we're going to start off with our roll call and i think one of our city members is not here today so we'll be using one of our alternates but go ahead with roll call mr bishop here present here thank you okay uh mike schmidt kevin updike i'm here linda schultz okay thank you let the record show that mr heath is not here for today at this moment in time mr updike then we will ask you to go ahead and just perform the duties on the planning commission from your location there and vote please sir yes sir thank you all right with that we'll turn and do the pledge of allegiance okay with that uh everyone had an opportunity to review the minutes from our last meeting are there any questions discussions on those seeing none i'll entertain a motion for approval so moved we have a motion do we have a second second we have a motion and a second all in favor aye all right just confirming for the audience that the agenda we did have one revision uh to the agenda uh item seven will be heard or voted on concurrently with six sorry they'll be heard together item seven will be voted on first and then six will be voted after with that there's no other uh ordering changes of the agenda can have a motion to approve the amended agenda so moved second all in favor aye all right all right with that we'll turn it over to our attorney mr vogel thank you chair good morning general procedures the office of land development will introduce the case and disclose any responses to the notification which were not already provided to the planning commission in their packets the office of planning development will present their staff reports and recommendations anyone in the audience who wishes to speak and present testimony on a case will be sworn in the applicant or others in support or opposition of the case will be given the opportunity to speak applicants will be given the opportunity to respond to any opposition testimony the commission will discuss the case and will then vote expediting 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 the commission members present wish to use the procedure level three review pursuant to section 906 of the 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 polk county 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 the de novo hearing if a party decides to appeal a decision made by the planning commission with respect to any level three review then he or she will need a record and may need to ensure the that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made the record includes all testimony and evidence given at the hearing each person or party who qualifies to file such an appeal must immediately exercise their right of appeal in order to preserve that right a party cannot and should not rely on their right to 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 fails to 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 to be recognized during the de novo hearing as organized app as opposition you must either file the application for de novo hearing or receive written authorization from at least five entities or individuals to speak on their behalf against the application and they have a and they have agreed to waive the right to speak on public comment portion of the hearing level four review pursuant to section 907 of the polk county land development code the planning commission decision on a level four review is a recommendation to the board of county commissioners the board of county commissioners will ultimately decide the matter swearing in mr chairman would you like me to swear in the witnesses for the cases please if you are going to address the planning commission on any case today please stand raise your right hand and answer out loud the following question do you swear or affirm that the evidence or testimony you'll give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you i'm going to go over some house items first we need to admit the county's planning staff as expert witnesses they have all been accepted as experts in the past however if you would like to void void dire any of them as to their background or expertise then you may do so at this time any questions from the board if not i'll entertain a motion to for their expert so moved second we have a motion and a second all in favor aye secondly if we have any experts or applicants experts of applicants then you may need to tender them at this time or you can wait until your case is called do we have any experts that want to be admitted as experts finally we must we must we as in the board must review quasi-judicial cases quasi-judicial cases mean the action entails applying land development policies to a specific development application in a fair and impartial manner the commission's review is limited to two areas first consistency second compatibility regarding consistency the commission must determine whether the applicant is consistent with both the comprehensive plan and the land land development code the staff report and presentation will provide expert analysis and opinion regarding the applicable criteria as well as a recommendation on whether the application is consistent with those criteria regarding compatibility the commission must determine whether the application is compatible with the surrounding areas the commission will be presented with testimony and evidence at the hearing both written and oral by law the only evidence the commission may consider is competent substantial evidence this means evidence that is sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate as would accept it as adequate to support a conclusion the following items are examples of competent substantial evidence evidence that is fact-based and relevant to the applicable criteria such as staff reports and staff presentations citizen testimony may be competent substantial evidence as long as long as long as long as long as long as it is as long as it is fact-based and can include testimony regarding subjective matters that do not require expertise such as aesthetics and compatibility of a project with the surrounding neighborhood however popularity polls petitions testimony that is hypothetical speculative based on furor can are consist of generalized statements that do not address land development code criteria are not competent substantial evidence for example fear that a project will cause increased traffic or crime is not competent substantial evidence lastly when expertise is required for technical issues like traffic engineering drainage wetland impacts school and utility capacity capacity light noise pollution or the application's impact on property values citizen testimony is not competent substantial evidence unless the witness is qualified as an expert in that area that concludes my comments thank you thank you sir mr chairman yes may i officially request a copy of the general procedures in writing certainly and i'm sure staff can get you with that being noted thank you meeting but we appreciate that okay so before we get started with our new business here just want to remind the audience please silence your cell phones as you come up to testify or give your your testimony on a case please be sure to state your name and address for the record uh and if you are here to give that testimony you will be limited to three minutes time and you'll see that timer up above with that we'll go ahead and get started all right first up on the agenda is ldcu 2024 26 the roman mobile home conditional use and kyle rogas is your planner good afternoon kyle rogas with land development presenting ldcu 2024-26 the angel roman inwood subdivision mobile home the applicant is requesting a conditional use approval for a mobile home to be located in the inwood unit 6 subdivision where fewer than 50 percent of the belt of the developed lots have mobile homes on october 22nd 81 mailers were sent out to property area owners one board was posted on the property october 23rd legal ad was published in the polk sun news on october 23rd we have received no response from the public staff finds this request compatible with the surrounding uses and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code staff recommends approval the subject site is 0.10 acres identified as lot 359 in the inwood unit 6 subdivision located north of avenue p northwest south of avenue q northwest east of 42nd street northwest west of avenue 37th street northwest in section 13 township 28 range 25 the subject site is located in a residential medium land use district the inwood plat was recorded in 1925 and has approximately 306 residential parcels of those 306 residential parcels there are 56 lots with mobile homes and 250 lots with single family homes the surrounding area is primarily residential developments the proposed development will utilize an on-site septic tank in city water there are five mobile homes along avenue q northwest had a mobile home been abutting the property to the west or east this request would not be necessary the site plan indicates the mobile home will meet all required setbacks and utilize an on-site septic tank in city water and then here's an approximate view of the request looking south from avenue q northwest and staff recommends approval the request meets the compatibility standards set in section 220 of the land development code and all required setbacks there are currently five mobile homes that