Planning Commission on 2026-01-07 9:00 AM

Be aware of on our agenda today before we convene the meeting at nine o'clock. Yes, sir. Two items here. Number one, LDCPS 2025-32, the Kathleen and Duff NAC CPA has been continued to February 4th. This was not on the agenda, but it was advertised. That's at the bottom of the screen above. Okay. Then we have a last minute change to the agenda. This is number two. This is LDCU 2025-25, the Hudson Mobile Home case. There's apparently some ownership issue that we need to have resolved before we hear this case. It needs to be continued to February 4th. Okay. Okay. So, Mr. Chair, my recommendation on that one on LDCU 2025-25, since it was advertised for today, is that possibly at the start of the meeting we can ask to see if anyone in the audience was here to speak, just to let them know that the board will continue. Okay. Okay. We're going to close the work session, and we'll reconvene the meeting at nine o'clock. I'll convene the January 7th meeting of the 2026 meeting of the Polk County Planning Commission to order, and first order of business is to ask for a roll call, please, from Secretary. Robert Beltran. Present. Cindy Janamaso. Present. Merle Bishop. Present. Brooke Agnini. Here. Mike Hickman. Here. Angel Sims. Here. Julie Jackson. Here. We have a quorum. Thank you. Next, we'll stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. And we have minutes from, excuse me, our October 1st meeting, our November 5th meeting, and our December 3rd meeting. And I consulted with the attorney, and we will have a separate motion for each of these. So, I will ask if there are any comments, questions, or changes to the October 1st, 2025 minutes. And if not, I'll ask for a motion to approve. Move to approve. Second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. November 5th, 2025. Are there any questions, comments, changes? Motion. Move to approve. Second. Motion to second to approve. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. And December 3rd, any questions, changes, comments? Move to approve. Second. Motion to second to approve. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you. So, next, we will, we have some revisions that staff has pointed out to us to our agenda. And, uh, I believe the second item on the agenda will be continued. Yes, sir. It's LDCU 2025-25. And I believe I spoke with the applicant in our little intermission here. Um, kind of explained that there's an issue with ownership and permission on proceeding with this application. Understood that it needs to be continued February 4th. Is anyone here present to speak in favor or opposition to that? It is, what's the case number again? It's LD, I'm sorry, 2025-25, the Hudson Mobile Home case. It's highlighted on the screen above. Okay. So, you're the applicant? Okay. So, um, staff's recommendation so we can get the ownership issues cleared up and make sure we have the, um, proper authorizations is to continue the case to, um, next month, which is February 4th. 4th. So, um, we probably need a motion just to make sure everyone's comfortable with that. Okay. Do I have a motion to continue, um, I don't have it in front of me. The LD, LDCU 2025-25. I move to continue, um, 2025-25. Second. Motion is second to approve continuance. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Okay. So, that'll be just for the record to February 4th. Okay. Uh, there are no other changes to the agenda. So, next I'll ask our attorney to, uh, explain the general procedures to the audience. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, today 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. The case planner will then present their staff report and recommendation. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak and present testimony on a case today 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 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 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 three review, he or she will need a record and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding 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 hearing. Regarding level four 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, competent evidence in the record. Mr. Chair, would you like me to swear in the witnesses for today's cases? Yes, 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. 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? So moved. Second. Motion is second to approve. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Same sign. Thank you. And 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 a 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 surrounding 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 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 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 includes my comments. Thank you. Thank you. So with that, we will move to our first case and ask staff to introduce that for us under new business. Staff is disgusting, man. All right, I'll get them queued up here. All right, number one on the agenda is LDCU 2025-24, the Alexander Mobile Home. The African is requesting conditional use approval for a mobile home to be permitted on 0.13 acres within a residential medium future land use district. The subject site is located at 717 Henry Street, south of Havendale Boulevard, and Derby Avenue, west of Hobbs Road, North Lincoln Court, and southeast of the city of Auburndale in section 14, Township 28, range 25. December 22nd, 47 mailers were sent to area property owners. One sign was posted on December 19th, and a legal ad was published in the Polk Sun on December 24th. Staff has logged no public input, and Andrew Grahowski is the planner. Good morning. Andrew Grahowski for the record presenting LDCU 2025-24, the Alexander Mobile Home case. The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to place a mobile home on approximately 0.13 acres in a residential neighborhood. On December 22nd, 47 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on December 19th, and a legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun on December 24th. Staff has received no public response. Staff finds the request to be compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code and is recommending approval. Mr. Chair, move to expedite. I have a motion to expedite. Second. And a second. Is there anyone in the audience here to speak in favor or in opposition of this case? Is the applicant present? Well, so therefore we can expedite this with the approval of the motion that's on the floor. All those in favor of the motion to expedite, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed like sign? Okay, we will expedite. So the site essentially is surrounded by the city of Auburndale and within a small enclave of the residential medium land use designation. So there are 14 lots that share road frontage off of Henry Street, eight of which are single-family residences. One is a mobile home, and three are duplex buildings. The remaining four lots are vacant. The Pinecrest subdivision to the east of the subject site right here consists of 42 lots, seven of which are mobile homes, and two are duplexes. The nearest mobile home was constructed in 1986 and is about 270 feet to the southwest, which is right here. So the request is compatible with the surrounding land use area and will meet all setbacks in the Land Development Code as well as any applicable requirements in the Comprehensive Plan. And with that, I stand for any questions. Questions of staff? Hearing none, do I have a motion? I move to approve LDCU 2025-24. Second. I have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Robert Beltram. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Next case, we have voted to continue, but I will go ahead and ask again, is there anyone here to speak regarding LDCU 2025-25, the Hudson Mobile Home? That case has been continued. So, we'll move on to the third item under new business and ask staff to present this to us. Good morning. Aaliyah Nglema with Land Development presenting number three on the agenda, LDCU 2025-28, the Pine Street retail case. The applicant is requesting a conditional use approval for a 10,640-square-foot commercial retail establishment. The subject site is located on the east side of Lake Marion Creek Drive, south side of Pine Street, west of Hemlock Avenue, north of Marigold Avenue, east of the city of Haines City, and Section 3, Township 28, Range 28. On December 22nd, 58 mailers were sent to area property owners. Two signs were posted on December 19th. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun on December 24th with all responses from the public. So, again, the subject site is located just east of the city of Haines City. Retail development within this area is extremely limited. LDCPAS 2025-25 was approved December 16th, 2025, to change the feature lane use designation on the subject parcel from pre-development of regional impact to convenience center. So, retail stores are complementary to residential neighborhoods as they provide services to the media area. And here is the site plan for the commercial retail establishment. Section 220 requires a 50-foot setback for buildings and dumpsters abutting residential properties. Enhanced landscaping and shielded lighting will be required. Here are photos from my site visit. Convenience centers must be located at the intersections of arterial and or collector roads. The proposed structure will be located along Pine Street and Lake Marion Creek Drive and will be well buffered from the neighborhood to the south and east. And the proposed request is consistent with the Land Development Code and comprehensive plan, and I'll stand for any questions. Any questions, staff? I have, I guess, a question about the—there are conditions that are being proposed, and some of those conditions appear to try to get a design for a Dollar General that's not a typical Dollar General. And I'm—maybe this should be a question of the applicant, because I'm just wondering if that's agreeable with the applicant, and they are going to do a different prototype, I guess. That is correct. The applicant did agree to the conditions, and these conditions were also placed on a previous Dollar General. And the conditions were agreeable with the applicant as there was some opposition to the land use change, and so they are going to add these conditions to improve the site. If there are no further questions, I'll open the public comment portion of this item and ask if the applicant is present. Yes, sir. Would you come forward, please? State your name and address for the record. Good morning. Sam Medina with Sloan Engineering Group, 150 South Woodlawn Avenue here on behalf of the applicant. Yes, Mr. Bishop, as you indicated, this particular Dollar General is a different prototype. It's the market, which is going to offer additional produce, fresh produce, fresh meats. That's why we're in excess of a 10,000-square-foot maximum. So we've actually done this to other places in the county, as Aaliyah indicated, one in Fort Meade and one in Lakeland off of Skyview. And there's been a great turnout for those with the added improvements to the stores. So we are in favor of the architectural improvements. Any questions of the applicant? Anyone else to speak in favor of this application? Anyone to speak in opposition to this application? