session of the O'Connor Planning Commission to order and for the purpose of asking staff if we have made changes to the agenda. No, sir, no changes to the agenda. Just note that LDCU 2025 is on the screen up there, the Hudson Mobile Home. It had been continued from last month to this month. We still haven't resolved some ownership issues. So that was continued from last month? Yes, sir. Okay, it's continued again. Continue it one more time. Alright, nothing else. We'll adjourn the work session and reconvene at 9 o'clock for the Planning Commission regular meeting. 10 o'clock, convene the meeting of the Polk County Planning Commission to order and first order is to ask for a roll call to determine that we have a quorum. Robert Beltran. Present. Cindy Janamasso. Present. Merle Bishop. Present. Brooke Agnini. Here. Mike Kickman. Angel Sims. Here. Julie Jackson. Present. We have a quorum. Thank you. So at this time, we will stand for Pledge of Allegiance to the Pledge of Allegiance. So our next item on the agenda is consideration of the meeting minutes for January the 7th, our last meeting. Are there any discussion, questions concerning the minutes? If not, I will entertain a motion. Move for approval. Second. Motion is second to approve. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Same sign. Okay. We had, in our work session this morning, we're told there are no revisions or changes to the agenda. However, there is, I guess, this case LDCU 2025-25, the Hudson Mobile Home, was initially continued to this meeting. However, it needs to be continued again. So I would ask for a motion to continue that case to next meeting, March the 4th, 2026. So moved. Second. Second. Motion and second to continue. LDCU 2025-25. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Same sign. Motion passes. So I will ask our attorney at this time to explain the general procedures. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Land Development Case Planner will introduce the case and disclose any response 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 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. There is no opposition to the case present at the hearing. 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 the 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 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 for 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. Please 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 to hear 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. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, 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 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 concludes my comments. Thank you. Okay, we have no old business to come before the board and we have several items of new business and so I'll ask staff if they will introduce the first case. All right, number one on the agenda is LD WA 2025 51, the Gabrielle Road easement and Kyle Rogus is your planner. Good morning, Kyle Rogus for the Land Development presenting LD WA 2025 51, the Gabrielle Road easement. The applicant is requesting approval for up to eight single family lots to have access via an easement exceeding a quarter mile in length on 43.46 acres with an agricultural residential rural land use district. On January 15th, 19 mailers were sent to area property owners. Two boards were posted on the property January 20th. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven sun on January 21st. We have received one phone call in opposition. Staff finds this request compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code and staff recommends approval. The subject site is located south of Lake Buffum off of Gabriel Road, north of U.S. Highway 28, south of Alturas Babson Park Cutoff Road, east of Dock Lindsey Road, west of U.S. 27, east of the city of Fort Meade in Section 13, Township 31, Range 26. The subject site is located in an agricultural residential rural land use district within the rural development area. This lot is eligible for eight lots of five acres administratively. The request does not exceed the density allotted in the agricultural residential rural land use district. The majority of the lots are below the five acre minimum lot size in the ARR, resulting in a higher density than is proposed with this waiver request. For comparison to the west of the subject site, it's an existing easement exceeding a quarter mile, which supports up to four dwelling units. These residences are situated on the lakefront with undeveloped land along the frontage of Gabriel Road, similar to the applicant's request. The request utilizes a cluster design. A cluster design may reduce some or all the lots below the minimum lot size for the district, provided that the approved density is maintained. The minimum lot size in the agricultural residential rural land use district is five acres. The subject site totals approximately 43.46 acres, allowing up to eight dwelling units while maintaining the ARR residential gross density. The only difference is to place the proposed homes allowed by the base ARR density on this land on the lakefront and preserve the frontage of agricultural conservation use. While the private access easement exceeds the maximum length of a quarter mile and serves more than four lots, the proposal exceeds the minimum width requirements by providing a 60-foot easement, which enhances safety and accommodates emergency vehicles, access, and compliance with ingress and egress standards. And then the following are just going to be some slides from my site visit. One of the conditions is to dedicate a singular location for garbage, receptacles, and mailboxes for mail-in delivery services. Trash pickup and mailing services are easier consolidated to one location versus multiple along a roadway. Another condition of approval requires residential driveway prior to level 5 plat approval. This condition allows for the driveway to be inspected for each lot as building permits come in, ensuring the safety and condition of Gabriel Road. And 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. The development maintains the compliance with the county's density requirement of one dwelling unit per five acres allotted in the ARR future land use district. The easement exceeds the minimum width requirement by providing 60 feet and enhances safety and accommodates emergency vehicles access and compliance with ingress and egress standards. Given these factors, access via easement is the best alternative and with that I will stand for questions. Any questions of staff? I have one. The, I guess, the development west of this on Black Road, was that a similar situation where we granted the, was there an action by the planning commission for that case or does that date predate the current regs? That predates the current regs. It looked at data viewers somewhere between 1970 and 1980 is when Black Road came in and those lots were developed. Is Black Road a private road? Yes, it is private. So, what happens to the rest of the acreage? The rest of the acreage is going to be designated as agricultural easement and I will defer to the applicant with any, like, ownership questions or HOA, things of that nature to the applicant. And so, potentially, it could be developed somewhere down the line? It is in our, give me one second while I pull up, one of our requirements as a cluster design. The final plash I'll indicate the open spaces are prohibited from future subdivision or development is within section 753 of our land development code. So, this will be maintained as just considered as, would be considered