uh mr bishop roll call please robert viltram present david dalton present moral bishop president brooke agnini here mike hickman here renee heath here mike schmidt here and alternates linda schultz and kevin updike here all right looks like we have a quorum let's pledge of allegiance okay uh everyone has a chance to review the minutes can i have a motion to adopt the minutes from our last meeting so moved second we have a motion and a second all in favor all right the agenda has not changed from the published agenda just to note for the audience the three items that are highlighted in yellow have been continued to march the 5th and items four and five will be heard together as one but two separate votes just to keep everybody moving forward all right with that we have a confirmed agenda we'll turn the floor over to miss howard thank you mr chair good morning i'll now go over the general procedures for today's meeting 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 and 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 applicant will be given the opportunity to respond to any opposition testimony the commission will discuss the case and vote on the matter 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 with regard to level three reviews pursuant to section 906 of the polk county land development code the planning commission may approve the applicant's request deny the applicant's request or approve the request with additional conditions pursuant to section 921 of the polk county 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 playing paying the application fee the appeal must be filed with the land development division within seven calendar days of the planning commission hearing the board of county commissioners shall set a date and time for a de novo hearing if a party decides to appeal a decision made by the planning commission with respect to any level three review then he or she will need a record and may need to ensure that 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 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 failed to file an appeal there will be no appeal or hearing on the matter before the board of county commissioners the application fee will not necessarily be refunded for such a withdrawal please also be advised that if a de novo application is filed with the board to be recognized during the de novo hearing as organized opposition you must either file the application for de novo hearing or receive written authorization from at least five entities or individuals to speak on their behalf against the application and they have agreed to waive their right to speak during the public comment portion of the public hearing with regard to level four reviews pursuant to section 907 of the polk county land development code the planning commission's decision is a recommendation to the board of county commissioners the board of county commissioners will ultimately decide the matter at a later date regarding ex parte communication the planning commission members receive numerous communications from the public unless otherwise stated it should be presumed the ex parte communications have been made to the members of the planning commission regarding the matter during the hearing the applicant organized opposition and the public may request the planning commission to disclose any ex parte communication or site visits that they have have regarding the matter and question the members regarding the communications or site visits unless the planning commission member recuses themselves he or she has determined that they are able to hear the case and fairly and impartially make a decision on the matter based on the substantial competent evidence in the record mr chair would you like for me to swear in the witnesses for today's hearing please do thank you if you're going to address the planning commission on any case today then please stand up raise your right hand and answer out loud to the following question this applies to all cases so if you believe you're going to speak today please be sworn in do you swear affirm that the testimony and evidence you provide today is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you be seated i'll now go over some housekeeping items before we get started first we need to admit the county's land planners as expert witnesses they have all been accepted as experts in the past however if you would like to have already or any of them as their back as to their background or expertise then you may do so at this time okay without any opposition to their admission can we please have a motion to accept staff as experts in their field of land planning so moved motion do we have a second second motion a second all in favor aye thank you secondly if we have any experts of applicants then you may tender them at this time or you can wait until your case is called okay finally the planning commission must review quasi-judicial cases quasi-judicial cases means the action entails applying land development policies to a specific development application in a fair or impartial manner the commission's review is limited to two areas first consistency second compatibility regarding consistency the commission must determine whether the application is consistent with both the comp plan and the land development code the staff report and presentation will provide expert analysis and opinion regarding the applicable criteria as well as a recommendation on whether the application is consistent with those criteria regarding compatibility the commission must determine whether the application is compatible with the surrounding area the commission will be presented with testimony and evidence at the hearing both written and oral by law the only evidence that 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 to support a conclusion the following items are competent substantial evidence evidence evidence that is fact-based and relevant to the applicable criteria staff reports and staff presentations citizen testimony may be competent substantial evidence so long as it is fact-based and may include testimony regarding subjective matters that do not require expertise such as aesthetic and compatibility of a project with the 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 the project will cause increased traffic or crime is not competent substantial evidence lastly when expertise is required for technical issues like traffic engineering drainage wetland impacts school and utility capacity light and noise pollution or the application's impact on property values citizens 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 all right so just a little bit on some procedures today please everybody who's in the audience or up on the board if you have a cell phone please silence it uh when you come up to speak uh to the commission please state your name and address for the record we're going to ask you if there's multiple people speaking on a case to please to please follow down the middle aisle there and then also as you speak if you're not the applicant or staff you'll be limited to three minutes with that i think we're ready for our first case good morning the first case is ldcpas 2024-28 a small-scale conference of plan amendment jp sims is the case planner and it's actually a joint application with the with one of the property owners and mr sims will explain good morning good morning jp sims land development uh so as mishanda mentioned ldcpas dash 2024-28 is a joint application uh the original application only included the southern parcel that was part of the subject site but that there was um an issue with the acreage so we wanted to make sure that we gave them the sufficient acreage that we could do the proper land use change so we did include the parcel to the north of it as well where the dollar general is included that way it would give them sufficient acreage to um do the land use change that they're seeking the change from 7.49 acres of development of regional impact in the utility enclave area to the neighborhood activity center um it is located south of palmetto street west of audubon road north of lake hatchenaha road east of marigold and the point santa pre-dri and east of haynes city staff does recommend approval 81 mailers were sent to prayer area property owners on january 21st 2025 we received no response by the public four signs were posted on january 17th 2025 and a legal ad was published in the polk sun on january 19th 2025. so as i mentioned before we are in the point santa area at the intersection of marigold and palmetto street so this is a context view from above you can see the site is labeled in the yellow right here we said we're at the intersection of palmetto and marigold a little bit of a closer look you can see that there is the dollar general currently on site on the northern end of the subject site the rest of it is currently undeveloped now what i was mentioning before the reason why we had to ask for the joint application is because this section right here on the site is a viable wetland or at least that believes that it is so in order to prevent any impact to this if you take out the portion of the wetland on the site it actually does not give them enough developable acreage to pursue the neighborhood activity center however with the dollar general included on the north it does give them the sufficient acreage if you take out the impact to any wetlands to give them the neighborhood activity center use so currently it is listed as a development of regional impact this was part of the original point santa master plan back in 2013 we did send a clearance letter to the department of economic opportunity that swapped a vested commercial site at the southern end of this neighborhood in point santa with what this was originally slated as was multi-family load density so basically what we did was we sent a clearance letter to the state just swapping the two vested uses so this actually did receive vestige for commercial usage as early as 2013. in 2014 was when the dollar general was developed on site so there is a pre-existing commercial usage already there so if we swept it swapped it to the neighborhood activity center which is at the intersection of two urban collector roads so it actually makes sense to convert this to a commercial usage looking at the site from the intersection of marigold and palmetto you can see that the dollar general is currently there behind it is the undeveloped portion of the site looking west down palmetto street looking east down palmetto street and then again you can see the big portion of the site is undeveloped over to the right and then this is on marigold looking at the undeveloped portion so it is a lot of vegetation right there is still a lot of dense forest that's there but there's nothing currently built on the southern parcel of the site and then the image i actually had got corrupted so i had to pull this from google earth that is a recent photo so looking south on marigold avenue again you can see that there's no development on the southern parcel of the subject site there will be no impact to the schools as anticipated to be developed with commercial usages so there won't be any impact to that there are parks within the vicinity does have sheriff fire and emergency services coverage i did speak with a representative of the toho water authority and they did confirm to me that there are water and sewer lines right there at the intersection of marigold and palmetto and they do have sufficient capacity for any commercial development that might occur on the site there is sufficient capacity on the two urban collectors where the intersection is and there should be no environmental impact like i said as we've determined that the wetlands on the site will not be impacted and as i mentioned at the beginning the reason for the justification for approval is that the site was already given clearance for commercial uses back in 2013 when we sent us a clearance letter to the state the dollar general is already currently developed on the site it's at the intersection of two urban collectors and it does have available water and sewer capacity the change would allow for construction of self storage if the applicant chooses to pursue that avenue and the change would be consistent with our comprehensive plan and land development code so with that i'll stay for question any questions for staff seeing none is the applicant here or it's a joint application or are you i mean i'm the joint applicant so okay help field any questions awesome okay sorry okay yeah thank you okay uh would you like to come forward and say anything as a co-applicant you're good thank you all right anybody here to speak for against this case please step forward all right seeing none we'll close the public portion of public comment of the hearing we're back to the applicant or the board for a motion in or discussion i have a question mr yes go ahead mr bishop is is there the a plan or is a requirement that there be a connection with the uh dollar general and any future development of the site i mean is it going to be independent of that there's not going to be any way to connect or will there be a requirement that they can make a connection you mean like cross-access yeah we haven't discussed that portion of it yet though but i don't believe that there would be a requirement no okay it's unfortunate okay any other questions for staff for the applicant mr chairman moved to approve we have a motion to approve we have a second motion and a second to approve roll call mr bishop please robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion merle bishop i'm for the motion brooke ignini for the motion mike hickman for the motion renee heath for the motion mike schmidt for the motion mr chairman the motion passes thank you next case all right number two on the agenda is ldcu 2024 39 and aliyah anglima is your planner good morning aliyah anglima with land development presenting number two on the agenda ldcu 2024-39 the saint helena sand mine modification the applicant is requesting a major modification to existing conditional use permit 07-12 the proposed modification is to add 466 acres of lands north and east of the existing approved non-phosphate mind the subject site is located south of tyndall camp road north of masterpiece road east of lake mabel loop road west of lake pierce east of the city of lake wales in section 12 township 29 range 27 on january 21st 16 mailers were sent to area property owners 26 signs were posted on january 21st and a legal ad was published in the polk sun on january 19th with no responses from the public as you can see here the subject site is located just east of the city of look excuse me uh mr chairman i'd like to move to expedite we have a motion to expedite do we have a second second all in favor aye oh do we have anyone in the public here to speak for against this case are you the applicant are you here to speak against work okay sorry then we won't be able to expedite go ahead the subject site is located just east of the city of lake wales as you can see here half of the subject site is