Planning Commission on 2026-04-01 8:50 AM

time, there is already precedent, which is only going to make it worse for him. If you look around the property, there is other several large properties around there. If they all decide to build up like this, that flooding is going to be bad for everybody. Everybody's got to build up. I just don't want to have the president set for this, for everybody to build up and have somewhere else for the water to get low and flood out other people down the road. And the county just needs to look at the whole process, the whole area to make sure that everybody's being accounted for. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak? You were sworn name and address, please. I'm Kyle Brown. I live at 915 Lebanon Road. I've lived there for many years. My sister owned the house and then her dad bought the house from him. And then I recently bought it a couple of years ago from him. So I've lived in the house since 2007. We've had multiple hurricanes and everything and our yards have flooded multiple times. I do have videos and pictures of the property that they are trying to build at right now with the video of it completely underwater from the stop sign back. I live, I butt up to the backside of that property where the ditch is. And I, I'm just thinking about the rest of everybody around. We're moving 19 stranger families in. We've had, we've had our ways for many years and we will end up having to change our ways because we got 19 other families. We really can't consider that. So we should move on, please. I mean, we can't consider like those things are good. We can't, right, but we can't get into had our ways about everything. And I don't want them to build because like they were saying, there's more flooding than what everyone sees. We've seen it. We've lived it. It's cost us a lot of money in repairs because they said that we didn't need flood insurance. And then we did. And then who has to pay for all of it? We do. And they're trying to build, they'd have to go up five, six feet for it not to flood, which is going to impact my house. I live in a trailer right on the backside, which butts up to the land and which is going to make us even worse because the water is going to go higher because like Shay had said that the water does not drain. They don't clean the ditches properly. They clean the ditches on the side of the power station, but they don't clean ours because they see it is useless because there's nothing that they can do because where the water runs, runs into a field that floods. Okay. Thank you. Are you through? Okay. Anyone else like speaking opposition? I'm going to give the applicant a chance to come forward, please. Yeah. I want to talk about the stormwater and the flooding issue. Um, this is not something that's new. We've been looking at this property now since 2023. Um, we've had a couple of calls and meetings with, um, with Phil Irvin and roads and drainage about this. The, the predominant issue is that there's a large conveyance ditch that is, that runs through the, these properties, basically this area, the back of ours, and then the back of theirs. And it goes to the West. It's a County, uh, ditch where there's no easement or right away or any ability for them to own and maintain it. Um, as part of our plan, we're dedicating an easement, but we actually reached out, um, with the previous owner, uh, and working with Phil, we reached out to try and attain easements from all the property owners so that the County did have access to that ditch system to clean it regularly. And, um, some cooperated, some did not. And ultimately it failed because we didn't have, um, a full system. There is also several, uh, culverts as mentioned and ditches, um, west of this, uh, considerable distance that are without having run any studies, don't know if they're undersized, but they are bottlenecks. And so, you know, I think to, to resolve this issue as a whole for the area probably requires some participation with the County roads and drainage to try and figure out that, that issue as far as, you know, maintenance and then also sizing of everything. But, uh, for this development specifically, what I can tell you is that we are taking every step to ensure that there is no flooding based on our, uh, our improvements. You know, we are going to hold back the entirety of that hundred year storm. You know, the hundred year storm in this area is 10 inches in 24 hours. Layman's terms, that's just about a hurricane, right? And so we're going to hold that back and not let it discharge. So none of that water will ever hit this ditch because it's being held back in our, in our pond there. So we're taking all steps necessary to ensure that, uh, this development does not create additional flooding. Uh, and we are working with the County to try and figure out remedies of getting, uh, better maintenance for them in order to, you know, alleviate that issue as well. Do you know if this property is flooded in the past? I, I don't know for certain. I know that there has been mentioned flooding issues. I know that the previous owner that they referenced with the video, I haven't seen the video, but that was, um, one of my clients as well. And she had mentioned that they had standing water on her property during large storm events, which is why we engaged with fail and tried to start this whole process. So there is issues out there. It's, it's not just specific to this property. I think it's the whole area and it's more of a County maintenance, lack of easement and rights issue that needs to be, uh, resolved. But again, we are going to hold back that a hundred year storm. None of the, not a drop of our water from this development will get off of our property, uh, based on that larger, uh, that larger pond that we're proposing. So another question, I'm looking at the staff report and it says under soils, um, I guess there's two soil types on there, Pomona fine sand and Smyrna and Miaca fine sands. And both of them are listed as severe wetness under septic tank absorption fields. And I'm just wondering, can you overcome that? Yeah. So this property, um, it has, they call it a type D soils. Those are type D soils. And typically what that means is less perk, higher water tables. It's prevalent in this area. Now that's not something that development creates. That's just what's there in the ground. Um, this, this property also has a decent amount of elevation difference. So the road is, I want to say six plus or minus feet higher than the back of the property. And so the answer is yes, we can overcome it. We can, we can excavate and replace and create a situation where our soils are better and that we don't have as much of an issue. We have better perk and better suitable soils for the septic tanks. And then, like I said, ultimately it comes down to the stormwater pond. We're going to put impervious surface out here. We're going to direct all of the water that touches this property into that pond. And that pond is not going to release any water outside of that a hundred year event. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So I want to ask staff and I don't know that you can answer this, but I'm concerned about the, I guess the wetland drainage flooding situation here. And it sounds like there needs to be a regional solution and I'm not sure there is hope for a regional solution. I'll say it is well known by our department. It's well known by engineering and roads and drainage. I know Hillsborough County is involved in this whole Luchapakasassa basin area. The water management districts are FDEP. I mean, it's, it's well known and then it extends all the way to the Hillsborough County line. So it's, it's the city of Lakeland's well aware of it. Um, I will say for this particular application though, the stormwater pond exceeds what we would require. I mean, typically it's, it's a condition of approval. We remember we tried to put the stress basins language in the code, not too long back, but we're preempted by the state. So they, they volunteered this and they need to, quite frankly, as everyone here has testified, it's a big help to get that easement across, uh, the back end of that property. I know Mr. Irvin has, uh, Mr. Berker testified was, uh, very adamant about that so that you can work on these ditches in the future. So it's a combination. It's bad soils. It's, you know, constrained outflow. You have generational ditches where people have gone and dug and altered the