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the board, close the public comment portion, bring it back to the board for any further comment, questions, and a motion. A motion to approve. I have a motion to approve and a second. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. We'll move to the fourth item on the agenda, LDCU 202533. Staff. All right. Like you said, LDCU 202533. Kyle Rogus is your planner. Good morning. Kyle Rogus with Land Development, presenting LDCU 202533, a modification to CU0027M to expand non-phosphate mining on approximately 70 acres. The expansion is to allow an increase in depth of mining activity and mining method, hydraulic dredging, and a portion of the approved mine, and add a sand processing plant and ancillary infrastructure on site. On December 22nd, 15 mailers were sent to area property owners. 13 boards were posted on the property December 22nd. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on December 24th. We have received no response from the public. Staff finds this request compatible and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code. Staff recommends approval. So any questions of staff? Seeing none, I'll open the public comment portion of the hearing and ask the applicant to come forward. I have no further information. Okay. Apologies. The subject site is located north of Scenic Highway, south of State Road. Sorry, I got ahead of myself. What was that? I got ahead of myself. I'm sorry. Apologies. State Road 60, east of U.S. Highway 27, west of Walken Water Road. In Section 17, Township 30, Range 28. The subject site is located in Agricultural Residential Rural Land Use District and the county's rural development area in Southeast Polk Selected Area Plan. This area has long been used for mining activity. The original sand mine was approved for 40 acres in February of 2000 and later underwent a modification to add an additional 322 acres in April of 2008. After it received approval from the Planning Commission, to the east of the existing sand mine bifurcated by Gulf View Cutoff Road is the county's southeastern landfill. Highland Park Manor is located over a quarter mile to the northwest. There are two residences that abut the site on the northeast corner of the mine approved in April of 2008. A 200-foot setback, as shown on the mine plan, is required. An additional perimeter berm is proposed. The sand will be mined at a rate of 5 to 20 acres per year, with an anticipated closure around 2080. Mining, processing, and maintenance will occur 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. Meanwhile, truck operations will take place from 4 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Saturday. A processing and wash plant will be located near the center of the site, taking access off Gulf View Cutoff Road. The sand will be pumped to the processing plant by dredge to be washed, sorted, and conveyed into stockpiles of various desired production size ranges. The most significant issue of potential incompatibility is truck traffic entering and exiting the area of the mine through Highland Manor community. This community was built at a relatively urban scale on a local road design. At one time, there was some truck traffic from citrus harvesting, the county's landfill, and the existing mine. As one of the original conditions, all vehicle trips to the west shall travel south on Gulf View Cutoff Road to Scenic Highway. There shall be no truck traffic accessing Lilly Street or any street within the Highland Park Manor subdivision, with the exception of Lewis Griffin Road. Additional signage for directing truck traffic away from the Highland Manor Park community is conditioned. The surrounding roadway network has adequately served mining facilities since February 2000 and will continue to do so without causing a failure in service. Trucking operation hours are from 4 a.m. to 5 p.m., assuming full operation at six days per week, Monday through Saturday. The applicant submitted a minor traffic study with the request that anticipates 556 annual average daily trips and 17 p.m. peak hour trips, assuming a maximum of 10 employees at peak operation. Access from the main plant will be directly off of Gulf View Cutoff Road, a minor arterial collector roadway, or minor collector roadway. About 1.87 miles driving south is State Road 17 at Principal Arterial Roadway. Approximately 10% of trip distribution will turn left and head north on Lewis Griffin Road. It is anticipated that 90% of the project trips will travel west on State Road 17 and 60% will head north towards Lake Wales and 40% south towards Frostproof. The submitted reclamation plan and post-closure plan provides viable land use activities. The end result of this mining activity will include open space conservation and reservoirs. There are no current water features on site. The post-closure plan indicates that there will be a lake reservoir spanning approximately 88 acres. This is the view of the site looking northwest from Rim Road. During staff site visit, a gopher tortoise burrow was documented. Further environmental studies will be reviewed during the Level 2 review process, if approved. On the west side of Gulfview Cutoff Road is this site, this one and only access point. Directly to the east of the county is the county's southeastern landfill. Highland Park Manor is located over a quarter mile to the northwest. And staff recommends approval. Staff finds that the request is consistent with the land use, land development code, and comprehensive plan. This area has long been used for mining activity. The original sand mine was approved for 40 acres in February of 2000 and later underwent a modification to add an additional 322 acres in April of 2008 after it received approval from the Planning Commission. The proposed use has little need for urban services other than fire rescue and transportation access, both of which are available to the subject site. The roadway system is adequate for the traffic and the project site is close to State Road 17. And with that, I will stand for questions. Are there any questions of staff? Yes, yes. The times of operation that you presented are different than in the documents that we received for operation hours of 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.? That 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. was from the original CU0027M application. These will be modifying those operation hours to that 4 a.m. to 5 p.m. for truck traffic or trucking operations. Okay. Any other questions? I've got a question. Yes. So when you talk about these truck trips, you've got an ongoing sand mine there. Is that in addition to what is calculated for the existing sand mine, or is that just a continuation of what is already in progress? This will be in anticipation for the amount of acreage and the increased intensity of mining activity that will be produced from this mine plan. So that activity is increased? Increased from what is existing now today to that 556 anticipated annual average daily trips. Okay. And then that existing one sunsets at some point, so what's the difference on, they're saying 2035 is what I read in here. Is that correct, that this current one is proposed to run to? I guess what I'm asking for is, this is just a continuation of an existing process. Does that extend the finish date then on the total project? Give me one second. I have the original. Maybe Bart can answer these questions. Perhaps. I may defer to the applicant to answer those specifically while I try to find it in the original staff report that I have here. We can wait until Bart gets up there. Sorry. And it is on page two of the staff report. You have the note that the total life of the mine is anticipated to last until 2035. So I assume a total life means with this addition, this modification. Yes. Yes, that is correct. Okay. Hearing. Do you have any other questions? This was extending that from 20, I see 2038 on page four of the staff report that reclamation shall conclude by April 9th, 2038 is now extending to 2080. That is going to be with the reclamation and post-closure plan to have it fully closed out by then, but mining activity will close at that 2030, 23 year. So the mining concludes 2038, but reclamation is allowed until 2080? Am I understanding that? I will defer to the applicant for that question. Okay. Hearing no further questions, I will now open the public comment portion and ask the applicant to come forward, please. Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Bart Allen, I'm a land use attorney with the Springer Pierce, I mean, Peterson Myers law firm, 225 East Lemon Street, Lakeland, Florida. Happy to be here this morning on behalf of our applicant, Quickrete, technically Monarch Mountain Minerals and Aggregates LLC, which is a subsidiary of Quickrete. And I have Mr. Brian Klein in the audience from Quickrete with me this morning, looking for my PowerPoint. You would think I would know where all that is since I spent a little bit of time here at this dais yesterday. Here we go. All right. This is a modification to this existing conditional use. And I'll jump into a little bit of the details and maybe I'll answer a handful of the questions from Commissioner Jackson. And welcome to the Planning Commission and Commissioner Hickman's comments. But before I dive into that, I want to touch on my team. I need to make sure we introduce everybody that we have here this morning. I've got a number of folks from our technical side to who have been evaluating the site. Again, from the Cleanest Group, I have Mr. Mark Stevens, who's a PE and a professional geologist. I have Mr. Malintzy, who's also been working on the site planning and the project layout. Those are both from Cleanest related to the actual site plan. Also from ecological support related to the environmental work, I've got Mr. Lee Walton, certified wildlife biologist. He's with Verdantis. He has evaluated the site and will continue evaluating the site as this, assuming this is approved, as this project continues to move forward into the future. From transportation, and we'll talk a little bit about that as we get into the presentation, I have Ms. Amber Gartner. She is a PE with Kim Lee Horn and Associates, and she performed the transportation analysis related to this project. And then, last but not least, I have Ms. Tracy Malintzy. She's handling a lot of the permitting and public relations, governmental affairs type activities for this project. This is a great team. We've done, as a group, we've done a number of the sand mines in the county, the existing facilities, and they have a tremendous amount of history and knowledge as it relates to how these processes work. But before I dive into the merits, I really, I think it's important that as a county we recognize, you know, we're bringing in Quickrete. They are a nationally recognized manufacturer and producer of aggregates and aggregates in all different forms, shapes and forms, a lot more than I even realized before I got involved in this project. They have 11 different subsidiaries. This will be their first sand production facility in Polk County. They have a bagging facility in Lakeland. But it's great to see that the companies of this quality are looking at our area to come and locate. One of the other things I learned about Quickrete, while they are nationally recognized, and I know we've used, personally used some of the Quickrete bags, throwing basketball hoops up and different things in the backyard, I did not realize that they were a family-owned company as well, which was surprising to me as I learned about them over the past year. So really, I think it's incredible for this county to see these kinds of investments and folks moving. So I really just wanted to say that on the record, not to boost Mr. Klein's ego in any way, but I truly mean it. This is, and as Mr. Rogas discussed, this is an existing sand mine. It's 362 acres today. It's operating today. It's been operating for some time. It is really a dry mine at this point, and what we're asking to do is to add an additional 70 acres onto the site, which, you know, you've seen the exhibits. I won't belabor those. But then also go to a hydraulic dredging on a portion of the site. That will allow for a variety of different types of sands and materials and aggregates to be brought out of this existing facility. The reason for the 70-acre expansion at this time is just the acquisition of additional land by Highland Sand, LLC. They are the landowner. They will remain the landowner as this process, and I'd be remiss if I didn't mention them as it relates to Highland Sand. That's Mr. George O'Neill and his team. So I really want to appreciate them working with our client to facilitate this. So at the end of the day, assuming this is approved, what you'll end up with is a 432-acre site, a portion of which is permitted for dry mining and a portion of which is permitted for the wet mining and the dredge. And the need for sand, this is clearly not the first sand mine that's come through recently, not even just over the past couple months. I mean, in the past 16 months, there's been three or four of these that have come through. So what you're seeing is there is a very strong demand in the market. And part of the reason why you have such a strong demand in the market is because you have the resource here. And the resource is not everywhere. This sand, this quality of sand, the products that this goes into, cement, concrete, has to be of a certain quality in order for those products to actually be useful. Specifically, when you're looking at the construction of roads and bridges and some of that heavier infrastructure, you need to have that high quality sand to go into those DOT projects and things of that nature. It's extremely important, and that's why it's critical that we continue to maintain and permit and allow these sites to function. We talked about this last month. It's so important that the state legislature has identified a Florida statute related to identifying this as a critical resource. That's very unusual. You don't see these kinds of state laws and statutes in place, but they are strategic and they are critical for our state to continue to move forward. This is the site. I'll kind of move through this pretty quick. Mr. Rogas went through it in good detail. You can see the existing mine outlined. You can see the yellow being the additional 70 acres being put on sand mines. Non-phosphate mines are allowed in all land use classifications under your comprehensive plan through a conditional use process, which is what we're doing today. What we're asking for today is a specialized use, which is, again, another difference, differentiates it from a lot of other uses in your comp plan and in your land development code. So, again, the area around us is primarily ARR. This site's entirely ARR. There's a small little bit of institutional to the east. If this slide was pushed down so that you could see further north, what you would find is that this is almost directly due south of the existing sand mines on Highway 60. This is where Cimex is. That's where Standard Sand and Silica is. Vulcan has a facility in that. So it makes sense that this is a logical north-south continuation of an existing resource. So you go, the mining goes to where the resource is, and I think that's just something that is important. This isn't just out in the middle of nowhere. A couple other things, just to point out, I wanted to note, probably because I'm on the classic board more than anything, this piece right here on the northeast corner was recently acquired by the county for conservation. So you're not going to have the ability to have any growth really starting to compress onto the site. So it will be protected. It's separated, things like that. I think that's important. Those kinds of acquisitions along Tiger Creek protect that natural resource that's just off the slide to the east. So this is the right spot for these types of uses, and they're complementary to each other. Because at the end of the day, half this site will end up being effectively a water body. Again, this is just an aerial map. You can see the existing mining area where they're doing the dry mining. And here you've got the existing access on the Gulfview cutoff road. You've got the expansion parcels just to the north and to the west. We'll probably, if this is approved, there's a couple unopened or unmaintained, really unused right away that kind of now are in between. Some of these parcels will probably pursue just to unify the site a little bit as well so that we can stay out of those public rights away that aren't really used anymore. They're old Grove Roads type stuff. But that's for a later date. So, again, this is just to kind of, again, to give you an idea of what's going on on the site today. Working through the process, just for purposes of the record, again, these are kind of just to check the box to make sure that the record's clear. We have gone through a pre-application conference. We did submit the formal application in October. We went through a DRC review. And at the end of the day, after all that review, with the conditions of approval, and I'll talk about a couple of those conditions in just a second, the finding and the recommendation to you is that this use is compatible, is consistent with your comp plan. And, therefore, we have met all of your criteria in the land development code for purposes of getting a recommendation of approval and a favorable vote today. These are the three key pieces of non-phosphate mine approval. We talked a little bit about that, or probably a fairly good amount about that, last month. You've got three pieces. You've got your operations plan, you've got a reclamation plan, and you've got a post-closure plan. Those activities occur in sequence. And then once you get your level three, that identifies how the mine will progress into the future. You then come in, do your formal level twos, get your driveway permits, get your, you know, any of those kind of permits that you need for purposes of the stacking and the sorting and the washing of the aggregate after the mining has occurred. One of the things that's unique about, or that differentiates this site from other sand mines, and I don't want to say all, but others, is that this site has already been actively mined as a dry mine. So there's a hole in the ground today, right, right? You know, essentially in this general area, I can't say that's 100% accurate. I don't know what the data is on that aerial. So you've got a hole in the ground today. And one of the benefits of that existing hole is we will now locate the processing facility, the washing, the stacking, the sorting, down in that hole, so it will be below grade. You may still be able to see some of the, you know, higher elevation portions of it, but the majority of that facility will be below grade. So it will be screened from site, and it will mitigate any potential dust-type issues because you're going