an open space then. Correct. So, if they were to add a lot, say they wanted to subdivide that, it would exceed the density? Correct. And we'd have to come in for a comp plan change, presumably? Correct. Or a text amendment to allow a higher density. So, but I mean, as that area becomes more urban and then potentially that land could be utilized. I'm sorry? It would have to be replatted. Yeah. Right. Next door, there's a CPA on the property. Those would be the first steps and then they'd have to come through and replat. Yeah, okay. And there'd be, there need to be a basis for public water. I don't see that coming any time in the medium future. So, okay. Okay. No further questions I'll ask. Is the applicant present? Come forward, please. Good morning, everyone. Tom Woodridge, TDW Land Planning for the record. I have had a great presentation by Kyle, great questions from the Planning Commission. I'll answer any questions that you have that weren't made clear in those cases. So, I'll ask you, I mean, what is the applicant's understanding and intent for the, for the open space agricultural conservation area? Right now, it's even conditioned by staff to remain as an agricultural open space area of the site. That'll be noted on the platts, so we'll be preserving it as such. There's no plans in our site to do anything with that except agriculture or open space. We don't have any plans to subdivide or extend the density or request the land use change. The services in this area are minimal, as Shonda pointed out, and so we don't have the ability to request that, nor do we have an intention to do so. So, we're going to remain, the remaining acreage will stay as an agricultural area, and, you know, that's, that's changing with the agricultural demand. You know, formerly, as you can see from this aerial photo, it was a grove, and then when you see from Kyle's site, it's been removed, the grove's been removed. So, that'll be on, there'll be economic factors forcing that change, what it's going to be used for. I can't tell you, you know, it was grove, could it be something else? Agriculture in the future, yes. Do we know exactly what? No, and that's always changing in agriculture, but that's our intention is to keep it as such. Will there be HOA management of the area? Yes. The common area, part of, be noted on the plat as part of the common area, there'll have to be an HOA to provide joint responsibility for that area. So, and that includes also the maintenance of the 60-foot easement that you see shown there. The 60-foot easement, we provided a generous width like that, so at some point, if it was ever desired or by the eight residents of these slots to pave the road, they have the sufficient right-of-way that meets county standard to put in a full road with drainage. So it has it set up to do that, but right now, you know, cost-wise and just having a rural subdivision would like to keep it as just a compacted, hard surface that's suitable for emergency vehicles and access to each of these eight lots, but at some point in the future, if it becomes economically feasible or desirable, they could make this a road because we provided the appropriate county right-of-way to do that. So plan and preparation, but right now, that's not the vision. What is the vision for the rehabilitation of the Grove area now being removed? Yeah, I mean, I would have to defer, I don't know if I would have an exact usage of what is going to be planned for what type of agriculture. You know, citrus is going through some changes right now and certain types of citrus are more viable than others. So depending upon what could be made viable on this site, it could be that or it could be some other type of specialty crop. There's a lot of other crops that the ag industry is experimenting with and on a smaller site like this, you have to be mindful that the smaller you get, the more profitable per acre it has to be. So citrus was removed for various reasons here. we don't have any known plans for exactly what will be replaced there, even if it's just cattle grazing, it's ag. So it could be that in the interim but we don't have a specific plan on what's going to replace that grove at this time. Okay, there are no further questions. I'll open up the meeting for anyone who's present in favor or in opposition to this request. Yes, sir. You come forward, please, and state your name and address. You can come to this mic right here. Yes. My name is Gerald Pliss. I live at 2485 Gabriel Road which is right across from what this property is. I moved there in 2012 because you go in my house you see no houses. I see a grove, I see woods. We have deer, we have squirrels, we have hogs. I mean, we've got everything out there all over the place. I've put the Florida Panthers been on my property two times on the camera. I think when we start putting this much stuff back out there again we're starting to city-fy the country. And it takes away our serenity because that's why most of us live there because this is the country. When you start putting all this extra stuff in you not only do that but you take the animals away. Next thing you know you've got all these, you've got to have sewage, but that's got to go somewhere well the lake's right there next to it and I don't think that helps that any. I mean these things all seem to be looked beyond just, it's more of a dollar thing. And I understand everybody wants money. I mean I've always tried to get top dollar out of my properties too but not trying to take away someone's serenity and I believe that's what this does for those of us who live there and watch children walk up and down the streets and go in the woods and play. I think you take away from our community when you do that. You're just allowing the city to just keep squeezing and squeezing and squeezing even though they won't live in the country. the problem is most generally, not everybody but most generally, whenever these people move out like this into our area, they tend to want to city-fy us and we don't want to be city-fied. We live in the sticks. I was born and raised in the sticks. I want to die in the sticks. I'll be thrown, my ashes will be thrown on my property. So I think you take away my serenity and you take away my privacy and I know it's got to be something thought about that because all of you live somewhere where you like to be able to walk out your back door or something and not have to see something. I don't know what they're going to do with the grove. The grove is still there. It's not active but it's still there but I know when you take that grove away all that wind break from these storms we got allowed my trailer to stay. My trees didn't blow over because there were wind breaks all the way around me. So when you start taking all this away and opening all this up, you open us up to something we don't really want. And I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound offended or anything but I like my privacy and I enjoy sitting out there at night looking in the stars and being able to see stars because there's no lights. We have no sirens. I guarantee you I hear a siren once a month and it's on 27 or 98. We don't hear any of this stuff. We hear all the animals that's out there. It's all we hear and it's just unbelievable. If you've ever been out there anywhere around like Buffum, it's a piece of heaven and we've had a few houses built out there and that's okay because they're on five acre lots back. They're in the woods the way they want it to be. When you do this, you take away the whole lake now then and you take the windbreaks that we've had. We don't know what will happen to the grove and the woods. Right across me is a large grove and woods. Gopher turtles and everything else is out there too. Aren't they supposed to be protected? I'm sorry. That's all I got to say. I thank you and take away my serenity for a dollar bill. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Chair, I have a quick question. Sir, I'm sorry, we have a question. Where's your home on the map? Can you point to it? I am right straight across from the grove. There's only one home there in all that big section. I'm right across from it. My home, my trailer is right on the road. I'm within probably 200 feet of the grove. That's what I look at. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? Yes, ma'am. My name is Barbara Nelson Fuquay. I live next to Dwayne on Gabriel Road, 2489 Gabriel Road. Would it take away from my time for you to scroll through the pictures that you quickly went through? And where is your proposed easement? I don't see that on the map. Where are you proposing to put the easement? The proposed easement is to go where these tracks are. This is the site to the west-hand side of the screen, and then this is that larger parcel. So this is keeping pretty much consistent with where that easement is going to be on that far, on the west side of the property. Sorry. Can you show me on that? On here is the easement. So it extends up where those... Along Black Road? Black Road is further to the west here. So it mimics Black Road along that western property line. Okay. Can you scroll through the other pictures, please? So this is where that far west property line is. Looking south towards Gabriel Road. And that that's by Sunny South. Okay. All right. That's the property for you that would be next to them on the lake. Yes. The site is further to the east of the screen here. Can you continue to say Black Road? Yes. Okay. Okay. Do you have any pictures across the street where we are? I did not have pictures from across Gabriel Road looking on the other side of... That one picture has got a sign in it. So you can see the fence that's my property and then to the right would be Dwayne's property. Ma'am could you speak into the microphone just to make sure? I'm sorry. So the fence that small portion of the fence that you see is my property. Our house is set further off the road. His is right at the road and it looks to me like the easement is going to be people coming entering and exiting the easement. The headlights are going to go right into his windows. I agree with everything Dwayne said about the serenity. I have lived in Florida for 25 years. I lived in Wesley Chapel for 19 of them. I escaped Wesley Chapel to come to a community like this. we have started homesteading. We're raising some cattle and things on the property and enjoying the rural lifestyle. I escaped HOAs. I was in property management. I understand all of that. Go ahead. I'll give you a few minutes or a little time since we went through the slides. Okay. So the property that's to the would be the east, that large property there, was recently sold. It was a large piece of property and it has been subdivided into larger portions that are more than five acres each. There is another big property to the west on Gabriel and Doc Lindsay that's for sale 200 some acres. One of my concerns is this will set a precedent for that large piece of property and maybe be subdivided into smaller lots than five acres each. And again, the more dense the housing is, the less serenity piece of mine and increases the light pollution, et cetera. The portion that's going to remain open, who's going to retain ownership of that land? The part that is going to stay egg in front of the eight lots? I'm going to give the applicant a chance to come back and address any questions. All right, so that would be one question. And I was wondering what the future development was of that. there's also, well, and the area is not being maintained right now, so it is important as to how that will be maintained because we actually had a snail infestation from that land that he, Dwayne, took the brunt of, and I mean, covering the house snail infestation. They were coming from the property across the street, so that's a concern also. I guess that's it right now. Again, we moved out here to have the rural lifestyle, not to be in HOA kind of situations, and the other development around there isn't really the same as what's being proposed for here. Okay, thank you. And Mr. Chair, staff may address this in their response, but I do just want to clarify that the request before the board is regarding the use of an easement to access the properties, but the board's not being asked to approve. Those eight properties, that's already its residential role as the staff report indicated. Anyone else? Yes, sir. Hi, good morning. I'm Emmett Scow. I own the property, all the property to the immediate east on the eastern edge, and I understand the development process and kind of where we are. I just have a couple questions really. The easement, is there an easement between my property on the whole east side and this property, is there one going to be established or is it going to be right up next to my fence line? No, there is no easement. The easement just extends to this cul-de-sac here. There does seem to be some sort of width here between the end of that easement to your property, but it doesn't go directly along that eastern portion of the site. Can you explain that again? I didn't understand you quite. The easement extends north and then takes a right-hand turn. There's a cul-de-sac at the very end, so it doesn't go directly up to that eastern property line. There is some distance between the end of the cul-de-sac and the designated property line. Okay, from there extending up to the lake, it's right on the property line? This will be lot 8 here. Extending up to the lake is lot 8. that looks like it is approximately 1.61 acres, so that will be one of the lots, not an easement. Okay, I was just led to believe that there would be an easement between the two properties providing access to the lake. No, no, those will just, the only easement here is going to be extending north and then taking that right-hand turn along the property. Okay, I think the only issue I have with this whole thing is the HOA. Again, we don't want an HOA coming in and trying to change everything in the area outside of where they are. I think that could be a potential issue, as well as any issues with the endangered species in the area, the purple tail skinks, the tortoises, and the indigo snakes, which that property is overrun with. So I just wondered if there's an issue with that. This request is just for allowing eight lots to access an easement. Those types of reviews will have to come in once building and construction is put. And is the open area, is that going to stay open area? This tract A, this agricultural easement, is going to remain as an agricultural easement. It is about 30.25 acres and it is conditioned within the staff report along with consistency with section 753 of our land development code that it can't come in for future development. Excellent. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, I will ask the applicant if he will respond, but I want to I guess reiterate or state that the request as I understand it is to allow for the easement to extend more than a quarter of a mile and to allow for more than four units to access that easement. The cluster aspect of this request which is to go to one acre lots is not part of this. That's allowed by right in the zoning in the land development code. So you could and the eight units is the maximum number of units that is allowed based upon the total acreage. Do I have that right? Correct. And as you mentioned, the cluster is an important factor of this because you could do this, we wouldn't have to come to the hearing today. This same design with the same number of lots, with the same size lots, is permissible through that cluster provision with the zoning or land development code standards by right. The reason we're here today, Commissioner Bishop pointed out perfectly is the distance of the easement is beyond the quarter mile. And in fact, lot number one, I did the calculations yesterday, meets that quarter mile. So it's really the other seven if you want to get technical. So for seven of those eight lots, we need that additional distance, which is beyond the quarter mile. And then the number of lots on an easement is regulated to be four by the code unless you come to the planning commission and get however many beyond four. So that's the two reasons we're really here today. We meet the density. We're not city-fying, I think they said, the rural areas. Pardon me. We could do this number of lots regardless. In terms of the plants and animals and things like that, it's already been disturbed as grove through the decades. If this remains fallow, the species that were mentioned would actually have a better location, 30 acres for which to live naturally. The species that they mentioned would live better on that 30 acres. It was just left fallow and as open space as it would. And if we planted it as something agriculturally, well, that's what it's been for as long as anybody can remember. So either way, we're either remaining the same or improving upon the things that have been stated here today by the concerned residents, I think. So I heard a question about ownership of that and a question about the HOA. Yes, because we're plaiting these lots and there is something that is outside of lot 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8. If I own lot number 6, who takes care of the open space? Is it my neighbor, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, or is it the Johnson Center? No, we all have a common responsibility to take care of the easement and the open space. And that is the purpose of this HOA, not to tell people in any other space outside of the blue boundary that you see on this slide what they can do with their property. Our intention is not to overreach, just to make sure that what we have planned here is properly maintained. One moment. My name is Corby Myers. I'm here with Tom representing the property owner. I'm an attorney who practices at 202 East Stewart Avenue in Lake Wales. Let me clarify real quick. The HOA is being set up to take care of a common entrance easement. As the county attorney has pointed out, we can do long narrow lots out to the highway today, four lots, same number of lots, everything. The open space will be maintained or will stay in the property owner's name, and it's their intention for that to be permanently open space and or agricultural lands. Instead of having long narrow strips coming out to the highway, it'll be the same number of lots on the lake, the HOA only taking care of the road entrance, and then the open space agriculture in the front acting as a buffer in the area. That's the intent here. Hopefully that clarifies a little bit. I had to say something anyway. Mr. Chair, I just also want to clarify that the county requires, as part of the planning process, to have the HOA maintain that road so that the county doesn't have to take it over if it became contentious between those property owners, as they were explaining as far as who takes care of what. So that would be a requirement as part of the PLAT that there's an HOA created or some entity to maintain that road. And for the comfort of the residents, instead of eight driveways along the road, as Corby was saying, you have one driveway leading back down to the lake. So it will feel more appropriate to the area because you'll have the large acreage that's in open space up front along the road where you see most of the time, and the homes and the lots will be far to the back across the lake, and at least you'll have just that one driveway access point as a central access for the whole community. Any questions, comments, not, I'll bring this back to the board for consideration, discussion, or a motion. I move to approve 26-0102. Second. Motion is second to approve. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso, for the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Minister of Commission, appreciate you all the time. Next case, staff, please. The next case is LDCPA-S 2025-35. It's a conference plan amendment along Rucker Highway. It's a companion to the next case as well, LDC-D 2025-11, to change the district to Business Park Center 2. Robert Bolton will present both cases. Thank you. Good morning. Robert Bolton with Land Development presenting LDC-PAS 2025-35, a future land use map and text amendment from residential suburban to Business Park Center and the related LDC-D 2025-11, a sub-district change request from Business Park Center 1 to Business Park Center 2, on approximately 12.91 acres. For the record, 20 mailers were sent to area property owners on January 15, 2026. One board was posted on January 20, 2026. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun on January 21, 2026. No responses from the public have been received. A level 4 review will be heard by the Board of County Commission on March 24, 2026 for an adoption hearing. The requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code and staff recommends approval. Just as a reminder, this is two requests, which will require two separate actions. The subject site is located on the south side of Wrecker Highway, east of Thornhill Road, north of Highway 542 west, and west of McKean Street, south of the city of Auburndale. This is a 2023 context aerial. The site is located adjacent to the south of the city of Auburndale. This orangish area is the city of Auburndale. Directly north of the site is the Duke Energy Osprey Power Plant and substation right there. Adjacent to the east is the CMEX Auburndale Ready Mix Concrete Plant. West of the site is a vacant parcel and the Barton Storage and Commercial Park. To the south here are all wetlands. This is a closer look at the site with the existing automotive salvage and repair business. This use has been in operation since the late 1970s and is considered a legal non-conforming use. As previously mentioned it's adjacent to the east of the Auburndale Ready Mix Concrete Plant. A little farther to the east is a couple of mobile home parks that have been there since at least the 80s also. And intermixed are some residential properties. And a little bit further here this is a welding fabrication shop. This is the current feature land use map with a large BPC2 area to the west and industrial area there. To the north is the city of Auburndale. You have a future land use of business park and zoning of light industrial here. This area that has a future land use to public use zoning number RS1 it is the cemetery. further east on this northern side of Wrecker Highway this is a commercial truck parking for the Catrally juice plant and over here is the Good to Grow juice bottling plant. Back when this was originally constructed they needed wastewater for their processing. They built their own wastewater treatment plant which is now also shared from my understanding with Auburndale's wastewater treatment plant. This is a truck parking in the BPC1. This is the welding fabrication. You have residential