landscape and it's, it's, it's kind of a one piece at a time fixed to it. And then, yeah, people are well aware of it. Uh, if we weren't here today, what could be built on that land as it stands? Is there anything that if it was built on today would be different in terms of the drainage versus what's proposed to us? They could do four units an acre right now, as long as they hit. Four units an acre. Six thousand square foot lots and R04. Correct. Single family homes. And it wouldn't come before us. They could just go ahead and build it. Correct. Yep. Okay. Question. Oh, yeah. So. I mean, obviously I'm pretty familiar with that area and it's just a mess out there drainage wise. And I sympathize with those in the audience that have to live with it on a daily basis. But just a point of clarity though, that really isn't under our purview, is it? I think, I think that's why they go through level two reviews, right Ian? I mean, they're going to have to, Chad's going to have to prove this to a few more people than what he's proving. If you were asking me, I think it's foolishness that we put in more, you know, rooftops in that area when they have issues. But, but again, is that, that's not. It's a conditional use. So if it's approved, then the board or the commissioner would be giving the right to go to a level two for the building. But at that point, it's already approved now as a conditional use for 19 mobile homes. So I, part of the analysis is, and that's why there's discussion in the staff report about the stormwater and the flooding issues, because that is something the board can consider. I think it is from the standpoint of if a, if a development is proposed in a location that is not suitable for that development, even if the current zoning allows it as conditional use that needs to approve an additional use based upon conditions. And there is limitations existing, such as floodplains, wetlands, drainage, other things that indicate the inappropriateness or the bad timing for that development is something that we could consider. Yes. And the citizen testimony that was given was about not just speculation about potential flooding, but actual observed flooding in the past. So that's relevant. Yeah. So I guess two points to that. It just seems, you know, one, I appreciate the engineer fact that they contain the water on site at the same level that it normally goes off. But, but that's only to a certain point. And we have had more extreme storms and more frequent storms. And I'm not saying that's not appropriate. And I normally would just consider that, you know, we may in fact be improving the land when we do these developments, but, you know, I'm not sure those standards are, are going to be met, you know, that we're going to meet these standards in the future with the frequency and the severity of the storms that we're having. So, you know, I would have real concerns about adding more rooftops to that area. But, you know, I mean, if that is something we can consider, then, then that would weigh into my decision. I would say that it is something we can consider. And again, I think it's a combination of both timing and the, um, the appropriateness of a development based upon the, uh, site conditions. Any other discussion? I did close the, uh, public portion of the meeting and I'll ask if there is a motion. I'll move to, uh, disapprove, um, LDCU 2025-38. Motion to deny the application. Second. And I second. So just for clarity, if you approve the motion, you're voting to deny the application. If you deny the motion, you're voting to approve the application. Right. Roll call, please. 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. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Motion to deny approved. Thank you. Next case, please, uh, Thomas Landing Fish Camp. All right. Next up is LDCU 2025-39, the Thomas Landing Fish Camp expansion. Eric Peterson is your planner. Good morning, Planning Commission. I, uh, request your patience. There's a lot to unpack with this case. It's a long history, but I do want you to focus on the request. The request is for 20 campsites and one more home. Uh, this is a conditional use, uh, that was, uh, that dates back to the eighties. Uh, it was a somewhat tumultuous PUD that finally got approved. Full disclosure. I was here then. There was a, uh, a PUD that granted certain approvals, uh, back in the nineties. It was contested in the courts and, and, um, overturned. So, uh, the Polk County had to adopt it. And then in the early 2000s, the owner of the property came in for more expansion, uh, to what we have today. So it is one conditional use. Fast forward another 23 years. There are two owners now of this. What is a grandfathered use? At the time it came in, in the eighties and in the nineties, it was before the comprehensive plan and things of that nature. This is a, an expansion of that non-conforming use. And the unusual situation is typically those who are requesting expansions of non-conforming uses own the whole non-conforming use, but this non-conforming use shares entitlements between two properties. First off, I want to mention that 16 mailers were sent to area property owners. Uh, three boards were posted one on the property and two on the route to get there, which is the non-conformity. The access is the non-conformity. If this was coming in today for a fresh start and it had public road frontage, this would be consistent with the code and the comp plan for recreational camping. Recreational camping is the use. Uh, a legal ad was published in the Lakeland, uh, and winter Haven sun on March 18th. Those boards were posted March 11th. We received five calls in opposition and one letter came in just recently. Uh, I think it was sent to you from one of the properties within the conditional use. Um, so there's a lot, a lot to go on here. This site is in a very remote location. You can see how far it is away from the urban areas of the County. This is a very rural area of the County. I often joke when I go out there, I say, I can smell the ocean when I get this to this side of the County. It's so far to the East. The whole area is agricultural residential rural. Uh, it is, uh, you know, some of the closest areas are of other land uses are recreation, open space, and preservation. A lot of environmental, um, purchases in this area. A lot of environmental conservation efforts going on. The site, it's access, which is the limitation on development of this property. Uh, Samkeen road is a public road and it bends right here and serves these homes along tiger Lake at that bend. There was a little past that bend. There's a gate and after, and, uh, from the bend on past the gate and on, uh, through to Thomas landing road, which is a private road. Uh, it is all a private easement and it's unpaved and that is the nonconformity. It's about two miles, you know, one, one and a quarter, two miles, depending on which side of the property you're measuring in front. So are you saying that if it, if Thomas landing road was a public road, we wouldn't be here? No, you, you would, but you would be looking at a request as a conforming, uh, that would be in compliance with comp plan. If this came in, this could not come in today. We couldn't accept the application. The standards say you've got to have public road frontage. So they wouldn't even be able to apply in this area, but you can see how remote it is. And recreational camping is not like our typical uses. Uh, recreational camping is kind of defined by its remoteness and its peacefulness and its distance from other people. So that's part of the allure. Um, this is the current approval. It was CU 0218 in which they expanded and, and added particularly 20 RV campsites. Uh, it had a single family residence on it and a two bedroom guest cottage and a mobile home at the time it came in for expansion back then. Um, a lot of the other uses were specifically listed in that approval, but through a lot of changes we've had today to the code, those are not the ones we necessarily track with this type of use. They are accessory uses. So the request by the South side owner is to duplicate those entitlements and, uh, with the exception. And what we're really measuring is in essence, just the, the 20 RV, uh, campsites, uh, the, and there's one single family residence would be, which would essentially be a support residence, uh, for the property. Uh, the, the North side would retain. I'm sorry for interrupting, but