or the you know 400 plus thousand dollar option on a 50 foot wide lot or 350 wherever the prices are going to be right there's there's variability there it's not affordable housing it's workforce housing is what we talked about right which is needed but again looking at okay so in that that area b there's you know some transition from the 70 foot wide lots to the existing 80 just in looking at that cow pasture to the west again any relief on having all those 50 foot wide lots up against the cow pasture i think by virtue of what we've just conceded as it relates to the northeast corner that um we that that is more than adequate because now we're adding you know a third product type into the mix so you'll have the what we'll call the workforce housing then you'll have a step up home with the 70 foot and then you'll have what i call more of a c-suite executive option within the area a and i think that you know when you look at a plan and you look at a project a project like this hits all the buttons it hits it checks all the boxes and i would compare this very similarly at the end of the day to something that like howland preserve for instance that's on 540a where you have four or five or six and i don't remember exactly how many different little neighborhoods are are in there but you have 50 foot lots and then you have some you have some executive homes in in the back and i think that makes a good project because you start having a mix of of uses and i understand your concern about the about the cows and the agriculture to the west but i i think what what my client has just put on the table is more than is is is a fair consideration and reasonable well i appreciate your client uh considering that and um so randy i'll bring it back to you we have a motion but um do we need a that motion would need to be amended if the maker of the motion to include um 70 foot lots within area b to be addressed at minimum 70 foot so we have three options in that in that development that's correct okay yeah add that to the motion so you and does the the second second i agree with that amendment okay so we have a motion and a second any questions or any additional discussion just last comment again compatibility we're putting in the record books of it doesn't matter to the west and adjacent to it i think it's a disservice to how we look at it from a lack of compatibility except for one side of the project thank you anything else hearing none all in favor i oppose nay okay so it it's approved three to two with the conditional yes with the condition as proposed by the applicant so it's three to two um thank you for your time before before we leave there's two things that that this brings up chair before unless i'm sorry we do have requests from general public no i know but there's okay there's two things that i want mr beasley to follow up on this um first of all go back with jay jarvis and figure out what's going on with that with cruise lake exactly because there's i you know the the last statement that i think you brought up about about the residents not wanting so so let's revisit that and then also the park i'm concerned about the park and if it's uh if it's a park that people can use we need to bring it up to to par if it's not then we need to close it period it is um uh you know again public record but uh tabitha did respond as far as what the plans are with that and all that so i can forward that on to mr beasley of the information i had already gotten if you if you report that give us some feedback on that and the next time we meet that would be great yes all right we are what's next we're done with now we're open we're open general comments general comments let's wait until some of the people um leave and then we'll okay ladies and gentlemen we'll open up now for general comments if anybody wishes to address the board please come forward state your name and your address you have three minutes and we will start with the ones that have filled out the papers so let me begin with chris peterson madam chair commissioners my name is chris peterson for fortify financial 800 waterford way miami florida i'm coming to give an update on the ongoing fpfa issue the florida pace funding agency as you may recall there was a bond validation that did allow the fpfa to operate statewide that was challenged by several of the tax collectors and counties in the second district they did lose that challenge they appealed that challenge they lost that challenge that went to the supreme court uh in november of last of 2024 and it was just ruled on in december and they did uphold the lower court ruling which does mean that those assessments that were originated during that time period were valid and should be collected via the uniform method of collection uh by the tax collectors part of their ministerial duties um now just to just to clarify we did go to during the interim you know we did hear from polk county and several other counties that said we do not want you doing business here without an ila despite whatever your ruling says in your judicial bond validation we did hear that call we stopped and then we went to telehouse and we fought for sb 770. so home rule has been codified that is not going to this doesn't mean that we get to do operate statewide just because of this supreme court ruling however it does mean that those assessments are valid now we've we've heard from a few of the counties that have already agreed to put these assessments on the tax rule we have not heard yet from polk we're confident that we'll we'll get there and that hopefully some of these tax collectors will stop spending taxpayer dollars to fight this after so many efforts that have failed so um if you have any questions i'm going to follow up with each of you with a copy of that ruin that has uh the highlighted sections that makes it pretty you need you need to send that through me through me the county attorney sir there is litigation that possibly could continue regarding this matter so any of the communications need come through the county attorney's office and i will direct my client at this time not to respond to any of your questions thank you yeah and thank you but i do have a question and just for clarification did you say that prior assessments the uh the court proceedings involved just the prior assessments and nothing going forward that's correct we're not doing any business here without home rule we we had already helped we're currently in settlement discussions regarding this matter so i think that only it may something hopefully will come to the board but my preference is not discuss it at this time that's fair enough we appreciate your time thank you so much very much next i have debbie hicks debbie hicks 236 alderman road i'd like to ask for another three minutes since i was patient and waited through all this but that's okay i'm not asking um i do want to thank you for what you do i've had to sit through these meetings for six months it's amazing what you do and i certainly don't want to complicate what you do however i guess animal control is a mess we need to just knock it down you couldn't air condition those old