share the same road frontage off avenue q northwest the previous mobile home case ldcu 2024-13 was approved in the same subdivision during the september planning commission and with that i will stand for questions any questions for staff seeing no we'll ask the applicant to come forward is the applicant here oh come on up name and address for the record and any comments you'd like to add to staffs okay yeah what's your name and address angel roman my actual address is a10 indian bluff winter haven florida anything you'd like to add to the testimony you heard from staff or from the case as presented yeah i'm here you're okay with it yes okay thank you all right thank you very much thank you uh with that we'll now open the floor to the public are there anybody here to speak for or against this case please come forward seeing none we'll go ahead and close the public hearing we're back to the applicant who i assume is good with everything any questions of the applicant from the board all right we'll entertain a motion mr chair i'm going to approve ldcu 2024-26 second motion in a second roll call mr bishop please robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion earl bishop for the motion brooke agnini for the motion mike hickman or the motion mike schmidt or the motion heaven update or the motion mr chairman the motion passes all right thank you very much you're good ready for the next one whenever you are in number two on the agenda is ldcu 2024-28 the non-phosphate borough pit a modification of ldcu 2019-9 kyle rogas is the planner good morning again kyle rogas with land development presenting ldcu 2024-28 a modification to ldcu 2019-9 to operate a non-phosphate borough pit on approximately 202 acres the request involves a property line setback reduction along vacant property vacant phosphate lands on october 22nd 21 mailers were sent out to property area owners three boards were posted on the property october 23rd a legal ad was published in the polk sun news on october 23rd we have received no response from the public staff finds this request compatible and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code staff recommends approval the subject site is located north of highway 60 uh 640 south of nichols road east of hillsborough county west of highway 37 south and section 20 township 30 range 23. the subject site is located in the industrial land use district in the county's rural development area similar uses are located to the north and south of the site as indicated here to the north is the north prong non-phosphate borough pit ldcu 2024-24 that was approved at the october 2nd planning commission meeting the nearest resident is over 100 feet from the west property line with an additional 100 feet mining property setback per chapter 3 section 303 14c states mining activities and facilities shall be prohibited within 200 feet from any residential dwelling unit the overall site plan to the left of the screen illustrates the proposed mine expansion limits as they fall within the residential parcel ids or in identified within the parcel ids this is the original plan from ldcu 2020 2019-9 within the application the applicant request property line setbacks from 100 feet to 25 feet from the majority of the site according to the mining schedule mining will begin in spring of 2025 and is anticipated to be completed in 2065 during that time it is estimated nine acres will be mined each year and reclamation will be completed in 2070 and you can see on this site plan that those 20 that reduction in the property line setback is going to be reserved for the land that is vacant on the east west side and they are going to remain having that 100 foot setback along that east side where the residential parcels are the applicant is proposing two access points along the frontage road of pinecrest road the submitted reclamation plan and post closure plan proposes a future land use designation of industrial the industrial land use designation was approved on the subject parcels under ldcpal 2024-3 stormwater retention is proposed within the industrial area that results in ponds this is a view of the site looking north from pinecrest road this is the view of the site looking west from anderson road and then to the right you can see those residential properties and staff recommends approval past aerials indicate the subject property was once a mining site mining operations are also located to the north and south ingress and egress for the proposed project is along county maintained minor arterial roadway staff finds that the request is consistent with the land development code and comprehensive plan and with that i will stand for questions any questions for staff from the board seeing none we'll call the applicant forward please to present your case thank you uh tom mems 439 south florida avenue lakeland florida 33803 um i don't really have anything to add except this is an expansion of the existing one that y'all have approved probably two or three years ago um to the west of this site and i'll stand for questions any questions of the applicant from the board i have a just a real quick question just to understand so the request is to reduce the setback to 25 feet on the western side the left side of your screen is that correct that is correct okay so can you tell me what's happening then on the top right corner of that site plan where the homes are it says mining block i believe 230 i can't read it that far but that mining block h is that where you're yeah whatever that top right corner is on the opposite side that's that's adjacent to the houses is that going to be 100 feet away from yes yes that's the setback area that is oh that's a setback area but are you are you mining that area or are you not mining the area yes we're mining a portion of that area up there as well but the mining activities will still be 100 feet away from the property line is what you're telling me that's correct in accordance so that's there's no change on that side is the question no change okay thank you very much that's the new part okay appreciate it that helped clarify something for me all right with that we'll open the floor to the public anybody here to speak for or against this case please step forward seeing none we'll close the public hearing portion of the meeting and we'll back to the applicant if you're good sir oh question the 25 feet what is i can't find it on the aerial i can't determine what is on this it's a clay side clay settling pond mosaic clay settling pond okay there's a um what's the setback to top uh the top is 25 feet as well if you're referring the settling pond top of the top of the pond uh here is that where i'm over here on the 25 foot side where the 25 right here is being is asked for modified uh this is several hundred feet away from matter of fact it's probably four or five hundred feet from the clay settling area that's been reclaimed okay so it's basically a reclaimed clay settling pond construction ever allowed not likely not likely yeah they're difficult to build on what's the depth of your mining just um i think it's 40 feet i believe step here is going to show that it's going to be approximately about 45 feet yeah that's because we have other sites that erosion and or anything from our train going by will erode those and um that that embankment right yeah we don't and 25 feet seems awful close for something that deep uh well we don't really we don't really envision that being an issue over there um just because the distance that we are from that clay settling area and it's been completely reclaimed like the sides of the berm have been knocked down over there so it's basically just soft clay i haven't seen it yeah what's the angle of repose to your mining it will be four to one once we one okay finish it yeah i didn't find any of that in your report okay any other questions from the board members okay seeing that none i'll take the item back to the board for discussion and or motion mr chair i move to approve ldcu 2024-28 we have a motion and a second all a roll call please for the motion for the motion for the motion for the motion for the motion keeping going all right next up is ldcu 2024-22 the old kissimi road mobile home conditional use and alia glema is your planner good morning alia glema with land development presenting number three on the agenda ldcu 2024-22 the old kissimi road mobile home conditional use the applicant is requesting a conditional use approval for a mobile home to be located in a subdivision where fewer than 50 percent of the developed developed lots have mobile homes the subject site is located south of old kissimi road west of highway 1792 north of parker road north of the city of davenport in section 6 township 26 range 28 on october 4th 53 mailers were sent to area property owners two signs were posted on october 23rd and a legal ad was published in the polk sun on october 23rd with no responses from the public the subject site is located just north of the city of davenport and is located within a residential low for future lane use and in the transit supportive development area the mobile home request is compatible with the surrounding area the nearest mobile home is approximately 90 feet away to the south the tripoli plat was recorded in 1919 with a total of 58 residential parcels there are approximately 21 single-family detached homes 