to have that as a barrier. In addition to that, there's the berms on the edge, too. So you'll have the pit, and then you'll have a six-foot berm that goes around the site as well. So you'll be very well screened from off-site view. This is the reclamation plan. Again, I just want to make sure it's in the record for purposes of showing that we are meeting the criteria of the Lane Development Code, Chapter 303. And then these are the cross-sections of our berms that will be along, that are along the boundaries of the entire property. This is all part of the submittal package to staff that's been reviewed. This is your post-closure plan, so you start putting back in your side slopes. You have some reclamation, four-to-one until you get down below the water level. And then once you get to the water level, you just kind of go back to the angle of repose, the angle of repose, so you see that water body starting to form around the boundary of the areas and the extents of the mining impacts. This really kind of gets to some of the real questions that Commissioner Jackson and Commissioner Hickman had. Again, similar to last month, right now there's an agricultural well. That agricultural well will be phased out as the mining goes through. That agricultural well will be expired and will no longer be in effect moving forward. Once an ag stop starts to cease, any water use permit, any water use of the mining activity will then come from the surficial aquifer. So you're reducing that impact on the upper Florida, which is a significant benefit to the ecology. We did have Ms. Gardner do a transportation study. Again, this is a de minimis impact on the transportation network. You're looking at less than 1%. The 536 number is, again, at max capacity of both operations running at the same time. So these are not new trips, I guess is my point. If the borrow pit was running, if the existing mine was running at full capacity, you would have probably about the same number of trips as you would with the new operation. So these aren't new trips. They're existing trips. And there's an existing access onto the public network. So with the conditions that require trucks to move to the south, you won't have trucks going to the north into the community to that area. I know there's been a lot of concern about that historically and recently as we've considered, as there's been folks at the Board of County Commissioners. So that was something that was really important that we maintain that existing condition and we didn't ask for any deviation from that. We've also had Mr. Walton do an environmental analysis from a desktop view at this point. As we expand into other areas, you will have to go in and do that detailed analysis, gopher tortoise studies. A gopher tortoise survey, for instance, is only good for 90 days. If you go out and you identify the gopher tortoise today, you have 90 days to move it. Well, the life of this project is long. And that doesn't make sense to go and survey the entire project at one time. We have done a skink study. That study has been completed and approved, and there were no skinks identified on the site. So that was a good thing. And that's been approved by Fish and Wildlife. So those types of studies will be an ongoing process throughout the life of the mine, but we don't anticipate any significant adverse impacts, and any species that are identified will be permitted, move, relocated, and handled in the appropriate manner. This is, again, I touched on this just a second ago. This is just a little bit of information on the water use permit today. Not as significant of a water use permit on this project as was on last month, but still, again, a net benefit to the aquifer, the Florida aquifer, at the end of the day by going and removing this ag well. And there is no intent to transfer or thing. You know what I'm talking about, Commissioner Beltran. What else? Hours of operation. Yes, the hours of operation are different. And in 2008, when that conditional use was approved, it was, again, dry mining only. So that is more heavy equipment, more heavy trucks. What we're asking for is to remove that condition so that the wet dredge, which, again, is electric, underwater, very low noise, those activities can occur even overnight. Those materials are pumped hydraulically through pipes back to the stacking and sorting and washing facilities. We have limited truck activity. Again, move the hours a little bit and primarily move the hours because the material needs to move at different hours. This type of material going into concrete and those sorts of things, the people that are pouring concrete like to do that earlier in the morning than, say, a filter operation. So that's why we've shifted the hours. We have, there is no life on this conditional use. We really, in 2008, the conditional uses, a lot of these non-phosphate mines had life of permits on them at the time. We've gone away from that because it becomes difficult from a financing perspective. You know, you start looking at deadlines and things like that. Lenders start getting nervous. You know, financing becomes more difficult. So those conditions have gone away. And there's not one in this one. So the anticipation of going 5 to 20 acres per year is all market-driven. This could be, you know, if he goes 5 acres a year, obviously the life of the mine will be longer. If we do 20 acres a year because the market's hot and they're selling a lot of sand and concrete and other materials, the life of this mine will be shorter. And when the mining stops, that's when the reclamation comes in. And then the post-closure plan is implemented after the reclamation. So it's sequential. And this life of this conditional use will survive throughout those three steps. And then at the end, once the post-closure is done, the operating permit is released, and the site is released back to just whatever is allowed under the future land use or zoning or whatever regulation we have at that time. So that's the explanation of kind of the questions that I heard during the staff's presentation. I've got my entire team here ready to answer questions if necessary. The only thing that I would like to do from a housekeeping perspective is, as I was looking at what was put into your packets as it relates to record evidence online, the environmental analysis was not included in that, so I printed out a hard copy of that. And I just want to give that to you guys so you all have it for purposes of the record. Otherwise, my team's here. We'll stand for any questions. If there's any public comment, we would request a few minutes to address those afterward. Otherwise, we would request a favorable vote on LDCU 2025-33, again, modifying the existing conditional use. Thank you. I have a question, I guess, and you may have said this, but for clarification. So this request, how much of it is actually an intensification versus extension of the mine? I mean, isn't this just the extension of the mining process, or are you really intensifying? In my opinion, this is not an intensification. The two things that are happening here is we're adding 70 acres, right? So we're expanding the boundary, but not changing the use. And then the other part of it is we're on half the site, call it. We're going deeper. We're not changing anything outside of that, and we're changing the way it's mine. But it's not intensifying that. Does it add trips to the road, or does it just extend the time that trips will be on the road? Extends the life, and changes the product. Question, Mr. Chair. Bart, appreciate the information. I'm learning more about sand mines than I probably care to here in the last couple months. So it talks, I'm sorry. That's a point well taken. Yeah. It says total life of the mine will last until 2035, but then later you talk about 2080 as an end date. And so is there part of it that? It's all market-driven, Commissioner Hickman, and that's why we've moved so far away from having expirations on the conditional use. Again, if Quikrete sells a significant amount of material in a short period of time, the mine will be shorter. But if it's on the shorter end of it, it could be longer. And then you also have the borrow pit or the dry mining activity that's still out there as well. So it's hard to really give a real definitive, we think this activity will be done. Yeah, because 2035 doesn't sound like a lot of time. It'll be around the corner. Yeah, especially once you get up and, you know, by the time you get up and operational. So this 2080 is probably a drop-dead date that this thing would be, you guys would be done and reclaiming and all that. I mean, is that... I would say probably somewhere in that range would be, I'm looking at my expert. That 2080 date, I think, is the actual, once the reclamation's been done and it's been released. I mean, my, I know this is not a phosphate mine, but I'm familiar, more familiar with phosphate mining. And post-reclamation of that, the Department of Environmental Protection won't release those lands until years beyond when they actually reclaimed it. Because they have to show that it satisfies what they said. So I'm assuming the 2080 would be a date that's projected that the environmental agencies would actually release it and say, you're done. That's correct. You have no more liability or responsibility. It's a projection. It's, and it's in there for, you know, kind of discussion purposes. But as, you know, that is very much why we don't have a drop-dead date in our conditional, in our conditions of approval anymore, because you just don't know. So there's another, there's a, this is off the record, or not related to this project, not off the record. We're definitely on the record. There are other ones that I have seen that have this very, this very issue where they are nearing the end of their conditional use. And they are nearing the point where they need to just start the reclamation. And you're going to, you're going to run into a problem with, with the timing of those. So taking out the condition of, taking out those timelines makes a lot of sense to give these operators the ability to, to, to do what they