building the old the original 1988 buildings you couldn't air condition them anyway used to be knocked down i'm back to asking for an advisory committee for you all to make so that we can review the animal situation in pope county the guy last meeting that brought up the fact that cats kill wildlife you know it's a pertinent there's nothing wrong with asking that question but that's where you need your advisory committees to help you to decide is that any is that legitimate or not so i'm asking again that we that you would consider doing a advisory committee for the animals and that includes wildlife i've listened to all this we just had 10 acres bulldozed down on our corner at alderman and swindell road there were four dead wildlife animals on the road the next day the gentleman that came up about the cats it's legit you can look into it no problem but your progress was 747 houses or whatever is killing the wildlife he'd be better focused to go after slowing it down and that's all i really want to say thank you enjoy your lunch when you get to it i have lazaro castellon good morning commissioners uh happy new year happy birthday mr beasley uh and thank you for allowing me to speak today my name is pastor lazaro castellon founder of addicted to god ministries i stand before you humbly and respectfully to ask for your understanding grace and support our ministry exists to serve individuals and families battling addiction homelessness and mental health challenges in faith i opened my personal one acre property and turned it into a faith-based recovery home and discipleship program we do not charge for services everything we provide is completely free alongside recovery i get an abundance of food and distribute throughout all the cities in polk county and beyond in 2025 alone with no funding no grants and no paid staff we help distribute food to over 400 000 families through food pantries deliveries and partnerships we serve everyone without discrimination because hunger and hope do not have conditions i am here specifically regarding a bus that resulted in fines being assessed to our ministry the bus is not used for commercial purposes it is not for hire not rented and not used for profit in any way under florida statute 320.10 vehicles used exclusively for religious charitable or non-profit non-profit purposes without compensation qualify for exemption from commercial classification our bus is a daily ministry vehicle it is used to transport residents to church services take residents to medical appointments bring individuals to court counseling and recovery services deliver food throughout the county serve community members who do not have transportation we receive no income from this vehicle in fact i personally receive no income at all from this ministry at this moment the bus is broken down and is actively being repaired again it has never been abandoned or neglected it is simply an older vehicle that we maintain with very limited resources removing or relocating it is not currently feasible but it is being worked on so it can continue to serve the community commissioners everything we accomplished in 2025 was done with an old bus a broken down truck a small homemade trailer and a whole lot of faith humanly speaking it should not have worked but it did because the need is real today i'm respectfully asking for forfeiture or to forfeit or dismiss of the fines assessed permission to continue parking the bus on our property recognition of the bus as a charitable ministry use vehicle consistent with the florida statute 320.10 in addition i will be grateful for your guidance and support regarding what we need to serve polk county even more effectively continue thank you uh it's only i'm almost done more effectively with access to a warehouse storefront or county approved facility a box truck and a 15 passenger van we would immediately operate two food pantries or more per week at different times so working families and seniors can attend delivering food to residents who do not have vehicles expand recovery support and transportation for appointments and services and triple our current outreach and food distribution in 2026 everything we did in 2025 was done without resources and without help with even minimal support the impact will be multiplied directly benefiting the residents of polk county and reducing strain on emergency services shelters and social systems i am not here asking for money i am not here seeking personal gain i am here seeking understanding support and the ability to continue serving this community with dignity and compassion saving lives one day at a time thank you for your time your service and your heart for for polk county god bless you all thank you madam chair just a little background this involves a code enforcement case i believe it's already went to the special magistrate she's made her decision mr castino yes custom castano yes needs to work through the process with code enforcement um i don't know all the details about it but i do know it was heard at length by the special magistrate and she did make her ruling and the support really doesn't have any jurisdiction at this time of the actual code enforcement ruling so he needs to work with ottoman tanya through that process so the ship sailed on on undoing it this yeah i mean once he gets it he needs it right and there's nothing we can do about that um was there another part was there a second part besides the truck that i heard i just add to that i'm sorry sir the problem is that when i came to court the first time i received a letter that i had so many days um to to reply but at the current time i'm the driver i'm the cook i'm the mentor i'm the spiritual guider i'm the pastor i'm i'm doing everything so i didn't have that chance to reply you know and when i did come back i came back with all the information but the fines were already assessed i have no income i have no funds i have no money so having these fines of five thousand plus added to the property i don't know what to do with it autumn what's the uh what's what's here i would like to say just a moment my name is autumn fenton i'm the code enforcement director for polk county he's actually going on his third code enforcement case for this matter he's got one that was originally found in violation and he's going to have two repeats so in the second case they automatically impose a lien they don't give time to correct but we have encouraged him to try to work through the se process to get a special exemption to park that vehicle there since the property is being posted today i wasn't aware that he was coming before the board this morning we may have already posted again for the third time we will try to work with him to try to get him through that process so that there isn't a daily fine but the ordinance does state that it's an automatic repeat of the previous cases if they have the same violation within five years yeah and i will say the key is you got to work with code enforcement you may not like what they're saying but you got to work there they're enforcing the code so you need to need to work with them and so they can work with you to