28 vacant lots eight mobile homes and one duplex many homes within this neighborhood will were built before 1940 and a non-conforming religious institution has been located on the subject site since 1970 here is the site plan for the mobile home and here is a view of the site and the proposed request is consistent with the ldc and the comprehensive plan and i'll stand for questions any questions for staff seeing none we'll call the applicant forward sir are you sworn in this work okay that's okay raise your right hand and answer the following question do you swear and affirm that the evidence and testimony you'll give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you all right name and address for the record daniel de jesus 137 fair hall pass down for floor 33897 okay since you're the applicant there's anything you'd like to add to the testimony you heard from the staff you're good okay excellent thank you sir all right with that we'll open the floor for the public is anyone here to speak for or against this case please step forward all right seeing none we'll close the public portion back to the applicant which i'm sure is good and we'll take the bottom back to our board for discussion and or motion mr chair i move to approve ldcu 2024-22 we have a motion we have a second yes second okay motion a second roll call please for the motion for the motion for the motion for the motion for the motion thank you sir all right next case please next case is a small scale conference plan amendment ldcpas 2024-20 the mount pisgah road uh pm to arr conference plan amendment and robert bolton is the case planner pardon me good morning robert bolton with land development presenting ldcpas 2024-20 mount pisgah road a comprehensive plan amendment for a requested land use change from phosphate mining pm to agricultural residential rural arr on approximately 15.54 acres for the record 12 mailers were sent to area property owners on october 22nd 2024 two signs were posted on the property on october 23rd 2024 legal ad was published in the polk sun on october 23rd 2024 no responses from the public had been received and staff recommends approval the site is located east or on the east side of mount pisgah road north of the polk hardee county line west of mosaic south fort meade mine and south of the city of fort meade this is a 2023 aerial the site is a rural part of the county with us 27 excuse me us 17 and peace river to the west mosaic south fort meade mine to the east and bowling green and highlands county to the southwest this is a closer up view of the site which shows the csx rail and the restricted access to the south fort meade mine the site is improved with two single family dwellings constructed in the mid 1970s the site has not been mined and has and has historically been a citrus grove the applicant has stated that they would like to add one additional residential structure which would be allowed and and compatible within the requested arr designation this the existing future land use map several other residential sites uh can be are within the these arr areas uh with mount pisgah cemetery and church to the north of the site this is what the proposed future land use map would wind up looking like this is mount pisgah road looking south the subject site is toward the uh left that's mount pisgah road looking north with the subject on the right this is the southerly uh existing residential structure this is the northerly residential structure the impacts of the surrounding resources will be minimal with capacity in the schools and adequate adequate adequate response times for first responders the site uh does and will utilize private well and septic systems for water and sewer with minimal impacts to transportation and no known environmental impacts the subject site has previously said not been mined while having been in a mine plan it has historically been a citrus grove with two residential residences that were constructed in the mid 1970s policy 2.114 a3 provides appropriate future land use designations for pm to transit transition into the requested to arr is one of those uh designations the request is compatible and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code staff recommends approval and with that i'll stand for questions any questions from staff all right seeing none with this we'll turn the meeting over to the applicant to come forward please name and address for the record and anything you'd like to add robert paul paris 1244 kelly court watchula florida and he'd like to add to testimony there's good all right with that we'll open the floor for the public anybody here to speak for against this case please step forward seeing none the applicant i believe is good back to the board for a motion or discussion mr chair i move to approve ldc pas 2024-20 we have a motion a second roll call please robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion borough bishops for the motion brook agdini for the motion mike hickman for the motion mike schmidt or the motion heaven update or the motion mr chairman the motion passes thank you sir all right next case next case is small scale conference plan amendment ldc pas 2024-21 park view christian conference plan amendment and the case planner is jp sims uh good morning so ldc pas dash 2024-21 park view christian center uh is requesting a change from residential suburban in the suburban development area to institutional in the suburban development area site is located south of mystery house road west of powerline road north of baker dairy road east of us highway 92 and west of the hayne city city limits staff does recommend approval on this for the record 16 mailers were sent out to area property owners on october 22nd 2024 there has been no response from the public there were two signs posted on site on october 23rd 2024 and a legal ad was published in the polk sun on october 23rd 2024 so the location as i mentioned before we are out here in the east part of the county near the hayne city city limits so from the aerial context photos you can see that the church that is uh on site it's already there it's already constructed and there is a little notch over here to the right which would allow for expansion of a future school if they chose to do that there are townhomes currently being developed to the east of it to the west is currently undeveloped to the south is some loose single-family homes and to the north is detached single-family residential so closer look as i mentioned before this church is already in operation so over here would be a site where they could potentially expand with a future elementary school if they wanted to do that for the site it is currently residential suburban and as you can see it does abut the hayne city city limits to the east and to the south and if they change it to the institutional one it would allow for the religious institution and for the expansion of a future school so looking east down baker dairy road you can see that they're actually doing quite a bit of construction baker dairy road is an urban collector which is ideal for that type of development where they have like a larger ingress egress into the site looking west down baker dairy again you can see that the road is currently under construction and this was actually taken from the front of the site so as i said before you can see that everything is already constructed at the moment religious institution is currently in operation and then this is a picture of the open site i showed off to the east where the potential school could go in the future and you can see the townhomes being constructed on the east side over here so the current religious institution does not have any impact on the schools in the surrounding area in fact if they expanded and added their own school it would actually help with any capacity issues in that part of the town they do have parks close by and it is within acceptable distance from fire and sheriff operations the water and sewer impacts the waters on the hayne city utility service area that would be handled by them and then for the sewer does look though the site does not connect to wastewater so it would be handled by septic the road baker dairy road does have sufficient capacity for any pm trips that would happen with the change to institutional one and then the change from residential suburban to institutional is compatible with development in the area as institutional is one of the uses that is allowed anywhere within the county and is compatible with residential uses policy 2.106-a1 states institutional is allowed in suburban development area and as i mentioned before the access road baker dairy road is an urban collector which is ideal for institutional land uses with that staff does find this request is consistent with comprehensive plan and land development code and does recommend approval with that i'll stand for question any questions for staff question yes sir your uh 280 tpd for the traffic does that include the school the school has not been properly planned out yet that's just including just the religious institution that is just that's what it is right now yes well under the institutional they'll have to come back to us for approval of a school yes sir any other questions so you know us applicant to come forward and morning i'm jerry carter 536 tapatio lane kissimi florida 34759 no