I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. So the South, the request for the South parcel is to add 20. They don't have that now. They couldn't do anything. They do, they do, but they share it. So in order to utilize it, but is that being done on the, I'm, I'm should let you finish. I know, but these are the entitlements currently. No, they're there. You'll see in the pictures, there's a few, there's a few RVs here, there, there's a few cottages here, there. They're trying to do it the right way. There, well, it, they have the whole property North and South has entitlements to 20, uh, campsites together today. They haven't exceeded that amount. The North sides does a few South sides even done a few, but they want to establish the, the full rights to 20 on the South side. And that's the request, regardless of what the North side wants to do and, and essentially move those current entitlements to the North side and add these new entitlements to the South side, but it's still adding, it's still doubling what's allowable today. Yes. Yes. And doubling take away the North side's ability to know, no, it is, it is not affecting actually the North side. It resolves the situation right now, the North side, if they wanted to have the, the use of 20 campsites on their side, they would have to come to the applicant to get their permission to apply for that right now. It doesn't raise on that, the, the radar for either side, because no one's exceeding the entitlements yet, but the South side wants a little more dedicated to them, a little more, uh, determination of the entitlements they have. And so this approval takes one big set of entitlements and doubles them. Yes. But assigns a certain amount of entitlements to the South side and assigns a certain amount of entitlements to the North side. So if they didn't want to increase the number, could they just come and say, we want our 10 and the North side has their 10. And, and that's where we stop because the County says, sure, submit your plans, but we need owner's authorization from the other part of your overall conditional use. So they're disagreeing the two owners are, the two owners are, are not in agreement as to who has what rights. And, uh, I can, I can even go further. The, it's all clicking now. I just, just to add to, to the confusion, the property line, as you see in the, the photo here, even splits the boat ramp in half. Uh, it, it, it, it, it bisects one of the, it bisects the bait shop. I'll show you a picture of that later. So as when Earl Thomas, the originator of the Thomas landing fish camp owned it all. And then when he passed away for whatever reason, and I'm not going to go into details because I don't know the whole story myself. I hear here, one side here, another, but either here or there, uh, it's owned by two separate entities. So does increasing the capacity on the South side create an undue burden to the North side then? No, because the South, the North side now has all their entitlements. Now, all right. I guess what you're asking is that by increasing this, the, the total amount of entitlements, would it disrupt the North side's, uh, use of that property speculative, but I, you know, essentially in, as you'll see by the dynamic, more people would be using the, yes, more people would be, uh, but, but in an equal way, equal share. And it's not to say that, you know, recreational camping is such a non-invasive use because essentially it's, it's utilized on weekends, you know, during the day and during the week, it's, there's no impacts. There's, it's usually non-existent. It's usually seasonal. When the weather gets really cold, we rarely go camping or in, in parts of the summer, if you've ever gone camping, when it gets really hot, we don't go camping either in Florida. So, um, you know, it, it has its limitations as to its intensity. So therefore we entertain this use as a conditional use that can be done anywhere in the agricultural residential rural district. It doesn't need as many services. It's seasonal in nature. It doesn't have that much impact. So it fits into most areas. And of course, like with every conditional use, you've got to take into account the area around and yes, it's a permitted use in this district somewhere, but not everywhere. So that's the decision you're making. In the past, we've decided, you know, that the current entitlements was, didn't exceed that threshold. And the, the key thing, the key reason to them having to get approval for the, that expansion of entitlements was the unpaved access connection. So really we've got to look in one, the context of how does it affect neighboring properties, but also in, is it sustainable given the limitations of the access? This is what their, their plans are. And essentially these plans would pretty much in here and just go to building. There's nothing within the, this, this binding site plan here that really rises to a level of needing engineered plans. There there's no drainage. There's no access to review there. They're, they're, they're really minimal. So essentially everything that could be accomplished in septic. Well, septic is not reviewed for level two. This will actually go through DEP by the time they get around to permitting any septic. And I'll explain a little bit more. It's in a basin management area plan. Did I get that right? Action plan. Sorry. Basin B map, as we call it, basin management action plan. There's strict limitations on, uh, septage on site septage disposal. So that'll be another hurdle for them to have to address. But once again, low volume because of low intensity, usually a, a recreational campground is being served by essentially a bath house. There's not going to be individual septic tanks. It's not like a residential development. There's going to be one and it's going to be used periodically and really probably, uh, a lot better. They also have seven and a half acres. So they've got plenty of room within that. It is a hundred percent in floodplain, but once again, that's the more appropriate use for things for floodplain is a recreational camping use whereby if it starts raining a lot, everyone packs up and leaves. Nobody's hanging around. It's not like approving houses that have to be served with public safety. Uh, one thing I want to mention about this plan is it, it can, it can change somewhat because within the parameters of section 906 E, they are not, they don't have any structures within 50 feet of the property lines. So, and, uh, no, no uses are different. The whole property is recreational camping. So there's not a difference in uses. So it's very malleable through administrative approval, uh, the way they've laid it out. Do you have a picture of what the North side looks like? I have a few, I have a few, uh, ground slides. Uh, another thing I want to mention is that this is not a, a use that's going to proliferate. It's not going to encourage others to do it. It is the anomaly that's out there. Uh, much of the surrounding land is in conservation. Uh, much of the, the land that's not in conservation is owned by the Lightsea cattle company and used for, for agriculture. Uh, the entire lake frontage, as you go up, except with the exception of this one lot to the South of them is owned by the water management district. So most of this area has been, you know, consumed by some environmental entity. So this is kind of the limits. This is the anomaly out here. As you broaden out when it comes to camping on Lake Kissimmee, there's Camp Mac with 130 spaces, uh, Kissimmee state park with 60 spaces. And you come down here, Coleman landing, it's a County park, 54 spaces. And then there's great hammock, which has 51 spaces. And they also have cabins. So we count those, those are recreational camping as well. Thomas landing is the, the only thing for almost the entire span of the lake, just 20 spaces right now. This would go to 40. So it's, it's for the amount of area of the lake that it would affect really minimal given the situation and its remoteness. It's kind of the unicorn here in the area because of it. There's so few places in which to legally access the lake. This is the site. As you look at it today, it's, it's for the most part vacant. It's very flat. Um, these are some of the examples. Uh, this cabin is on, on the North side. This campsite was on, on the South side. Uh, there's another cabin over here. Uh, this is the boat ramp, the boat dock. There's this interior pond that was believed to be dug by Mr. Earl Thomas back in the