take care of your fines so i did i tried to work with code enforcement and then they're they're telling me i have to pay for for a special permitting parking uh for 1200 which is what it costs to apply however florida statute states that this bus is exempt so i think you're confusing you're talking about florida statute yes that's talking about registration fees and stuff that does not have any applicability to our land development code our land development code has its own definitions of commercial vehicles that that apply so just because you may be exempt by statute for registration purposes or the the amount that you have to pay for restoration does not may mean you're exempt under land development code so as i said please work with code enforcement and they can work you through this process but you can't just stay on that argument that that they will looked at that and that that's the issue you got to listen to them well and there's nothing we can do because of the magistrate already yeah so there's there's nothing that we because a decision has been made so there's nothing we can do about that so please continue to work with autumn on this one we'll see if we can try to give him a little bit of additional time since it hasn't gone to the hearing but it's typically an automatic imposition and then we do have a a reduction process that we can try to have him go through and but once he he has to get the property into compliance first so we'll we'll talk about that this is the first time i've heard of this case so i'll see what we can work out okay sounds great autumn you can step them through that exemption process too miss cassandra richards it's been a while commissioner wilson has missed you i have i have missed you i haven't seen you were you here last time no she's so you finally got bail money huh no i didn't bail money cassandra richards 23 57 freeland the road lake wells florida i officially am a sub do you know the school board called me asking me to sub so that's why i've been out because i've been working i go back tomorrow and whenever i can get here i get here today was the day i didn't have to go to work so i got up and came to see you and rick i want to say you have some a fine son and a fine grandson you know i i thought that um i was having septic problems and i called them and they came out and and i say hey i got about 30 40 people coming here for christmas i need to get this taken care of but it wasn't deceptive and mr branswell he spoke good about you as well i was glad he didn't know i said yes i kept looking at him i said you look like somebody i know and we kept talking and that's when it came to fruition i say you do look like your daddy i know you look like somebody i know but you have a fine son and a fine grandson thank you ma'am also i want to say no i want to say it in a nice way because i know animal control keep with the tnr and i said and i pray about it i talk about it to myself as long as i don't answer myself and i say you know what you all need to make a law if you have an animal you need to register that animal in your name with the chip they need to require them to be spayed and neutered before they get the animal the animal need to either live in the house or be on the leash if you go outside and don't tell me a cat cannot be on a leash because i have a cat does not have front claws and he loves being on the leash he goes outside so and if your animal get loose or maybe a warning the first time but the second time give them a healthy fine that will cover all of the trap noodle and release so moved it is something has to be done because it goes beyond trap noodle release you have fleas they have to have shots the with the rabies so once you have a county get involved in that and i and i love grady i tell them face to face i love grady grady and i worked together ten and a half years i love grady and i agree with everything that he's doing because that funding has to fight crime not trap neuter release we have a lot of crime and if they spend that funding trapping neutering and releasing a lot of criminals going to go free so thank you and the last one i have here is james abercrombie always bringing up the rear james abercrombie 2737 gibson only galloway road lincoln florida we're into a new year but we still got a lot of old business to take care of folks i'm going to speak a little bit about that uh um planning commission meeting uh bart allen applicant for the attorney has his time for um sorry folks for presentations and talk a lot about and they talked about a lot talked a lot about dust traffic which citizens were most concerned about mr smith never implied that he was an attorney but started um multiple times stated multiple times that he was an engineer but not state but did not state to an but did state speaking to attorneys often in his business whereas mr allen acting as an attorney did what no one else allowed to do no one else is allowed to do walked back up to this podium and uh attempted to control the the whole the whole meeting trying to get mr smith recuse himself he come up here and and can tried tried to control this meeting the county attorney's office young lady there agreed with her i mean he's he stood right here they argued about that back and forth he walked away come back again and they still argued with the attorney he got fired for it he got knocked off the committee um the county attorney's office allowed it to participate and then they get action actually participated was the only punished mr smith was the only one punished for doing what he he volunteered for making an educated decision and experience and his experience no one that knowing that that meeting did not move just just disrespectful did nothing more than disrespect mr mr meek did to mr smith or to my friend he argued with he's he's the one that pushed everybody here to get rid of mr smith he also did the same thing today when he when he uh reprimanded you about mr smith's uh interfering who you talking about you talking about our attorney yes mr me that's that's totally wrong i'm the one that brought that up in in the in the it doesn't matter he does matter it does matter he's the one that argues with him he's the one that reprimanded him that shows you that he's running this business you know excuse me excuse me oh you want to come down here and argue and tell what we do and don't and don't do wrong all you do and we appreciate it we sit here and listen to you uh i'm showing your prejudice no i'm not that's what i'm doing yes sir that's exactly that's where you come from what all this is about no it's prejudice no sir we're not yes it's prejudice it's a time up miss um mr mr mr uh allen has worked for works for springer spinger pearson no they have been in this building that's incorrect you don't know what you're talking about what he said no i didn't what did he say who's he worked go back and listen yeah go back i will i will trust me i will but anyway he's been in this building long enough to get a lot of friends and take care of business and get what he wants your time is up thank you i close the public hearing and this meeting is adjourned