need to do. So, so you talked about the consumer needing concrete at a certain time of the day, and hence the hours were modified. Um, are you putting a batch plant there? There's no batch plant as part of this conditional use. Okay. So it's, it's, it, it is stacking, it is sorting, it is washing. Probably. I just said that in, in probably not the correct order, but that is all that is. So this just gets shipped to somewhere else where they put it in little bags or they produce. Dry it off site. They don't bag it off site. They'll use it in other processes off site. And so, and currently how much activity is occurring at that site? Well, none from Quickrete, but I'd have to ask, I don't, let me. I mean, I guess, I guess the point being that, you know, when you, like last month, when you talk about these road trips and all that, where you're adding to an existing mine, is that, you know, in addition to what the activity is already? Or is that anticipated for the total, total, uh, the transportation analysis that was done anticipates max production from the max production from this piece of property, just that piece of property, not whatever it's adding to it. I mean, whatever, but it's inclusive of that. It's inclusive of both, both parcels. Okay. So like last month's case, that they could have already been running those numbers of trucks already. You're just continuing the life of that operation. That's correct. Okay. So follow up on that. So the circulate, the traffic circulation plan shows trip distribution. So am I correct to assume that's the current trip distribution? I mean, you're not changing the trip. Which slide are you talking about? I'm, I'm just looking at our staff report. It's the traffic circulation plan that shows trip distribution. It's on page 23 of the staff report. So this is again, the transportation analysis for the entire site as, as both operations would be, as both operations would be occurring. And one of the things that I wanted to point out, you do see that on golf, golf view, golf view, cutoff road, you have 90% trips going South. That's because of the condition. There are employees and other automobiles that can, that are not prohibited from using other roads. That's why we have 10% on the, on that Northern section. Those are automobile, you know, trips. All of our trucks are going South. Uh, one other thing on trucks and trips again, um, one of the biggest concerns that you have with these kinds of operations is our trucks stacking on rights away and waiting for the gates to be open and things like that. Um, this design and this conditional use accommodates the stacking on site. So the gates, you know, inside the property line so that those trucks don't stack on the right of way. Um, so we've, we have, we have changed the way this site will, will operate from that perspective. Cause right now it doesn't, the gates on the right of way. So it will be, it will be moved internal. And I think that's a, that's a, a net positive for this area as well. Any further questions? Um, Bart on page 12 of 26, where we talk about the existing well, they, they, they mark it as a million gallons per day. I think you had a different number on your slide. Can you clarify which one is correct, please? When I, when I looked at it this morning and you're split like 432 on your slide. This is, this was the number that I, that I pulled off of the permit, off the water use permit for, um, off of the swift mud. Oh, golly, I'm sorry. I was struggling with that word. Swift mud website and the water use permit as of this morning. Okay. So I assume that's accurate and the staff report is, needs to be corrected or updated. Probably just a typo. Okay. Um, let me ask you a quick question. So you have an existing activity going on out there and you have a fair amount of land looks like to the south that's out there existing. Is there no wells on that lane? There are eight different wells that are all under one water use permit. Okay. So as the mining, they'll, they'll close wells and modify permits as they go. Okay. So in the existing parcel of land, that's not what we're talking about here. There is some existing wells. That's correct. We'll be using, and then there's some additional wells potentially to the north. Is that correct? I'm hearing. That's correct. Okay. And then your intent is to retire those as you go through this process. That's correct. And this is maybe a question for staff and I'm not, is that, how do we know that happens or do we have any assurance that occurs other than? Mr. Bishop, if, if I may interject a little bit, I've had some experience with this being in ag and having property bought from sand mines. They, they take that away. It's gone. There's no well there. If they're mining through there, it's, there's no way they could. But there is a process that would allow them to transfer that wall. Yeah, they, they could. If they chose to. I know he's saying they're not going to. My question is, how do we know that happens or doesn't happen? Citrus greening. Right. Right. I get it. I get it. I, I, I just, once they take that property. I'm really familiar with the process. I get it. I guess my question is how to, it turns back to the owner of the well at the end of the day and, and what they choose to do. And so my only question is, how do we know that really occurs or doesn't occur? That's a, I, I don't know that there's, I don't know the reporting process, candidly. I've been a part of some ag well transfers to municipalities or other water plants. But I, I don't know if there's a reporting requirement to local government, other local governments and agents. I mean, I think, I think what you're stating is great. And I think it's awesome, great for the environment. And it's where we need to go as a, as a society and stuff and be more efficient with our water use. My question really is, at the end of the day, there's, there's a great testimony and thought of what we're going to do. But I've also seen this turn around where people say, oh, well, wait, there's a little value to trading this out. And then they. Or it seems that if they take all the sand away, there isn't a well to. Right. But then there's a, there's a credit there for that land use. And then somebody next door could say, hey, I want to buy that credit from you. And there's a whole market in this. So Mr. Stevens, our professional geologist and, and, and Mr. Mouncey who handle all of those activities specifically. When the water use permit for the mine is approved out of the official aquifer, it mandates that, that by condition that a part of that permit. Now, I, again, I don't know that there's a report to you guys that it's abandoned, but that's how that, that's how that occurs. Thank you. Mr. Mosco. Hey, Bart. Happy new year. Happy new year. Um, my question is the land that's contiguous to this site. Do we have a land use? All I, all ARR. Uh, okay. With the exception of this, this little blue piece. What is that? Institutional too. And I don't know what that is. Oh, old landfill. Oh, it makes sense. Yeah. Institutional too. That's all I have. Any further questions? Is anyone in the audience here to speak in favor of this application? Seeing none, is there anyone to speak in opposition to this application? Come forward and state your name, please. My name's Ed Dickinson, 413 Smiley Court, Winter Haven, Florida, 33884. I own the 40 acres directly across from that, I think 70, because I couldn't figure it out on this little map they give you. Uh, but I think I have the land directly across from that. And I just, I'm not really opposed or in favor either way. I just wanted to make sure I'm on Freedlander Road before you get to the curve, the grove with the eucalyptus around the whole property. And they have in here a 200-foot setback for residential, and I'm planning on selling that land to a developer because of greening, because I have replanted that grove five times now at expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars with the supposed varieties that the university came up with, that they lied to us, that are, won't have greening. Well, they do have greening, no matter what you do. And, uh, so I'm planning on selling this. The north of me has already been sold. East of me has already been sold, uh, to a developer. They haven't approached me yet, but I'm in the mood for selling. I'll tell you that. Uh, and I do know how they close the wells, because I've done that before, because I've had several hundred acres that, that we've sold because of greening, uh, swift mud authorizes the closing of those wells. And they have a whole process, what you have to do to close a well. So, uh, that's the only thing I wanted a clarification on this 200-foot setback, because the way I'm reading this, I only get 100 foot, because I don't have houses there yet. But I would like them to have a 200-foot setback on Freedlander Road, so I can develop that property. So that's, that's the only reason I'm here. I was, you know, I was reading this thing, and it's 100 foot and 200 foot, and I just wanted a clarification, uh, that I would get 200 feet. I'm looking at the, um, the operations plan, and it does show 100 feet from the property line along Freedlander. Yes. And that's because they think there's a grove there. But if there was houses there, it'd have to be 200 feet, according to their... I'll ask for any response from staff on that. Yeah. And, and, and I understand what Mr. Dickinson's saying, but we're adjacent to the right-of-way. We're not adjacent to his, to his property. So we are, our setback by code is based off the edge of the right-of-way. Plus, you also have the right-of-way in between. So between the two, between the two, you're going to have 150 or more feet, 180, because that's a collector, I believe. So you're going to have off of, off of the edge of our mining activity. We'll be, no, I'm saying we'll be 100 feet off of Freedlander. Then you have 80 feet of right-of-way from, of Freedlander, and then your property. So you got 180, 180 feet total right there. Okay. I need to get anybody, well, first, let me ask for clarification. If you'd come forward