located in agriculture residential rural future lane use and the other half is located within a residential suburban future lane use the mine was originally permitted at 20 acres by the board of county commissioners on july 18th 1995 the mine received a 7-0 approval with conditions to expand the existing sand mine operations for an additional 70 acres in the arr land use district on june 12 2007. the proposed sand mine will now add an additional 466 acres of lands north and east of the existing approved non-phosphate mine mine materials will be removed from this property for use elsewhere the proposed mine area will go to a planned depth at about 30 feet deep the total life of the mine is intensive anticipated to last approximately 80 years from county approval with the reclamation process occurring just after the mining area one is expected to be done in about five years mining area two will be six to 30 years and the mining area three will go from 31 to 80 years a few residential uses such as about seven homes are near the mine which requires the mine to be at least 100 feet away the applicant is proposing a six-foot berm around the perimeter of all mining areas the berm is 50 foot wide and will be sodded and act as a buffer to the residential homes nearby the toe of the berm will be at least 25 feet from the property line the saint helena sand mine will continue to produce sign sand primarily used for commercial construction aggregates concrete asphalt clean film material fdot and other critical regional infrastructure projects the proposed operation will occur from 4 a.m to 6 p.m monday through saturday the sand will be mined using a hydraulic dredge which will pump the product subsurface to a processing plant to be washed sized and stockpiled for delivery to customers by commercial sand trucks the processing plant will remain in the same location as shown on the site plan the plant area will be located about 115 feet which is more than 35 feet below the grade of st helena road much of this mine will operate below the grid of the abutting roadways this will minimize noise vibration dust the closest residential home will be approximately 420 feet away from the plant area the most impactful activity associated with this mine is the trucks entering and exiting the facility the traffic circulation plan shown in exhibit eight estimates that about 70 percent of the truck traffic will be west along masterpiece road while the 30 will be east along masterpiece road a masterpiece road is a rural major collector roadway main access will be on st helena roadway where trucks will go south to reach reach masterpiece road for the transportation of material it is estimated that there will be about an average output of 167 trucks per day leaving the site and staff has recommended conditions on roadway maintenance polk's environmental lands program acquires preserves protects manages and restores endangered and environmentally sensitive lands water resources and important wildlife habitats once the mine is finished the reclamation will provide habitat and resources for endangered species traveling throughout the area according to the post closure plan the end result of this mine activity will include residential property for the landowner so here's a view of the site just north of masterpiece road and here's another view of the site off st helena road so this is an example of a mine in the county that we do not want the end result to look like and this mine is within the city of lake wales it has a high fence that is entirely around the perimeter the mine presented today will return to a natural lake at a four to one slope staff has added conditions with this mine that any institutional fencing shall be removed once the mine reclamation is finished and the proposed request is consistent with the land the land development code and the crop comprehensive plan and i'll stand for questions any questions for staff the angle of repose for the mine itself appears really steep along that six foot impact we had a something there and uh there seems like a yeah up on the left there there seems like an awful good likelihood given the natural soils of central florida that we i'm assuming would be normal here um is that is that how it's going to end up as well as shown on the upper operation plan that's how it will look like they will be required to be at that four to one slope i can't read that what's the slope there does it say it's a little too small just to explain our mind standards it's it's affordable i'm sorry eric peterson for the land development division thank you everybody knows me here um yes the in the closure now operation is totally different right but in the closure uh they'll have to restore the bank to a four to one slope to a depth of six feet below the the low water mark and from that point then it can drop to a two to one slope uh standard you know swift mud would be just two to one without it we require that four to one for a natural to return it to a natural state of a natural lake essentially you said that 401 extends beyond to the water depth yes beyond below the water depth to a depth of six feet at its lowest uh depth i've never seen that way we don't have to put a fence around it i mean they might have an agricultural fence but we don't have to put barbed wire concertina wire or something like that and make it look like a so that the illustration shows a two to one slope for the operation that's during the operation the operation the site's going to right going to be secured but we're talking in post-closure what they leave behind is the is the six foot berm is that for overburden to dewater or the six six foot berm is to further buffer the operations plant just for vision there'll be you know it'll be at 115 the grade of uh saint helena somewhere around 142 and then you'll have that additional berm around the perimeter that will give you that extra depth and buffering and screening i've just never seen that steep of an angle maintained even during an operation you're talking on the berm yeah well no the the underwater section of that profile that was shown right there we don't we don't have a restriction during the operation so i i they show it as as however they show it okay yeah any other questions for staff mr chair quick question for staff um regarding the with some of these with our hearing um just for the audience's records we were in the middle of the sand mine case case number two there was a question from the board uh rep in reference to some of the angles and mr dalton had a question so we'll continue at that point yes quick question for staff alia just for confirmation regarding the setback because they do have the uh ability to reduce it by 75 feet but if that was the case in the future they'd have to come back before the planning commission correct correct okay thank you all right any more questions from the board to staff before we have the applicant come forward all right with that we'll let the applicant come forward state your name and record for the king good morning commissioners for the record bart allen i'm a land use attorney with the peterson and myers law firm my address is 225 east lemon street lakeland florida i'm here this morning on behalf of the applicant i4 sand company before i get into kind of comments and some presentations i do have just a couple little housekeeping items i do have several folks with me this morning i want to make sure i introduce them and then i'd also like to introduce my team as for purposes of qualifying them as an expert all right i did a presentation on green leaf the other day and the powerpoint function messed all my powerpoint up so now i'm doing it differently and and it's a little so i'm trying to get acclimated to that all right so with me this morning i4 sand company just before i talk about my experts a little bit who's i4 sand company i4 sand company is is a parent is owned by blue water industries with me this morning i have mr carlos vergara from from blue water also involved in that is ted baker they are an aggregate producer throughout the southeast they have several facilities here in florida they have a couple facilities here in polk county already most recently we were in front of uh anybody who was here in 2021 we approved a site that we referred to as cypress sand mine that's just in the green swamp same group same people they've been involved the baker family has been involved in in carlos and begars have been involved in aggregates for over 100 years in the state of florida so they're very familiar with the business formerly florida rock which is a pretty common name that that everybody recognized so family of business really great to work with so really honored to be here this morning with blue water and i4 sand our team this is very similar team to what you saw in 2021 i'm going to introduce all of them if that's okay with miss howard and then we'll do one motion at the end if that's acceptable the cleanest group has been responsible for lead engineering and environmental mark stevens is a part of that team he's here he's a professional engineer and a professional geologist with almost 50 years 50 years experience doing these types of activities also he's also the president of of the cleanest group also with us matt mouncy he's got 25 years in the environmental permitting side on these types of projects he's also a part of our team working in conjunction with the cleanest group i have mr lee walton from verdantis he's a certified wildlife biologist he's been handling the more the the species type activities to make sure that we're protecting the gopher tortoises and the skinks and going through all of those sorts of environmental processes as as the project has come along kim lee horn amber gardner she's a professional engineer she has performed our transportation impact analysis she is here as well she has 18 years of experience in transportation and planning and then also tracy mouncy who is part of our environmental compliance and permitting team and then we peterson and myers we have been providing land use counsel i would like at this time to introduce mr stevens mr mouncy mr walton and miss gardner as experts in the respective fields relative to the permitting and environmental compliance issues with this non-phosphate mine and i have a copy of their resumes for purposes of the record and i have some additional copies if anybody in the audience would like a copy so all right uh any questions for the applicant in reference to experts or the resumes hearing none i'll entertain a motion to accept their their folks as experts so moved second we have motion and second all in favor voting for the applicants experts aye aye thank you all right we're going to move into kind of work through this presentation it's i can tell i'm here too often because my presentations and staff's presentations seem to overlap quite a bit so i'm going to move pretty quickly through some of these slides because a couple of them are a little duplicative but what we're asking for here today is a major modification of an existing non-phosphate mine that existing phosphate mine is approved as cu0712 currently and it was originally permitted under in 1995 by conditional use so this original 90 acres has been an ongoing non-phosphate mine for 30 years more or less at this point and what we are doing i4 sand and blue water has acquired that that use and we're now acquired additional land and we're expanding the use and going not just from a borrow pit which is what it's been asking acting as today but also now adding the sand mining component to that as well so we've got the original 90 acre conditional use which when you actually go out and survey it after right away was dedicated and things of that nature through the original permit is actually 84.8 acres that's why if you start doing the math some of the numbers don't seem to seem to jive but at the end of the day when you take the original conditional use that area plus our additional property we're looking at a 551.2 acre non-phosphate mine it's located generally at the intersection of masterpiece and saint helena road and we have not changed any of the conditions as it relates to access hall routes things like that the access point will remain on saint helena where it is today we're actually making improvements to that i'll get into that in just a second to to eliminate some kind of some existing issues and then the haul route will go as it currently is these are allowed uses in the arr and the residential suburban lane use classifications as conditional uses which is what we're here to seek this is the proposed location the same slide again just kind of demonstrating the the arr on the left which is the white the residential suburban is that lighter yellow on the east side and you can see the existing conditional use is the the yellow area highlighted on that screen project location saint helena road highlighted here existing conditional use and you can see kind of the extent of the mining activity that that had occurred at the time of this aerial with our haul route remaining generally on saint helena road and by condition going to the south so you will have access to us 27 state road 60 scenic highway through masterpiece and mammoth grove road compliance with the process this has gone through all of the requirements that are embedded in section 906 of your land development code there was a pre-app that occurred in august of this year we filed the application in october there were a couple additional information support submitted and at the conclusion of all that in november we did receive a recommendation of approval from your drc staff recommendation of approval and you heard miss and gleema give you a very good presentation earlier and i really appreciate all her work we i'm sure she is tired of seeing my phone number pop up over the past few days but i really really appreciate everything that aliyah has done to help us get here today outside of just the standard approval process that we have to go through based on your lane development code there has been tremendous amount of community outreach miss mouncy and our team um have sent mailers we've gone out knocked on doors with neighbors in in the area we've had on-site property visits with some of those homeowners we've even had some meetings with some other stakeholders in the area so there's been outside of just the required process there's been other activities on that and i really commend miss mouncy for for her efforts in that we've even met with the county commissioners on this as well just to kind of keep them in the loop so so what are we asking for here the conditional use is basically broken into two parts we're asking for and this is out of section 303 of your lane development code we are here now really for the mine plan approval the operating permit comes in with level twos assuming a favorable vote here today and what you what the mine plan approval is three parts in and of itself and that's the operations plan the reclamation plan and the post closure plan similar site slide to what you just saw from this