morning we're going to open the workshop portion of today's meeting and we'll turn it over to staff to make the announcements to the agenda or the changes to the agenda yes we have three changes as you i'll just stand back here as you see on the agenda we have uh three changes uh number five it's uh going to be continued to june 5th that was the uh sand hill road self-storage it's off us 27 uh then there is the two text amendments you see there uh the water star ordinance is going back we've got to add some more stuff to meet the requirements of the district and the vehicle repair is kind of up in the air it might even be pulled so that might be maybe maybe not uh be on the june 5th agenda not at all we hear it's pulled permanently from the agenda all right thank you very much for that and we will reconvene at nine o'clock thank you uh with me acting as chair today we do not have a secretary so i'd like to ask uh mr addison if he would be comfortable being secretary for the day all right i'd say yes so we're good to go on that front uh we'll start with a roll call and determination of quorum please i am president here here here here all right thank you very much we do have a quorum now we'll stand for the pledge of allegiance now we'll need a motion to adopt the last meetings uh minutes second all right we have a motion and a second now we're going to move on to the confirmation and the revisions of today's agenda we have four cases to be uh or three cases to be continued one to be postponed indefinitely uh davenport publics ldpd 2024-1 is continued to january 5th it needs to be re-advertised june 5th not january sorry june the 5th uh ldcu uh 2023-68 is the sandhill storage that is continued to june the 5th and vehicle repair ldc text amendment ldct 2024-6 is continued indefinitely ldct 2024-7 is continued to the june 5th 2024 planning commission okay thank you and if you are uh here today for any of those cases they will not be heard today so you're uh free to go if you would like and now we'll turn it over to ms voss to explain the expedited hearing and procedures really quickly we need a motion to accept the continuance is to next month june okay we have a motion we have a second okay thank you and now to ms voss for the expedited james sorry just take a vote real quick all in favor oh aye motion carries all right uh general procedures the office of planning and development will introduce the case and disclose any responses to the notification which were not already provided to the planning commission in their packets the office of planning and development will present their staff report and recommendation anyone in the audience who wishes to speak and present testimony on a case will be sworn in the applicant and others in support or opposition of the case will be given the opportunity to speak the application the applicant will be given the opportunity to respond any opposition testimony the commission will discuss the case and vote on the matter expedited hearing procedures expedited hearing procedures may be used by the planning commission under the following circumstances there is no opposition to the case present at the hearing and the recommendation of the office of planning and development is for approval and all of the commission members present wish to use this procedure level three reviews pursuant to section 906 of the polk county land development code on level three reviews the planning commission may approve the applicant's request deny the applicant's request or approve the request with additional conditions pursuant to section 921 of the land development code the applicant or any substantially affected interest may appeal the final decision of the planning commission to the board of county commissioners by filing a formal application with the land development division and paying the application fee the appeal must be filed with the land development division within seven calendar days of the planning commission hearing the board of county commissioners shall set a date and time for de novo hearing if a party decides to appeal a decision made by the planning commission with respect to any level three review he or she will need a record and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made the record includes all testimony and evidence given at the hearing each person or party that qualifies to file such an appeal must independently exercise their right of appeal in order to preserve that right a party cannot and should not rely on their right to appeal being preserved by someone else filing an appeal on the same matter please be advised that a party may withdraw their appeal to the board of county commissioners prior to that de novo hearing if one party withdraws their appeal and another party fail to file an appeal there will be no appeal or hearing on the matter before the board of county commissioners the application fee will not necessarily be refunded for such a withdrawal please also be advised that if a de novo application is filed with the board of county commissioners to be recognized during the de novo hearing as organized opposition you must either file the application for the de novo hearing or receive written authorization from at least five entities or individuals to speak on their behalf against the application and they have agreed to waive the ability to speak during the public comment portion of the de novo hearing level four reviews pursuant to section 907 of the land development code the planning commission's decision on