again, please. Are you, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you opposed to this if it is not the 200 feet? Yes, I am. Okay. Because I want to build, I just want to clarify that. I want to be able to build houses on my property. Okay. I understand. Yeah. Thank you. Anybody else to speak in opposition to this? Hearing none, I will bring this, uh, close the public portion and bring it back to the board for, uh, discussion, comment staff. Do you have anything to add? Anything else? No. Mr. Chair. Oh, yes. No, I had no. Okay. Is there anything else from the applicant? No, just, I just want to, again, we understand and appreciate, uh, Mr. Dickinson's concern, but right now that property is ARR. It's not entitled for a higher density, intensity, residential development. And I understand that the intent is to sell it for residential development, but right now that's not what it is. Um, but even in light of that, when you look at, we're not asking for any deviations from any of the setbacks within this and a hundred feet is what the requirement is for road right away under your lane development code. And we're meeting that standard and we're asking for that standard. But if you take that a hundred feet with the berming and all of those extra landscaping plus the right of way, you're effectively at 200 feet for any residential development on that side of the road, because they will not be able to develop right up to the right of way either. So they're going to have a setback as well. So you're going to have at least a 20 foot setback off that right away. There's going to be 200 feet between the mining footprint and those issues. So I feel like what he's asking for is in effect when you do, when you actually look at it on a step-by-step-by-step basis. So with that, we believe, um, this project is a good project. We welcome quick greet to our community, uh, wholeheartedly appreciate staff's effort and time, uh, appreciate all your time, but we would request a favorable vote this morning. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? I have a question for staff. Yes. I have a question for staff. Based on what we just heard and the testimony and their question from the, would this approval restrict the gentleman from doing what he wants to do on his property? No, it would not restrict. Okay. That's what I wanted to hear. There won't be any limitations to his property. No. Regardless if it's a hundred feet or whatever. Correct. Yes. There won't be any limits. When we approve that other property in the future, we, that'll all get worked out. Correct. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions or comments? Do I hear a motion? I make a motion to approve. Motion. Second. And a second to approve. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. And Julie Jackson. For the motion. Motion passes. Case number five under new business. Staff. All right. Good morning. Ian Nance, Land Development. Staff recommends approval of LDCU 2025-21, a conditional use request for the expansion of a non-conforming solid waste management facility to include a new operations building and additional parcels. This application also includes a request for a permit in accordance with the solid waste management facility siting and operation ordinance. The subject site is located at 4235 and 4245 Main Avenue, north of the Polk Parkway, east of Reynolds Road, east of the City of Lakeland, and Section 35, Township 28, Range 24. For the record, 17 mailers were sent to area property owners on December 22nd. Two signs were posted on December 22nd. And a legal ad was published on December 24th. Staff has logged no public comment. This is a level four review with a bill date scheduled for January 20th. Outlined in blue are the subject parcels in 2002. This is a site of Stericycle, a medical waste processing facility that has been operating here since 1999, approved under the former zoning ordinance in an 18,000-square-foot building. This is a more recent area of the site with the proposed expansion onto parcels to the west. These are lots in a planted industrial park surrounded by industrial-type uses such as construction aggregate processing, manufacturing distribution, warehousing, and contractor offices. Solid Waste Management Facility was added as a use to the county in 2014 with the adoption of the Solid Waste Management Facility siting and operation ordinance. It includes businesses of varying intensities, from landfills to any other whose purpose is resource recovery or the disposal, recycling, processing, or storage of solid waste. New Solid Waste Management Facilities must have the future land use district on the site change to an institutional land use district, in addition to having a level four conditional use approved. Existing facilities are able to expand under non-conforming use procedures in the Land Development Code. And the real non-conformity here is that this use is not in that institutional district, rather than the industrial that we saw in the previous slide. And staff finds there's really little need in going through the process of changing, going through a CPA to change this institutional. The Land Development Code does allow the expansion of a non-conforming use to allow larger structures and the additional land through BOCC approval. So this was the path chosen. And it's appropriate given the nature of this facility. As I said, Stericycle has been operating here since 1999 and processes medical waste from hospitals, physician's office, blood banks, veterinary hospitals and clinics, dental practices and laboratories. Packaged waste arrives on trucks and is processed for decontamination purposes prior to disposal of the landfill close to the east. In order to update and modernize this facility, they're proposing to replace the existing facility with a 38,000-square-foot facility and 6,200-square-foot transportation office. The new parcels will be for the orderly parking of vehicles and improved stormwater facility. The main point with this operation is that the processing of medical waste occurs entirely indoors, which creates few externalities, such as odor, which can be problematic with other solid waste management facilities. As operated, this facility can be located within proximity of surrounding uses without ill effect. Here's the site again. You can see the western parcels are now being used for vehicle parking. And really not much is changing with this site plan. The buildings on the western parcels will be demolished and the new ones built on the eastern lots. On the right side is the site data table. The building height will be similar to what is there today. Setbacks are easily met and greater on the eastern side, closer to the neighboring use than what is there today. The impervious surface ratio and floor area ratio will not exceed what is permitted in the industrial future land use district. And more parking will be provided not only for company vehicles, but also employees and vendors. Sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, and landscaping will be provided in accordance with modern LDC standards. In short, this is becoming more conforming to the code. As such, staff finds the request compatible with surrounding uses. The request meets all relevant standards and criteria for the expansion of non-conforming uses, solid waste management facilities, as well as the siding ordinance. This expansion will not generate significant additional demands on public utilities or services. Again, this is an industrial-style use in an industrial land use district and within a planted industrial park. That I thank you and will stand for questions. Any questions of staff? Seeing none, I will open the public portion of the item and ask if there is any, is the applicant present? Yes. Would you come forward, please? Were you sworn in? Yes. Okay. Name and address, please. My name is Marshall Weston, 4245 Main Avenue here in Lakeland. Do you have anything to add to what staff is there? No, he covered it pretty accurately. We're just looking to modernize our facility, create more efficiencies, beautify the property, and be able to service the surrounding counties in this county going forward for the continued growth that we're experiencing through the medical operations. Any questions from the board? Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else to speak in favor of this application? Anyone to speak in opposition to this application? Staff, do you have anything to add? Yes, sir. So I'll bring it back to the board, close the public portion of the item and bring this back to the board for comments. Motion. I move to approve LDCU 2025-21. Second. I have a motion and a second to approve. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Meryl Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Item number six under new business. Staff. All right. Enhanced land development. Staff recommends approval of LDPD 2025-5, a modification to LDPD 2023-29, for 949 single family detached units. The subject property is located east of Marigold Avenue, north of Lake Hatchin Hall Road, south of Palmetto Street, east of Haines City, and Section 1, Township 28, Range 28. For purposes of the record, 34 mailers were sent to area property owners on December 22nd. Five signs were posted on December 22nd, and a legal ad was published in the ledger on December 24th. Staff has logged no public input. Here is the site within Village 6, neighborhood 3, west north of Point Siena. It has frontage along Marigold Avenue, and was platted in 1973 for 967 single-family units with men on lot sizes of 7,000 square feet, in addition to commercial and institutional acreage. The property is further vested for concurrency through state action in 1983. However, this property is hampered by environmental issues. Of the nearly 405 acres within this plat, approximately 140 are wetlands. The graphic on the right shows the plat overlaid on the wetlands, mapped within the county's data viewer. GIS analysis has shown that approximately one-third of the lots and tracks within this plat impact wetlands. And if this looks at all familiar, this site was approved for 909 units at the December 2023 Planning Commission hearing, which also reduced the lot widths to 40 and 50 feet, and adjusted side setbacks to 5 feet, and rear setbacks to 10. In addition to preserving the wetlands, this layout came into compliance with LDC standards for PDs that were in effect when the site was originally platted. 