discussing the agenda items and concerning additions or deferments or withdrawals to the published agenda. With that, I'll turn it over to our staff. Aaliyah, do we have any changes on our agenda, our published agenda? Good morning. Yes, we do. LDCPAS 2025-15, the Osprey Creek CPAs continue to November 5th. LDCU 2025-27, the PRWC Wells 9 and 14 are continued to November 5th. They will also be re-advertised and LDCPD 2025-7, the Skyview Drive SPD is continued to November 5th and will be re-advertised and we will have the comprehensive plan update following the agenda and the election of officers. Thank you very much. With that, are there any questions about the modifications to the agenda by the board? Could you start over? Did they already revoke your security to come in the back? Seeing none, just for the audience's sake, the last three items that are highlighted in yellow will not be heard today, so if you're here for those cases, they will be continued to the November 5th meeting, so I just want to make sure everyone's aware of that. And with that, we will go ahead, if no other items are discussed, close the workshop, and we'll start at 9 a.m. Thank you. All right, we're going to go ahead and call the meeting to order. Roll call, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary. Robert Beltran. Present. Cindy Janamasso. Brooke Annini. Here. Mike Hickman. Here. I am here. Mike Schmidt. Kevin Updike. And Adam Bass. Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum. Thank you, sir. All right, well, with that, we'll stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. All right, the board members had a copy of the minutes that were sent out to you prior. Are there any questions or discussions on those? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to adopt the meeting minutes from last meeting. Second. Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Okay, we've talked about modifications to the published agenda as shown on the screen. The bottom three cases have been deferred to November 5th. If you're in the audience for those bottom three cases or just arrived, those will not be heard today. They're going to be postponed to November 5th, so I don't want to waste anybody's time for being here, but we will be back to listening to those cases on November 5th. Welcome. With that, the modified agenda stands in front of you on the screen. Any questions or comments from the board? Mr. Chairman, move to approve. We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? We have a motion and a second. All in favor for the modified agenda? Aye. All right, with that, we'll turn the floor over to our attorney, Mrs. Howard, for general procedures. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll now go over the general procedures for today's meeting. The Land Development Case Planner will introduce the case and disclose any responses to the notifications which were not already provided to the Planning Commission in their packets. They'll then present their staff report and recommendation. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak and present testimony on a case will be sworn in. The applicant and others in support or opposition of the case will be given the opportunity to speak. The applicant will be given the opportunity to respond to any opposition testimony. The Planning Commission will then discuss the case and vote on the matter. Expedited hearing procedures may be used by the Planning Commission under the following circumstances. If there is no opposition to the case present at the hearing, if the recommendation of the Office of Land Development is for approval, and all of the Commission members present wish to use this procedure. With regard to Level 3 reviews, pursuant to Section 906 of the Polk County Land Development Code, the Planning Commission may approve the applicant's request, deny the applicant's request, or approve the request with additional conditions. Pursuant to Section 921 of the Land Development Code, the applicant or any substantially affected interest may appeal the final decision of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners by filing a formal application with the Land Development Division and paying the application fee. The appeal must be filed with the Land Development Division within seven calendar days of the Planning Commission hearing. The Board of County Commissioners shall set a date and time for a de novo hearing. If a party decides to appeal a decision made by the Planning Commission with respect to any Level 3 review, he or she will need a record and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. The record includes all testimony and evidence given at the hearing. Each person or party that qualifies to file such an appeal must independently exercise their right of appeal in order to preserve that right. A party cannot and should not rely on their right to appeal being preserved by someone else filing an appeal on the same matter. Please be advised that a party may withdraw their appeal to the Board of County Commissioners prior to that de novo hearing. If one party withdraws their appeal and another party failed to file an appeal, there will be no appeal or hearing on the matter before the Board of County Commissioners. The application fee will not necessarily be refunded for such a withdrawal. Please further be advised that if a de novo application is filed with the Board to be recognized during the de novo hearing as organized opposition, you must either file the application for de novo hearing or receive written authorization from at least five entities or individuals to speak on their behalf against the application, and they must waive their right to speak during the public comment portion of the public hearing. Regarding level 4 reviews, pursuant to section 907 of the Land Development Code, the Planning Commission's decision is a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners will ultimately decide the matter at a later date. Regarding ex parte communication, the Planning Commission receives numerous communications from the public. Unless otherwise stated, it should be presumed that ex parte communications have been made to the members of the Commission regarding the matter. During the hearing, the applicant, organized oppositions, and the public may request the Commission to disclose any ex parte communication or site visits they have had regarding the matter and question the members regarding their communications or site visits. Unless a Commission member recuses themselves, he or she has determined that they are able to hear the case and fairly and impartially make a decision on the matter based on the substantial, confident evidence in the record. Mr. Chair, would you like for me to swear in the witnesses for today's cases? Please. Thank you. If you intend to address the Planning Commission on any case today, please stand up, raise your right hand, and answer out loud to the following question. This applies to all cases, so if you believe you may speak today, please be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you provide to the Planning Commission today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. You may be seated. I'll now go over some housekeeping items before we get started. First, we need to admit the county's land planners as expert witnesses. They have all been accepted as experts in the past. However, if you would like to voir dire any of them as to their background or expertise, then you may do so at this time. Without any opposition to their admission, can we please have a motion to accept staff as experts in their field of land planning? Second. We have a motion and 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 may wait until your case is called. Finally, the Planning Commission must review quasi-judicial land use