a level four review is a recommendation to the board of county commissioners and the board of county commissioners will ultimately decide the matter Mr. Chair would you like for me to swear on the witnesses for the cases today yes please so if you're going to address the planning commission on any case please stand up raise your right hand and answer out loud to the following question do you swear or affirm the testimony and evidence you provide today is the truth of the the whole truth and nothing but the truth and then we just need to admit the county's land planners as expert witnesses they've been accepted in all prior meetings but if you'd like to go ahead and ask them any questions regarding their background or expertise you can do so at this time not seeing anyone so if we could just have a motion to accept staff as experts in the field of land planning do you have a motion and a second all in favor say aye motion carries okay great and then if there are any experts of applicants you can tender them at this time or wait until your case is called Mr. Chair if you'll just give me one more minute to go through the quasi-judicial proceedings today's agenda includes quasi-judicial land use hearings which means the action entails applying land development policies to a specific land development application in a fair and impartial manner the commission's review is limited to two areas consistency and compatibility regarding consistency the commission must determine whether the application is consistent with both the comprehensive plan and the land development code and the staff report and presentation provides you with expert analysis and opinion regarding the applicable criteria and a recommendation as to whether the application is consistent with those criteria regarding compatibility the commission must determine whether the application is compatible with the surrounding area the commission will be presented with testimony and and evidence at the hearing both written and oral and by law the only evidence the commission can consider is competent substantial evidence which means evidence that is sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept is 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 can be competent substantial evidence so long as it is fact-based and can include regarding can include testimony regarding subjective matters that do not require expertise such as aesthetic incompatibility of a project with a surrounding neighborhood however popularity polls petitions testimony that is hypothetical speculative based on fear or consist of generalized statements that do not address the land development code criteria are not competent substantial evidence for example fear that a project will cause increased traffic and crime is not competent substantial evidence lastly when expertise is required for technical issues like traffic engineering drainage wetland impacts school and utility capacity light and noise pollution or the application's impact on property values citizen testimony is not competent substantial evidence unless the witness is qualified as an expert in that area that concludes my comments Mr. Chair thank you Mr. Chair thank you okay thank you before we get going here just a couple of housekeeping items if you're on the crowd just be sure to have your phone on silent and if you plan if you plan to speak on a case today when you come to the podium please state your name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes with that we'll turn it over to staff to announce our first case thank you Low 3 District. 34 mailers were sent to area property owners on April 4th, 2024. One sign was posted on the property on April 4th, 2024. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on April 16th, 2024. No response has been received by the public. Aaliyah Inglema is the case planner. Good morning. Aaliyah Inglema with Land Development presenting LDCU 2023-57, the Layton Lane duplex conditional use. The applicant is requesting a conditional use approval to build a duplex. The subject site is located west of Kirkland Road, east of Layton Lane, south of Pipkin Road, south of the City of Lakeland in Section 11, Township 29, Range 23. The site is located within a residential Low 3 Future Lane Use and within the Transit Supported Development Area. This request is for unit type and is compatible with the surrounding lane use and available infrastructure. The impact from one duplex is minimal. The dominant surrounding use is single-family. Single-family attached are around the northeast area of the property, shortly northeast area of the property, and are as well as site-built homes to the north and west. LDCU 2022-39 was approved with the same request just north of this site in April of 2023. Here's the site plan. The applicant is placing one duplex on the property, and staff has reviewed the request and finds it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code, and I'll stand for questions. Is this the applicant? Where are we at? I'm sorry for being late. Ladies and gentlemen, I got held up in the traffic jam. Any questions of staff? Thank you. Is the applicant available? I'd like to come up and present your case. That's you. Good morning, everybody. Good morning. I'm David Fields, and this is in regards to the Layton Lane property. I was granted the same access to a duplex in April. It's also me. I'm doing the same one there, so I have several other duplexes in the area at this time. Any questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you. At this time, I'm going to open the public. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to come up and speak for or against this case? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public portion and bring it back to the board for discussion or a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDCU 2023-57. I motion a second. Roll call, please. Bernie Heath. For the motion. David Dalton, I'm for the motion. Brooke Agnini. Mike Hickman. Tommy Addison. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. And Linda Schultz. For the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes unanimously. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much, everybody. Have a great week. You do the same. Next case, please. Our next case, LDCU 2023-63. Michelle Kasapola, the applicant is requesting a conditional use approval for a 150-foot monopole communication tower. The request requires an approval for a variance from the separation and height requirements of Section 303 communication towers and Section 642 of the military compatibility zones. The subject site is located south of Long Hammock Drive, east of Kiko Road, west of Horseshoe Bend, west of the Osceola County line in Section 23, Township 31, Range 31. The property is 8.64 acres. It's both in a recreation open space and a leisure recreation land use. It is part of PUD 2024. 511 mailers were sent to area property owners on April 4th, 2024. One sign was posted on the property April 16th, 2024. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on April 16th, as well. Melissa Celestine is the case planner. Good morning. For the record, Melissa Celestine presenting LDCU 2023-63. The applicant is requesting conditional use approval for a 150-foot Phoenix monopole communication tower to be constructed within a military compatibility zone and 0.5 miles from a public airport. Given the site's proximity to the Avon Park Air Force Range and River Ranches Airport, a variance from the separation and height requirements must also be approved by the Planning Commission. If approved, the proposed tower will be constructed within the flood zone but must adhere to the relevant developmental standards of the LDC and the conditions of approval during the Level 2 review. Staff recommends approval. The site is located south of State Road 60. The project area is identified as a drainage easement in common area within Phase 2 of Outdoor Resorts, River Ranch, RV Resorts, which is also a DRI. The parcel is approximately 8.4 acres and consists of leisure recreation and recreation open space, but the project area is approximately 4.5 acres within the recreation open space portion of the parcel. The proposed tower will be constructed to the southern end of the property with a minimum setback of 150 feet from all property lines. No communication tower is sufficient to accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna or found within the search radius according to the submitted documents. Here is an overview of the project. The site is currently identified as a drainage easement, but it is also owned by Outdoor Resorts, River Ranch, and the request is consistent with LDC Section 223.C. Included in this request is also a variance approval because of the site's proximity to River Ranch Airport and the Avon Park Air Force Range. Policy 2.125-D1 states that communication facilities shall be permitted throughout the county in all land use classifications subject to county approval to support existing and proposed development. Here is a site plan showing the location of the tower, setbacks, and the immediate land uses. This is a close-up of the site plan, and this is what the actual tower would look like. The project will be accessed along Appaloosa Trail West, which is a private roadway. Again, staff does recommend approval, communications, how it provides critical cellular coverage to surrounding residents, workers, commuters, first responders, and visitors. The request meets all standards in Section 303 for conditional use approval, and the request is consistent with the LDC and comprehensive plan. With that, I thank you, and I'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff? Usually we have, in this area, we have some statement from Buck McLaughlin. So, yes, there was a document that was attached, an e-mail from the applicant that was attached into Register for you guys to see that e-mail. He doesn't have any concerns with it. And then the applicant can also reiterate that as well. Any other questions of staff? Okay, thank you. Is the applicant available? I presume that as you go ahead. Good morning. Name and address for the record. Stephen Orchard. My address is 8050 Lemon Serpentine Lane in Delray Beach, 33446. If you could speak closer into that microphone. Is that better? Yes, sir. Here we go. Okay. I'll start from scratch. Stephen Orchard. My address is 8050 Lemon Serpentine Lane, Delray Beach, Florida, 33446. And I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Phoenix Tower International. Good morning. I'm Luck Watford with EBI Consulting, 302 Misty Valley Way, Canton, Georgia, 30114. And I'm the civil engineer. Okay. I'm assuming you're okay with everything in the staff report. Absolutely. Is there anything you'd like to bring in front of the board? No. No further things to add to the board, but I stand for questions. Okay. I just want to add that we have the FAA no impact determination as well. Okay. I don't know if that was pointed out or not. Okay. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Seeing none. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to open up the public portion. Does anybody in the audience that would like to come up and speak for or against this case? Yes, sir. Name and address for the record. Good morning. My name is Ken Acevedo. I'm with Westgate Resorts, 3200 River Ranch. My concern is us having the airport at such close proximity to the cell tower. We haven't seen any reports or any documentation from the FAA stating that there is no interference with the airport or any signals from the cell tower that could potentially impact the airport or the use of the airport. So that is one of our largest concerns of just making sure that the airport is not impacted by having a cell tower so close to the property. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public portion and bring it back to the applicant if they'd like to address that concern. I don't know if it wants to approach, but here's the determination. It was also submitted as part of our package. Okay. Anything else? Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Would it be appropriate for a continuance to let this gentleman review this or maybe have his legal counsel be certain that those letters are sufficient to satisfy his concerns? I mean, he's with the airport. I think that would be appropriate if you do. I believe staff already reviewed this, right? You saw the FAA. I did, yeah. And via email, they also said that they were in communications with the FAA and they didn't have any issues either for those documents and the communication with them. And then the LOA is signed by the vice president of the HOA Four River Ranch, so I'm not quite sure. I would suggest, I understand what you're saying, but I would suggest I'd like to get this case done today because everybody's coming from out of town. If maybe the applicant could get with this gentleman here and show him this. I don't know what this is, but I'm assuming this is what he's looking for. If that would be okay, I'd like to do it that way. Sure. Yes. It was in our packet. Yeah, it was, yeah, right, right, right. It was in the applicant, an application, and it was in the packet, so there's a copy of it right there. I believe they probably have another copy to get to you. It should address your concern. Anybody else, the audience, I'd like to speak for or against this case. Okay, thank you. I'm going to close the public portion, bring it back to the board. Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDCU 2023-63. Got a motion, second roll call, please. Bernie Heath. For the motion. David Dahl, nine for the motion. Brooke Agnini. Mike Kickman. For the motion. Tommy Addison. Mike Schmidt. According to what was submitted for the motion. And Linda Schultz. For the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes unanimously. Okay, thank you. Yes. Next case, please. Our next case is LDCU 2024-2. Cheryl Vole, the applicant, is requesting a conditional use approval for a mobile home to be placed on a lot within a subdivision where fewer than 50% of the developed lots have mobile homes. The site is located at 1414130 Reese Drive, east of Camp Leicester, north of Camp Mack Road, west of Osceola County Line, east of the City of Lake Wales, and Section 12, Township 29, Range 29. The property is .33 acres. It is Agricultural Residential Rural. On April 4th, 2024, 122 mailers were sent to area property owners. One sign was posted on the property on April 5th, 2024, and a legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on April 16th. The staff has received no response from the public. Ian Nance is the presenter, and I will be presenting his case. I'm going to present his case. Okay. Glad somebody is, yes. Thank you. I've got a motion and a second to expedite. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to come up and speak for or against this case? Seeing none, I've got a motion to expedite. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Expedite. Good morning. For the record, Melissa Celestine presenting LDCU 2024-2. Staff recommends approval for a mobile home to be located in a subdivision where fewer than 50% of the developed lots have mobile homes. The parcel is approximately 0.33 acres, identified as Lots 3 and 4 in Block 6 of the Camp Leicester Edition subdivision, eligible for one residential dwelling unit, pending issuance and finalization of building permits. The Polk County property appraiser shows that of 39 lots within the subdivision, three have mobile homes, which are found to the rear of the site and across Reese Drive. Staff has reviewed aerial imagery, verifying that a mobile home was located on-site from 1980 to 2014. To the north of the subdivision is a mobile home park, and the Camp Mack RV park is located to the south. The submitted site plan also meets the setback requirements of the ARR designation. Staff finds the request to be consistent with the LDC and comprehensive plan. With that, I thank you, and I'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff? Okay, thank you. Is the applicant available to come up and present their case? Name and address for the record, please. Cheryl Bull, 3404 Kentucky Avenue, Lake Wells, Florida, 33898. And I agree. You agree with everything in the staff report? Okay, thank you. At this time, I'm going to open up for the public portion. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to come up and speak for or against this case? Seeing none, close the public portion, bring it back to the board for discussion or a motion. Move approval. Second. In a motion, second. Roll call, please. Bernie Heath. For the motion. David Dalton, I'm for the motion. Brooke Agnini. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Tommy Addison. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. And Linda Schultz. For the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes unanimously. Okay, thank you. Next case, please. Our next case is LDCPA-S-2023-24. Jeff Lazenby requests a change in the future land use designation from agricultural, residential, rural, and phosphate mining to rural cluster center. The property is located on the south side of US 98 and Brook Road intersection, two miles east of the city of Fort Meade in section 29, township 30, range 27. The property is 1.69 acres, 14 mailers, or 114 mailers were sent to area property owners on March 5th, 2024. One sign was posted on the property on March 12th, 2024. A legal ad was published in Lakeland Ledger on March 20th, 2024. There has been no response from the public. Mark Bennett is the case planner. Morning, board members. For the record, Mark Bennett, Land Development Division. As Eric just stated, this is a request to change 1.69 acres from agriculture, residential, rural, and phosphate mining to a rural cluster center. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Development Code, and we are recommending approval. I'll go through a couple slides here real quick. This is the general location of the property. You can see it's east of the city of Fort Meade on US 98. This is a level four review, which means this board will need to provide a recommendation to the county commission, which will in turn hear this case on May 21st. The next couple of slides are aerial photos of the site, sites located at the intersection of Brook Road and US 98, and this is a more detailed view of the site. Again, 98 is here. Brook Road is here. There's a retail store here with gasoline sales, and then also a church is located here, and surrounding uses are vacant or undeveloped. This is the current future land use map designation, and the proposed showing the property is Rural Cluster Center. Some aerial photos of the site. This is looking east down US 98. Looking north, you can see Brook Road in the background, and west. It's actually south, not west. And then this is a view of the site from the ground, again looking there, and then looking west, and you can see the adjoining retail use there. As far as an impact assessment, staff does not foresee any concerns with this change, and justification for approval meets adequate population support. Similar commercial uses are more than three miles away. That's relevant because with the recent change to our RCC policies, we do now have location and distance criteria, which this project does meet. And because of that, we are determining that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan and are recommending approval. And with that, I'll stand for any questions. Thank you. Any questions of staff? Okay, thank you. Is the applicant available to come up and present their case? Name and address for the record, please. Good morning. Sam Medina with Sloan Engineering Group, 150 South Woodlawn Avenue in Bartow. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, and we're in agreement with all of the staff report and would ask for your recommendation for approval to the board. Okay. Is there any questions of the applicant? Seeing none. Okay, thank you. At this time, I'm going to open it to the public. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak for or against this case? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public portion and bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDC-PAS 2023-24. Second. And a motion to second. Roll call, please. Bernie Heath. For the motion. David Dalt. I'm for the motion. Brooke Ignini. Mike Hickman. Tommy Addison. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. And Linda Schultz. For the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes unanimously. Okay, thank you. All right. Next case, please. Our last two cases will be opened up together. They're both the same property. One is a comprehensive plan amendment. The other one is a LDC sub-district change. LDC-CPAS 2023-33 and LDC-2024-2. Alejandro Bosch requests both a future land use designation change from development of regional impact to residential low on eight and a half acres. The property is located at south of Cypress Parkway, east of Lake Marion Creek Drive, west of Caspian Road, and north of Marigold Avenue, east of the city of Haines City. And in section 33, township 27, range 28, LDC-D 2024, same application for the RLX-4X designation. Subject, same place, same property. And mailers and signs that were posted on the property. 