25-foot garage setbacks, internal sidewalks, and open space from upland areas, which include contoured and landscape ponds, recreation areas, and wetland buffers. At the time, the site plan recognized areas mapped in Point Siena as future commercial and institutional. These areas were subsequently changed to residential low by the board in December, which has added more development acreage. Here are recent photos of the site. Level 2 has been approved here, and development is clearly underway. But through better engineering and wetland delineations, combined with the change of those two areas to RL, this application has been submitted. And this is the updated site plan, which is adding 40 more units for a total of 949 single-family lots. The dimensions of lots and setbacks remain as what was approved before, a minimum of 4,800 square feet and 5-foot setbacks. Wetlands will still be preserved and utilize the scenic views for the majority of the lots. Stormwater ponds will be contoured and landscaped. These will be incorporated into passive recreation trails and amenities. A clubhouse will also be built. The site plan will also provide additional parking in accordance with adopted LDC standards for planned developments. For a snapshot of nearby uses, this site does not abut any other developments, but this does show local schools, utilities, parks, and emergency services in the area. It's a brief impact assessment. The site is vested for school capacity. New emergency stations have opened less than 4 miles to the south, and sidewalks will be constructed along the frontage of the site. As I stated, there has been a completed Level 2 for the last PD approval. It will have to be updated to reflect the 40 additional units, including an updated traffic study. Utilities are provided by Toho. Again, this is adding 40 more units to what was approved for the last PD, and there's still 20-odd less than what would be allowed by PLAAD. Staff recommends approval. The site is compatible with surrounded uses and meets the LDC and comprehensive plan standards. With that, I thank you in the stand for questions. Any questions of staff? Seeing none, is the applicant present? Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Commissioners. John Adams, RJWA Inc., 8 Broadway, Kissimmee, Florida, 34741. And you were sworn in? Yes, sir. Sworn in this morning, and we're planners and agent for the applicant. We're in agreement with staff's report. We'd be happy to answer any of your questions this morning. Any questions of the applicant? Seeing none, thank you. Is anyone here to speak in favor of this application? Anyone to speak in opposition to this application? I'll close the public comment portion of the item and bring it back to the board for any further questions of staff or comments and a motion. I move to approve LDPD 2025-5. Second. Motion and second to approve. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso for the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. And number seven under new business staff. It's Eric Peterson's the case planner. It's a small-scale conference plan amendment. Mr. Peterson. Good morning. Good morning. Planning Commission. Eric Peterson for the Land Development Division. This is LDCPA-S 2025-34. Just to get the church business out of the way, 26 mailers were sent to area property owners on December 22nd, 2025. Two boards were posted on the property December 22nd as well. Legal ad was published in the Polk Sun on December 24th. So far, we've had no response from the public. The property owners have been informed. I've had discussions with each one of them. This is a map correction in that there's a gap between Auburndale and Lakeland, and Auburndale and Lakeland services have come together along Saddle Creek Road. But the Lakeland's water goes so far, and so does Auburndale. And I heard they're talking about an interconnect at some point, but that's for another day. This site is immediately adjacent to Tenorock High School. You can see in the area it's fairly moderately built out. There's Tower Manor, Mobile Home Park is the most intense, Shalimar Creek to the south. There was a new development built in the last five years to the west. To the north is Tenorock, a wildlife management area. So you see the land use is in the area, mostly residential suburban with the exception of the high school, which is institutional too. And then this site just kind of is a hole in the donut of the RS or the suburban development area. And this application is to correct that. See, the site is just like the neighbors to the east and the west or south and the west. There's a lot of services in the area. There is a lift station right on the corner of the property. They have sidewalks on both frontages. There is water lines that circle the property. And there is a small community park with a basketball court and a softball field and a picnic pavilion nearby. And this is the entrance close to the site. There's currently two homes on the north side. And then there's two homes abutting Dixie Highway. On the south side, this is Dixie Highway. It's right down the street from Tenorock's football stadium. And to the east is Midway Gardens Park, which has great facilities. The site borders Tenorock High. As you can see here, this is the site over here. There's a water line that runs along the perimeter there. And so there's parks, there's schools, there's water, wastewater even. Not that it might be utilized, but it is there and available if needed. Collector roads and sidewalks. This area has the full gamut of public services that you would expect in an urban area. However, the baseline use is at residential suburban. And with this change, the property owners can utilize the residential suburban entitlements that would allow them up to three units per acre, if necessary, through a suburban plan development. Also to take advantage of residential infill, which is more likely the case that will happen here. With that, I will stand for questions. We recommend approval. I'm just curious. Looking at this land use map and seeing this, as you describe, as the hole in the donut, I suspect, and I could be wrong, what happened was when Tenorock High School came in and received their institutional to land use change, this was just left as an isolated parcel because it wasn't included in the application for the school. So that's how, I think that's how, it looks like that's how it happened. And going from the old maps, which were not cadastral, but before we had the property appraisers, property lines to go off of, if you look, there's one exhibit in there that, from the very old map back in the 90s, at that scale, it was very hard to tell whether it was included or not included, so therefore we really couldn't just say, oh, well, we meant to. That's why we're bringing it through here. There's other changes that we probably need to adjust in the area, and we'll bring those to you in the future as well. There's a lot of things. Chalamar Creek was not included in that urban area as well, but it built out, so we need to capture that. Any other questions with staff? Seeing none, I'll open the public portion of the meeting. Anyone here to speak in favor of this application? Okay, come forward, please, and state your name and address, please. James Mock, 5011 Saddle Creek Road, Auburndale, Florida. And you are the homeowner on this property? Well, most of it. The bottom portion is two separate acres, privately owned, not by me, so that's two separate parcels. But other than that, I own everything. So it looks like there's one, two, three, five parcels. So you own all but the bottom two, the southern two parcels? Yes, sir. Okay. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else to speak in favor of this? Anyone speak in opposition? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment portion and bring it back to the board for discussion and motion. I move to approve 2025-34. Second. I have a motion and a second to approve. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. The motion passes. Thank you. Are there any other items to come before the board? Any further comments from staff? If not, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Mr. Chair, I have a quick question. Yes. If we're done with new business. Do we have an update? And this is, I'm sorry. Do we have something else? I think we do have a staff update. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We are finished with all the cases. I'm anxious to adjourn here. But I do think we have a brief update on the comp plan. Yes. Shonda Bennett for the Land Development Division for the record. So, this is the first installment of the elements of the conference plan for your consideration. It's the intergovernmental element. I'll be providing one element a month as we move forward. I'll follow up with an email. The email will include a short summary of what was amended in the element. If you ever wanted to discuss that, if we wanted to discuss it in a group, I need to talk to Sandy about advertisements on that particular issue. So, if you do, just let me know. I'll get with Sandy. We'll figure that out. And I'll let you know when we can do that. Otherwise, you're free to call me individually or email me individually and I can chat. So, hopefully, the idea is that when we bring you the full comp plan, summer, early fall, you won't have just a week to read the entire comp plan changes. This will give you time to digest it and review it. But other than that, we are about to get into the future land use element with the advisory committee. Probably starting that in February. So, that should be our last big element that we'll get into. Save the best you'll ask. That's all. Thank you. So, this will come be agended for our consideration when? Summer, fall-ish. Depends on how quickly the committee gets through the future land use. Are we going to do these element by element? Yes. We started in June. We've gone through all of the elements where we have to finish up. We have a few staff chats that we're finishing up on the recreation open space element, transportation element, and CIE, the capital improvements element. And then after that, then it's the future land use element. And for clarification, it'll be coming to the planning commission all in one. We're going through with the advisory committee element by element, but it will come to you to approve all together. So, what staff, I think, is doing is rather than, as Shonda said, giving it to you all at once, as the advisory committee has completed, this element, like the intergovernmental element, we're bringing it to you now so you don't get it all at once. Who's on the advisory committee? Larry Walter, Brian Hunter. I need to go around the room. Excuse me. Brian Hunter. Bart Allen, Kyle Story, Larry Thompson. He's also on the classic committee. And they're representing what sectors or what? Brian Hunter, an engineer. Larry Walter, I'd say ag. Bart Allen, law. Right. Kyle Story, ag as well. I'm just going to help you out. Like, right, Josh McLemore. Josh McLemore. Sean Mallott. Sean Mallott. Department, CFTC, Kelly Quinn, Suzanne Lindsay, I'd say environmental aspects, Ed Smith, professor at Polytech, Stephen Miller, Builders Association, Marissa Barnby, the Regional Planning Council, Kim Long. She's our chairman with Polk Vision. Okay. I might be missing one or two. That's pretty broad coverage. Did you say the new? Oh, the new one. We have a new one. Oh, Harper. Sean Harper. The older one. Robert Harper. Rob Harper, I think. Yes. Rob or Robert? I don't know. When the Compline was being adopted, he was in his probably 19, 21 timeframe based on the gray hair that he has now, I'd say. But I don't know all the family as well as Eric or others. I'll pass that along to him. I've already put my foot in my mouth about that. And then we had a new member, Mr. Greenway. He's on the city council for Frostproof, city of Frostproof. And I forgot his full name. These are only by the? Board of County Commissioners. Each commissioner had two, and the county staff had five. And that was Sean Mallott, Marissa Barby, Kim Long, Josh McLemore, and there's somebody else. Steve Miller. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. It's going to, our approach, the board adopted a resolution about what their charge is. And if the idea is what we bring to you, if there's any difference between what they've recommended versus what we heard from the public, we're going to tell you. And then you, and then if you had a different opinion, and then the board might have three choices to pick from or pick their own in terms of what the policies are. But the only difference that we've had, really, with what the committees directed us to do versus what we've heard from the public is private utilities. Based on public comment, the idea is to limit growth in the rural areas and to prohibit private utilities would do that. But that's not what the committees decided. But that's consistent with what the county's been doing since the comp plan's been adopted since 1991. So, on one level, it's not really different than the past, but it is different from public comment. But other than that, we haven't reached any impasse in that realm. I do suspect we might encounter that with the future land use element. But we'll see. Very good. Mr. Chair. Yes. And this is separate, but somewhat related. Today we had an application where we had an applicant who said they no longer need their wells. And just for the board's knowledge, right, we are now under the Central Florida Water Initiative here in this area. All groundwater will be capped at 2025 demands. So, that's what spurred the Polk Regional Water Cooperative to be built. We're spending almost $800 million to develop alternative water supply for this region and this area. And so, my question for staff and the board and for consideration or discussion is, as we have applicants who are willing to give up permits like this, what we saw in this water management district when I was there is in the Tampa Bay area when a cap like this was put on, there became this black market of selling capacity, right? So, you'd have an applicant who'd come in and say, hey, I no longer need my wells. You may have somebody next door say, hey, I'd love to have those credits. And there's this backdoor deals that are being made and the applicant comes back in and modifies their application for closure and transfers those credits over to an adjacent landowner, for example. The whole intent of what's happening in the Polk region is to kind of cap that groundwater capacity at sustainable yield, which is what the studies have shown. And so, my question to staff is, as we have applicants that come in and are willing to give up their quantities like that, I know it goes through the swift month process, but is there a condition that says they will do that or could we consider a condition going forward? So, you're trying to reduce the level of capacity from the point of that? Well, we have landowners who are saying, I no longer need that water, right? And the district has said, at 2025, whatever's being used, not what's permanent, but what's being used is now capped. So, that becomes a valuable asset to other folks, potentially, or? Is that problematic? Go ahead, Eric. You have? Under a land use approval framework, that could be considered in an exaction under current state statutes. So, if we were giving permission for a use or something like that, a land use change or something in exchange for the wells, that would be an exaction. Now, if it was in the context of providing services, like if we were going to provide, you know, water to their development, we could take it, we could exchange it that way. It would not be an exaction. It would be more like a trade for service. But under the land use contract... But when we have an applicant who comes in and says, I'm not going to use this, well, I'm going to retire it. If it's volunteer, right. I'm not saying we're forcing it. Yeah. We certainly, and Eric's right, we couldn't condition an approval on that. I think there's a way we can carefully, if someone volunteers that, I don't think that statutes prohibit us. But we'd have to just be very careful because we don't want it to appear that we're twisting someone's arm to voluntarily give us their... That's not what I'm proposing at all. Yeah, no, I know. But, I mean, I think there is a lot of merit when we have people come up and say that. It is certainly, and if this was in our service area, it would be a different discussion. We could use that. Right, in our utility service area, we definitely should be thinking about this. Because it's not in our utility service area. Right, right, right, right. I get it, but we do approve stuff in the utility service area, so that would even be more of a condition to try to think about. But I just, we don't, we have mention of it. We don't really have any kind of teeth to it at all. And I'm just curious if it's something you should consider. I think the only realm would be if we were changing the development area to go from rural where we don't provide services to a development area where water is planned or something like that. Maybe we're in better stead there, but... There's a more rational nexus for the request. Robert, you have the numbers. Are they doing it now? A lot of this has gone on. What's the statistic? I can tell you the Tampa Bay market. I'm not talking about Tampa Bay. Okay, this is Polk County. It's the same issue. Is it happening now? When the MIA was put in place in Hillsborough County, there became this market. That's Hillsborough County. Is it happening now? You know the numbers. What are the numbers? I hear of people thinking about it, yes. Thinking about it? Well, I can't tell you who's done what. I mean, you're taking water away from ag. People are going to fight you here in Polk County. I'm not taking water away from anybody. I mean, that's just... I'm saying when a land use, water and use, land use and water use are related, right? Sure. And I'm saying when an applicant comes in and says, I'm no longer going to use this water because I volunteered to change my water, my land use, and there's water available, is there a way we could... I think that's a case-by-case thing. I don't... I agree with you. Oh, I agree. I agree. I'm not disagreeing with that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't think it's something that's carte blanche. Wells instead of wetlands, it sounds like what you're proposing. I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. I'm sorry. Oh. I said it kind of sounds like you're thinking like mitigation banking for wells rather than wetlands is what I'm hearing. Like, I can sell my water rights from my well to another place. Is that... That's what happens. And what's the problem with that? Well, I mean, if it's permitted, it's fine, right? I guess the question becomes, we're building a lot of infrastructure to build public water supply. Is there an ability to save some of that water for public use? Well, I think... And I think it's different between where you are geographically, I agree, and it's to volunteer or not volunteer. It's just something to think about. Go ahead, John. I was going to say... It goes to 2050, so he's got somewhat of a point, but we need to pack on it. Yeah. And what I was going to offer is, when I send out the follow-up email, just to give you the digital version and some other Planning Commission members who aren't here, I want to include in the email with the documents that I gave you, I can let you know what policies are currently in the comp plan that deal with what you're talking about. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, that's it. I'm done. Good point. Motion to adjourn. I have a motion to adjourn. Second. And a second. All in favor of signify the same aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. I know everyone.