and gleema's presentation again this is this here is the operation side of the plan so you go operations then once you're done mining you got to reclaim it and then you have the post closure use and what you can see here and i'll come and uh commissioner smith you had some questions there at the end about uh about things but um from a mine perspective and the operating plant perspective the intent is and what we're asking for in our conditional use is to locate the actual sifting and the sorting and the washing of the materials in the existing conditional use as it's as the borrow pit and is completed and as that initial mining activity is completed that's going to be at the bottom of that of that activity so it's going to be anywhere from 35 to 50 feet below grade so all of that activity will be visually screened just by virtue of being on a totally different elevation from any from adjacent property owners in addition to the six foot berm that's going to go around the perimeter of the site so it's really heavily screened that that berm will be vegetated it will have grassing and landscaping and things like that um it provides security it provides visual protection it also helps control storm water keeps the storm water on our site things like that so it's it's multi-purpose the other aspect that i think is important here one of the one of the issues that we we talked with staff about significantly was making sure that we had the ability to prevent stacking of trucks on saint helena road you know some you know we want to make sure that we can get the vehicles off the road you know during times when we're shut down you know and the and the uh trucks may get there before operating hours are commenced so what we have done is we've located an internal hauling road effectively where the gate will be recessed significantly into the site that's going to allow any trucks that arrive before we can before we're allowed and permitted through the conditions to move material they'll be able to stack on site and that keeps people off the road that keeps those dump trucks off the road i think that's really important because right now it doesn't act that way cross section of the of the mine yes during operations we do have the ability to go to the angle of repose which is effectively two to one that is very common in all of the non-phosphate sand mines that we've operated and we i'm not an operator my clients have operated in polk county it's consistent with the dep and the water management district regulations um and so that is that is a standard operating procedure here when we come back through the reclamation plan you know you'll have a large water body and we are required at that time to reclaim it to a four to one slope six feet below the water line and then we can move to the angle of repose and and as was as mr peterson accurately pointed out that allows that water body to become more of a natural lake it creates almost a littoral shelf type activity you know so that it can be used for fishing it can be used for other activities as well and this is also standard within within the mining industry post-closure plan this is a conceptual post-closure plan as to how as to how this property may function 80 years from now obviously i don't think many of us there's some younger people in here but i know i won't be around in 80 years and but this is this is what we will you know use it for at that time in in in the conceptual nature we wanted to make sure that we showed that it wasn't that it had a secondary use because non-phosphate model is an interim use for the land we've evaluated all the impacts we've done evaluation of protected species we are you know we will physically move we know we have some gopher tortoises on site we will move those as we move through the site we can't go move 560 acres worth of gopher tortoises because it's only good for 90 days so we will we will do some of those permitting activities as we move through the site but basic evaluation of the site we are not identifying any adverse impacts on this piece of property and that's been done and i meant to change that up flatwoods that should say verdantism i apologize mr walton and we've also been evaluating groundwater and surface water this is actually will result in an overall reduction in groundwater withdrawals from the site right now this this 560 acres is permitted to withdraw over 600 000 gallons per day from the aquifer as we move through the agriculture that that will those permitted capacities will have to reduce because we will be removing the citrus so that's a net benefit to the aquifer over the long term we will also not be going below the confining layer so there's no there's no impacts to any of um adverse impacts to ground and surface water transportation kimley horn did a very good job on the transportation analysis we are less than one percent of the overall pm peak our trips being generated from the site so it's a de minimis activity at the end of the day there is no reduction in the level of service on the transportation network based on the ability to the amount of amount of production that can come from the site based on the number of days per year and things like that we anticipate 350 trips per day out of the site which is 160 trucks that that i'm missing lemma referenced earlier that is based on the actual capacities the capacities of our trucks and things like that so it's based on real data and based on the experience of their other sand mines in in the in the region so wrapping up i'll get to the i'll get to the conclusion these are the criteria that are incorporated in section 906 for a level 3 review we have established compatibilities sand mining and non-phosphate mining is allowed throughout the county pretty much as a level 3 use there's non-phosphate mines just to our south right off of 60 with simax and vulcan it's it occurs in these areas we have adequate screening and protection we're not asking for any deviation from the step setbacks commissioner dalton as you pointed out we're staying at the 100 feet all the way around even though there is some opportunity to ask for that we are not asking for any deviations the activity is going to be down basically in a hole where the where the actual screening and things so we've got plenty of protection to address noise and vibration and air staff has reviewed all of our submittals they find everything to be in compliance there's six or seven pages worth of criteria in section 303 of your land development code that they have to review as part of this process and they found that we meet or exceed all of those standards and with that just kind of conclusion why are we here sand sand mining is a critical resource within the state of florida this has been determined by the state legislature so having these opportunities to get into these businesses and to provide this material for the construction whether it's homes or roads or any other any other construction activity in the state of florida it's it's been determined as extremely important so with that we've got a staff recommendation of approval finding that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan compatible with the area and meeting the land development code we'll stand for any questions i know there's a couple people here i will ask for a couple of minutes of rebuttal at the end of the comments any questions from the board from yeah go ahead the the embankment what was that six foot will that be continuously maintained during operations the the berm yes yes okay number two the client also operates crushed concrete and that is not going to be a we are not asked that's a really good question we're not asking for any crushing we're not asking for any batch plants we're not making concrete on site we are mining sand and selling sand and that is the limit any of those kinds of activities would require additional modifications if we wanted to move the plant where it's located on the mine today just those activities that would require coming back for a major modification so no we are not asking for any of that any other questions from the applicant thank you all right now we'll turn it over for public comment uh please come forward if you wish to speak for against this case i remind you that you'll have three minutes and please address your comments to the board yes my name is sarah renad and honestly all of my questions and concerns have been addressed through listening to this so i am no longer opposed thank you very much anybody else here to speak for or against this case please step forward i thought we had a couple folks name and address for the record good morning my name is roberto candelaria my address is 4900 st helena road lake wells florida i'm in the middle of the whole process that you guys are doing um i don't find it particularly safe for for my family so i wanted to read something real quick sorry that i'm a little nervous because i never stand in front of people like this um objection to sand mine expansion this letter is to express our strong objection to the proposed expansion of the sand mine surrounding our property this expansion proposes uh poses significant risk to our environment and family well-being including dust pollution increased mining activity will generate excessive dust leading respiratory problems to my family containing our family water sources my family suffers from from asthma i have a an autistic son my wife has respiratory problems we do have uh our property right in the middle of this of this uh situation happening here and we're kind of afraid of our family's uh well-being uh noise pollution uh we already experienced the noise from the trucks all day every day passing through saint helena road they have destroyed the road it's dusty it's nasty i've always complained since i moved over there about that little land mine which is not little huge so now they're trying to expand it and make it even worse i don't understand how they expect that to hide that big disgusting uh landfill because it looks disgusting and ugly uh the floors are full of dust they're all yellow all the little uh reflectors from the roads are gone they they destroyed them they go 100 miles per hour down that road i'm afraid of my wife going to take the kids to school because of that okay property value will decline the prices of expanding mine will significantly diminish the value of the property as well as of of being able to sell so that's another uh uh concern that we have so once they create that that landfill that they're going to do how am i going to sell my house how is it going to appreciate and it's not just seven houses that are there there's multiple houses that are around that area it's not just seven they they they were conveniently showing pictures that that don't represent where we live there's kids that stand in the bus stop to wait for the bus and these trucks are going miles 100 miles per hour through there we have wells what are they going to do with the water banks you know there's a lot of concerns that we have and um i i oppose this seriously and i'm sorry i don't bring backup i'm not a an expert but i do have common sense you know i didn't bring a whole team i didn't bring satan and his angels to back me up but i do understand that this is not going to be the best thing for our family and the people surrounding that area and thank you excuse me sir excuse me sir sir can uh can can we pull up on the on the screen there an aerial of the of where the sand mine is or the mine and can you show us where your house is located in relation to that mine if you don't mind hold on just a second okay that's it right there okay thank you how many how many homes are there there's about seven okay so is this not an up-to-date aerial okay can you zoom in any that's interesting right click right click your mouse no say where you are and just hit right click there you go and where's sir where's the bus stop at that you're just referring and sir if you could speak into the mic just to make sure we're capturing your testimony thank you sure so in the corner going up there's uh uh people waiting on the going more up i know there's kids that that stay there on the bus stop i can't really he knows more because i i don't go in that area as much okay mm-hmm thank you but along that road you think okay mr mr chairman there's another illustration that shows parcels i count eight parcels in that i don't know if it has that parcel package this looks like like 35 343 thank you thank you thank you sir anyone else here to speak for against this case please step forward just a reminder name and address for the record 5300 fairmont road um and i i i'm in complete uh i i do not agree that this is that this is something that benefits us as a community um like he mentioned the trucks go there they start at four o'clock in the morning uh the address that he was mentioning was where the bus stop is is on tyndall camp road and um tyndall camp and saint elena road there there's a couple kids that that go there every morning and you see the trucks flying by they they there's hogs that they kill that they leave stranded in the road they don't pick them up um they mentioned that they reached out to us door knocking that i never received any any i've never seen anyone i never um this is the only notice i received two weeks ago and again i am completely opposed to this this is not something that's going to be environmental for us we do have wells we're going to lose the water the water tables at six feet so what's going to happen to our homes this is probably going to cause uh sink sinkholes so these are things that they're probably not looking there's horses that they're going to literally um if you pull up on the on the map right where the right where that the where the arrow is pointing there is a horse there's there's a horse um there's two acres that there's horses there what's going to happen to the noise thank you thank you anybody else to speak for against this case please step forward thank you sir good morning commission my name is patrick henry i'm at three three one four slash pine drive lake wales florida i frequently drive these roads that we're talking about developing for a new sand mine uh daily back and forth to and from work to and from the mall in lake wales i'm concerned about road improvements saint helena road has very very very little easement probably three to four feet off the roadway the fences that surround this current mine the entire right of way is destroyed it's soft sand if you were to pull your vehicle over for any emergency you couldn't render aid to your vehicle you would be in the roadway the trucks stack up day and night along that roadway i didn't hear any proposal for turn lanes any road improvements i didn't hear any of that any additional easements to expand that we're talking about a six foot buffer along the perimeter fence which would take saint helena road into a tunnel in my best respect you know you have three or four foot easement and now you're going to put six foot high on each side not going to be appeasing or appealing to anyone driving down that road