eighties, um, that, uh, provides some, uh, amenities to the area, to the, or to the site as well. Um, one of the features that it, that resulted from it was, I believe that they dug the, the, the soil and created the pond to raise the land that surrounds it. So it's a little more above the ground. That was 50 years ago. We'll just let it slide. Uh, the bait shop, this is an old, it just shows you some of the accessory uses and how they've kind of gone by the wayside and why we consider them accessory. I want to point out that the property line is right here on this barbed wire fence line. It goes right through the, the bait shop. So you can see why it's probably not in use, but the, the time in which the era in which, uh, Earl Thomas was doing this, there was a lot more visitors to the site and it prompted the commercial nature. These uses are really going to be exclusive, uh, in the end, uh, because a lot of that has to do with the access. Uh, this is another shot of the site there. You can see that one camper. There's a, a few, uh, electrical poles that were left by, uh, when Earl Thomas, uh, had, uh, more units out there. So to get to the property from the public, uh, road, you, you go up Lightsey Ranch Road and you reach this gate. This gate is often locked. Um, occasionally it's, it's not, but, but it's often locked. So, you know, you have to have permission. So that kind of limits the access. So the public's not wandering to the site. Once again, this is why we're justifying that everything else besides the recreational camps, camping spaces is really incidental and subordinate to the use. The Lightsey Ranch Road is in great shape. It's a very well-maintained road. Then you turn right at the cell tower and it's, it's a little different, but it's still in pretty good condition. And I, you know, drove it in a, in, in our, uh, our Ford escapes, which are prone to getting stuck just, you know, in, in just the slightest amount of growth sand. Uh, this, we hadn't, I had no problem, uh, uh, driving down this with a Ford escape. It's very wide, so you can easily pass on coming traffic. It's very stable. A few bumps and a little bit, and then you get to the bend here. As you get closer to the lake, it bends around and it narrows a little bit more, but still is, is in stable condition, fairly well-traveled, fairly, um, well-graded. And this is as you reach the southern entrance, or actually this is as you reach the northern entrance, looking back at the southern entrance here. That's one of our little orange signs. And then it goes past the north. It actually goes down and the, the, the road is not as, as well-maintained, but that's pretty much all, uh, the water management district's property. And, you know, they can, they can maintain it however they see fit because that's the end of essentially all, uh, what would be public use. So in conclusion, um, we, we recommend approval, uh, because, uh, you know, based on the access gone from 20 to 40 is really not going to tip the apple cart. We do have a condition in there that if at any time they don't maintain it enough and public safety finds it's a hazard, they can shut, shut the use down. They can close the campground. So we have that trigger if there ever is a problem, um, for our public safety folks. They've used the site many times, uh, our public, there's a history of public use for public safety purposes on this property because of its remote location on the lake for, uh, certain lake, uh, rescues that have had to be made in the past. And this has often been their one access to get out to them because it's so far from any other access points. Um, the access is limited too. So I don't see it being overused. I see it as being very limited to the proprietors that, that, uh, allow the access to exist. Um, most of the surrounding areas owned by government or conservation. So we're not, we're not going to encourage other, other uses to come in and say, Hey, why don't we get approval? Well, most of it's, it's, uh, dedicated to environmental source. And plus this is a legal nonconforming use approved many, many years ago. So it is a grandfathered use. So regardless of whether your approval or denial of this case, it's still going to have those entitlements with it that it currently has today. Um, it, it provides this once again, as I mentioned, the, the, uh, remoteness of this location, it's, uh, good for public safety and the request is consistent with floor statutes or comprehensive plan and, uh, for recreational camping. And as far as lake access, not the access to the road, but act lake access, the things they do are within our requirements of the land development code as well, our comprehensive plan and state code. Uh, there is a condition regarding maritime, uh, structures, which is the boat ramp, the, the dock. And if they ever wanted to go back to having a fueling facility on the end of the dock, which, um, uh, Mr. Thomas once had, they would have to follow state federal guidelines to, in which to do that, that I'll stand for questions. So if we, if this is approved, that means the Northern half, the Northern parcel gets 20 spaces instead of 10. So they get 10 more because they get the full entitlements. Is that right? Am I, am I right on that? The entitlement issue gets resolved as it stands right now. 20 on the both, 20 on both and nobody. So if you consider that's divided up between two equal parcels, it's 10 and 10. But it could also be, I'm sorry to interrupt. It could also be 20 and zero. You know what I'm saying? So if I, okay, okay. Commission members, I think it helps if you look at, um, condition of approval number three that Eric put in the staff report, it very clearly defines what each phase would have. So the Northern half would have the 20 entitlements that exist and we're adding 20 entitlements, entitlements to the South Southern parcel. And that is the reason why they can request this today. Um, if they wanted to increase them, you know, try to 50, they would just on its own would, would have to come in and would have to get the Northern property owners permission to even apply for this conditional use. But the fact that they are forgoing that. I understand that. Yeah. They're not affecting the Northern property at all. They're not taking any rights away from the Northern property. So the Northern part parcel enjoys the entitlement. Will it enjoy the entitlements that was given for the Thomas landing fish count? Entire. Entire property. Yes. So, so the South side is asking actively asking for 20 new entitlements. I mean, 20 new spaces and, and the North side would then keep the original 20 space. And what's to preclude the South side just from putting in as many as they want, you know, if the North side's not utilizing all of it, you know, in other words, if there's six on the North side, what's to stop them from putting 14 in on the South side right now? At, at this point, uh, for any building permits, like for electrical service or, or things of that nature, they would have to come in and get our approval. And because there is not a definite clear definition about who has, which rights we would want the other to sign off on it. Okay. Yes. The county attorney's office has advised both parcels that we won't approve any, um, level twos because we are aware of the issue. Um, so that's why we're here today. Okay. The only entitlements either property has is what's physically there. Uh, the Northern owner recently replaced a mobile home. Well, the mobile home was there. So that was, that entitlement was, was a given because it was fixed to the ground. It was on the Northern side. This is all, this would clear up the status of the North side's use as well. Yes. Yes. But we don't necessarily have to approve 40 of them. Do we? You don't have to approve any of it. I mean, it's all before you. So, but I mean, we could say, you know, we could pick a number less than 40. Yeah. Is that correct? Well, that's in 40 for both partial. Yes. Right. I understand that. Yeah. So if they, if we were to say, we don't agree with the 20 that they're asking for, we could pick a number less than 15 or 15 or whatever. All right. Okay. I've laid out the facts in the staff report. You did a good job. The infrastructure impacts and the impact of neighboring properties. So do take that into consideration, please. Okay. I think I'm ready to hear from, uh, any questions of, any more questions of staff? If not, uh, I'll ask the applicant to come forward and you