114 mailers were sent to area property owners on March 5, 2024. One sign was posted on the property for both cases on March 12, 2024. Legal ed was published in the Lakeland Ledger on March 20, 2024. Case planner is J.P. Sims. Thank you, Eric. Good morning. So for LDC-PAS-2023-33, we are looking at changing the land use from development of regional impact in the utility enclave area to residential low in the utility enclave area in the Point Siena pre-DRI. The change would actually allow you to move from an open space tract into residential low, which would be compatible with all the surrounding uses since all of it is low-density residential. It is located east of Lake Marion, off of Lake Marion Drive. This is a context photo from the air, so as you can see, that all of the development around it is either platted for or developed as low-density residential. It is currently an undeveloped tract that sits as open space on the original Point Siena master plan, as is the parcel just to the southwest of it that you can see the big open space right there. Getting a closer look at it, there are several drainage easements that surround the site, so one of the things that will be considered during development is that they cannot encroach onto the drainage easements. And as you can see, it is a very unique shape for the parcel, so one of the things that will have to be taken into consideration is proper space usage. Currently, it is development of regional impact, and we will be changing it to residential low. And like I said, the density in residential low would be compatible with all the surrounding uses. After having done a site visit, this is one of the drainage easements that's on the west side of the property, so we're looking northwest right now. That drainage easement does follow like a star around the outside northern perimeter of the site, and again, that just will not be allowed to be encroached when development occurs. Looking southeast on Mediterranean Drive, you can see there's not a lot of development currently happening. One of the things that I noticed while I was out there that there are quite a few of the for sale signs is like a lot of the lots and such are for sale currently right now. There is a structure right here to the west of the property, and the reason I bring that up is because it is something I noticed when I was out there, but it doesn't actually show up on the property appraiser website, which I actually thought was kind of strange. So when you look at the staff report, it does say undefined building to the west, and that's because literally I couldn't find anything about what it was. It looked like a shed when I was out there, but I couldn't determine exactly what it was. Now, as far as anticipated impact on the area, two of the three schools that this site is zoned for are currently over capacity, but one of the things that will have to be determined at the level two is mitigation efforts with the school board. So currently we're just doing the land use change, so nothing's being developed today, but that is something that will have to be addressed before any development occurs. The closest sheriff's department is 23.2 miles from the site. That was another thing that stood out to me. However, there already is a plan in place for a new sheriff's department to be constructed on Marigold Avenue, which will bring it much closer to the development site. There is current capacity for water and sewer. I did speak with a representative from the Toho Water Authority that let me know that there are water and wastewater lines readily available in that area and that there is capacity for them to service this area. So the justification for approval is that, like I said, changing it from a development of regional impact to residential low would be compatible with everything around it since it is also low-density residential in nature. The loss of the open space tract would actually not harm the area as we recently purchased some land on the east side of Lake Marion and we're doing the recreation open space as was already approved back on March 19th by the BOCC. The existing drainage easements, as I mentioned before, will not be impacted by development on the site, so those will not be detrimental to the area, and it is consistent with our comprehensive plan and land development code. So with that, do you want me to continue or do you want me to have any questions before I move on? Any questions of staff? Okay, go ahead. What is the development density of this? I think it was on the site plan. So on my next segment where we go for the sub-district change, that's where I'll go into that. I'm sorry, just jump in the gun. Is that it? Go ahead. All right, so for the sub-district change. Hold on one second. So this recreational space was not designated that way as a function of approving the surrounding area then? So the original Poinciana master plan does show it as just an open space track where it's acting like a buffer between all the surrounding residential. This was created back in, I believe, 1971 for the original Poinciana DRI, and like I said, it was just designated as an open space. There is also an open space that is adjacent to it across the street on Mediterranean Drive, and the function of it is just, like I said, to act as like a buffer between the different residential areas. But losing that open space track, we're not wholly replacing it, but we've also purchased that land on the east side of Lake Marion that will also be treated as recreation open space. So you feel that replacement satisfies? Yeah, because the land we purchased is substantially larger than the 8 1⁄2 acres that we're changing right now. So doesn't the green and open space need to be in certain proximity to, I mean, we've bought somewhere else, but why would this not be maintained? Well, I believe a lot of it has to do with its unique shape. But, again, if you look back at the aerial for the site, I mean, it's not that far from the development site. Like this area over here is what we purchased for the open space, the recreation open space. So it's very close in proximity to where this development site is. So really you're, I believe that this site over here was 30-some acres, and we're