you also um the intersection of masterpiece and saint helena is a frequent accident location uh the asphalt is littered with with tire tracks from people sliding and skidding their vehicles because when the sand mine trucks pull out and make access on to masterpiece going east or west they pull out in front of the visibility is bad the hillside is there as well so there's no proposed turn lanes on masterpiece those trucks continue westbound towards scenic highway and masterpiece that intersection that needs improvement there is no turn lanes there as well you'll get 13 sand trucks in line at the red light you have to go through cycles of the red light before you can turn or proceed through that light just if you're going to expand us 500 percent 100 and 340 trips per day we need road improvements there's nothing planned in this and that's that's not acceptable to the community around there that supports those roads and travels those roads and pays taxes i just don't see the money being returned back to these roads it needs to be done that way so i would be and oppose that i live in a community and would not appreciate this expansion thank you thank you thank you for your comments sir anyone else here speak for against come on and if you're here to speak for against please queue up behind her in the middle aisle um so i'm here to say i also didn't get i need your name and address for the rata gracia colado 4900 st helena road i'm also here to say i never received no one come to my home to let me know what's going on or how the community is helping or supporting them because i'm part of the community and i'm not supporting this um when we moved to our home we didn't take it as an investment property this was our forever home i suffer with health issues they're showing these ugly pictures of these broken down trees that's not what you see there it's beautiful everyone who comes to my home they say how beautiful it is because we're surrounded by beautiful orange groves that's our neighbors more all you see there's orange groves since my health is so bad since i've been living there praise the lord my health has been better just because of the surroundings i have an autistic son and he does not do well with noise the only thing that destroys the peace is the trucks when they come running through there which is scary and we had to spend almost ten thousand dollars just to fence our home and our surroundings because we have children we are afraid of them of the trucks when they go there this has been a nightmare to my family we don't sleep we haven't rested since this happened we understand lake wells is expanding and we're happy for him we're all for it but don't leave us there because it's inhumane if you want to do this project buy us out buy us out with an intention knowing that when we bought our home the interest rates are low now we're afraid because even if we move we can't afford it you understand we might have to look for new jobs this has taken a toll over our family we're literally in the center of the surrounding we talk about god and we serve god and the law what does god say he says if wherever there is bearing fruit you do not touch a bearing fruit you do not remove that and what do they want to do they want to remove that isn't florida so beautiful a state with our natural oranges we're taking that away from florida so what so add more lakes because that's what's going to turn into what's going to happen to our home what's going to happen to our surroundings what's going to happen to our mental health if this takes action nobody's going to want to rent from us we won't be able to we won't be able to move if we wanted to so we ask us if this needs to take place which we would understand buy us out don't leave us there because it will be inhumane that's all i have to say thank you very much thank you anyone else speak for against please come forward how you doing my name is alex santos i'm at 49 12 st helena road i'm right there on the corner my concern is also i mean on phase one you guys do have a hydraulic pump there taking all that sand what's going to happen phase three where you're going to locate that pump to take remove all that sand and mining all that is that going to be right behind my backyard this is my future home i just got there this is my first home i thought this was going to be my forever home and now i'm concerned what's going to happen around me i just want to know where's that pump going to go in phase three on that side you guys are on phase one taking all that dirt out but once you get to the other side where's that pump going to go thank you anyone else here to speak for or against this case from the public please step forward all right seeing none we'll go ahead and close the public portion of this hearing and move back to the applicant for answers or questions sorry a couple things um just to kind of talk about real quick here and i'll be mindful of everybody's time from an operations perspective this is a wet mine so outside of just immediate you know immediately moving the overburden all of this will be done in a water environment there is no dust created from the mining operation it is done with a dredge a water dredge so it is and it will all be pumped back to the plant as it exists today so as you can see on on this exhibit here you can see a little bit of a gray here a little bit of a gray here and a little bit of a gray there there will be jack and bore pipes pushed underneath the ground so that the so that the material can be conveyed underground through the water and back through pipes to the site so there won't be additional trucks going internally around the site to get material from one side of the other this is all a wet activity right with all due respect to your wet activity these trucks are going to be hauling damp wet sand and the leakage from those trucks falls onto the roads and then is driven over by other vehicles and dried out and turned to a dust i've seen it my company for whatever it's worth used to design these and that was high tech solutions engineering group downtown lakeland and i don't claim to be an expert but i've been to these sites numerous times and i've seen not only them in operations but the aftermath and that the the consideration of the dust and the dirt that leaves this site and is deposited upon roadways etc is a valid concern and we have conditions in place that require one traffic calling to go to the south so the traffic calling the truck calling will not be going north along st helena road it will not be going near or past these people we are by condition required to go to the south and now a masterpiece of mammoth grove road so the folks on st helena north should not experience any of that and if any of that does occur it's either not our trucks or it's a code enforcement issue i mean and it is a very much a significant one that we take very seriously um as it relates to the materials the sand does not go out damp i mean it may have a little moisture in it certainly but it is not wet it is sorted it is dried it is stacked i think i believe it's about 10 gallons per thou per ton of material that's how much moisture is in the in this sand so it is not a wet sand it is not dripping water from the back of back of the trucks and leaving that sort of thing and to that extent we have conditions in the conditional use that are in existence today that require maintenance and monitoring of and cleanup of right away and things like that requires us to place a surety bond on road improvements for if there is damage to st helena road and the stacking and issues that i heard raised by some of the residents on st helena road today as i mentioned in my case originally we we had heard those concerns previous to even moving forward with this which is why we have designed the site so that there is significant stacking inside the property before so that there will not be any more stacking on on st helena road we will be able to do it all internally before you get to the security gate and get access to where you can load your load your vehicle so i think i think that's a really critical piece of this right is being able to help and alleviate some of those concerns and we recognize that the the wet dredging is also important because it's done electronic it with electricity it's not diesel pumps there's no in there's no loud engines running to create a significant amount of noise while the dredging is occurring it's all done elect through with electricity which keeps the noise down or can i ask a quick question just on why you're talking about the topic so just so i understand everything is going to be even when you're doing phase two or phase three or moving towards the north on your hydraulic mining operations everything will be hydraulically pumped to the area that's actively being used today that's correct all trucks will be staged and loaded inside the parcel that's correct and then we'll all go south from there where do they enter the road from that operation today generally on the south end right then they go straight south to master police so there should be no trucks going to the north should be no trucks going to the north there's no trucks going to tunnel camp road from this activity that where they've referenced the school bus site all of the truck all the trips all the traffic should should go south from this site away from those go ahead bart since we're talking about traffic i was going to wait till your presentation was done but yes sir um is there any off-site roadway improvements that have to be done on either one of the roads no sir our traffic study concluded that that there are no off-site impacts we are a de minimis i mean we are less than one percent of the pm peak hour trips that on on the network so there are no improvements that are required all right thank you and that and that transportation analysis is part of your packet it was submitted as part of our application that's one percent by count by load right one percent by volume i believe by service volume one percent by service volume will be produced the traffic study as i mentioned 334 trips per day 167 trucks a day based on the capacity of the plant the capacity of the trucks and that's assuming you know pushing all of those through that day there will be days when there will be less than that right i mean just by virtue of sales and things of that nature so what is the increase then in truck trips there'll be a not significant commissioner hickman as it exists today um not significant not significant there's there is a currently having what do they anticipate i don't know how many trips they're pushing out today but i know that they've increased it a little bit because we're trying to get the um site ready to move into this phase of it because right now all it is acting as is a borrow pit and we're trying to get some of those areas cleared so we have i would say that there has been some increase recently over historical but i would say on the on the whole when you look at the activities whether it's a borrow pit or a sand mine there's not a tremendous difference um from a capacity perspective on on a daily basis may i ask who owns currently the various parcels that are attached to this blue water industries which is high foreseen company they have mr vergara and ted baker they have purchased all of it we have closed on it yes they're not contingent on this proposal or no sir anything else okay we can pull up the property appraiser website if you like your word for it mr chairman yes um did i hear you say in your presentation that you were providing additional right away there was we haven't gotten to that point yet what i was saying commission uh mr bishop was the original c use says 90 acre conditional use but when you actually go out and survey that land that is owned in the yellow it's 84.8 and i believe the difference between the 90 and 84.8 relates to right away that was previously dedicated by the prior owner and the prior operator along jail massey road and along st helena road there may be some additional right away that that would be required that's all level two issues require you to bring the right away up to if whatever the minimum standard is if if it's a 40 foot from center line which is typical for collector road and it is deficient along our property boundary we will be required to dedicate that right okay another question i have is is there a condition that if there is any damage to the roadway that could be attributed to your trucks that you would be liable for the repairs necessary for the roadways say shoulder deterioration or some other damage that could occur that would be associated with truck traffic that's condition number seven okay and it relates to uh providing a surety in the amount to guarantee the cost of requiring any damage to the driveway and the result of the mining operation this includes milling paving signing marking at the driveways uh this surety shall remain in place for the entire life of the mine thank you we interrupted your presentation oh you sure did i don't know if you want to continue or not continue with questions uh no you're you're fine let me just um water water issues as part of the um dep and the uh water management district uh permitting process we will be establishing pizometers although at certain distances around the entire perimeter of the site that ensures that if there's that we're continuously monitoring groundwater levels and surface water levels that are and to identify if there ever are any issues off site from my experience and my conversations with matt we have not seen any of those issues on prior mines that sand mines of similar nature in similar situations so we'll be monitoring all that we're required to monitor all that through the permitting process um and traffic i think we touched on everything's going south noise it's all electric oh no blasting this does not have any blasting you know this is a sand mine this isn't aggro this isn't a rock mine you know so there will be no blasting and things like that um the berm the berms along the edges of the property those are at a three to one slope those will be six foot tall which means you'll basically have 18 feet then there's a 10 foot tall or a 10 foot wide top and then it'll slope back down inside the site on the three to one slope as well so it's not a it's it won't create a tunnel effect they'll also be type a landscaping all along the boundaries of those at the toe of the at the toe of the berm so it'll be it'll be well maintained and landscaped for the life of the mine outside of that i think those were the high points that i heard if there's any additional questions we would um request um or well i'll bring up somebody on my team um with that we'll request a favorable vote today on this request it meets all of the standards of your lane development code it or exceeds them we're improving the situation as it exists today as it relates to traffic and being able to get trucks off the road and what we're asking for is is an important project it's important to the state that's recognized by the statute that i referenced