were sworn name and address, please. Good morning. My name is Maddie Hardin Tondro and I'm from the firm of Hardin Ball and Tondro 1905 Bartow Road. Um, I get the lucky privilege of coming to you with a complex case late in the morning after it's already been a long morning. Um, the good news, it is still morning. Um, but there is a long history related to these properties out here. Hopefully I can shed a little bit of light of what the applicant is intending to use, um, this property as, and what it's historically been used as. So you can see this really is de minimis and the big picture in the grand scheme of what the applicant is asking for. Um, the applicant is also Mr. Brooker too, but I'm, I'm going to relieve him on this one since he's had his fair share this morning too. And the property owner is an entity called KDC forever. And I don't know if we could somehow go back on one of the slides. It will help me if I can explain a little bit of the history of the use. And Ms. Howard and I have had plenty of conversations about this whole land and everything that transpires, but this is, this would be great. Um, if you look where the, um, Thomas landing road, um, it starts heading North and South right on that corner there. If you see where it's running due East and West and then North and South, that's actually following a section line. Um, this whole property is commonly referred to as river ranch. Um, it was an old land sales division. There was easements given back in the development back in 1976. I'll spare you all the details other than to tell you they went bankrupt and it left it a big mess out there. Um, but on that corner and what's important is there is a another entity that owns, uh, three parcels on that corner. And that entity is called ducks Inc. Many of you may have heard of ducks Inc. It's been an organization that has been formed some 30 or 40 years ago by a James Pollard. Um, most of them knew him as Cooter Pollard and, uh, Jamie Pollard as well. Ducks Inc. has been an organization that has been existent. Um, like I said, since the eighties and early nineties at best. And it was several, um, family men, um, and gentlemen that bought in and they, they wanted to enjoy the outdoors. And that was essentially to preserve those outdoor activities for their children and for future generations. And so what they predominantly have used this property for is for duck hunting. And so it's very seasonal in nature. It's not a regular use. It's not a daily use. Um, it's, it's a weekend and, and really quite honestly when ducks are in season. Um, and so what they do is they have historically what happened, uh, when, uh, the fish camp got separated, that's when some members of duck Inc. formed KDC forever and purchased that South Porsche parcel. Um, historically speaking from where ducks Inc. was, Earl Thomas gave ducks Inc. an easement many, many years ago for that boat ramp and, and, and the use of that dock so that they could in fact go duck hunting. Um, and so that's where they were accessing and that easement is specific to ducks Inc. Um, but as we fast forward, like I said, when the property was split, that's when member, a group from ducks Inc. formed KDC forever, bought that property so that they could have direct like access, um, and, and use of the dock from there. Um, subsequently, just historically speaking, that's all that's been used. Um, and that's all it's intended to be used for now is to continue to allow those ducks Inc. members to use and access the lake for duck hunting, um, and for the outdoors, just going out there and, and enjoying that recreational camping atmosphere. Um, currently the land is used for that purpose, but only for getting in and out. The only difference is these entitlements would really just secure our right to entitlements for the future that we don't currently have due to the stalemate that you guys have now discovered at this point between the North and the South, um, property owner. So essentially, uh, all this would do would allow the people that are currently using the property, not expand the actual use, not more traffic or anything like that. It would just allow them to be able to, um, put some campsites on that specific property. That's a little bit closer to the water's edge and to, to the road from there. Um, and, and that's kind of where we are. Uh, essentially what has brought us and precipitate us coming here before the commission today is that the property owners are at a stalemate. The County has indicated that we can't issue any building permits unless both parties consent. And there's some, some Rob both ways on, on that way. And so this would allow each respective property owner to, to use the entitlements that they believe that they were receiving at the time of the purchase, um, preserve those entitlements. My clients, uh, do not have current plans to build any campsites at this point in time. All they're simply trying to do is preserve those entitlements that were given to them, um, mainly for the sake of future generations so they can preserve the ability for, um, young families and young boys and girls to go out and, and be on the water, um, and, and to do duck hunting. Um, and so that is what we're here for today. And that's kind of the, the overarching motivation, I guess, if you will, as the, the need for us to be here today. Thank you. Any questions? I've got a question under, under recreational camping, recreational vehicles are allowed. They're, they're not going to need those for duck hunting, or is there going to be another river ranch where we're running around on ATVs? No, they, they would use the recreational vehicles or the campsites that they're using so that they could stay overnight for that duck, the duck hunting. They're not using it as a residence. Um, it's not some continuing, continued use. It's typically just limited to weekends and, and seasonal use. So they would be using those vehicles on that public road, creating more traffic. Yeah. And that's actually a really good point of what you bring up is if there would be more traffic, it really won't be any different users because this is not open to the public. It's private easements that, um, are used by private people that are really duck sink. And so it's actually not increasing that use. But what was interesting is if you review the staff report, um, one of the best things for the road that is the issue in this situation, um, is, is more use because it actually compacts the road to kind of add to, um, the stability of the roadway. So it actually would only help the situation if that was the case. But quite honestly, I don't think that there's going to be that big of an impact or increase traffic flow on that road. But you ask a good question because I don't know in improving this, that we can really, um, limit it to a particular type of, um, clientele. It's under the chapter 10 of the LDC. I mean, it's, I mean, in terms of recreational vehicle, right. That's what I'm saying. So it's not just say, are you a duck hunter? And if you're not a duck hunter, you can't come. I mean, or I think it allows any type of, right. But I'm not sure that this commission can consider whether it's a particular type of use, a particular type of clientele. Either way. Do they have covenants in place that limit the use of the property? That limit the use of KDC forever's property? Camp. It's private, right? It's a private. So only members can use it. So the members have the ability to, uh, limit the, the type of use of that property? Yes, sir. Okay. So they can say, we don't want four wheelers spinning all around the camp. Correct. But we can't. Which they don't currently have any. No, you can't. But to what point would we want to? Right. No, I agree. I agree. Entity, let them do whatever they want to do there on once a majority rolls on it. Yep. And Mr. Chair, can I also make a clarification? The county attorney was kind enough to come down and make sure that I didn't misstate something earlier when the question was asked, can we allow lesser 15, however that may be? We can, the commission is only able to consider the application before you. Um, so we could only change, modify any conditions based on the, this application, not affecting the other property. If they were agreeable today. The other property owner is not right. Part of this application. So we're not doing, we either deny it. I think he's listed on there, isn't he? He's, no, he's shown as an owner in the, um, just to