cases. Quasi-judicial means the action entails applying land development policies to a specific land development application in a fair and impartial manner. The Commission's review is limited to two areas, consistency and compatibility. Regarding consistency, the Commission must determine whether the application is consistent with both the comprehensive plan and the land development code. The staff report and presentation will provide expert analysis and opinion regarding the applicable criteria, as well as a recommendation as to whether the application is consistent with those criteria. Regarding compatibility, the Commission must determine whether the application is compatible with the supporting area. The Commission will be presented with testimony and evidence at the hearing, both written and oral. By law, the only evidence the Commission may consider is competent, substantial evidence, which 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 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 the subjective matters that do not require expertise, such as aesthetic incompatibility of a project with the surrounding neighborhood. However, popularity polls, petitions, testimony that is hypothetical, speculative, based on fear, or consists of generalized statements that do not address the land development criteria are not competent, substantial evidence. For example, fear that the project will cause increased traffic or crime is not competent, substantial evidence. Lastly, when expertise is required for technical issues like traffic, engineering, drainage, wetland impacts, school and utility capacity, light and noise pollution, or the application's impact on property values, citizen testimony is not competent, substantial evidence, unless the witness is qualified as an expert in that area. That concludes my comments. Thank you. Thank you. With that, I'd like to remind everybody to please silence your cell phones, and we'll get started with our first case. Mr. Chairman, before we get started, I've got a couple of things I need to do. On calling for a quorum on an area of vote, do I need to recognize Mr. Updike and Mr. Bass? I believe Mr. Bass is voting today. I think Mr. Updike is an alternative today, correct? That's what I... So, what's the deal? So, Mr. Bass will be a voting member, so you'll call for his but not Mr. Updike's. Aww. But Mr. Updike is free to participate in the discussion. Okay. Right. That's what I need to do. He'll participate in the discussion but not vote. Unless someone has to leave and he has to step in. Okay. Also, I'd like to, Mr. Chairman, recognize Cindy Janamasso is just coming on. Unless I missed it earlier. Oh. No, go ahead. I'd like to welcome you to the Planning Commission and I hope you enjoy it as much as the rest of us have. I appreciate that. Thank you, Ronnie. I'm sure our expertise will be well suited for us. So, with that, we can get started with the first case. Number one on the agenda is LDCU 2025-17, the Sunrise Daycare Conditional Use. This is a request for an adult daycare for aging adults and individuals with disabilities within an existing building. And Andrew Grahowski is your planner. Good morning, Andrew Grahowski with Land Development. So, LDCU 2025-17 is seeking conditional use approval for an adult daycare center on 1.57 acres in the Residential Low 1 Future Land Use District within an existing building. On September 16th, one board was posted on the subject site and 64 mailers were sent to area property owners. On September 17th, an ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun with no public response. Staff is recommending approval. The subject site is located east of the City of Lakeland at 1140 Cumbie Road North, north of Jungle Street, west of Cumbie Road, south of Tanglewood Street, east of Lake Parker Drive east, east of the City of Lakeland in Section 9, Township 28, Range 24. The City of Lakeland has been notified of this proposal with one comment from Utilities. The site is located on 1.57 acres in the Residential Low 1 Land Use District in the Transit Supportive Development Area. It has access to a Citrus Connection stop about 800 feet to the north. The subject site is currently being served by the City of Lakeland for potable water and relies on an existing septic tank for wastewater management. The subject site is located at the corner of Jungle Street, a county-maintained local roadway. And Cumbie Road, a state roadway, and is considered lots 30, 31, 32, and half of lot 29 of the Lakewood Park subdivision, which was platted in 1924. Religious institutions are natural components of residential areas, and this use has been here without reported issues for over 65 years. As previously stated, the site is 1.57 acres. And just to note, just to the west abuts a .67-acre parcel outlined in yellow, which is owned by the religious institution. The property previously received Planning Commission approval for a community center to operate out of an existing multipurpose building in November 2019. Per Section 906E, the change of use to an adult daycare center is considered a major modification to the prior conditional approval. So, here's an aerial to gain a better appreciation of the site itself. As previously mentioned, the additional parcel is outlined in yellow. The main sanctuary was constructed around 1958 and has been used as a religious institution since then. The request is looking to repurpose and reuse the existing multipurpose structure on the site, while the main sanctuary hall will continue to be used by the religious institution. As previously mentioned, the adjacent property is outlined in yellow, and the prior conditional use received approval by the Planning Commission in 2019, which required the applicant to conform to current development regulations, including adding a type A landscape buffer on the eastern and southern sides of Cumbie Road and Jungle Street, as well as a type B landscape buffer on the northern portion of the property. So, here's an old site photo of the site back in 2019 that was presented to the Planning Commission. Site landscaping had not yet been installed. The building in question is outlined in orange and is going to be the reuse of an existing structure. The main sanctuary hall will still be used as a religious institution. And here are photos from 2024. As you can see, the site improvements include a type A landscape buffer, which has been provided, and just other photos of the site as well. So, staff is recommending approval. The request is consistent with the relevant provisions of the Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. Thank you, and I stand for any questions. Any questions for staff? Seeing ayes, I have one quick question. What was the comment you received from the City of Lakeland? That they are required to file a capacity application for potable water. With that, as the applicant here, please come forward, name and address, and if you'd like to add anything to the testimony you just heard by staff. Lower the mic. Good morning. My name is Martha Pongura, and I'm an administrator for adult daycare. We opened in 2019 in the pandemic, and we have the—we live in—we have the—I'm sorry, I'm a little nervous. This is my first time. No problem. Take your time. Take your time. We have the—we located right now in Lake Parker Avenue, and the capacity is okay when I started, but it's a lot of people stay in the waiting list because we small. This kind of property, Mr.