more to add to the presentation thank you sir all right with that we'll turn the floor over to the public portion of this hearing can you anyone here to speak for against this case please step forward okay seeing none we will close the public portion here i assume you're good mr applicant and with that we'll take the motion and or discussion to the board mr chair i move to approve ldc pas 2024-21 second we have a motion and a second roll call please robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion roll business for the motion brooke agnini for the motion mike haikman for the motion mike schmidt for the motion heaven updike i'm for the motion mr chairman the motion passes thank you sir all right next item on the agenda which is item seven seven and eight the next the next two items are good six and seven right yeah yes six and seven all right you're correct yes okay um yeah so that's ldc pal 2024-12 we're calling it the north prong industrial conference plan amendment that's related to text in that will be placed in land development code for ldct 2024-19 and mark bennett is the case planner for the record mark bennett land development um yes as shonda just mentioned there's actually two cases involved with this property i'll present the uh comp plan amendment first and then um you'll understand then why we're also processing an lbc text change while i'll present the two together we will eventually of course need separate motions for each action so the first one with the comprehensive plan amendment the request is the two items one to change 420 acres from phosphate mining and agriculture residential rule there's a small portion of the site that's arr to industrial and then also change the text in our land use element of the comprehensive plan to limit the intensity of the industrial activity on certain areas of the site as far as notice you'll see on the screen that there were 21 mailers sent to area property owners on october 4th nine boards were posted out there and a legal ad was published in the polk center on october 23rd with no public response this is the subject site if this looks familiar it's because it's the same picture you saw last month at the board meeting where there was a an approval granted for non-phosphate mining on this site and again a little closer uh view of the site previously used for phosphate mining the current land use designations again primarily phosphate mining with a small portion of the site designated arr on the eastern part proposed land use change is to designate 420 acres here as industrial and i put this map in because when staff reviewed this request the primary concern the primary issue was uh compatibility specifically with existing and planned residential uses this map here is from the city of mulberry it's their future land use map and the reason why it's in here is because you can see on the extreme western portion of the site there's property within this i'm sorry on the western side of this map you can see that there's property designated within the city as residential planned unit development we had our gis staff for a couple maps together to show the relationship between that residential within the city of mulberry and then also the proposed industrial and more detailed map here and then secondly the other issue with residential and potential compatibility issues there was the proximity of the site next to an unincorporated community known as nickels where there's um i don't remember the exact count but there's some houses out there actually even a post office so it is recognized as a unincorporated community and isn't even recognized as a redevelopment area in our comprehensive plan so in an effort to address any potential issues or concerns regarding compatibility with the existing and proposed residential staff and the applicant worked out an arrangement where there will be additional requirements limitations restrictions put in place in both the comprehensive plan and the land development code what you see on the screen here is the proposed text change to a comprehensive plan amendment we call these conditional cpas we've done quite a few i know since i've been here we've processed at least one so the intent here is to recognize that there are certain unique restrictions and requirements applicable to this property just to summarize the plan amendment really no impacts transportation yes it's a big number it's also a worst case scenario we have to analyze on a worst case scenario but of course that's an issue that's covered at level two when the applicant comes in for a binding site plan with a specific use as far as the comp plan amendment justification for approval the site's been used for intensive activities in the past with the phosphate mining although industrial can have intensive uses also we thought that it would be appropriate given the past use for intensive activities we find that the proposed use is compatible subject to the text change and it's consistent with the land development code and the comp plan now at this point give me a second and i will switch over to the slides for the text change okay this is the text amendment to our land development code excuse me and um before i forget because i forgot to put on the screen let me mention that we did put an ad in the polk sun on october 23rd and did not receive any responses because it's a text amendment there's no specific property owner notice or posting so as you can see on the screen here the gist of the amendment is to allow for specific limitations those limitations are establishment of a 200 foot wide buffer zone on certain portions of the site limitations within that buffer zone and some special landscaping requirements the 200 foot standard was chosen because that's a standard we use to have aggregate construction aggregate uses be you know that's how far they have to be from residential so hence the reason for the 200 foot standard i'll go through a couple slides here real quick to summarize the gist of this amendment oh what's going on here okay so um this is the first part so it summarizes what's applicable the part two here discusses the 200 foot wide zone establishes it part of the legal description here didn't see a need to put the whole legal in but that's part two part three discusses the allowed uses within that 200 foot buffer zone basically the first 100 feet minimal uses storm water management flood blend compensation open spaces etc and generally within 100 to 200 feet the intent was to allow for light industrial uses no outdoor outdoor activities or operations also recognizing the non-phosphate mining that was approved last month and then this speaks to uh landscape buffer requirements this map is a it's a little hard to read because the size and scale of it but it generally shows the areas where the buffers are proposed one here near nickels and then secondly here and the reason why it's here as opposed to all along here is that there are wetlands and floodplains located here within the property in the city mulberry so the thought was that those will effectively serve as a buffer because they won't be developed and the applicant showed us a policy out of mulberry's comp plan that says you can't develop in those areas so the first buffer area is what i'm calling the the exhibit mulberry shows a general location with the enhanced landscaping and then then the additional landscaping next to nickels so to summarize this uh the text amendment the purpose of the text amendment is to address compatibility issues and by establishing a buffer zone certain limitations on uses within that buffer zone and additional landscaping requirements a couple other comments i wanted to make mention staff does recommend approval both of these amendments um we find them to be um consistent with the comp plan land development code especially with the text amendment this prop this represents an opportunity for a redevelopment of property that's was previously used it's always good to pursue redevelopment opportunities likewise with economic development having 400 acres of rail served industrial can provide opportunities for new businesses and jobs which again getting back to redevelopment revitalization perhaps more businesses more jobs will help revitalize the nickels community so um with that that concludes my presentation let me go back to the comp plan amendment and i'll stand for any questions any questions for staff seeing no questions we'll ask the applicant to come forward and yours okay there you go go for it thank you um board um my name is tom mems once again 439 south florida avenue lakeland florida so let me see how it's being presented so i don't really do a whole lot of powerpoint presentations how do i get the big light screen perfect so this is the project that i was talking to y'all about about a month ago when we were doing a sand mining approval and this is the revitalization of agrafoss mining properly former mobile chemical plant and um let's see uh is that okay so this shows you the extensive rail system um and this is the site plan overall of the project and as you can see here this shows the main csx rail line that comes from the mulberry area through the plant and ends up at the new wales plant and basically they call it mulberry nickel the area for new wales you can see the spurs the extensive rail spurs already existing on the