earlier today and it's done and it is done in a very respectful manner as it relates to using electric electrical equipment it keeps the noise down it keeps those activities minimized to have to limit off-site and adverse impacts and to anybody that did not get a notice we apologize i also know that miss mounsey went and put door door hangers on every on all of those homes and with a number to call and we called every one of them back that called us so if somebody did not get a contact we're we're here we'll be happy to talk to them after the hearing um but we you know that certainly wasn't anybody's intent to exclude or omit anybody because we we went to great lengths to do that before we even filed applications so we would again request a favorable vote this morning on this project thank you are there any other questions from the board mr allen i'll have a question so don't run away too much but any other questions from other board members for mr allen mr allen one of the questions i had was and you speak about the six foot high uh buffer and so you just mentioned there's a type a is that going to be so there's going to be the type a buffer then the berm then from offset yes that's correct and that'll all be offset off of the right away and so when you get to the properties where we had people speak to that are in the center of the operations there what does that look like on the right side yeah where your cursor is they'll also have the same berm it'll be offset off the property line i don't know exactly how far off right off the top of my head i can ask uh mr bouncy or miss steven mr stevens do to to give you that question but it will be similarly burned and secured yeah if you can have someone speak to that i'd be just curious mark stevens uh with the colinas group uh 2031 east edgewood drive in lakeland and the question i'll address is related to the berm surrounding those residential properties and the type a buffer what we're looking like from their property line to where you begin mining operations that that berm will extend uh around this this property and also coming up coming up san helena right here so they will be berms surrounding those properties and they will have type a buffers or type a landscaping on the outside toe of that berm so so property line type a landscaping berm up for up four to one or three to one three to both okay up three to one ten foot back down the back side what's the distance give or take the distance from the property line to the outside toe of the berm will be about 70 feet and all mining operations have to stay 100 feet off is that correct yeah the setback from the mining operation is required to be 100 feet the berm can be built in that setback area sure okay so you have adequate buffer and screening it sounds like and then speak to me a little bit uh bart i believe earlier mentioned there's about 600 000 gallons being pumped out of this area today by use right you guys are obviously doing hydraulic operation there'll be some water loss when you take the mayor material out with you what we're probably talking about a net benefit back to definitely a death net benefit back because we're the the only water that's consumptively used in the sand mine is the water that's entrained in the product as it leaves the property uh the rest of the water it's there's no de-watering that occurs the rest of the water is recycled uh from the from the dredge to the plant and then that water is put back in the in the lake right okay so you actually probably see a recovery or rebound of water levels in the area should should see that i think you'd less draw it on in the upper florida aquifer yes right okay i just wanted to clarify those and and regardless you're going to be monitoring those as mr allen mentioned with localized wells yeah we have 19 bisometers surrounding the property right now and we have pressure transducers in those that measure the water levels continuously and when the lakes are created we'll have staff gauges in those lakes to measure the elevations of water in the lakes and that data will be reported to the florida department of environmental protection on a on a quarterly or semi-annual basis okay thank you very much any other questions for the applicant all right i'll bring the item back to the board for a discussion and or motion i have a question for yes sir go ahead perhaps our attorney this is part of our board discussion go ahead yes our um one of my former corporations i was an officer in uh we did this type of work routinely both for the mines and for sand mines i've never worked for these people before i assume there is no need for me to recuse oh i i based on what you've said i don't see any conflict unless you feel like you can't make a decision impartially i can i can i just know a good bit about what no that's i think your and that's why our expertise is fine yes i wouldn't see a reason to recuse i was asked to serve here i think i think because i see my job up here as both looking out for the commercial interests of polk county but also the citizens interest of polk county and i will be making my decision on that basis mr chair i have a quick question for staff oh yeah sure um did you hear anything in the public testimony that changes your view on the case no sir okay thank you okay any other discussion amongst the board mr chair go ahead sir go ahead i was going to make a motion but if you got another it troubles me a little bit that the uh proposal did not show up to date aerials i think it's part of the latest that staff has right did not show the housing is which i think is latest is like 2020 the latest one 23 23 okay that's what it looks like today if you took a picture of it today other than the grove it'd be more dead right let me just ask is the grove operations today active or there's trucks associated on the roadways relative to the grove operations today i know a little history on that go ahead good question um so the a lot of this property the additional property was owned by the garnier family and as they were getting out of the the industry they began taking less and less care of the growth um it is still active and that's one thing that uh blue water and carlos and ted have really spent a lot of time on is they've actually are now engaging they have hired a new caretaker they will be caretaking these groves and maintaining them um for the for the life of the trees prior to the mining so i actually believe that will be an improvement in the groves moving forward as as a result of this and you said the operational lifestyle of this is how many years 80 years is what we're estimating you know looking at kind of the phase three area just because it it popped out on the screen as i was sitting here it'll be 40 40 plus years before we get to that side of you know that side of the area so from a from a gauge perspective yes we're looking we're estimating 80 years for the entire mine but you're looking 40 years before we ever jump across the street thank you still be chairman then certainly hope not because nobody else is going to want the job all right so we've had a lot of discussion any more support just another question uh the restoration is that only occur then after 80 years or do as they do a phase do they restore those phases i mean once they dig out a section as they move through the mine as that as an area is completed for mine they go back and reclaim it at that time they don't they won't leave the entire 561 and then 85 years from now so the first restoration would be anticipated when probably the closure of what i would call phase two this area will be the i got a little confused by both of it on the screen as this area is mine this will this area on the southwest the current conditional use will be where the actual stacking and activity sorting activity will go so that will probably be the last right because you got to mine the rest and then as they move forward you know 25 30 years from now and they finish phase two and they move to phase three they'll close phase two as they're moving into phase three now the timing of all that commissioner hickman will be very market driven of course and you know but yes that that will be the sequence of events i thought of one more question with these sand mines what to and you once you do the reclamation work uh with the closeout of the mine is there any riparian rights that go with the adjacent properties or do you just retain the rights and people who join your the property that was the mine that's now a lake a man-made lake do they have any rights for the use of that talking about call it the residents that are out there today yeah i mean do they have any will they have any repair that's a question i saw you look on your face i thought oh nobody knows the answer well i i think the answer is is i would have to ask one of my my transactional and title attorneys but i suspect my gut feel is probably not okay i'm just i i'm just curious that is not official legal advice i just claim all of that there's a nice lake down behind my house and i can i use it or not all right just real quick um you you were talking a little bit about the phasing activities i understand it's gonna be market driven but tomorrow you guys don't assuming you're moving forward you don't put up all these berms tomorrow you kind of do this as you're working through this process these groves will stay groves until we move the activity into there and then once we move the activity in the phase two then we will build the berms and things like that so it will also be a phase implementation that is correct thank you all right one other question don't don't go anywhere yet i'm trying i'm trying we're making you work hard today for the sake of the residents out here that have concerns and this is i know this is just going to be a ballpark answer if there's an answer at all if you had to guess or if your staff had their your the people you represent had to guess when do you think it would be you would move into phase three which would be adjacent to the property owners just a guess i would i mean based on what we were talking about in the audience we were looking at phase three at the earliest 40 years oh really yes 40 years from now it'll it'll remain citrus grove or whatever it is until that we that will just be a maintained active citrus grove until such time which we're estimating in 40 years right okay thank you that's the answer okay all right any other discussion for the board or any other additional questions for the applicant seeing none i'll entertain a motion mr chairman move move to approve lvcu dash 2024-39 second we have a motion in the second roll call mr bishop please robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion earl bishop i'm for the motion brooke agnini for the motion mike hickman for the motion renee heath for the motion mike schmidt against the motion mr chairman the motion passes thank you thank you everybody for coming today and providing your comments next case please mr chairman if i could for the record ben zisco land development director um staff is going to throw a little curveball here staff is going to request that we or as the applicant withdraw item number seven from today's agenda this is a land development code text amendment that we received quite a bit of opposition emails and correspondence last night and this morning and we have not had a chance to properly respond to those concerns we believe there's there's quite a bit of confusion about this item so we're going to go ahead and pull that item i'm stating that now because i believe a number of people here are here for that item so we will pull that item so if anybody is here for case number seven uh we will not be moving forward with that at this time that's the livestock and foul ldc text amendment yes sir that is correct so thank you all right all right so just just really quick here just so everybody in the audience is on the same page uh item seven is being proposed to be withdrawn from the agenda by the applicant we'll have to do a vote to modify the agenda which we will do here shortly but if you're here in the audience for item number seven which is ldct-2024-25 livestock and foul ldc text amendment that will not be heard today assuming the vote is favorable on the agenda so with that i'm going to ask the commissioners or one of the commissioners to consider that request from staff and modify the one clarification i just want to make sure are we asking it be pulled or would we like to continue would we like to ask the board to consider continuing to a date certain we would not like to continue it to date certain it will be pulled if we choose to move forward we will go through re-advertising but okay thank you okay so if i could have entertain a motion from the board to modify our proposed agenda for today for item seven to be removed and pulled to a future date if so determined for a moment before all these people leave this has been a good exercise for all of these children and governance and how it works and why you need to be involved why you need to be involved and not just let us sit up here and make all of the decisions for you okay thank you go ahead sir do i have a motion so moved you have a motion we have a second second and this is a motion again to modify the agenda and remove item seven uh all in favor all right all right so please proceed with the next case thank you for bringing that up staff so we don't have people waiting yes all right good morning ian nance land development staff recommends approval of ldcu 2024-1 a request to approve vehicle sales and leasing in a commercial enclave future land use district the subject site is located at 3408 northwest avenue west east of northwest 31st street south of havendale boulevard and east of the city city of winter haven in section 13 township 28 range 25 for the record 66 mailers were sent area property owners on january 21st two signs were posted on january 17th and a legal ad was published on january 19th and staff has logged no responses here's a site on the future land use map on the right is in a commercial enclave district which recognizes this existing self-storage facility that's been on site since 1968 since commercial enclaves are typically surrounded by residential uses a higher level of review is required for potentially intense uses in this case vehicle sales this request though is not for your standard auto lot this is more of a signing off and a technicality the owners of the property use the existing self-storage facility for that but also for flex and office space so i understand that one tenant wants to use it for the online sale of vehicles so but for state licensing purposes there has to be a physical address physical place in order to run such a business it's it's not even clear if they're going to use this site to put our cars on they just need a physical address so it's kind of a technicality we're working through here still we don't want to turn this into used car lot next to residential so there are conditions of approval including keeping any vehicles that are for sale to be stored in the bays and no