give information. Okay. He's not a party to this application today. But, but, but whatever number is, if we were to pick a number for the South side, that would then determine what would be utilized on the North side or no? No. So, so the way the staff reports written, we're very careful to make sure this is clear. Um, the North owner cannot be impacted by anything that happens today. Okay. So let's say for some reason we said 10 for the South side, the North side would still have their 20. That's a condition that the applicant has to agree to that if this, this commission says 10, the applicant that's before you today, we only have one applicant, right? We only have one applicant, right? The applicant today is requesting entitlements for the South property. And I, I don't know if this is the right term or not. They're acquiescing to the fact that they're giving up those entitlements. So the North parcel enjoys all the entitlements. If the South parcel gets the entitlements they're requesting in this application. Yes, that is in the staff report that a condition is to acquiesce. That word's great. Acquiesce so that the North property owners is not impacted. Yeah. In no way does anything that we've done prejudice them, um, take away or an impact any of the, their use at all. It's just, we're at this stalemate of a position for some other non-related issues that, um, have created why, why we're here so that we can preserve our entitlements, so to speak for, for the future from there. So do you know if, um, I don't know what it is that the terms or the, um, requirements of, cause it KDC unlimited have any restrictions on um, the type of vehicles, airboats and things like that in terms of the impacts to the land or the lake? I just, I just wanted to, so, so it's a private club. You get to screen your members. You get to ask them whatever you want to ask them. Do you have any limitations that own their activity? Well, I want to make sure I'm, I'm clarifying a couple of things. There's duck sink, which already owns property, um, on the Southern portion of Thomas fish camp road. They have an organization and a club KDC forever owns this parcel separate and distinct from that, but they allow members from duck sink to access their property for lake access from there. KDC would also have the ability to offer them the ability to camp on their land from there. Duck sink currently already has easement rights in and over Thomas fish camp road and to get to the boat ramp and to use that pier. So it's actually not impacting any of their current use and it's not going to change any of that use of what kind of recreational vehicles are in fact used, whether it's ATVs, airboats or anything like that. No, just, just wait a minute. I'm going to open this up. You can come forward. Uh, any, anything else? Any question? Okay. Thank you. All right. Now I'm going to ask you if I'm going to open this up to the public and ask first, is there anyone else or anyone to speak in favor of this application? Yes, sir. You, you were sworn in morning. No, I was not. Okay. And he is the applicant. I just want to make sure. So, um, but, uh, go ahead and raise your right hand. Do you swear from that the testimony and evidence you present to the planning commission today will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Um, Austin Evans, 303 Kenwith Drive, Lakeland, um, or Kenwith Road, Lakeland. Um, so I just want to provide a little bit of clarity because I know it's pretty, pretty confusing. Uh, KDC forever that owns the property is the only, it's, uh, 16 members that own the land are the only ones that are going to be using the property that already use the property. And they're the only ones that would be putting a campsite onto the property. Um, they don't use, I think you kind of were alluding to recreational vehicles, like the four wheelers, the side-by-sides, the air boats, stuff like that. They don't use that stuff. They basically go down there, spend time at the lake and go out on the water. So I know there's really no way to kind of regulate that, but their intent or our intent is to have a spot to spend the night and access the lake. So I just kind of wanted to clarify that a little bit. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else, Lake, speak in favor? Okay. Is there any opposition? Please come forward, state your name and address. And you were sworn in? Yes, sir. Okay. Good afternoon, commissioners. Uh, I think I can kind of nip this in the bud and, uh, other than this lands right in the middle of the wildlife. Can we get your name and address? Oh, Kerry Lightsey, 1401 Sam King Road. Okay. And, um, we had a, well, we was forced to sell this land back in the, uh, seventies. Uh, my dad had died and, and we had a high inheritance state taxes. So we sold three blocks there on Lake Kissimmee. I've regretted it ever since, but we had real strict deed restrictions on it. And I'd like to give all of them to you because I think this is going to stop the whole thing. They was only allowed to, uh, put one unit on it. They couldn't change the structure of the, it was all old cammics. They went there and dug that big pond and filled it in, did a dredge and fill. The, uh, there's a, the, the state has a right to bring the water up to 54 feet, which will cover some of that land. And that's going to happen. It's going to happen in two years. The, uh, and I hate to even bring a controversy to something like this, but we can't let it happen. Uh, it's going to bring nothing but trouble. And, uh, so can I give y'all this, the deed restriction on the property to look at and submit something to evidence if you have it today? Yeah, I have it right here. Can I walk forward? This is beautiful land out there. Uh, very little development on Lake Kissimmee. It's one of the last pristine lakes we have in the state. And there's already three fish camps that, uh, stay fairly busy. And, uh, but this was not sold with the ability to do what they're doing. And your time is going. So I just want to make sure you don't wait for them to receive it. So if you have it at their comments. So you say the property wasn't sold with the notion of that they had enjoyed the same entitlements that applies to the entire property. Yeah, they can build a cabin there, uh, no commercial businesses. And I try to stay out of it all these years, trying to get along with everybody, but I should have said something a long time ago when he started the fish camp. Okay. Is, is, I'm, I'm, I don't know. I'm opposed to it. Go ahead and finish if you would, because your time is, is running. I mean, is there anything else you want to add to that? No, it's just, you're just making the point that they really can't do a fish camp based upon this. That's correct. Well, these covenants are only in place. Right. We're just in the public comment portion. So we'll have an opportunity. I'm sure the applicant will want an opportunity. Yeah. So the question is, is only per a period of 50 years from the date of 81. Yes, sir. Five more years. Five more years. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else speak in opposition? Hello, my name's Kevin Meharry. I live at 2312 County Road 446 Lake Panasofsky, Florida. I'm also the owner on the south end side of the KDC forever property, uh, has a single family residence cabin on it. Um, we've been there for 40 years, over 40 years. Um, I'd like to qualify myself as a historic witness or historic expert on the area. Um, when Thomas landing was open and had 20 permits assigned to him, there was times we would go into our camp and we would have to get pulled out by buggies coming out by the amount of traffic and rain from the weekend. So it takes literally one weekend to destroy the road to where it's impassable. Um, there's some other issues with the, um, the conditional use permits that, that are assigned to this property. Um, the LDC chapter one, section 120 C dot C dot one dot B says any nonconforming use shall cease if cessation occurs for more than 24 months. There were several gaps of 24 months of non-use of the fish camp or camping area that has happened. So in my opinion, all these, this PUD should be totally null and void. Um, you guys are running, uh, twice the amount of vehicles that were allowed before within a hundred feet of a bald, fresh fledgling bald eagle nest. The property itself in question is within 500 feet of that nest. Um, the, the, the extra traffic is going to, uh, uh, uh, disturb Mr. Lightsey's