property as well and here are some close-ups you can see this is a stacking yard here where there's a lot of rail cars that get stacked and stored along these areas on the perimeters of the property this is a dryer facility that's still existing it's been there almost 100 years and the whole concept is is to revitalize this area um potentially reuse some of these buildings and infrastructure within them and or tear them down so as you can see it has had extensive uh industrial operations on site this is the dry storage area of the site surrounding uses just to the south of the location is the mosaic gypsum stack to the south directly adjacent to the property is the former mosaic chemical plant area to the east of the site is bb1 sand mining area you can see the extensive sand mining taking place in the area and then to the west of this is a shooting range that i think is now closed and it's proposed to be i think a tico solar farm is what i've been told directly to the west so that kind of gives you an idea of what's in the area what we're planning to do with it some of the buildings will be knocked down we envision putting a road through there where there'll be lots of different industrial type uses on the site over time and one of the things that wasn't brought up was that county staff had contacted the city of mulberry they were not in opposition of the industrial land use adjacent to the residential that residential land use has been in place for almost 30 years um the city of mulberry ron orchards had stated that they don't envision it being developed for another 30 years so we don't anticipate any compatibility issues with regard to the adjacent properties and with that i'll stand with questions any questions for the applicant i have one um since you are contiguous to mulberry i'm just wondering was there any consideration given to annexation was mulberry be interested in that or they may but i'm not okay i like the county okay i'm just curious that's any other questions for the applicant i commend your buffer and your landscaping that's generous for what i've seen and uh of course be watching for it on the next phase but seeing no other questions for the applicant we're going to open up the floor for public testimony anybody here to speak for against this case please step forward seeing no comments we'll close the public portion of the meeting and back to the applicant i did have one quick question for you mr mims on the um water and sewer requirement is this a well it will be a well uh and or we're we're actually contemplating that we'll be back to you guys probably in the next six or eight months on a larger development that we're doing where we potentially will be bringing uh county water down from it's very near 640 and uh 676 nickels road and 60 and we are looking at bringing a large water line down to a major project we're doing what about wastewater we're actually building a wastewater treatment facility on on the north side of 640 now that will serve the area but there could be one for this specific site if needed so as this area gets redeveloped we envision it to be some kind of higher level treatment though oh absolutely absolutely thank you that's really my only other question all right any other questions seeing none i'll bring the item back to the board for motion and or discussion mr chairman to approve ldc pal 2024-12 motion in a second roll call please robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion oral bishops for the motion brooke agnini for the motion mike hickman or the motion mike schmidt or the motion kevin update or the motion motion passes thank you sir and i believe that was that was yes the second one correct that's number seven yes correct and do i entertain a motion for item six and now i move to approve ldct 2024-19 we have a motion do we have a second second motion in a second roll call please robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion merle business for the motion brooke agnini for the motion mike hickman or the motion mike schmidt or the motion seven update i'm for that motion mr chairman the motion passes thank you sir all right item eight please all right good morning ian nance land development and this is ldpd 2024-14 the applicant is requesting a modification to a mobile home development approved by the board in 2019 to switch from mobile home units to site-built homes and add additional acreage and units in a residential low 2 residential low 3 and residential medium future land use designation the subject site is located north and east of thornhill road west of spirit lake road south of winter lake road west of eagle lake in sections two and three township 29 range 25 for the record 288 mailers were sent to area property owners on october 22nd two signs were posted october 18th an illegal ad was published in polk sun october 23rd staff has logged no public responses and recommends approval here's the subject site between lake hancock and the city of eagle lake it is within an area i'm sorry it's in an area with close access to multiple arterial and collector roadways including us 17 and the polk parkway actually to the west of this site is the southern extension of the parkway the central polk parkway and this is a bit of an infill property with access on the thornhill road residential development of varying intensities and unit types had developed around the site from the early 1980s through the early 2000s this plan was what was adopted by the board march of 2019 247 mobile home units on 58.95 acres with a density of almost 4.2 dwelling units per acre the individual lots were anticipated to be 6 000 square feet with five foot side setbacks this is the requested day essentially this is the same layout that was previously approved by the board with addition of some acreage to the southeast which allows for more units and improves access to the site with additional right-of-way dedication for turn lanes and a boulevard entrance with this request the unit type will change from mobile homes site built homes the unit count will increase by 15 from 247 to 262 with the additional acreage the density actually drops to around four dwelling units an acre the intention here is to have a mix of lot sizes but the minimum lot size will be 5500 square feet to accommodate the lot depths around stormwater ponds and open space speaking of those the site plan has incorporated the changes the board has adopted since the approval of the original plan including curvilinear landscape ponds with walking trails to allow for passive recreation 25-foot garage setbacks internal sidewalks on both sides of the road pedestrian street lighting and one tree per lot this is an overlay of the site plan on the property which shows that the proposed lot sizes here are now the norm on the eastern side are developments with very similar lot sizes and lot widths still the applicant is proposing a 15-foot wide type c landscaping buffer along the entirety of the eastern property line on the west the properties are deeper in depth and measure around one acre in size but a lot width ratios remain that two proposed lots to one existing lot the applicant is proposing a 25 foot wide type c landscaping buffer along the western property line with the intention of keeping the existing natural trees and vegetation where possible on both property lines these buffers exceed typical landscaping standards and ponds will be used to further buffer from larger properties this is a snapshot of services and the demands upon them that development would generate at this time capacity is available at local schools and with utilities emergency services are within expected travel and response times and the roads have ample capacity to absorb the traffic however this is just of course a preliminary look if approved this will require level two review that will make the final determinations on school and utility capacities a species study and walkover will be required prior to final approval and a major traffic study will be necessary to identify needed improvements along thornhill road also a flood study will be required for property of this size again staff recommends approval the site plan meets or exceeds ldc standards and demonstrates compatibility with surrounding uses the layout is very very similar to what was adopted five uh over five years ago when it was determined to be compatible by the board at that time the application meets uh development standards that have been recently adopted for pds and all residential developments and with that i thank you and we'll stand for questions any questions for staff mr i have one uh and what's the lot count threshold for only having one access point i believe it's uh what was it 200 250 200 but the boulevard and trench is that what allows them to only have one correct that mitigates that okay thank you any other questions for staff the water the 900 or 94 680 and the waste water the water is from the county yes sir waste water goes it's county as well yes sir existing yes sir there's a line uh there's a wastewater line here at the end of this subdivision and lift station and uh there's a water line abutting the site any other questions for staff and from what's approved today versus what's being requested you sales an additional 15 units yes sir they added this uh southeast section here they bought this and a lot of