—he's provided, gave me the opportunity for open more because the community needed a lot of help, especially the senior persons. I'm a nurse, and I'm 38 years to take it as a pediatric department, and I'm VA foster home for 15 years, and this is my passion for opening the adult daycare, but they gave me the opportunity 2019 to opening, and everybody happy and unhappy, but we like it, give it other opportunity for more people is in the waiting list right now because we can. It's a lot of—a lot of cars, a lot of workers, and I like it, the people, 70 years old, 80 years old, 60, work property, and this building is perfect for that. Thank you. Thank you very much. My name is Butch Rahman, 6563 Crescent Lake Drive, Lakeland, and I'm the owner. I'm the religious institution that owns it. Yeah. Perfect. Thank you. Anything you'd like to add to the testimony you heard from staff? You're good? I'm good. Okay. Thank you. All right. With that, we'll open the floor to the public. Is anyone here to speak for or against this case? Please step forward. Seeing none, anything else to add, staff? We're good? No, sir. Yes. Go ahead, sir. I own the property, so it's not a religious institution per se. It's me. I do rent the chapel to a church. Yes, sir. This building was rented to a school. It was a high school for five years, and then the state cut their funding, and they had to go. They loved it there, and it was great for them, and I'm sure it'll be great for Martha. Is the church still operating out of this? They are. You're combining on the weekends, you're combining church and? Yes, but their activity on the weekends is minimal. No, it's minimal. I'm sorry. I didn't understand. It's minimal because the church, the church used the place, the church, is Sundays. Right. They say then Sundays. Usually, we don't accept something, activities for Saturday, but not Sundays. No, no. We don't. It's Monday to Friday. The operation is 7.45 to 5 o'clock in the afternoon. So after 4, 4.30, everybody left, yes. I ask because I've been there for weddings and one church service, and I'm just curious if you're going to, if they're both going to be operating in conjunction at the same time. You're obviously not going to take your seniors off site on Sundays, but I'm just considering the overall capacity. If I may also, so she doesn't open on Sunday, which is when they have their main usage. Yes, but there's no. Still there, using the facility. But even if there was, I'll give an example, with the Lake Bonney flooding that we're all familiar with, this was FEMA City. I donated the property for FEMA to use for months, where there was massive semis all over it. There was, you know, for cleaning clothes, for showering, for water, for food. There was cars all over it, and there was plenty of room still. So it is over two acres, because you combine the two together, there's plenty of land, even if there was any need for a double usage, but there isn't. Okay. Jeff, would you like to add anything? Just to clarify, it is a daycare, so they won't be operating overnight. No overnight stays. Thank you. Okay. Daycare only. That's correct. Adult daycare. And I assume the traffic impacts you've looked at as a collective. Correct. And they'll need a minor traffic study. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Butch, so how about your septic tank capacity? Is the load changed on that? It is, it is ample. It's large. That was reviewed five, six years ago, when the high school was going in, and there was ample capacity. Oh, really, the use isn't going to change? No, it'll be, at best, the same amount of people. Yeah. That the high school had, and probably less. Good. It was the original capacity, what did I send it to you? Remember the number on the capacity from the fire marshal? It was like 232. Okay, so you should be. Yeah. Plenty good. Congratulations on your upcoming grandchild. Oh, thanks. Yeah. Oh, boy. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Any other questions for staff? If not, I'll take the item back to the board for discussion or a motion. Mr. Chairman, move to approve. Second. We have a motion in the second. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. I'm for the motion. Cindy Janamasso. Brooke Agnini. I'm for the motion. Mike Hickman. I am for the motion. Mike Schmidt. I'm for the motion. And Adam Bass. I'm for the motion. Mr. Chairman, move. It passes unanimously. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you all. Next case, please. Number two on the agenda is LDWA 2025-31, the Bear Oak Ranch Waiver. This is a waiver to Section 705B for approval for a residential lot with access through a private road easement, accessed by more than four lots and over a quarter mile in length. And Andrew Grahowski is your planner. So good morning again. For the record, Andrew Grahowski with Land Development presenting LDWA 2025-31 for the property along Wolfolk Road. The request is a waiver to Section 705 of the Land Development Code, and it would waive the requirement of a lot fronting a public or private paved roadway and having more than four lots accessing a private easement spanning longer than a quarter mile. The applicant intends to subdivide the parent parcel to provide a new residence for their family members in the future. So for the record, on September 16th, one board was posted on the subject site, and 15 mailers were sent to area property owners. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun on September 17th with no response from the public. Staff is recommending approval. Mr. Chairman, move to expedite. We have a motion to expedite. Second. We have a motion and a second to expedite. Is anyone here to speak for or against this case? Are you the applicant? You're here. Well, not right now. Are you here to speak. Are you the applicant or are you the. OK. And you're here to speak for or against it. And you're with the applicant. Who's working for the applicant? Or are you an engineer working for somebody else? Yes, we need it. So just to clarify, you're here to speak for or against this case, independent from the applicant. OK. For it. Yeah. We can expedite. OK. So we have only comments for the case. We do have a motion and a second to expedite. All in favor of expediting, please. Aye. Aye. All right. So we will go under expedited procedures. Thank you. Sorry for the confusion. It's your last day. So the subject site is about 33 acres. It's in. Go ahead, staff. It's in the ARRX land use district. It's in the southeast SAP east of Lake Buffum. And so staff finds the request is consistent with the LDC and comprehensive plan is compatible with surrounding uses. The parent parcel received Board of County Commissioner approval to waive public frontage back in 1978 under case number VAR 78-11. Correspondence with fire rescue by both the applicant and staff has confirmed there is sufficient ingress and egress on Wolfolk Road for their operations. Impacts to the adjacent infrastructure are minimal. Furthermore, staff finds the request satisfies the LDC waiver criteria found in Section 932. And with that, I thank you and stand for any questions. Any questions for staff? All right. We are under expedited procedures. So we're going to need public comment. The applicant, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. Good morning. My name is Joanna Smith and my address is 3890 Wolfolk Road, Fort Meade, Florida. Would you like to add anything to the testimony you just heard? I just want to thank staff for all the historical research done on the project. Appreciate your time. Thank you today. Okay. With that, we're under expedited procedures. There's no one here to speak against the case. We will take the item back to the board for a discussion or a motion. Is the gentleman going to speak for? We're under expedited procedures, so I assume we don't need to. Okay. Mr. Chairman, move to approve. Second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. I'm for the motion. Cindy Janamasso. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. I'm for the motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. And Adam Bass. For the motion. Mr. Chairman, it passes unanimously. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Number three on the agenda is LDWA 2025-29, the McStuckers Ranch Access Waiver. This is a request for approval of up to 10 single-family lots to have access via an existing shared access easement on 158 acres within an agriculture, residential, rural, future land use district. And Kyle Rogus is your planner. Good morning. And Kyle Rogus for land development, presenting LDWA 2025-29, the McStuckers Ranch easement. The applicant is requesting a conditional use approval for up to 10 single-family lots to have access via an existing shared access easement on 157.84 acres within an agriculture, residential, rural, future land use district. On September 16th, 44 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property September 16th. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winterhaven Sun on September 17th. We have received no response from the public. Staff finds this request compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code. Staff recommends approval. The subject site is located at 6472 Cox Road, north of Alturas Babson Park Cutoff, south of State Road 60, east of U.S. Highway 17, west of U.S. Highway 27, and Section 8, Township 30, Range 26. The subject site is located in an agricultural, residential, rural land use district within the rural development area. The proposed use is to be compatible with the adjacent land uses. Single-family uses are to the east and west of the subject site and near the proposed easement, but otherwise the property is surrounded by vacant agricultural land. The Lake Enderly Estate subdivision to the east is comprised of 31 lots that range in size from 1.6 acres to 10 acres. The majority of the lots are below the 5-acre minimum lot size in the ARR, resulting in a higher density than is proposed with this waiver. Six additional homes will not create a reasonable burden on the adjacent uses. For comparison, this site is approximately 157.84 acres and is in the ARR land use district, which supports one dwelling unit per 5 acres. If a road built to county standards was provided through the property, it is possible there could be up to 31 homes on this subject site. The McStuckers Ranch LLC bought the subject property along with lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 on October 15, 2021, to combine for the McStuckers Ranch subdivision in early February of 2023. Since the plat of the subdivision, the owner sold off lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, leaving the remaining 157.84 acres as lot 5. The owner is looking to subdivide the remaining 157.84 acres into 6 additional lots, creating a total of 10 residential lots to access the existing easement for future development. The 10 total properties as proposed will meet the minimum lot size of the ARR district of 5 acres, the largest lot being lot 11 to the north here, the very northern lot, at 78.8 acres, and the smallest being lot 1 at 5.4 acres. With 157.84 acres subdivided into 6 newly proposed lots, there is a significant amount of buildable uplands without significant environmental limitations. Typically, an administrative level 1 review is used to determine eligibility. However, in this instance, the easement will provide access to more than 4 lots and exceed a quarter mile. According to LDC Section 705B1B, the Planning Commission may grant a waiver through the level 3 review process to overcome the number of lots and road length maximum. One of the conditions added is to dedicate space within the easement for garbage receptacles and mailboxes for mail and delivery services such that no traffic will back up onto Cox Road. Trash pickup and mailing services are easier consolidated to one location versus multiple along a roadway. Staff recommends approval. The easement will be privately maintained given the rural nature of the area as it is deemed agricultural residential rural. County utilities will not be extended. Therefore, the takeover and maintenance of an internal roadway is unlikely. If an internal road was constructed, the applicant would have the ability to turn the road over to the county for perpetual maintenance. This would likely increase maintenance expenses in connection with the subdivision improvements because a street in this rural location presents a higher cost of maintenance that is not offset by tax revenue from 11 total lots with a lower density than the base density allotted for the 157.84 acres. Given these factors, an internal roadway built to county standards will not be built offering access via easement as the best alternative. And with that, I will stand for questions. Any questions for staff? Mr. Chair. So, I'm trying to figure out the distinction. Why is it not required to have some kind of fire water service to these dwellings? I mean, they're typically larger lots than you see. Like, the minimum lot size can be five acres. These lots that are being proposed are ranging from 20 acres. So, where does that distinction come in? So, I mean, there's no county road requirements, no utility requirements. Where do you make that distinction at? There is no requirement in that in the rural development district. Okay. Actually, that's the decision you have to make. We allow up to four lots administratively as long as the easement's not over a quarter mile. After that, it becomes – the variables are much broader. Therefore, we bring it before you for approval. Well, we've done our analysis from the county's cost perspective. Right. If there was a road and it was a public road, it would be more difficult for – it would cost more for us to maintain than we would receive in tax revenue. So, that was the – So, just sheer size of sites predicates that. But, I mean, at what point is it reasonable to come before the Planning Commission for the – I mean, one-acre sites, or is that a reasonable – It will – it determine – you know, it's determined on a case-by-case basis. Yeah. If the site was smaller, perhaps our analysis might have been different, but these are so large. You know, the – if you had a fire, yes, the home might burn down. Well, that's the case everywhere. But it won't burn – It won't burn – Jason Holmes, is that the – It's not a long way to the next home. Okay. You know, so it's things like that. And also, you know, the stability is reviewed of the easement, is reviewed by the fire marshal, things of that nature. Eric, since you testified, can you give a name? No question. Sorry. Eric Peterson, Planning Administrator, Land Development Division. Question. Trying to keep everybody within the rules. Mr. Schmidt, you have a question? Yes, sir. Having experienced a wildfire right adjacent to my ranch just recently, what is – again, what is the availability of fire protection for these multiple homes and properties? These – our fire just spread. They just barely got it put out before it got to my house. So it – those are considerations. What is the provision for fire protection for the houses that are built on a 20 – it's still a house on a – even though it's on 20 acres or whatever. Yes, the staff report, and we have the distances there. You'll notice the subdivision to the east of this was much more intense, and they face, you know, the same problems. I mean, in the rural area, that is a cause for concern. That's why the density is, you know, maintained to one unit per five acres to offset things like public safety and things. My greater concern would be the condition of the roads being privately maintained. Yes, and that's why – Fire trucks may or may not be able to go down through there in a wet season or something. That's why we require the 20-foot stabilized base. There's a certain standard, and it gets reviewed by the fire marshal prior to our approval. So – Okay. Yeah, that's – Satisfies me. Any other questions for staff? And that will ask the applicant to come forward. My name is Dustin Bamberg. I'm with Tradition Degeneering. Just