down here on Brim Road and like I mentioned earlier before the mixture of some residential uses there. This is what the request for the CPA request to take it to BPC. would be. This is the sub-district change request taking it to the BPC2. This is the City of Auburndale's future land use map for the area. You can see where in the city these two areas are the business park center. This is the public use where the cemetery is. Further to the east you can see the gray area which is all industrial within the city. The picture on the left is looking west along Wrecker Highway from the site. The right one is looking east from the site. The picture on the left is of the subject site, the primary building on the site currently. The one on the right is on the western side looking south. The left hand picture this is toward the eastern side looking south of the existing use. This is looking north from the subject site with the Duke power plant. The site is served by a full array of public services and is not anticipated to have a negative impact. As non-residential land use it will not have a negative impact on the school. I do want to also mention that if the land use changes because they are currently serviced by Well and Septic, if they need water and sewer it is within the Auburndale service area and Auburndale would have an agreement for a voluntary annexation into the city. The city of Auburndale also had no objection to this land use. The requested LDCPAS 2025-35 is a change from residential suburban to business park center with the related LDCD 2025-11 a sub-district chain from BPC-1 to BPC-2. The site has been an operational automotive salvage and auto repair since the early 1980s and is currently a legal non-conforming use. The original zoning for the site was a combination of general industrial and commercial four similar to the current BPC and industrial future land uses. The site is adjacent to BPC-2 to the west and adjacent to light industrial in the city of Auburndale with another legal non-conforming use adjacent to the east. The requests are consistent and compatible with the comprehensive plan and land development code. Again, these are two separate requests requiring two separate actions and staff recommends approval for both LDC-PAS 2025-35 and LDC-D 2025-11. With that, I will stand for questions. Any questions for staff? Is the salvage yard intended to continue operating under the new zoning or is this being done for a change of use? I'll defer that to the applicant as far as what future plans are. Any other questions? Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant to come forward, please. Do you have anything to add to the staff report? Again, Tom Woodridge with the applicant here today, TDW Land Planning. Tom Woodridge representing the applicant for these two cases. I had this presentation ready, but frankly, Robert did a fantastic job and has many of the similar exhibits. So, yes, excellent job on the staff report, excellent job on his presentation of the facts and the history for the site. The current owners are in the process of listing the property for sale to answer your question, Commissioner Jackson, and they are looking to find the best marketability for the site, and clearly residential suburban is a lot more question marks than positivity for listing a property. We originally came to do a pre-app and then requested industrial, which is a better fit for the existing, you know, it's got some retail and some auto service, et cetera, but there's obviously a salvage component, which is only allowed in industrial. As a legal non-conforming use has been there decades, we're finding the best fit that works, I think, from a compatibility standpoint, a policy standpoint, and something that, you know, we felt would be good within the area. We could have requested industrial and pushed them. We do have CMEX to our east, which is frankly more intense of a use, you could argue, and to our west is starting some of that wetland area. So we would have kind of been our own little island of industrial, but it was a better fit from policy and a staff review of policies to go with BPC2, which does allow for a majority of what we have on site, save the auto salvage. If the next owner or purchaser of the property would like to continue with auto salvage, they would continue as a legally established non-conforming use with the limited expansion of up to 20% that's allowed by the code by right, and then if you wanted more than 20%, you come through this same format the Planning Commission request with a binding site plan, request additional. However, as you saw in the area of photograph, there's really not much room to add more, save for maybe another building in lieu of the auto salvage open storage that you see on the southern portion of the property. So this is a good fit for what they need to do. It's the best fit, I think, from a balance between the compatibility of the area and the established use that's there. We prefer the industrial just because it would have been more perfect and save this explanation that I'm giving right now, I think. But, you know, aside from that, you know, BPC2, gets them where they need to be for the next user to be able to do some expansions and some additional use of the property that would be perhaps limited by RS. So save that. I can answer any questions that you might have. I don't need to go over the compatibility. We are consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code, as staff has pointed out. I just want to state that for the record, and I'll take any questions that you have. Any questions of the applicant? Seeing none, I will ask, is there anyone in the audience to speak in favor or in opposition to either or both LDCPA S202535 or LDCD 2025-11? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion. We need to approve these separately? Yes, we do. So the first one would be the 2025-35, I'll make a motion to approve 2025-35. I have a motion and a second. Brokaw, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Motion passes. I'll make a motion to approve 2025-11. Second. Motion second to approve. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. Mike Hickman. Angel Sims. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Next case. Next case is LDCPAS 2025-32. Future land use change in Kathleen and Duff area and Robert Bolton is the case planner. Good morning. Robert Bolton with land development presenting LDCPAS 2025-32. A future land use and map text amendment from residential suburban in the SDA to neighborhood activity center in the UGA. Mr. Chair, move to expedite. I have a motion to expedite. Do I have a second? Second. Is there anyone in the audience to speak in favor or opposition to this? Just the applicant. So we have a motion and a second to expedite. We do anyone on the board have any objections? So all in favor of an expedited procedure, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes, so we will expedite. For the record, 33 mailers were sent to area property owners on January 15, 2026. One board was posted on December 23, 2025. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun on January 21, 2026. No responses from the public have been heard. This is a level four review and will be heard by the Board of County Commission on February 17 at an adoption hearing. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan, land development code, and staff recommended approval. The subject site is located on the west side of Kathleen Road, south of Duff Road, east and north of Catherine Drive, northwest of the city of Lakeland. This is an aerial showing the existing NAC in the dashed yellow. This dashed orange is a cc. This is the area that is expanding. Part of the requirements for an expansion is that the existing NAC be at least 80% developed. As you can see, this NAC is 100% developed at this point in time. That's a closer up of the site. This is the existing future land use map for the area. Just a point notice typically in NAC we like to see the whole surrounding corner. 2018, the church that is here opted out of the original NAC. That's why it shows a little bit different. That is what it would look like afterwards. These are some site photos. That is the site looking across. there would be no serious it has access to public utilities services. The land use would not seriously impact the services. The request to change from residential suburban neighborhood activity center, as I said before, needs to be at least 80%. It's currently 100% built out and would show a give more non-residential support for the area. The area has been improved with the infrastructure and continues to be an active growing area in the county. With that, staff recommends approval and I will stand for any questions. Any questions of staff? I'll ask the applicant to come forward if there's anything to add to staff report. Good morning, Commission. For the record, Bart Allen, land use attorney with Peterson and Myers, law firm 225 East Lemon Street, Lakeland, Florida. I have with me Ms. Sarah Lagos from Wagner Property Group who's our client. I have nothing further to add at this point and being as we are in expedited procedures, I will likewise be expedited. We would request a favorable recommendation. You have a favorable staff recommendation and we appreciate your time but we'll answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions to the applicant? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for discussion and the motion. I move to approve 2025-32. Second. Motion is second. Approved. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Mindy Janamaso. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Next case. Staff. Next on the agenda. Good morning, Ian Nance, land development. Before I launch into this, this is the first in this series of text amendments staff is going to bring before you all. Kind of update, modernize the land development code, take out some extraneous language and really try to improve some customer service. So get ready to see a handful of these. They're not major moves, they're just kind of more or less clean up and as I said, trying to update this as much as we can before the comprehensive plan changes come to and we're tied up with that. So to begin, this is LDCT 2025-25, a county-initiated LDC text amendment to multiple sections of the code to lower the levels of review for monopole communication towers in non-residential districts, to modify conditional use standards for communication towers, to add provisions for mobile communication towers and update the glossary. For the record, this was advertised in the Polk Sun on January 21st with no response from the public. This is a level 4 review with board dates scheduled from March 3rd and 17th. The Land Development Code recognizes three types of communication towers as shown to the right, guide, lattice, and monopole. Of these, the monopole tower is the least impactful, both visually and limited to space they require for operation. Standards governing all three have been in effect since 1997, prior to the adoption of Land Development Code and the era of dial-up modems. Over the last 30 years, communication towers are capable of co-locating various antennae for cellular transmission and emergency services, have become vital components of modern infrastructure. This amendment aims at removing outdated language from the code while lowering the burden of approval in certain land use districts. It also recognizes the need to provide services required when towers need repair or replacement. So of the first of these goals, this amendment will lower the level of review for monopole towers in those districts where they currently require plan and commission approval, as noted on the screen. These are typically found in urban areas where cell service is critical. There will remain a provision in the code that requires plan and commission approval for any tower whose height exceeds its setback from a residential property line. So if you have a 130-foot tower and the nearest residential property is 100 feet away, it will still come before you. Next, the code language from 1997 requires 17 sets of paper plans to be submitted with level three applications. Clearly, we're not taking those in now with computerization, but there are also criteria for the planning commission to consider with the approval of these towers that conflicts with some of our procedures in sections 905 and 906. There's also old rules requiring a search ring. Once upon a time, I believe it was 1997, launched a lot of these rules. There's a moratorium on towers and they required a search ring to see how many were going to be in a given area. It was never really spelled out well, nor was it really spelled out what we were supposed to do with that information. It's an old standard, old practice that we frankly don't do anything with, even when we bring it to the planning commission, so we're proposing to remove that. Finally, we had a situation back during the summer with two large towers, I believe they're lattice towers out in North 98, needing repair. They carried all kinds of emergency signals and cell service. We didn't have anything in the code to allow these mobile towers to operate while under repair. We were able to cobble together some parts of the code to allow it to go forward since it was kind of an emergency situation, but as these towers do age, we're going to see more of these where they'll place these mobile towers not necessarily on-site, but maybe on a neighboring property to provide uninterrupted service and coverage, so we'll be adding language for that. Obviously, staff recommends approval here. Again, the goal is to make the code easier to apply and update it to modern applications. With that, I think you will stand for questions. Any questions, staff? Just out of curiosity, was there any cellular companies or tower builders consulted or collaborated with? Not directly for this. This comes from years of doing planning on call and from DRC and just some common sense, a lot of it. We did deal with the folks with this sell-on wheels back during the summer and with some conversations with them about doing this and the necessity of having this in place so they can move faster. They had to come in and apply for an electric permit to hook this up, and it got flagged for a month and a half before we could come to a solution. Okay. Hearing no questions, I'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion. I move to approve 2025-25. Second. Motion seconded. Approved. 