it and i'll let mr bannon explain a little bit further to improve sort of the access into this property and i guess they negotiated with property owners and realized they could get a few extra units in there thank you all right with that any other questions for staff if not we'll call the applicant forward to state your case mr allen no you're you're fine uh good morning commissioners for the record bart allen land use attorney with peterson and myers here on behalf of the applicant and uh mr with wooden associates john bannon he's in the audience in the rear he's been the engineer on this re this reconfiguration of of the uh this originally approved pd also with me this morning i have mr milton andre uh garrett parkinson and john burrows from clayton highland homes with us as well so happy to be here with with this distinguished group um mr nance has given you a really good overview this is a basically a addition of six acres and a switch from mobile homes to site built homes as it relates to the project the additional six acres uh did result in a actual reduction in density albeit there are some additional units but the other thing i think is really important that the additional land has allowed the development to do is provide better access ingress and egress to the site we are now we will not only have we acquired this six acres but they have actually acquired an additional 30-foot strip and you may not be able to see my cursor along just a little bit on the south on the north side of thornhill road but running kind of west northwest a 30-foot strip to allow for the additional turn lanes and things of that nature that we'll need to put into the site there will be a left dedicated left and a dedicated right and the additional right away is under contract i should say pending obviously moving forward with development that brings not only brings thornhill up to the 40-foot from center line standard of the county code that is currently inadequate but allows the necessary improvements for this site to be implemented and i think that's something we don't always see going beyond the frontage of the project so i i'd like to commend the developer for for doing that we do have buffers along both boundaries that are in excess of your land development code we meet all the other standards we have adequate capacity we meet concurrency for for those issues at this point there will be a formal level uh traffic study full traffic study done at level two but the initial analysis shows um that was done by tmc shows that there is concurrency on the road and and that and that's why we went out and got the right of way that we did to put in those improvements for a full type four intersection at this project with that um we'll stand for any questions i believe there's probably some folks here who may want to speak would request a few minutes of rebuttal at that time but if there's um and i'll we'll move on thank you numbers did you use on your trips per day the thorn hill road the uh 240 the 262 262 with the additional 15 units thank you any other questions we're good okay with that we'll open the floor to the public if you're here to speak for against this uh case please step forward just as a reminder name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes i'm jeff bates i live at 4099 rolling oaks drive winter haven florida uh i have a couple questions about this have they considered the wetlands behind oakwood estates on the uh would be the north northwest corner there's uh an area back there that the sandhill cranes build nests and other waiting birds habitat all the time and another question is have they considered the possibility of flooding with the additional uh 262 footprints of uh houses back there when that corner where the wetlands is is a low area a little concerned about the possibility of flooding with all the additional concrete and blacktop stuff like that anything else uh no is there that corner is there going to be a pawn back there or a retention pond of some kind go ahead and address your comments to the board and then the applicant has a chance to come back and rebut all right that's all i have questions thank you sir all right anybody else here to speak for against this case please step forward just to clarify nobody else here to speak against or for this case all right with that i'm going to close the public portion of the meeting i'm going to invite mr allen come back and try to address some of the questions or comments we just heard um thank you mr chair just briefly yes from the habitat perspective as it relates to species whether it's sandhill cranes or any others that will be a full environmental analysis and walk through identifying any any species and um on site and if there are any they will obviously be adequately um um handled dealt with uh from there is a pond on the northwest corner here uh that actual engineering full-blown engineering design has not occurred but yes we we anticipate that these will be um that they will be mostly wet ponds in this in this neighborhood we have evaluated the drainage situation as it relates to um dinner lake the the drainage canal on the east side here the northeast side here that kind of runs north and south between us in the mobile home park to the east mr bannon has already had communication with your roads and drainage folks phil urban specifically related to providing enhanced access for county for the county to get in there and do some maintenance as well that's currently a little bit of a problem from what i understand so we believe that with when the full site is fully engineered and designed that yes absolutely the um uh additional stormwater runoff and issues can be handled on site through that permitting process with the water management district as well as polk county and other regulatory agencies outside of that you know the project is again providing some additional improvements on thornhill road which are we believe are needed and warranted in this area we believe this is a good project going from the manufactured home to the site built homes it's previously been found at this density to be compatible by the board of county commissioners and we believe it's the same today you have a staff recommendation of approval and we would stand for any question but would request a favorable vote and as you mentioned earlier i believe because the additional acreage you actually the density of the developments and that's correct the density went from about 4.2 just a hair over 4.0 thank you sir you're welcome any other questions for the applicant oh bart hold on questions sir you tried clarify please yes sir you have 262 units yes sir and you said your trips per day were 262 that's one trip per day per unit that is the that is the standard and that is i believe straight out of the staff report yes that is what the that is what the traffic methodology is yes from the it codes those are pm peak i'm sorry pmp yes 26262 is pm peak the aadt i believe would be about eight times the unit little 7.7 7.8 okay i have a question mr chairman oh sorry you're not getting away bart it's been it's been stated that the central pope parkway comes through here and i'm trying to maybe i missed it i'm trying to understand how where does that parkway come in relation to this probably i believe i believe the central pope parkway line okay is right north south oh i see i see the uh label now okay i was just trying to understand how it came all right would you like to play engineer any longer if not you can sit down luckily i got an engineering degree excellent thank you sir all right with that we'll take the item back to the board for a motion and or discussion mr chair i move to approve ldpd 2024-14 we have a motion do we have a second we have a motion in a second roll call police robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion royal bishop i'm for the motion brooke agnini for the motion mike hickman i abstain on the motion mike schmidt i must abstain also give an update for the motion chairman the motion passes all right thank you for those of you who abstain make sure you work out any paperwork needs to happen please do what sir there's paperwork that needs to be filled out so just be sure you fill out whatever you have to fill out thank you very much all right last item on the agenda all right last up is ldct 2024-23 this is a land development code text amendment for non-conforming number of units on one property and eric peterson is your planner good morning this is an amendment to section 120 which is our non-conforming uses section legal ad was published in polk sun on october 23rd 2024 we've had no response from the public you see this all around this this happens a lot in this county we zoning started in 1970 but to some people uh polk county existed prior to 1970 and there was a lot of development many times uh families would add units to their property uh over time uh family members but then the property might get sold and the it might just be a property with a lot a number of units those units might get rented out things things happen uh one of our main goals in housing element is enhancing and maintaining our existing housing stock uh which is very important we put that above most everything so in these situations um it is in our best interest to do everything we can to make the uh units uh better off as i mentioned