vehicle services are allowed and staff recommends approval as condition the request is compatible surrounding uses as the use of the site will more or less be self-storage which has existed on site for decades staff finds this request consistent with comprehensive plan and land development code and i'll stand for questions any questions for staff do you have any idea when the current the self-storage was started the the 1968 it's been there a long time the first building i believe this northern building was there in 68 that was actually before zoning was established correct and then these buildings are okay this is the 71 aerial here did we not just recently review this and for commercial enclave did commercial enclave yes sir again so we have a tenant that wants to do car sales but needs a physical address that's what we're talking about so they won't it won't actually be like a used car lot they just need it's like i said it's a technicality we're more or less working through with them they need the state to sign off on a legally zoned spot more or less so the use that's up currently there probably won't change at all no no that's not not anticipated with this application so the commercial enclave would actually prevent somebody from having or would it prevent somebody from having an on-site car lot no they'd have to come through this process okay if they took everything off there they could potentially come build to our standards but still require level three review okay move to expedite can we do that i think he's done is the applicant here to speak ian yes sir yep you have anything to add okay that's good good you can go ahead and come up name and address if you'd like for the record yeah good morning um aaron bowles mbv engineering 1835 20th street verbiage florida um staff has done a great job we appreciate everything he's done for us uh ian and we don't have anything else to add at this time if you have any questions for us but like you said it's intention intended for um to have your dealer's license you have to actually have a place with a garage to put a car and that's that's the gist of it so that's what it's about so what's your business model look like i mean your plan so you sell off-site so well i'm not a salesman um all right i know well right i realize his his yeah it's all off-site it's it's basically like you go to um like auctions and things like that you may buy a car there and you come back and maybe clean up inside the store and you resell it at another auction that type of okay he may have one car but most of the time it's it's it's just a place to be legal anybody here to speak for against this case we did have a motion for an expedition but we have a second of approval so that said uh we'll go ahead and close this part of the public hearing and move forward with the board discussion or a motion mr chair i'm going to approve ldcu 2024-1 motion do we have a second second motion in the second roll call please robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion roll bishop i'm for the motion brooke agnini the motion mike hickman for the motion for the motion mike schmidt or the motion mr chairman the motion passes thank you next case please and this is going to be four and five together right yes sir all right for the record ian nance land development staff is wrecking him recommending approval of two related cases that each require a separate vote first is ldcu 2024-38 request to amend a condition from cu 1806 needed to continue the processing of mine phosphate material at the south fort mead mine 20 years to november 4 2045 i'm sorry yes 2045. the second part of this is lddri 2024-1 which will adopt an amended development order and resolution that will allow this extension the subject site is over 17 000 acres and is located north of hardy county and county line road ecus 17 west of the avon park cut off road and south of us 98 southeast of the city of fort mead in multiple sections as described on the front page of staff report for the record and for each case mailers are sent to area property owners on january 21st signs were posted on january 17th and a legal ad was published on january 19th staff has logged two emails in opposition for each case this is a these are both level four reviews and the board is scheduled to hear them on march 4th the south fort mead mine is within the future phosphate mining future land use district and consists of a mine processing facilities clay settling ponds and other components of a phosphate operation the mine was originally approved in 1981 through a resolution that has undergone multiple modifications over the years ranging from changes in ownership to adding property most recently in 2018 conditional use 1806 and a related resolution were approved by the board to allow trucks to haul mine material to this site from hardy county the mine operates on private septic and water and the state monitors environmental concerns the county's role in this is to review changes to the development order through a resolution and since phosphate mining is a level four review in pm any changes to previous conditions of approval require these hearings those most recent changes in 2018 had a condition in which the development order and life of the mine would expire on september 22nd 2021. this was extended through state processes to november 4th 2025. in july of 2023 hardy county approved extensions to existing mines in that county to 2040. the south fort mead mine which i said processes this material needs the adoption of these cases to continue processing this material if adopted this extension will be till november 4th 2045. let's see approval of this application application is only for the proposed time frame they're not anticipating further land acquisition or changes to previously approved haul routes support staff is recommending approval of each case the site has long been established in a phosphate mining land use district in an area with a long history of mining which has been a major economic driver in polk county and this area will remain in a phosphate mining land use district over the next 20 years with a lack of available utilities from polk county development surrounding the site is unlikely to intensify over this time either the processing plan is over 1.5 miles from the nearest home and the facilities are well screened and buffered from off-site by vegetation berms and distance as much mentioned before the haul route is not changing with access permitted solely on manly road from county line road as such this request continues to be compatible surrounding uses is consistent with land development code and comprehensive plan and i'll stand for questions any questions for staff okay seeing none open the floor to the public anyone here to speak for against this case please step forward i'm sorry do we have the applicant in the house excuse me would you like to step forward and allison gordon senior engineer for mosaic fertilizer llc address is 13830 circuit crossing drive in lithia florida um i believe ian did an excellent job presenting that but i'm here for any questions if you have any any questions for the applicant all right seeing none now we'll ask anybody here to speak for against this case please step forward all right seeing none we'll close the public hearing or back to the applicant or the board mr chairman i just need i do say it from disclosure it's not a conflict it doesn't have any bearing on my ability to vote on this case but i did provide expert analysis and opinion to a law firm representing the uh property owner to the immediate east of this property about a year ago and just for the record was that it was regarding this expand wasn't i guarded regarding this expansion at all it was regarding the ability of that property to the east of this to obtain a comprehensive land change to phosphate mining and a mine permit okay i don't i mean i don't see any conflict if you don't thank you for your abundance of caution mr bishop all right all right so we're back to the board for a motion in order of discussion and we have two different votes here guys four and five mr chair i'm ready to approve ldcu 2024-38 second do a motion and a second roll call please robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion earl bishop i'm for the motion brooke agnini for the motion mike hickman randy heath for the motion mike smith for the motion mr chairman the motion passes thank you mr bishop item number six next up is ldct 2024-21 this is the case that we continued from last month regarding adus and sheds and waterfront properties and fences see for the record we did readvertize this case on january 19th which is ross correcting with no response and board dates have been moved to march 4th and march 18th among some of the changes we made we've taken fences out of this entire amendment and we'll come back in march hopefully with uh the ideas that were incorporated from our last hearing but moving forth accessory dwelling units last month we addressed that the county was having issues with folks requesting detached adus the sizes that would take them out of the realm of being accessory structures and effectively doubling the density of lots staff proposed the limit on the size of a detached adu to 50 of the primary home up to 1 000 square feet as as the max members of the commission felt this was too restrictive especially on larger properties with larger homes so staff has adjusted this to remove the 1 000 square foot cap but maintaining the 50 50 percent rule so the changes today if you have a 2400 square foot home you can get up to 1200 square feet for the adu by right now and this is a change from last month if you do want to exceed the 50 percent cap we're proposing a variance process with with some benchmarks you hit to prove that you're not over building the lot one would be and you can get up to 80 percent now the primary home showing you're not going above a 0.60 isr impervious surface ratio so we're not affecting drainage and runoff on other properties it was brought up a problem with having just one detached adu per lot i believe commissioner schmidt brought that up which was previous policy but we looked at it and you know if you do have a property large enough and you can support it we kind of our safeguard on that was we'd allow that through a variance process as well um up to the residential density of where you are r01 or arr whatever the max would be allowed in a comprehensive plan if you can't hit those you're probably not going to well you're not going to go to the variance process but it's allowing some possibilities in a county with so many different properties and sizes things of that nature so um let's see next big thing was the sheds there was concern about having them at three feet the building department doesn't want them at zero feet so we're going to turn them back to district standards for accessory uh structures that's five feet for most uh that's for rl and rm i believe it's 10 for arr and the last part of this amendment was the split properties with lakefront i don't don't recall any discussions about this being a problem but right now our code doesn't technically allow structures in the front yard when you have a parcel to split by a road with lakefront property so just kind of cleaned that up it's been an issue with the building department so that's going to be allowed yes sir i mean it's more or less allowed now but let's you know take a look yeah all right so staff recommends approval you know we'll go through this the adu policy is not easy to set with balancing the goals of individual property owners with public expectation and the adopted rules of residential development you can see on the right the variations between other jurisdictions staff sees the need to provide flexibility and has incorporated the all suggestions with those on the right i think we're still pretty uh comfortable with uh our citizens compared to some of these other rules uh and the variance process obviously lend some flexibility to it so with that uh i thank you and we'll stand for questions appreciate staff listening to the board or commission and taking some of those in response may have some multiple comments i'm going to ask you guys each to wait before i acknowledge you go ahead mr um yeah that's a those are good changes there i appreciate you taking the time to to go through that looks like it's well betted just a question for you um do are do you have the option to designate which building would be the primary residence and i say that because you know people are buying 10 acre parcel with a little house on it and want to leave the house in place but put their main residence and your primary one's going to be the larger one so we look at that i'm sorry the primary structure is going to be the largest one on site these are still accessory dwelling units so they'll they'll be smaller than the primary okay so somehow they just designate i mean obviously if we if you have a thousand square foot home on a you know old home on a property and they want to come and build a new house that's three or four thousand square feet that would just yeah that's right a hell of an accessory right but i mean we're not getting into that little glitch thing where you go oh no you can only build 500 square feet sorry and the primary home has to be the front of the lot too so that would be a consideration as they do site design really yes okay in the front front or side yeah that's he's saying accessory structures are supposed to be incidental and subordinate to the primary so is there a lot size determining that no that's that's true for all accessory structures outside of carports does the accessory unit still have to be toward the rear to the rear to the side okay oh it could be right up to the the building line the front of the building line and we're still only one allowed right now by right you can have one adu on any residential lot up to 50 percent of the the primary only one correct if you want to surpass that there's a variance process to go through that we can check the boxes on so i'm going to have my mother-in-law contact you okay say nice things about i have to build one for father-in-law and then the other married person's mother-in-law have her call me i'll get it figured out for you yeah one other fun wrinkle with this too there are detached adus so if it's actually attached to your home it's considered part of the principal structure so kind of get away with that if it's another cheat for anybody other comments from this side okay this is detached you good any no comments brooke you good all right sure any other questions sounds like there is a variance process for you so yes mr chair move to approve ldct-24 2024-21 in entirety okay we have a motion in a second roll call please robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion royal bishop i'm for the motion brooke agnini for the motion mike hickman for the marsh and heath for the motion mike schmidt for the motion mr chairman the motion passes okay as we've mentioned do we have any other items to discuss staff item seven has been removed