cattle that have easement across the whole area, except those two pieces of property. Um, I know you say we can't talk about it, but I'll talk about it anyway. The crime, the amount of traffic on this private road that, that is going to be increased by these camps opening up and you expanding these permits is unreal. What do you do when two kids are fighting over the same cookie, break the cookie in half and give it to each kid. And I suggest you guys do the same thing in this case. A wise man once said that if all parties are equally unhappy, then it was probably a good deal. Thank you very much for your consideration. Thank you. Anyone else like speaking opposition? All these documents you see here are all the documents from all of this. My name is Jessica post. I've been here numerous times. Um, I'm the one that dealt with the ordinance that was in place for out there. I have no issue at all with the duck club, what they're doing because it is a select clientele that is already owned the property for many, many years. They've been out there longer than anybody out there aside from Carrie Lightsey himself. So the duck club using it for their future hunters. I'm completely and utterly okay with they're not using it for commercial use. They're not trying to put gas pumps in. They're not trying to do anything that creates more traffic or more issues aside from what's already going there already right now. Now you guys, um, Eric Peterson has created a phase one and a phase two for all of this. Um, with that being said, this pud that you guys have in place, like he said, it was empty from 2010 is when the stop of the commercial operation was with Earl Thomas all the way until 2023 when Scott Henderson applied for it in January. Okay. So you have a 13 year gap, which says in the CU here that you have to abide by all of these rules and regulations. And one of them was keeping up with the commercial operation use. They did not do that. They're not paying taxes on it. They weren't doing anything. And all of the things that were currently, you see it's empty right now, right? Go look back in 2007 on your guys's aerials. Go look back in 2010, looking forward all the way to 2023, that vacant property set vacant from 2020 to 2023 with nothing on it. All of these things that he's put in his document that says that there is a current cafe, a gas pump there that was on the end of the dock. Never was. I have pictures and videos back from the 1980s all the way to current showing proof of all of this. The point is that this whole concept, I don't have an issue with the duck club doing what they're doing because they're only doing it for specifically for their duck and people that they have in that incorporated. There's no issue with that. They already run that property. They already are deeded in there. They all have an asset in there because they've purchased in. However, the phase one saying there's no emergency areas. If you look at the aerial there, there's Camp Mack, Camp Lester, Bud's RV Park, Tiger Creek, Overstreet. There's Grape Hammock. And what was the other one? There was one on Tiger Creek. They're all within less than six miles for emergency services to come to. They didn't show you the whole lakes docks around here. There's plenty of fish camps, but they all went through licensing, proper impact fees, and other things that they had to pay taxes to the county that the county makes money off of that they aren't paying and they're just getting grandfathered in. But it was vacant, which it clearly states in the original CU I have here, that it's supposed to be null and void if it wasn't followed by every step and every rule. As you can see in this picture here that they don't show you, the duck club side is the only one that had camps on it. It was never, never Thomas Landing side. It was always the duck club side. This is your original CU that's yours. This comes from Eric Peterson that sent it to me and Randy Meek. Okay. It shows clearly here's their dock. Here's all of the structures, all of the gas pump, the one single gas pump that was there, the cafe, everything they're saying that was over on this side. No, it was not. They were adjusted for 24 tent camping, which you can see in the front of here where it was placed. I have pictures all the way through today that they didn't show you when they came in on the 17th because I have video cameras. I own property right there. My video cameras show them coming in, bringing properties in there, like building structures that are all unpermitted after the ordinance that they stated that they had in place, but they were part of the ordinance, but they're rural residential. Okay. We're not rural. I need to actually wrap it up. Yep. That's fine. Okay. The point of the matter is I'm fine with them doing what they're doing because they're doing it for the inaccessible tracks, which it's related to, and they're using it for the use of their personal membership that's been there for over 40 plus years. It's not a commercial operation. There's a front gate at the front that's locked by the private owners that we all pay money for $250 a key to be able to get in there and use our property access. How's that going to happen when you have commercial operations and other things down there? Thank you. Anyone else speak in opposition? Seeing none, I will ask the applicant if she would like to come forward and address any of these concerns, and I would like also to ask you your opinion about this. I'm sure that that was coming too. I haven't seen the physical document that was actually passed around, but obviously anybody that would have any right to these deed restrictions, that person would be the person withstanding to challenge to the extent that it violated a deed restriction. However, that would have been considered when the original CU, allegedly this document to the extent that includes this parcel. It's under number one. It's not the current deed, just to clarify. I mean that there's been subsequent deeds. We'd have to look at, you'd have to look at the history. That's an old deed. And absolutely, I agree with that part of it, but my point to all of it is it's one, we're not building a resort cabin, but we can, but we're not using it for commercial use. And so I want to clarify, because I think there's been some confusion of what's going on and where the disconnect is. The north parcel, the north property owner intends to use it for commercial purposes. People are not happy that the north parcel is wanting to use it for those commercial purposes. You will see in the staff report that they intend to build cottages with their entitlements to rent. That is the point of disconnect. And I think that that's where rightfully so their, their opposition comes from. It's not related to the south parcels use of this. I think they're a little bit maybe discouraged by what's happened previously. That's not necessarily before the commission here today as to what was granted or given to the, the north property. But the south side property is not going to be in violation of this deed. We're not using it for commercial purpose. It is private. It is exclusive. Um, it's not going to change any of the use of what's currently done other than giving these guys a place to camp out at at night so that they can go back out on the water the next day as opposed to drive home or drive over to duck sink. Um, so I don't believe that it would violate, um, this as well. Now, whatever may be happened as far as some commercial operation or anything on the north side, and whether that's a violation of the deed restriction, can't really speak to that here today because I don't think it's really before us. Um, but I, I think that that is probably, and I don't want to speak for other people because they've had that chance, but that I think is the distinguishing factor of our intended use versus the north side. And now you're probably picking up on why there is this failure to agree, um, between the north and the south side. And we're just the ones trying to preserve the land for future generations for, for duck hunting. That's it. Any other questions? Any questions? We're still clear. Okay. I'll bring this back to the commission for any further discussion, um, and our emotion. I, I, I need Eric. I need Eric. And my record will show that you guys are the planners and I rarely ever deny you, but this is Holy Week and you may be denied three times today, but I would love for you to pull up page