before the zoning happened long before uh you know a lot of development happened before also in our zoning ordinance under rc and r4 up until nearly 2000 there was no requirement that there be one house per lot the one house per lot started in 1970 but it was only for the residential districts and rc was not considered necessarily a residential district so on rc properties you could have multiple units as long as you were within that one unit per acre density um 1983 ordinance comes along adds multi-family to the zoning ordinance and multi-family is just that multi-family so if you were in a multi-family district you have the ability to have multiple units but in 2000 that one house per lot standard went across the board it was decided you know we want one house per lot there's a lot of reasons for that this proposal is for limited application uh i talked about the maintaining the housing stock uh many times uh you've got a uh when with these multiple properties you've got a landowner who needs to improve it uh either by financing they might they might need financing or they might be eligible for some grants or loans from uh the government in those requirements having you know with your both your banks and your federal government having multiple units dwelling units on one property negates them from qualifying for those bank loans and things of that nature so the the property the house you're improving has to be able to stand alone on its own parcel or be in its own ownership it can't be a shared ownership or it can't be an ownership with another uh you know property owner um this is this amendment is for limited applications uh it's it's for anyone who's trying to improve that dwelling and needs a bank loan or or grant funding and it has to be on one one lot uh this was brought to our attention from our housing and neighborhood development folks um several months ago and we've come up with a solution in section 120. uh it doesn't apply to mobile home parks it's not going to apply to anything approved as a accessory dwelling unit the lot will have to meet setbacks um it has its own access to water and wastewater and this can be a problem for some properties with multiple units they might all share one septic tank or they might all share one well that has to get resolved before it qualifies but this will enable them regardless of the land use district regardless of the minimum lot size to set that unit on its own parcel uh so that it can be freestanding and be eligible for that that financing or grant funding uh in the green swamp you can't be on a septic tank and be less than 40 000 square feet so we still have that standard in place uh and this undergoes staff review well it's not just something that's out there it'll be a level one review uh by staff um to make sure they qualify we looked around at our counties and cities to see how they were doing this how they were addressing this issue and not many are we're kind of on the edge here there's a few cases in which they address agricultural property because as agriculture transitions to more urban development as as the state of florida has experienced um you have these properties that might have been a family farm or something like that that are changing hands and you have the multiple units so we found that in a few places that exemption but we didn't uh find anything that applied uh across the board so staff finds that the you know this this amendment is needed one it it solves some of our our existing housing issues um the property i should have started with this the house has had to have been there for at least 20 years why we put this 20 year window why we don't make a specific date is because you know finding that information finding that exact date when the the home was there or not is very difficult but if we can if we can verify that it's been there over 20 years all bets are off i i think it's it's been well established it's not harming the community in any way it's been established in the community it's not over burdening infrastructure because it's been there for 20 years it's been served by it so i think we're we're safe to allow this um most often we we find this most often the the person with the property is not the one who created this non-conformity it's usually the the second or third owner sense because over 20 years there's been some turnover in some of these lands so and then lastly it's not inconsistent with the comprehensive plan because you're not creating a new unit you're not creating density you're merely saying you're one property now split it you're still the units there the units there um and we feel that it doesn't require it's not uh going against the uh goals and policies of the various districts because the obviously the unit is there with that i'll stand for questions any questions for staff uh i have one does this i may have missed it does this allow for a reduction in lot size the required lot size yes it does so what's the is there a percentage or no no it just whatever it takes you to get this house house or dwelling to be self-sufficient the property is big enough like i said with if they're sharing a septic tank well they're gonna have to figure out how to how to put in a septic tank on that parcel and get get it to meet health department requirements and i thought i heard you say they still have to meet setbacks yes they'll still have to meet setbacks but they could ask for variance if for some some reason yeah we put in an administrative process by which the land development director can grant a variance if it's absolutely necessary any other questions for staff i do what consideration for agriculture again like family farm yes trust uh yeah yes those were in the other ordinance lateral county for instance where if they had an exemption from the minimum lot size if it had been in a family farm and it was changing hands and they they needed a lot of times you know things were built with cash long ago but a lot of things are more expensive and about every home purchase today needs some level of financing you're going to finance a home you're going to finance that home for that that family farm member they're going to need it to be on one property because the home the collateral can't be involved in another private home so that's that's one of the many about multi-parcel trust agricultural family trust of a multi multi-parcels yeah this would this would apply to the the instance where you have multiple homes on one parcel okay multiple parcels we still have the family homestead exemption that's that's out there so ownership does not drive that now like i said if it's owned by a trust oh the with the lot you create well that that will have to be settled if it's owned by a trust it'll have to be approved by the trust to subdivide all subdivision regulations still stand in place you know if you want to record you know a new deed you need to have full ownership yeah but this will this will resolve a lot of situations where it is one family member may qualify on their own on an individual parcel but they don't qualify as a total family unit for for that assistance either state or federal that would be reviewed by staff yes we review it to make sure it meets all the criteria we've laid out here uh and and verify that the the reason is for improvement this is not for speculative sales of the home this is for getting a building permit getting a financing for improving the the unit itself eric my my uh question if i may mr chair go ahead uh similar to mr schmidt how how are they doing that in alachua county i saw in your staff report that they is so is it like a separate a separate text amendment for agriculture yes it's just specific and it's bona fide ag uh you know the property has to have been in bona fide agriculture prior and um like i said we you know that's one instance for us but we have multiple instances where there's there's several homes on a piece of property for whatever reason because our codes for so long allowed it uh i believe actually alachua county many of the ones in my survey zoning had existed for you know since 50s and 60s and stuff in those those jurisdictions polk was late to the game on zoning many reasons my questions many people in the for instance polk county cattlemen's association or something this is really pertinent to them most of them have established trusts in these last days that's just something that you know financial managers have pushed people toward and uh yes yes and that needs a consideration for polk county i don't know about everybody else but there's quite a few of us around that that that would that you're causing some significant problems i think for the way trusts are set up i mean everything yeah that that would have to be resolved and that's usually the uh this would not apply to that however you raise a good question when you do have a trust when you have the multiple units and most of the the agricultural properties are in arr where it's it's one unit per five acres or it could be in the green swamp with one unit per 10 or one unit per 20 and you have this extra unit uh and and you're breaking so let's say you're breaking up the trust you're you're giving it among amongst family members that would give this opportunity to you mentioned farmer agriculture because a lot of these people are getting out of the cattle business or whatever and