that's correct all the cases are finished see chandra getting up there to talk so i guess we're listening as mr he said i need to expedite the comp plan update so out of 45 slides no i'm kidding i wasn't going to present that i was going to start so this presentation in its entirety was what us the staff and applicant presented to the board of county commissioners at their workshop on january 21st regarding the comp plan some of you may have seen that some of you may not have may have not or all of you may not not have seen that but briefly the point of the meeting was to go over what we've done with the comp plan update the meetings that we've had the final results of the public engagement that we've had with the public we've provided that to the planning commission at the january january meeting but the final results did show that the top concerns land preservation infrastructure traffic congestion impact on the national natural environment housing affordability i don't think that should be any a surprise to anybody in terms of the survey the top five answers very similar uh just asking it in a different way but the number one was preserve conserve our natural environment and wildlife habitats this question i thought was interesting what type of development should the county prioritize within the next 25 years this is one of the questions on the survey so more than half of the little bit more than half of the respondents said a limited number of acres to amend per year limit the number of permits how do we do that i'm not sure the board didn't direct us to do that right but i but i but i think that kind of it gets taken with our development areas and where the where the infrastructure goes um and then you can see the other um uh sections of urban and suburban and then about a quarter of the respondents said no growth which i would have thought that might have been a higher based on the people responding not necessarily um that the majority of the residents feel that way um so we had uh several engagements uh we had um three community events that i attended with the consultant and we asked people to do these exercises putting where the commercial and the residential population should go in the county and you can see that with the red and the blue dots i think that makes sense around the cities along the major high corridors and highways the um public engagement in terms of getting more narrow on the responses in terms of the different concepts some residents mentioned bringing back recycling use of dark sky criteria we've heard this a lot the dark sky dark sky criteria in many different ways create natural preserves again you've heard some of this protection um environmental sensitive lands green swamp lake wells ridge in terms of infrastructure expand the sidewalk and bicycle networks transit routes uh bright line sun rail expand alternative corridors to interstate four i'm sure you're all surprised by that one right increase funding uh for repairing dilapidated roadways and i don't know if you had um heard about sheriff judd and superintendent hyde's presentation to the transportation planning organization they presented some i thought startling facts about safety around bus stops and other issues regarding sidewalks so um that doesn't have to be in the comp plan that doesn't we don't have to wait for changes on that but that was certainly heard by us and we're trying to figure out what our next steps are on that and we do have a sidewalk gap map if you will that the transportation planning organization put together so we're trying to address that the first thing that comes to my mind in terms of that question about incentivizing peering roads was that the request to have a referendum for the yeah the board directed that that would not be on a referendum shaunda sorry to interrupt uh what were those stats that you just uh pointed out regarding the presentation from grady judd and the safety of bus stops and everything if you know them off the top of your head i don't know the numbers but the what was startling is um so the buses the school buses didn't have video cameras on them but eventually superintendent hyde convinced sheriff judd to allow that to occur and that his staff would work on what would happen and i think it was i want to say it was in the thousands of violations in terms of when the stop lights are up people keep crossing it anyway yeah i think i read this in the ledger actually now that yes i think i read that article it was very startling very startling um and we convinced sheriff judd that that made sense for him which i think is a big deal uh for for that so um it and yeah and the other was um increasing sidewalks beyond a development if the kids are walking in a certain direction and there are no sidewalks certainly that's a concern for developers so i don't i think we've got to figure out a way how do we all become a team how does the private sector the school board the county and all of us become a team at making this a joint safety issue for the kids sorry that's a complete tangent sorry i'm sorry okay um uh so on water supply that's job to make policy thank you go ahead thank you i don't know i don't want to agree or disagree with that comment thank you um uh water supply we have the polk regional water cooperative uh green infrastructure and plant development florida friendly landscaping a lot of this we actually have in our comp plan um so but i think it could be a way that we just maybe highlight it in a different way or bringing out in a different way affordable housing the extreme growth that we've experienced over the last five years has really brought that i think to an issue where we've not heard that in the past certainly not before covid but having a variety of housing types and where the it's affordable has become certainly an issue you heard mr nance talk about amendment today regarding additional dwelling units so it's all tied together in terms of variety of of how people live growth to existing urban areas i think this this fits with the environmental comp concepts we've already heard about making sure the density is where it needs to be in the urban areas the florida wildlife quarter is becoming a lot more of a common concept and comment that we're hearing in many of our public hearings and discussions with the public that we engage with and the key so the key takeaways are the environment the infrastructure water supply housing and key growth to the urban areas during the workshop with the board we asked them some priority or some directions on a few of these concepts that we're hearing and and i have slides on each of those particular issues if you wanted to review them but i'm assuming you would not because this is more of a generalized discussion but at that meeting with the board basically the board direction was really they want to stay near the cities like we're hearing from the residents um somehow make the environmental review of our land development cases more meaningful in some way part of what we thought that might involve is we're starting to incorporate if the property appraiser's office has conservation easements on that public website because that's easy for us to to access the other is how do we unpack or divide out the polk green map we have a polk green map that brings in different resources in terms of preservation obviously adding the wildlife corridor the florida green environmental network how do we bring that in and unpack that a little bit so maybe making that more of a map series we're going to have another workshop with the board i'm sorry one more thing commissioner troutman did specifically ask to have some more information for her on in the board at the next workshop on transfer development rights we have them in the county but they're not used very often i think that's partly because there's no cap on residential units and people developers can always ask for land use changes to increase their rights so it's hard to create a market for tdrs but we will do what we can to provide that information we have another workshop with the board tentatively end of february early march our goal is to try to get some more um solid direction on what we're going to recommend for policy changes in the comp plan that we present to the board and get a reaction from them and then we'll do some another round three community meetings of listening section sessions probably in april after easter when we have some more specific policies to hear again from the citizens and other stakeholders before we come back to the planning commission at the at for a final decision in june again we'll still try to bring you some of the documents to you ahead of time so that you have chances to look at that and we did hear you at the last meeting that no significant land use changes in addition to the changes in the comp plan because it's a lot um and the in the reason why a jurisdiction would need to bring land use changes is only if the area that's developable cannot accommodate the future expected population growth and we can even if we consider agricultural lands developed we have plenty of land to do that so we don't need to do any land use changes to be statutorily in conformance with our comprehensive plan update so if we wanted to do other land use changes which we do have some ideas of strategic changes in land use to help with redevelopment or to steer the growth we can do that without bringing that forward in june so with that that's the update that i have for you this morning so what is health care infrastructure give me an example so related to land use yeah that comp plan that was particularly of all the meetings we've had with all the different staff of the county that one was particularly eye-opening uh we met with joy johnson and um she is continually stressed or confronted with the challenge of how to bring health care to the residents and it's the idea is that is our our policies supportive enough of allowing the health care where it needs to go i in most cases it would require some kind of conditional use or complement amendment to bring that health care to different places in the county i don't know it's hard to change that because any kind of land use change requires a review by the planning commission board of county commissioners but there could be at least some supportive policies about that um that we need better health care throughout the county so that's just something that um was quite striking about how difficult it is for our county to really encourage and support better and more widespread health care in the county okay i've just i mean i know the relationship more sidewalks more people walk more you know healthy type of land uses can promote health but i didn't i didn't realize that was an issue yes the other question i had seeing this list is i didn't realize there was a problem with compatibility for the avon park range i mean that's so far removed from all the growth areas is that really an issue yes okay it is um where that came out of was a lot of growth for canopy oaks which is just south of indian lake estates and yeah that just morphed and what what what where i've learned about it is that all the mill all the military branches train at avon park and they have to the more dense an area gets they have to change their training programs and that limits their ability to train properly so the denser it gets but it's amazing that there is a significant amount of interest in some growth out there that does impact their their training mr chair quick question uh shonda in your uh experience do developers typically take forward advantage of their permitted density because especially multi-family it seems like you really don't ever end up hitting what the cap is right that's probably maybe more of a land of a land development code question and the comp plan maybe can't solve that but correct if the goal is to get the density closer to the cities and it says here like we have we're expecting 109 000 units by 2050 if we can get more of those units towards the city by encouraging the developers to take advantage of their density then it's obviously less that we have to deal with moving outwards but great i don't know it's above me how we fix that but i think also with our pd process we have some of that stuff where you have like less bonus you have to get less bonus points in order for more density if you're an rm and whatnot but those are just my thoughts yeah yeah i agree with you it tends to be more of a land development code issue um and for the for trans the transfer development rights the one item that was is really hit two items that are hindrance it's only within a mile and the other is you can't the receiving property can't get a higher density than the compliment allow anyway right right right right it's too it's too limiting so to at a minimum to make them a little bit more successful than they are is we'd have to really probably make that and it's currently in the comp plan that the tsda the transit support of development area is the receiving area along maybe with the urban growth area and the rural development area the arr is descending or maybe we could even do the suburban development area so we need to look at tweaking that a little bit at a minimum that that that does allow people to get creative about how many people really are inside that circle too they're like okay so let's go file for this over here and they might not even necessarily be wanting to do anything in that area i don't know it was i've always struggled with that part of the i think every anybody that has a program does struggle with it and mr dalton your question about the density the um and some of you probably already all of you may already know this because you've lived here but um so in the 90s when the highlands were building out the density max there was five dwelling units of the acre but the planned developments have come in at about two and a half to 2.8 units per acre and then the northeast the development maximum in most of the just the designations that were being developed in residential low could have allowed eight dwelling units per acre but they're really at about four and a half units per acre the apartments that are up there really are a recent phenomenon i call it a phenomenon because 30 years ago when i started never thought we'd get i'd see that much multi-family in the northeast but it's happening finally so mr eath jonda in one of your previous uh slides that you showed up there from the general public or comments from the general public i guess it showed reduced minimum lot sizes yeah really i mean is that what they're is that the comments that they made in selected residential future ladies i i think in general people get the concept that keep city near city and suburbia near suburbia and rule near rule but that's not an objective decision when people are faced with it next door so but i think the concept is universally accepted but the implementation of it is the sticky point which you face every month with me sometime and i'll show you where it's not right that would not be my experience i don't know where that's