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. Next case, staff. Next up, car washes. For the record, enhanced land development. Staff recommends approval of the LDCT 2025-26, a county-initiated LDC text amendment to multiple sections of the code to consolidate car wash uses in the use tables, conditional use criteria, and glossary. On January 21st, a legal ad was published with no public response. Very simply, the land development code has three car washes listed as primary uses. Full service, self-service, and incidental, which you can see here on the right. In short, we really don't need three primary car wash uses. The conditional use is all the same for all three. There's almost no difference in the levels of review between self-service and full service, so we're going to collapse full service and self-service into just car washes and have that left in the table. And we're going to move the incidental car wash to accessory uses, so they'll be allowed wherever a gas station or whatever might need to have an accessory car wash is allowed to go. So we have had problems with this with DRC in the past where our definitions are kind of limiting to what a modern car wash will be, whether it's self-service or self-full service and whether it's automated or if you get out of the car or not, so we're just limiting all this confusing language and just going car wash. Here are just some of the changes as I just reviewed. Again, staff recommends approval. This is a mostly customer service item. Not much more to say really on this one. We researched this last summer. Shout out to our intern, Owen, who gave us a lot of help with this, but with that, I'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion. Move to approve LDCT 2025-26. Motion is second to approve. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamaso. 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. Last one. For the record, Ian Nance for land development. Staff recommends approve LDCT 2025-27, a county-initiated LDC text amendment to multiple sections of the code to move drive-through facilities to accessory uses, remove drive-through financial institutions from the code, and provide definitions for drive-through bypass lane and drive-through facilities. On January 21st, a legal ad was published in Polk Sun with no response. Drive-through facilities are currently listed among the conditional use criteria in Land Development Code Section 303. However, this use is not listed in the use table. So what's happened in the past is if you have a drive-through restaurant, there's a set of conditions within our code that they must follow. They also must follow this drive-through facilities set of conditions, but they're not connected in our code. So if they don't come in to DRC for a pre-app and we don't direct them that way, a national chain will come in and just lay out their site plan based on the drive-through restaurant criteria not knowing the drive-through facility criteria applies too. The difference being is that the drive-through facility criteria requires a 10-foot bypass lane. So they'll come to us and we say, where's your bypass lane? And they have to redesign their whole site. And when you have a small site, this has caused a great deal of friction over the last eight plus years I've been here. So what we're proposing is to move drive-through facilities to accessory uses so that it'll apply to car washes, to pharmacies, to banks, and to restaurants. But we're also going to keep, we're going to add some of these standards into the drive-through restaurants so we're not looking at two different places. Again, it's just trying to streamline and point people in the right direction. We are kind of sacrificing the drive-through financial institutions use with this text amendment. One, we don't have any conditions of approval in the code for drive-through or for any banks quite honestly. But our use tables have drive-through banks and we have regular banks and it directs you there for nothing to see. This is one step. Again, we're going to take a look at offices as we get further down this line of looking at the land development code and see where banks fit in. So this is just kind of one step removing this useless use more or less to move forward in the future. Again, staff recommends approval. This has been a confusing problem for a while here and I kind of use this example on Highland City. This is a car wash and this is a sonic drive-in and you can see the bypass lanes get around here. Here's a Taco Bell that squeezed through staff once upon a time they didn't get the drive-through or the bypass lane through there which they should have. So we feel too keeping that standard is critical for emergencies and people like me who get frustrated waiting in line need to get out. So with that, I thank you and we'll stay for questions. Any questions, staff? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion. Move to approve LDCT 2025-27. Second. Motion and second to approve. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Gianpasso 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. Thank you. Mr. Chair, if I may while Shonda comes up, we discovered a typo in LDWA-2025-51 that the board approved, the first case the board approved this morning. So if we could just revisit that, I want to make sure it's clear for the record. There's a typo in addendum 1 to the final order. It's on page 35 of the agenda packet. We're doing a new process where any, in the rare instances when any conditions are added during the hearing we're going to incorporate them on one page. So we just inadvertently kept some red language on that addendum. That was a carryover from a prior case. It should not be there. It doesn't make sense in the context of that case anyways. But for clarity I would like to see if the board would reopen the case and have an amended motion just to remove that red language so there's no confusion if that makes sense. Okay. Okay. So we'll reopen item number one under new business LDWA 2025-51 for the purpose of removing the... There's some red language in the final order. It was... Yeah. So is it removing it or just removing the red font? Just removing... There were no conditions added to that case for the Gabriel easement. Okay. So we just want to make it clear that that red language is not actually a condition to the Gabriel red. So do I hear a motion to approve the change? I'll amend my motion. I think. Okay. I'll amend my motion to... for the modification to 2025-51. Second. And the second. All in favor signify by by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you so much. Okay. Shonda. Comp plan. So excited. Yes. Shonda Bennett with Land Development Division. I just passed out your second installment of the... each element of the comprehensive plan. It's the housing element. Last month, you received the intergovernmental element. I did discuss with Ms. Howard that if you had questions or comments on the elements that you're receiving, we can discuss it here at the meeting. There's not an advertising issue with that. So if you see anything on this element, you want to discuss next month or however, you know, questions you have, feel free to ask them. And our committee, Conference of Plan Advisory Committee is about to enter the first page of the Future Land Use Element next week. So we're getting down to the wire with the committee. So... So does this solve the housing affordability problem? Absolutely. Good. Good work. Thank you. I like to... I like to see all these things struck out of here. Shonda, I appreciate all the red lines that you have here. Well... Probably a good first start. Well, I... It's... On one level, it's easy, but because this was... A lot of it was written in 1991, and I could imagine that Merle might have some issues with removing some of it because he could be... You know, concerned with some of the items, and I struggle with the same being here for as long as I have, but the other part of it is trying to remove language that I've never used in my 30 years here at the county, and if I've never used it, it's like, you know, closing the closet. If you haven't used it in six months, throw them out. Not that we would throw out a policy we haven't used in six months, but I guess there's part of that, trying to make it easier to