yes the the property is still there right how does former agriculture yeah because we don't make it unlike alachua county we don't make it a caveat to only being uh applied to agri former agriculture we we open it up to everyone so even if this situation is perpetuated for a longer period of time uh the northeast when i first got here was all all citrus grove from from uh 192 all the way down to haynes city back when haynes city was in haynes city um the you know between now and then a lot has happened those citrus groves all got redeveloped there there were homes out there there were were people with multiple properties and over time it's changed hands it's changed multiple hands uh the this this would help those instances we see a lot of this in the area around west of davenport or east of davenport and um so we see potential applications there as well and it's all about restoring the home it's a the home is already there we're making it better or we might be it might be a mobile home that we're replacing in in full mr chairman can i just weigh in on this case right here in front of ben zisco director uh to give you a little bit of context of what brought this to you so we have uh there's a property out near fort meade that has multiple structures and they have been there for for decades and one of the homes burned down so the first step would normally be for someone to come get a building permit and we have provisions in our code that you can build back a structure in the the existing footprint after a calamity and you have a couple of years to do that and we can issue a permit this came to light because the individual that lived in that home is low income and they can't afford to build the home so they went to our housing and neighborhood development services division to try to get either ship or hud funding and you cannot get state or federal funding for properties that have multiple structures on one home so they were ready to give them the check they were ready to build them a new home they had to be on their own parcel they weren't able to subdivide because of the provisions that we have in our code so this this ordinance is written very narrowly to allow unique circumstances where they need to subdivide the land in order to rebuild their home because the current provisions of our code do not allow that and the the housing and neighborhood development folks are not able to give them money so they were at they were at a dead end if they came to if they came to us to try to get a permit we were fine but then they couldn't get money they were able to give them money but we couldn't subdivide so this fixes that but it is a very narrow ordinance on purpose but that's a real world example that that led this that we really could not provide that family any option um so so this helps solve that and that's why the 20 years is there this is not intended to be a loophole for people to illegally subdivide and then you know get away with that but it's to really help those low-income families that need the money to rebuild after a calamity appreciate that commentary any other questions for staff i have one quick question eric i noticed you guys put the 40 000 square foot for the green swamp because of the septic tank issue if as we know those regulations are changing as we move forward in life here in polk county will that amend this in the future potentially as different areas are required to have limitations yes yes we when when and if those uh policies come forward we'll have to broaden this and not just be the green swamp but those it'll be anywhere that that standard applies standard applies um unlike the green swamp though you can go to the higher level of treatment in the wastewater treatment yeah yeah that would be an option as well for whom we're trying to target with this that would really not be feasible for them anyway so we should uh we will have to craft it in a way to say well you do have that option but we don't advise it i just didn't know if it was only gonna limit to the green swamp or if this would have to be changed if as things change or evolve in the future yeah as as that that provision we'll probably have to add another line with with regards to septic tanks in those areas in those areas as well thank you all right i have one go ahead so replacing the existing language in the code which says which is multiple units on one lot and it allows you to add a unit if you meet the comp plan land use requirements so you're replacing that with this does that create a problem because this this has to do with subdivision the previous language had to do with adding a unit yeah yeah what if you can you still can you not now add a unit if you're not subdividing it would be inconsistent with another section of the code to do so that that was always that had been in there and it was like well you you take that one and then you have 221 over here and you all right we had to we had to pick a lane and so it was like let's eliminate that because we don't have a lot of application for new people doing it and we have the accessory dwelling unit option which is very broad and and has many applications so we even modified it so you can use a i mean i still see what this is done i'm like i drive by and i'm like how did they do how did they get that other unit on there yeah okay yeah well this include like mother-in-law's sweet mother no no yeah the the accessory dwelling unit provision this is not an avenue for that yeah we excluded that that and the same as mobile home parks so this this is not a way to go in and subdivide mobile home parks we actually have a different process for both of those uh to get approval if you want to change your mobile home park into a mobile home subdivision it requires a whole level three review a lot of it has to do with internal infrastructure um things of that nature and it's it's not an easy fit um it's establishing new setbacks and all kinds of things so we we leave that in its own process i welcome this dialogue with the board we're gonna the county's the applicant at this point is there anyone here to speak for against this item please step forward my name is peggy booze my address is 3101 highway 98 east for me 33841 the house that burned was my home it had been there for over 40 years the trailer that it was built around was put on the property by my dad in 1972 from my sister after my childhood home burned when we got out of the military in 1984 we moved back to polk county to take care of my parents and we started adding on to the trailer we always made sure that we pulled permits we had inspections we paid the property tax anytime there was a problem that county came to us and said hey you need to take care of this we did that my husband and i are both senior citizens my health is not good and neither is his my daughter and her two daughters lived with us in that home there was a four bedroom two bath home on that property the well that is on the property was redone a few years ago and it was done in such a way to where it would continue to supply water it had supplied water for 40 years to both houses my nephew lives next door and there's a 900 gallon septic tank on the property that is separate from my nephews we had it put in there in 1990 and we have it serviced regularly so we have that we don't have the finances to go out and build a home and we've asked for help county told us the housing told us to do so we had to divide have the property surveyed and divide the property and we had to clear the property we spent our entire my husband's entire retirement account doing that we've had the property surveyed and i filed the papers to have it divided then i was told by zoning we couldn't do that or we wouldn't get a permit so i went to property appraisers and i stopped it but all of that's in place we just need to be able to get the the two county offices to work together and get us a home i've got a great grandson that i've raised since the day he was born he's autistic and every time i see him right now he lives with my daughter and grandchildren at my stepfather's house down the road every time i see him he has asked me the same question mama when can we come home when can i be with you and it's hard to get him to understand that you know we're trying we just need some help thank you thank you anybody else to this case all right seeing none i we're back to the applicant or the county in this case any other questions from the board for the applicant i just applaud the county for figuring this out yeah yeah agreed second yes sir all right we'll entertain a motion mr chair i'll move to approve ldct 2024-23 second we have a motion and a second roll call please robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion rural business for the motion brooke agnini for the motion mike hickman for the motion mike schmidt i'm trying to decide if i need to abstain again uh for the motion kevin updike for the motion mr chairman the motion passes all right thank you i believe that's our last item on the agenda for today yes sir that's it all right any other discussion items for the board to talk about i'd like to thank staff for making it run so smoothly on my first try at being the chair so thank you very much staff for your hard work and making it all easy for me on my first time with that i'll take a motion to adjourn so moved all in favor aye