coming from i don't know either your your number two if you could go back to that i didn't write it down i just wrote number two number of the last slide that you had up before this one sorry right there desire to limit urban expansion into the rda and then i made the same note as you sir reduce minimum lot size those those seem incompatible and and i i don't how how do we come from from this to there and i'm all for reducing the limiting the urban expansion i i but and not reducing the lot size i i just am i not being clear your last statement you're for limiting expansion into the rural development area but not reduce lot size is that what you said yes into the aware that you don't want reduce lot size anywhere no i'm i'm i don't think we should be reducing the lot size i'm i'm not i'm like him i don't understand that the people are suggesting that i i don't i think perhaps maybe the don't focus on how you think about it every day because the people that make that comment aren't you that think about well you're an rl4 and they you know or they're an rl2 and they're doing a planned development because they they don't want to do 15 000 square foot lots they want to do 6 000 square foot lots they don't think about it in that in that way they just know that you know one acre lots um in lakeland highlands north of 540a probably isn't compatible doesn't make sense we need to compact people more but what that lot size looks like that's a different story if they got drilled down into the details um but the expansion into the rda um we've heard when we met with each commissioner that was some of their concern keeping uh the rule area rule um but how far does the commission want to direct staff to write a policy in that direction and they did not at the workshop have a specific on that we did talk about different ways to do that there were some members um of our environmental community attending that workshop and i did say on the record i said i because they were asking me that question i said i am sure that the environmental members that were in present would have wanted a policy in the comp plan that says no more land use changes in the rda or no expansion of any development area into the rda that's probably not realistic um because the the state statute allows the conference plan to be amended however orange county for example they had a referendum that was supported that the expansion of their urban development areas has to have a super majority of the county commission versus just a minimum majority so there's there's different ways to do that certainly we've we've been having one with just conference plan amendments and you have to have water and sewer and a full complement of urban services and if you have that that makes sense to expand it and i think historically that's been supported by staff and and approved by the board so but we didn't get anything specific on that we just asked the board for a direction on that and on that day with that workshop um they just were uh didn't have anything specific at that moment so this list came from us to ask them not the other way this list came from us to ask them so the sap consolidation um that to combine the us 27 the ron reagan and the northridge into one yes because they're all next to each other and they all have similar policies they do and they're they they have some yeah but the majority of policies are very similar i think i could see we're consolidating those could work the the one policy that maybe you're thinking about which is the one that i think you worked on the ronald reagan 54 back then um the one that i'm struggling with consolid dealing with is the policy that says if you have a wetland it's preservation no matter how it displays in the land use map um the option for that is just to remove it all together and treat the wetlands like they're treated anywhere else in unincorporated county or to create a still barrier of a new sap just for that policy and i'm not married to either was there any staff isn't married to either just so sorry was there any talk of boundary changes within those saps or just changing just adding them all together keeping the same boundaries you wouldn't change the boundary the county commission didn't get into that item for a discussion um that's i think that's where it could get sticky if you go to changing boundaries then yeah our proposal of staff was not to change the boundaries that's it's hard enough just to combine them policy wise and and in chapter four of the ldc much less try to add on boundary changes if we did that maybe we could if there was any direction to do that we could do that as a separate task outside the just combining them from a policy standpoint why would the regulations be different in the saps they were created at different times and by different people and for different purposes better idea whenever that one was and it involved different stakeholders with different interests so you might have some policy that was created in one sap because of the businesses or the residence there that something was important to them that wasn't necessarily an issue and another sap so it got included as a policy right right so maybe you figure out how to incorporate or or massage those so that they work for all three oh we have great staff yeah so so the issue the issue of the smaller lots as i as i understand it is more of a comedy assuming that the premise is we're going to grow you can't stop growth you can't put a fence at the border the boundary of polk county and say we we're we're at our limit we're only going to issue x number of permits this year um you know that that's just not going to happen so if you're going to restrict growth or prevent growth in certain areas like the rda then the premises well we got to accommodate growth somewhere so if we're going to accommodate growth in the more urbanized areas or along the more traveled roadways then how are we going to do that through okay we have the density but people don't build to the maximum density what how do we get people to build to the maximum density well one way is to reduce lot sizes and and my my take on that is you reduce lot sizes that's okay but what is the development going to look like how do you write policy that guides development in a way that works for people and creates a community and doesn't create uh an urban sprawl with cookie cutter houses and and long blocks and just monotonous type of lifestyle that that's my take on that is okay we're going to accommodate growth but how do how does it look how are people going to actually live in that type of situation and that's what we got to be concerned about i think agreed and that's actually more of a land development code activity than it is well yes and no because i mean i think you can you can have policy that guides how you write land development regulations so you got to have policy that addresses the general overall type of development environment that that you want to achieve i mean what is what do people want i mean it's sort of a preference survey you know you want this or you want that you want you know a typical florida subdivision that looks like you know with houses right next to each other that are all lined up or you want more of a community with sidewalks and streetscape and different type of housing and different setbacks and things that looks more like our community rather than walking i walk out my front door and i look down this way and look that way and everybody's the same well and i'm going to sound a little challenging but you well those houses are cheaper though that's part of the thing there's more to the acre but there's a difference in building a subdivision and building a community and i think you all know all the subdivisions in the county that have been built over the last 20 years you know which ones you like you know which ones you don't like you know what the standards are of the ones that you like yeah but i i mean moral i appreciate your comments but you're you're looking for utopia and and it's all it's all demand driven i mean to somebody they don't mind if their home looks exactly like the one next to it and so forth but if it's reasonable and they can put their family in there and they can have a quality of life it you know so it really and when you artificially establish boundaries okay you can do this on this side of the street and this on that side of the street i think you go counter to where you know let the market and demand drive that train well we already have boundaries you already have development areas no i know but but when you started talking about restricting you know the rda and and so forth you're not giving anything on the other side i can tell you that because you're not going to hit those densities that you know that we supposedly can well and i i understand what you're saying about market driven but i mean certain builders have certain products and they don't go out of that at all so there's which is fine certain builders who aren't willing to offer an alternative yeah design but it's not you it's not your role to play god i mean if they if people are buying those products you know there's a reason for that i think i think your role is to figure out where ability is the biggest one like you're there to figure out well where do we want the cookie cutter and where do we you know you don't want cookie cutter pasture cookie you know i mean it's where where does that go and i think that's what you're getting at with your reduced lot size let's do that where it's already happening it's not they can only build so much anyway public and leave this alone right yeah all new responsible our job is to we had to go out and talk to the people and hear them tell the board okay board what do you want us to do with that information and that's what these statements we're trying to ask them to do and um i'm hearing little bits of direction from from you all and we will do that all through this beginning of this year um and certainly if you have any comments any thoughts you don't have to you just can't communicate with each other or to me in a public email but you can certainly call me and call me or ben or eric ian or you know any of us to to chat about some of that to give us some some direction um on that so chandra just real quick you had mentioned some of the priorities being preservation of land water um one of the and trails i believe was the other one um one of the things i ask is for you guys to think about the the infrastructure it takes to bring water throughout the different parts of the area obviously we're looking at areas here where we'll be trying to look at more central sewers and in rural areas if needed as development occurs and things along those lines so as you guys are thinking about these different areas and how they may come together think about the infrastructure it takes to get through there so if you have a preservation area or conservation area maybe allow you know underground utilities that might serve a better purpose to the area go through those land use types um just food for thought because those corridors are tough to find and they become very expensive and it just ends up costing all of the taxpayers down the line or the utility owners well especially if the legislature decides in some future session to require all septic tanks be connected to sewer right i mean that's going to be some massive infrastructure just going through this exercise with the pulpit region water cooperative we're laying 61 miles of of um transmission mains to provide water to all the future communities and there's over 350 parcels that are trying to be acquired just to try to get these pipelines in these corridors and stuff and it becomes very challenging and expensive to the public one thing the planning commission didn't see because um we had to do it as a response to an orc report from the state on the subject to sewer amendment that we had to do one of the things that utilities hired um dewberry to help with several different items and on this to help us with that which is we had to identify all the developments that have 50 units in them that have septics at one per acre we found over 300 developments in the county that have that meet that criteria they're not all in the county's utility service area a lot of them are in city service areas so we have to coordinate with all of these cities and the state isn't requiring us to connect them the state is requiring us to identify the feasibility of connecting those developments to a wastewater treatment plant is it just one per acre or one or less per acre so like you you have a development that has half half acre 50 units with half acre or less than an acre and use and i know at one time you could do a septic with central water on a quarter of an acre on a net quarter acre i i i think it would be our last but i i can't imagine i can't remember the specific okay statute language i think it is less i think it is too i would hope that 300 developments would have covered that yes there's a lot of interest about this commission and what's happening we appreciate you bringing this item to us for our information you mentioned a couple of meetings coming forward i was wondering if we could ask staff to at least notify us or invite us to these put these on our calendars as optional so if one of the commissioners plan on attending that we can let you know that we're going to be there i do believe i sent an email to all of you for the january 21st workshop because it was just an agenda review that's how my calendar works yeah also you can watch them on tv too right they're on folks that's what i did i was still at work but i just had it on tv and watched it which was helpful and even if you're and it's staved on the website the county's website you go back and watch you don't have to be present on the watch it on your screen for that yes yeah no just in that same vein as what uh mr belchon just said is it is the timeline of this still tracking to the one that you guys set a couple months ago i mean is this still going to get to the bocc some i think it was june was the goal uh to you all in june for us in june a decision a recommendation and then july the second board day in july for transmittal and we're still that's still on track okay yeah so the so what if it doesn't happen if the board doesn't transmit in july it means that the county cannot do any county initiated conference of plan amendments any county initiated until we transmit we send it right which is so private um conference of plan amendments um from private developers or property owners they can initiate those land use changes or text amendments to the comp plan but the county can't do one so the board if the board was interested in doing something she was transmitted transmitted that's why they're trying to get the chicken stuff out of the way before you have the chickens resolved before all right any more comments uh well i haven't i'm just making sure we have no more comments if not i'll take a motion to dismiss we have a motion we have a second motion and a second all in favor all right thank you ma'am