changing 8 1⁄2. So we're still getting a net positive. I'll hold my questions. Any other questions? Okay. Proceed. All right. So with LDCD 2024-2, we're taking that same parcel and going from residential low 1 to residential low 4. Now, as you mentioned before, the density for that would go up, but the max that they would still be able to develop is, I believe, Eric, help me out here. What's RL4? Four units to the acre. Four units to the acre. Minimum 6,000 square foot lots. Thank you. And this is 8-something acres? Eight and a half acres, yes. But a good portion of that, like I said, would encroach into the drainage easement, so it will be able to build out to its full maximum potential. So we're in the same site, same aerial. As I mentioned before, the site over here is where, like, the recreation open space was purchased from Polk County just recently. We're going from residential low on this one to residential low 4. This is a concept site plan that was submitted with the package. It is not a binding site plan, but it's there to kind of give you a better idea of what the development would look like should it build out at that density. So you can see that there is no development occurring in the drainage easements, which surround the site entirely, and it would still provide quite a bit of space and buffering in between the neighboring residential developments. Same impact as before, because the RL1 has the same calculation as RL4 when it comes to, like, water and sewer and your emergency response and such. And there is available capacity in all the surrounding roads. So the land you've changed from residential low 1 to residential low 4 will be compatible, as that density is actually pretty consistent with everything currently around it. If you'd like, I can go back and show you the different platted lots so that you can see that the density of that would be pretty equivalent to what RL4 is. And as I mentioned before, the loss of the open space is going to be replaced with the open space that we've purchased on Lake Marion. And the existing drainage easements, again, will not be impacted. So with that, I will stand for question. Any questions of staff? Seeing none. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Is the applicant available to come up and present their case? Question here. Now? I'm here. I'm sorry. JP. Yes. The county has not bought the Keyside Lake Marion. Can you speak into the microphone, please? You still be recommending approval? I would have a tough time actually allowing for any open space to really be converted, but with the purchase of that, yes, I'm fine with it. Now, you're asking if it hadn't been purchased, if I'd be okay with it? I mean, that area, the density is still compatible with the surrounding uses, but that would be a different narrative that we'd be going with. I might add, some of the properties that the county has purchased were entitled to up to 20 units per acre. So it's a pretty substantial change. So looking at the Poinciana DRI as a whole, what he's saying is this is not disrupting what would reduce the overall open space for the Poinciana PUD. It actually, by the county's purchase, we did increase the amount of open space within the PUD. The water from, is from Toho Water? Yeah, I emailed with a representative because we don't have readily available, like, what's there because it's not ours. So I reached out to a Toho Water Authority representative, and she did notify me that that particular service area does have available water and sewer capacity. We have a pending water restriction that got put off until next month, and I'm just scratching my head about some of this. Water Star is not my project, so I'm not wholly familiar with it. I understand that. Good morning, everyone. This is Alejandro Bosch with Civil Design Engineering, LLC. My address is 6973 Southwest, 161st Place, Miami, Florida, 33193. I agree with everything that has been presented, and I wanted to add that we have also been in communication with Toho for water and sewer. We already know that we're going to need to do water and sewer extensions for the project, but as it was mentioned before, they have the capacity. Any questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you. At this time, I'm going to roll back with the public. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to come up and speak for or against this case? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public portion, bring it back to the board for discussion and or a motion. Keep in mind, we've got two separate cases that we have to vote on. Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDC-PAS 2023-33. Second. I got a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Brennan Heath. For the motion. David Dalton, I'm for the motion. Brooke Ignini. Mike Hickman. Tommy Addison. Mike Schmidt. Against the motion. And Linda Schultz. For the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes 5-2. Okay. And then I'll also make a motion to approve LDC-D 2024-2. Second. I make a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Brennan Heath. For the motion. David Dalton, I'm for the motion. Brooke Ignini. Mike Hickman. Tommy Addison. Mike Schmidt. That's the motion. And Linda Schultz. For the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes 5-2. Okay. Thank you. That concludes our cases for the day. We have a motion to adjourn. So moved. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Goodbye. Goodbye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.