wanted to say I apologize for the confusion. I thought we were second. This one says three, and they're sort of the same project, and this is my first time. So thank you for your consideration for this approval, and I don't have any questions. Any questions for the applicant before you leave? All right. Seeing none, we're going to open the floor to the public. Is there anyone here to speak for or against this case? You can sit down, sir. Thank you. All right. No one's here to speak for or against this case. All right. With that, we turn the floor back to staff. Any other final comments? No? No, sir. All right. Any other items for discussion? We'll bring the item back to the board for discussion or a motion. Move to approve LDWA 2025-29. Second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Giannamasso. Roka Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. I'm for the motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. And Adam Bass. For the motion. Mr. Chairman passes unanimously. Thank you, sir. Next case, please. Good morning. Shauna Bennett with the Land Development Division. The next two cases are Conference of Plan Amendment, small scale. JP Sims is the case planner, but he is unable to be here today due to a family emergency. So the first case that I'll cover this morning is LDCPAS 2025-21. It's Old Tampa Highway Conference of Plan Amendment to go from residential low to industrial on about two and a half acres of a parent parcel that's about 2.87 acres. It's also in the Transit Supportive Development Area. And it's south of New Tampa Highway, east of Airport Road, west of Wabash Avenue, and north of Wilkinson Road. In terms of advertisement, 13 mailers were sent to area property owners on September 16th. No response was received. One sign posted on September 15th in a legal ad published in the Lakeland Ledger and Winter Haven Sun on September 17th. Here's a location map that you can see its location here in the center of the screen. This is a context aerial. You can see there's a variety of development to the north. It's the northern boundary line is on a railroad as well. And then close-up aerial photograph, you can see more industrial use to the east, which is also industrially designated. To the west is residential designated to the south, the city of Lakeland as well. But part of the reason why it's not the full parcel is you can see this canal creek going through the property. There's a significant issue with frontage along Old Tampa Highway. There's a drainage ditch and a kind of a bridge structure. It makes it very difficult for access. So it forces the access here. And since there's a home here, staff want to recommend this portion going to industrial rather than including this corner to keep a separation from that residential structure. Excuse me a second. Yes. So west of that creek is not part of this? Correct. Okay. Yeah. Again, because part of the reasoning is in Chapter 3, construction aggregate processing, which is a pretty nasty use. There's a 200-foot buffer separation. And the comprehensive plan policy for industrials has a significant distance. Significant distance isn't defined, but we use that as a litmus test, the 200-foot. But then with this creek being there, it kind of makes it simple. Okay, thank you. And it being adjacent to that railroad. Okay, thank you. This is the current land use map. You can see the industrial to the east and the residential low with a sub-district of four to the west and then the City of Lakeland to the south. And then City of Lakeland's other utility systems are even further off the map, further south. Sorry, that shouldn't, the little corner. I missed that. Sorry. That corner shouldn't be included. Right. This is standing on the property looking west. You can see that structure there, that marking the barrier there to the canal area. This is looking into the site, looking northwest. This is looking into the site. And this is looking east toward the industrial area that's adjacent to the site. In terms of impact assessment, industrial doesn't allow residential. There are some parks nearby, Walker Road, Bonnet Springs. The fire EMS response times are about three miles away. There's available water and wastewater capacity. The anticipated trip generation is pretty low, and obviously they can't impact the wetlands and any floodplain mitigation will be required. Justification for approval, I mentioned that earlier, being adjacent to the railroad, they're staying west, I'm sorry, east of the canal. They're already adjacent to industrial. And then with the other non-residential uses in the area, staff finds it compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the land use classification. Any questions for staff? Seeing none, is the applicant here? Come forward and name and address for the record. Hello, my name is David Kuhn. I'm with Kimley Horner & Associates, 109 South Kentucky Avenue, Lakeland 33801. If the board has any questions, I'm happy to answer them on the project. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. With that, we'll return the item back to the board for discussion or a motion. Mr. Chairman, move to approve. Second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso. Brooke Lagnini. Mike Hickman. I am for the motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. And Adam Bass. For the motion. Unanimously approved. Thank you, sir. John, direct the cake. Let's do the next one. Or, I'll leave it. Yeah, the next one. There it is. So, the last conference of plan amendment that you're considering today, LDCPA S2025-22, it's a small-scale conference of plan amendment from residential low, currently has a sub-district of three. The institutional on 2.2 acres of property. It's in the transit support of development area. It's east of Hardin and north of Pipkin. In terms of the mailers, 50 mailers were sent to area property owners on September 16th. New response was received. One sign was posted on September 15th. Legal ad published in Lakeland. I'm sorry. In the Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun on September 17th. This is the location map. You can see. Mr. Chairman. Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, move to expedite. We have a motion to expedite. Do we have a second? Second. Motion and second. Is anyone here to speak for or against this case other than the applicant? All right. Seeing none. All in favor of expediting? Aye. Aye. Please expedite. I'll just use this slide. It gives you the current land use map in the area, Neighborhood Activity Center on the west side of Hardin. You can see it's adjacent to institutional. The applicant has mentioned that what they want to do in the current institutional, they just want to make it more. So it's basically an expansion of the existing institutional. So it's still at basically an intersection of a roadway, which is perfect for non-residential use. Staff recommends approval. And I'll stand for any questions. Any questions? Seeing none. Is the applicant here? Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Bart Allen, land use attorney with Peterson and Myers, 225 East Lemon Street, Lakeland, Florida. Here this morning, on behalf of the applicant with me, I have Mr. Randy Knapp, who's the manager of this project, and then also Matthew Johnson. Appreciate the time, and we request a favorable recommendation of the Board of County Commissioners. Any questions for the applicant? Seeing none. We are under expedited procedures, and so we won't be taking public comment at this point. With that, I'll take the item back to the Board for a motion. Move to approve. Second. Give a motion to second. Roll call. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Giannamasso. For the motion. Brooke Aghini. For the motion. Mike Hakeman. I am for the motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. And Adam Bass. For the motion. Mr. Chairman passes. Thank you. Unanimously. Leah. Next case, please. Number six on the agenda is LDCT 2025-7, the Cargo Containers LDC Tax Amendment. This is a county-initiated LDC Tax Amendment to Section 206K to allow cargo containers on residential developed properties meeting or exceeding one acre. And Eric Peterson is your planner. Good morning, Planning Commission members. Eric Peterson for the Land Development Division. The next three text amendments that you'll be hearing are part of a group of text amendments that we've taken before the Board of County Commissioners for their input and got a direction. They came about by raising certain issues that we had had in the permitting process and calls from the public for certain changes. We brought those before the Board, and this is the first one. This is with regards to cargo containers. For many various reasons, which I will not get into today, there is an abundance of these cargo shipping containers that are winding up in the state of Florida and available in Polk County. And we get a lot of demands by residents to use them as storage sheds, also other things. We amended the code a while back to allow them to be used as building materials in the building of an accessory dwelling unit or an actual dwelling unit. This is taking a step further. This lessens the restrictions on residential to allow shipping containers on properties, residential properties of one acre or more. It also, there has been debate about using these shipping containers in the past, and some permits were issued. As a result of that, we are writing into this grandfather provision for those, if it ever comes in the question, that they were or were not legal. So that's part of this code as well. Everything else stays the same. The shipping containers cannot be used for any type of advertising. We make it clear in the text. The setbacks will be the more stringent. The ARR setbacks of 15 feet from property owners. Buffering is required as well. So just to reiterate the current situation, we prohibit these in residential districts and certain commercial districts, and it's been brought to us, you know, by popular demand to lessen those codes. We looked at, when we looked at reviewing these, we considered size, but since we cap it at one acre, that's a substantial size property. So the size of the shipping container shouldn't matter because it will always be in the rear side yard as an accessory structure would be. We don't allow them to be stacked. As you can see, that can be rather noticeable. We look at certain areas. You know, they'll be in the rear yard. We could not, under Florida statutes, have any architectural standards implemented with them. So we either take them as they are, but know that if it says Maersk on the side or Hoppag Lloyd, that's advertising. So the applicant would have to cover that in some way to mask any advertising that would be on the container. And that's a short synopsis. I probably said a little bit too much. I will stand for questions. Any questions for staff? So these are applicable to business, office spaces, and so forth? Currently, they're allowed in certain commercial districts and then, of course, the Business Park Center and industrial districts. They're not allowed in certain commercial districts as well. I believe there's still the limitation in office center, convenience center, those smaller commercial districts and the office districts. That's not changing. The commercial standards, you can, for the districts that allow it, you can have one container and an additional container for every acre of property. And we're not proposing any changes to that. It's mainly for residential, which we totally prohibit them in the RL districts and the RS districts, unless you had five acres. Now it's coming down so that for all the residential districts, you can have them as long as the property is at least one acre. And then you can have an additional one for each additional acre. Bonafide agriculture has always been exempt. And if you have any further questions, please. So these units have been turned into accessory dwelling units, and some of them are rather attractive for what they are. But then you're only limiting that to one acre parcels. No, if it is used for habitation, for a residential structure, then there is no minimum acreage. Okay. That changes it from a storage container. To something that's regulated by the building code. Yes. There was some debate about, you know, at what point does it become a building material and not a shipping container anymore? Well, residential, you know, they have to have windows, they have to have electrical, insulation, plumbing, things of that nature. Totally changes that to something other than that. But for storage, well, you just set them down and put your stuff in. Load them up. But let's see. So, I mean, you can put a shed on a half acre site. How does this structure be distinguished from the metal sheds that are being put up? Well, the board gave us direction that the one acre was probably the best cap right now. We'll see how it goes. But these are large containers. As you see, they come in and we didn't restrict the size, just the standard container sizes. There's also a 54-foot-long container as well. Those don't fit on half acre properties very well. So, the one acre property, we figured we were safe when it came to the size of the containers. Going any further, I think a lot more analysis would have to be done. Okay. Can we restrict a color? We looked at that and it was decided that that was an architectural standard. You can do that. And we were restricted by Florida statutes from doing that. What does a text amendment do to use for construction purposes, temporary or even permanent? They've always been allowed for temporary structures for construction. And, you know, if you have a construction company, usually your place of business is on a commercial district. That would allow them anyway. I mean, for on-site development of a site. Most contractors have these and they pull them in and they use them for the project. Those follow our temporary construction, trailer, storage standards that we've had in the code. Any other questions for staff? Do we have an applicant on this one here? Staff is the applicant. With that, we'll open the floor for public comment. Anyone here to speak for or against this case, please step forward. Seeing none, we'll close the public portion of this case. We'll bring the item back to the board for a discussion or a motion. Move to approve LDCT 2025-7. Second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. I'm for the motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. And Adam Bass. For the motion. Mr. Chairman, pass unanimously. Thank you, sir. Number seven on the agenda is LDCT 2025-8, the Pool Safety Tax Amendment. This is a county-initiated LDC Tax Amendment to Chapter 2, Section 211, Pools and Screen Enclosures, to refer to the Florida Building Code and Florida Statutes for consistency with above-ground pool safety measures. And Kyle Rogas is your planner. Good morning again. Carl Rogas with Land Development, presenting LDCT 2025-8, the Pool Safety LDC Tax Amendment. This is a county-initiated LDC Tax Amendment to Chapter 2, Section 211, Pools and Screen Enclosures, to refer to building code and Florida Statutes for consistency with above-ground pool safety measures. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun News on September 17th. We have received no response from the public. Staff recommends approval. This amendment reflects a practical and necessary update to the county's land development code. By aligning with the Florida's building code and Florida statutes, clear and enforceable pool safety measures will prevent unauthorized access to pools, improving overall community safety. Mr. Chairman, move to expedite. We have a motion to expedite. Anyone here to speak for or against this case? Seeing none, do we have a second to expedite? Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor for expediting procedures? Aye. Please expedite. Just to clarify or just to summarize, like I said, this is a necessary update. So the land development code's language is currently not up to date with the Florida building code that you can see here and the Florida statutes. Most of them say shall be capable or must be capable. We kind of workshopped this with the board whether we wanted to remove that capable word because that's where we were having most of the issues with law enforcement or wanted to add the last sentence here when the ladder or steps are secured, locked, or removed. Any opening created shall not allow the passage of a four-inch diameter sphere. Essentially, what the board ended up wanting to come down to is just removing the entire section and just leaving it to referring to the Florida building code and Florida statutes. So with that, I will stand for questions. Any questions? Being none, and we are the applicant in this case. We have no public comments. We'll bring the item back to the board for discussion or a motion. Mr. Chairman, move to approve. Second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. I'm for the motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. And Adam Bass. For the motion. Mr. Chairman, pass unanimously. We are making you work very hard. Yes, you are. Boy. Right fast. Sheriff, I got to get out of here. Next case, or final case for today. Good morning. Aileen Glemo with Land Development, presenting number eight on the agenda, LDCT 2025-9, the Southeast Polk Mobile Homes. This is a county-initiated request to remove conditional use standards for individual mobile homes within the Southeast Polk Selected Area Plan to conform with the rest of the county. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland Winter Haven Sun on September 17, 2025, with no responses from the public. Mr. Chairman, move to expedite. We have a motion to expedite. We have a second. Second. We have a motion to second to expedite. Anyone here to speak for or against this case, please step forward. Seeing none, all in favor of expedited procedure? Aye. Aye. Please expedite. So this proposal is to make the Village Center overlay in the Southeast Polk, consistent with other parts of the LDC, for placement of mobile homes. This would treat mobile homes in this SAP the same as the rest of the county and addresses an affordable housing opportunity in existing subdivisions where few compatibility issues exist. And I will stand for questions. Any questions for staff? And I assume we're the applicant on this one as well. That is correct. All right. So with that, we're back to the board for discussion or a motion. Mr. Chairman, move to approve. We're dragging it out. All right. All right. So we have a motion to second. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. I'm for the motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. Adam Bass. For the motion. Mr. Chairman, passes unanimously. For the record, we got through in less than an hour. I see. Congratulations. I know it's been a goal year. Wow. We do have- Good luck in the future. It's easy. I don't think Randy ever- Don't get your hopes out. We still have to do elections, so go ahead. And you have one more time of suffering me, Randy. Oh. Yes. I know. It's good. It's good. But Mr. Bass is going to be happy because it's about the conservation element. So there you go. Okay. Well, move to expedite. No. No. No. No. So we completed the infrastructure element and we've moved on to the conservation element. And a lot of conservation items are actually in the infrastructure element in terms of basin management action plans and a variety of those kind of things. There's infrastructure to some extent, stormwater management, et cetera. So I think our biggest discussion that we are circling around with the Conference of Planned Advisory Committee right now is what role should county staff play in conservation? Should it be different than what we've been doing? And if it's different, what does that look like? So we are working on that. And that goes around the Polk Green map. And what do we include on there or what do we not include on there? How do we make it look? And how does the comp plan implement that? So we're swirling around on that. And by your look on your face, Mr. Heath, so to drill that down a little bit more in terms of what we're talking about when it looks at development, we are thinking more about if there's impact to the environment in some way, having staff, not necessarily the planners per se, but those that are educated in that directly, like our natural resources staff, what does that mean for their NPDES permits? What does that mean for their basin management action plans? What does it mean for the work that they do? How does impacting those conservation items impact what they do? And then talking about how do we mitigate it? How do we deal with that? Rather than them actually saying, no, that's not where we're going with that discussion. So just some information there. And I know for our newest member, I think I'll start it next month because other newest Planning Commission members should be here as well. I'll start passing out some of the elements that the committee has already reviewed. I'll still send you those elements, Mr. Heath, as well. So that you guys can start seeing them, reading them, absorbing them, so you're not asked to read it to a week prior to the Planning Commission hearing and approve 11 elements, which wouldn't happen until next summer anyway-ish. So I stand for any questions. Any questions? Just a comment. I'd like to hear that we're taking that holistic look, and I'd like that we're utilizing county resources to the fullest in that. That sounds like a good plan. It's coming from multiple sources. Yes, ma'am. In addition to the public. So, yes, thank you. I like it. I'm sorry. Will those comments be included now in our summary, in the reports that we get per? In the minutes. Because I don't see in the, yes, in the minutes. I don't see too much about that currently. No. We do have, we do take minutes of the Conference Plan Advisory Committee, but I'm not providing those to you directly. But I'm giving you summaries of our discussions that way. So is this additional, an additional step in the process? Yes. Yes. Back earlier this year, the commission decided to appoint a Conference of Plan Advisory Committee. Right. We were going to move forward with just doing the whole comp plan update and providing that to you actually back in May. So, much earlier than that, the board wanted to do the Conference of Plan Advisory Committee. But we needed to at least amend the comp plan based on the evaluation and appraisal report. Oh, what did I need to tell you about that? So, we had a deadline that we had to meet. So, we split the process. So, you approved in June a few minor updates to the Conference of Plan to meet our evaluation and appraisal report requirements. And then since June, we have been working with the Conference of Plan Advisory Committee since then. So, we are probably a couple of elements away from the future land use element. We saved that one until last. Maybe I didn't ask the question correctly. The process that you're talking about, is this going to be an additional step that you have to go through through the county to go through the approval process with your natural resource department? No. No. They attend. We have different staff attend our advisory committee meetings as the experts in how the county. So, they will be part of that? Discussion. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thanks. And some of you may have heard some of the reactions of the state of some of the Conference of Plan updates throughout the state. But where they're getting their Comp Plan or Conference of Plan is considered null and void. But we got comments only on our evaluation and appraisal report. A few minor comments. Easy to address. And we'll be taking ours to November 4th for the Board of County Commissioners to adopt. So, very excited. But I would say that over the years, we have done well at updating our Comp Plan based on changes in state law. So, we didn't really have a lot to do. So, we were lucky. Good proactive staff. Yes. Yes. That's it. That's it. Appreciate your efforts. All right. Any other items from staff? With that, I think we have to have a discussion in reference to board elections. In the past, we've done these either as a slate or an individual. I will remind you that Mr. Bishop is still on the board as well. And in talking with our attorney, the board positions need to be with the permanent members, not the alternates. So, with that, I will open up a dialogue. I should leave. Well, you're welcome to stay or leave. Up to you. Thank you. If you leave, you may get voted in for something. If you leave, you're going to get voted in. I better not leave. So, with that, we'll open the floor for a discussion or any kind of suggestions for board officers. Mr. Bishop is currently our secretary, as it stands today. As you know, the vice chair, Mr. Dalton, is no longer on the board and has been replaced by Cindy. So, with that, the floor is kind of open. I'll leave it open for a discussion. Not it. Robert, are you wanting to stay as chair? Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. Has there been any discussion? I know Merle's not here. Does he still want to serve as some sort of position? You mentioned last meeting that he'd be willing to serve in any capacity. We saw fit. Then I'd like to make a motion to be Merle Bishop, be the chairman. Okay. Second. We have a motion. Well, that was quick. For the chair. Any other, I believe the election allows for multiple, right? Any other candidates for the chair? I'm happy not to do it. That was the question. Yeah, yeah, yeah. All right. With that, we'll take a vote for the chair. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. So, we now have a chair. As I remember, you got voted to the chair when you were absent. Yeah. He gets voted to the chair when he was absent. He gets voted to the chair today. You best stick around. Okay. So, we have a chair. We need to have a vice chair. And the secretary's still nominated. Any volunteers? Mike? Mike, would you want to do it? I'd like my kids. They'd do the, you know, finger on the nose. Yeah. So, would you like to be vice chair? No, no, no. That means they don't. Not it. She already said not it. So, she's got her just, I mean, there's only a couple names here. I'll do the vice chair. You'll do the vice chair? There you go, Mike. There you go, Mike. All right. I don't know. No, they can't do that. Probably. We can't do that to a new person who's replacing her any. Do we know, Chandra, can you tell us who our new planning commission next week? Angel Sims. Oh, okay. But she's technically not appointed yet. The board hasn't appointed her yet, technically. We could leave the slot open if you guys want. I'm just going to put out different options. Let the record show that I'm not available next month. Why do we do this now before all the new people are seated? And Merle's not here. Yeah, I think it's just always, it's always in October. And historically, we have, I think, tried to have new members all start, like we did with Cindy, by October. But just people coming off, it hasn't worked out that way. All right. So, do I have a motion for our vice chair? Mike, did you say you were going to do it? Here, Mike Hickman. Second. All in favor of Mr. Hickman serving as vice chair? Aye. Let the record show. One day. One day. With that, we still need a secretary as well. Mr. Heath was kind enough to fill in that role today. But as we said, he's not going to be here starting the next meeting. So, I can't nominate him to chair, so I'm waiting. We'd have a volunteer. I nominate Cindy Giannama. All right. We have a nomination. Any other nominations for secretary? Seeing none, do we have a second for Cindy? Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor of Cindy serving as our secretary? Aye. Cindy, I'm going to apologize to you. I can't, I'm doing terrible with your last name, so I'm not quite there yet. I don't want to say it wrong. But Cindy, I got down, packed. Okay. So, with that, this is Mr. Heath's last meeting. I just wanted to thank him for all the leadership he's had over the years on this board. I know when I first started, he was in this chair, I believe. Always look to him for guidance and understanding. He brings a lot of experience to the table. So, we just want to thank you for all you've done for this board. And with that, I think staff may have something as well. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the record, Ben Ziskel, Land Development Director. We would like to also formally recognize Mr. Heath for his service to the Planning Commission. I've said this before. We recognize, staff recognizes, and the county recognizes, that this is a volunteer position. And all of you have taken time out of your schedules to not only attend these meetings, but to review the backup and to thoroughly investigate or research the cases that are going to be before you. And I know that none of you take these decisions lightly. And there are a lot of volunteer organizations throughout this county. But with the amount of growth that this county has faced, the decisions that you make are not taken lightly by us, not taken lightly by the development community, and not taken lightly by the community and the residents that live in this county or work in this county. And it's a tough job. And days like today where we have 7-0 votes, there's nobody from the public coming here to tell you what a great job you do. But a controversial case, there will be a room full of people telling you what a terrible job you do or how much they disagree with your decisions. So, we recognize that. And it's a noble thing to volunteer to serve in this capacity. And Mr. Heath has done that this time. He has done it for two terms for a total of six years. And he did previously do that for six years before and termed out. So, certainly a level of commitment to this community that is unmatched by most residents. So, Mr. Heath, thank you for your commitment to this county and for being a part of this process. It's invaluable. There's a reason that we have these public meetings so that residents and business communities have a voice. And you all do a great job listening to the community and making very important decisions. So, we'd like to formally present you with a plaque in recognition of your dedication and commitment to excellence as a member of the Polk County Planning Commission from November of 2019 through October of 2025 on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you. Thank you. I think he said he wasn't coming back. A standing ovation or anything? If I could say – thank you so much. I appreciate it. If I could say the staff makes this job so easy. I've got to tell you, I do a lot of this stuff in different cities and counties. And the staff here by far makes this job so easy and very clearly state your position, which makes it, again, easy. So, it's because of you guys that people want to volunteer for this position and not the other way around. So, I appreciate everything the staff's done. And that, I'm done. Thank you. Let the record show we went over an hour because of this comp. No, I'm just kidding. With that, we'll motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. We'll be adjourned.