understand, shorter, not as long, et cetera. I would agree with that and to say that in my defense, because I was here when this was written. Is this your handiwork? How's it said? We had some very lengthy, strict guidelines that the state Department of Community Affairs imposed upon us that we were required to check the boxes. Right. And in fact, I was on the statewide committee that worked with the state Department of Community Affairs in developing those guidelines. So it's one of those things, you should have seen it before we got through with it, because it was very burdensome. And we got some concessions, but it was still a very detailed requirement that we had to follow. So I'm glad to see that we've gone beyond that and to something that is workable and makes sense. I've got a question. Sean, indulge me if you will. I know you guys, we all talk about affordability of housing and staff does a good job of trying to accommodate higher density where they can. I'm just wondering, is there a way to redefine the classifications of land? So, for instance, R1 is one per acre. AAR is what, typically, one home per five acres. And that's all obviously, you know, clearly stated. Is there, I mean, and as much effort as you all put in and we all put in in the building industry, the reality is that we get ever more regulations and we get less density, you know, so you're just going to, per acre, you're just not going to get as many homes on that for whatever reason. Stormwater management and road requirements and setbacks and sidewalks and you name it, there's all these things that, one, reduce density and two, add cost and the time to go through this process is burdensome and time is money in the industry. So just a thought I had to increase density and simplify the process, can we redefine the categories to say, so let's say like R1, you could get up to 1.2 homes per acre and then just go through all the categories, you know, so R4, in other words, give us back some of our density that we've been losing over time. Do you mean an RL, just residential low? Because that's the only residential category that has districts and those districts actually come from the code, not the comp plan. So the comprehensive plan wouldn't allow the flexibility between the districts. That would have to be a code amendment. That would be Eric. Okay, so, I mean, how complex is that? Well, I'll start speaking and then Eric can chime in as necessary. The board has swam in different directions to try to deal with the districts. The districts, as you may remember, came from the old zoning, whether it had RC or the different residential zoning categories, and we equated whatever that zoning category was with particular RL1, RL2, RL3, RL4. During the first Senate Bill 250, with the more burdensome criteria, the board started going along with let's allow the maximum density if they meet certain requirements with a level two. Once the state legislature amended that, the board removed that and stuck with districts. So, certainly, that could happen, but I think some of that has to come from the direction of the board. The board was very interested in having the plan developments amended that process. Eric did a lot of work and a lot of analysis on plan developments from 2015, I believe it was, what they were requesting, what they were, changed it from a bonus point system to a locational criteria. And the board seems to have a lot of interest in that direction. construction. But the comprehensive plan would not prevent that from happening. But that would be within a plan. I'm talking about currently, for instance, I have a six-acre project, R1, six sites, what I thought would be a rather simple process to come in, get approved for six one-acre sites. Now, that is, I've actually had the property now for two years and for one reason or another is still is yet to be developed. Bureaucracy is part of that reason. But, you know, and I opted to do that instead of going for higher zoning thinking that would be a quicker process. Now, having gone through that, I would probably just have, you know, gone for two per acre or whatever. But within, you know, I mean, there's no reason that property couldn't be eight sites on six acres or ten sites on six acres without having to go through a whole, you know, hearing and planning commission and so forth and so on. So, and that's just by definition. Obviously, this is a county commission, you know, purview, but, I mean, is that a simple process or to go into the districts and say, okay, now, you know, you can get up to X amount more sites out of it. Obviously, you're going to have smaller sites. People don't particularly like that, but that's really our only solution to finding affordability is to get higher density in these properties and to do some of the things you've been doing, like allowing accessory dwelling units, you know, allowing one-time split on properties, flexibility to, you know, to add to sites and do easements and all the things that we do up here. Well, I will say one of the things that Eric and his team probably 15 years ago now added residential infill into the land development code and it's used often in the residential suburban and the residential low categories and it's basically averaging densities on what's on two sides of the property and the property owner gets to pick which sides they choose. We don't pick for them. They pick. They can pick the smallest one-on-one and the largest parcel on the other and then they average that lot size and that's been in the books for a while. Is that staff approved? Yes. It's not a public hearing. It's called residential infill. Okay. And beyond that, if I was to approach the county commissioners, what would be the best thing to focus on to get higher density across the board? Board. I mean, you know, or at least in residential, obviously. Well, the comprehensive plan has to list what the maximum density can be achieved per state statute. So residential low, in some places the county is five, some it's seven, and some it's eight, depending if you're an SAP selected area plan or the transit supported development area. RM has to have a max that's 10. And a state statute has to say what the maximum density is, right? How that is achieved from the base or the, you know, zero units of the acre to that maximum, that gets dictated by the land development code in terms of recreation requirements and setbacks and retention. But that's at the direction of the county commission then? Right. Thank you. Any more questions? I like the approach that you're taking in identifying the policy and the objective by putting a prefix before it like H-O-U-S so you know it's housing and then creating a, I guess, a term so you look at and you know immediately what that policy addresses rather than just saying, you know, policy 1.2.1. You know, you don't know what that is. Well, that makes me feel better because it took me a month to get on board with that. I've been working for 30 years with the policy numbers the way that they were. I realize that. Talk about change. But you're right. When you're looking at the policy, you know, oh, it's the housing element. I didn't have to go through the process of, I guess, coming up with that, but once I see what you've done, I like it. Well, and the consultant came up with that one. That's actually common amongst other jurisdictions in the state. That's a good change. Yeah, I'll tell the consultant. I didn't come up with it. Okay. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Motion, second, adjourned. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. We're adjourned. Thank you.