nine, table one of, of your, I call it the map of surrounding things in this area. And some of it we can't do anything about, and I can certainly appreciate Austin and his group for being here doing this correctly because some of the issue, and I think the people opposed would agree that people didn't come to them with to use the property in which it was to be intended. And they just threw up duck camps and duck camps are everywhere. So I certainly hate to punish them, but I, I feel like I need a lot more questions answered, but you've got that thrown up and I look at compatibility and you've got every one of those says conservation other than the three on the right, which are the lake and the one in the middle. I've got, I've got some problem with that. Just, just to rub. And that's not a question for you, Eric. I'm going to get to my question, but is this the proper place to do this? And maybe that's not my question, but I think this is higher than this board. I think that we're getting put in between two owners that are disagreeing here and unfairly to them because they're trying to properly do it. I can't rightly say, yeah, this is a good conforming use because doubling the campsites in this area to me makes no sense. Now that what, whoever else can speak to that as they wish, but I have, I'm, I'm wondering how you came up with, with that being a good use. The data that we have in the staff report on recreational camping shows that it's really from a big picture is, is not that intensive. Now there might be an anomaly somewhere out there where something bad happened at a campground. I'm pretty sure of it. That can happen too, but that level of risk is, is low compared to the immense amount of data on recreational camping in remote areas, in environmentally sensitive areas, which is where people seeking to camp want to be. They don't want to be in downtown Lakeland. They, you know, and pitching a tent on Lake mirror. Uh, they want to be out in the wilderness and experience that. So that's, that's essentially the allure of it. And that's why our comp plan allows for this type of activity in those rural areas because it's, it's answering a need by the public. Um, when you look at the overall area, yes, there's a lot of conservation. And I put that up to say, we don't have to worry about that. That's going to be conserved. We don't have to worry about the light seas. They're, they're going to do cattle ranching. They're actually working hand in hand with an age of conservancy to conserve this area. I consider good faith commercial agriculture to be conserving this area. Right. Which is, which is what the subject property is. It's, it's ARR, right? Right. Right. But it is another use that's out there. Now, is it crossing that line based on my data? I could not give you a definitive answer that says, Oh, this is where the, this is the straw that's going to break the camel's back. So the other camps that are out there, the other fish camps, I would say probably have more than 40. I mean, if you, I'm adding 20 and 20. On, on Lake Kissimmee. Yeah. The campgrounds, the actual. The other campgrounds that are on the, that you referenced in your map. Yes. This one, this one up. Oh, sorry. I didn't have the map up. Yes. I mean, these are the ones that are accessible to the public. There is no other fish camps that are, shall we say, legal under permitting other than. But, and I assume that you came up with a number 20 because that was the original entitlement of the property. So if, if one half enjoys all those entitlements, you're trying to be fair and saying, well, then this, the other owner, the Southern half owner should enjoy those same entitlements. So you're sort of giving him the same entitlements. That's where you came up with a number 20 instead of 15 or. No, I, I, I didn't come up with that number. That was the application that was submitted. Okay. I got you. Sorry. Well, I'm, I'm coming with five. It would have been five. I understand. I went with what they had. The 20 was acceptable because of the entitlements, original entitlements given to the, the entire property. Yes. Yes. Yeah. So, so I'm still a little confused. What is out there right now? What, how's it being used right now? Is the North side just one residence or is it? No, there's a couple of units. Um, I, you know, it's very remote. We, we don't get to pass by it every day. I, all I can say is I've spoken to the owner and you know, their intentions and it's the lab. Yeah. Oh, when I was there, yeah. I, you know, we, how many, uh, how many are there active sites on the North side? Well, there was one on the South side, which is there. There was, there was, or no, that's on the North side. Oh, we, I, I'm sorry. We, we, I've, we've closed the, um, audience comments, so I can't take any comments from the audience because it's not on the record and I've closed those comments. I'm sorry. The, the issue is, is the number within the conditional use. It's not exceeding their entitlements. That's all we can tell you. Uh, you know, with what we witnessed, we saw there's permanent structures on the North side. Unlike the South side, there's no real permanent structures. There's still hookups and connections on the South side that, that linger from the past. I don't know if they're. But you don't, you don't know. I mean, you know that, or you're confident that the entitlements have not been exceeded. Yes. But you don't know exactly how many hookups or sites have actually been made available. Correct. Yes. I don't know if they want to go in tomorrow and put another unit in there. How do you know? Hook up to electric? Yes. Uh, we, they would come in and pull an electric permit. Now, you know, from the permits we've, we've issued. How many services are out there currently working? I mean, that's. I don't know how many are working. I know we, we do have a history of, of permitting them. You know, how many. Going, going, not, not right off the top of my head. And I don't know how many would be active. It's, it dates back. And one might include, they might include some of the ones on the South side, which were active at one time. So. All right. I'm going to that detail. I'm, I'm new to this. I'm trying to understand how we have standing to override a legal warranty. Well. To a property that. Right. But local, as I should let the attorney answer this. Right. But local government have no jurisdiction over a private contract, which is essentially a deed restriction that is enforceable through the parties themselves. So if one party feels like that another party's violated a deed restriction, the resolution of that is through the courts. Local governments have no jurisdiction. And I would think they would have done something about it after 46 years. And he said he regretted he hasn't, but yeah. Yeah. Well, so I'm wondering. Right. Because if we did something back in the 80s for, or there's the first. Yeah. There's deed restrictions all over that we are cognizant of and that we can't. Right. Get involved in. And the county, I mean, we don't tell out, we don't tell members of the public, you can't present something to the board or to the commission because let them, but it doesn't say that it's applicable. Right. So if we were to approve this, this could still be validly enforced. But that's not our job. Exactly. That's not, you're right. That's not our job. Okay. Any other comments or questions or a motion? So to wrap up, if, if the board does not approve, everything stays exactly as it is today. There's still a CU out there. You're not, it's just one CU. So, well, I'd, maybe I shouldn't, maybe I shouldn't say this, but I'm thinking that if we don't approve this and the things still say, stay as they are, sort of a stalemate. The county attorney's office advised not to issue any more building permits because, unless both applicants agree. If both applicants sign off on a permit, that's fine. If both applicants wanted to come and apply for a modification to the CU and expansion to the CU, that's fine. But we don't have that. What we have is one property owner to the CU. We're putting in this application. And, and that, that does it for me. I, I, I'm going to move to deny this, uh, application. Sorry, staff. Uh, I can't, I can't get with this one in, in its entirety. And I hope you guys come back or, or, or figure this out. But I, I just, I can't rightly do that. That's my motion. We have a motion to deny the application. Second. And a second. Roll call, please. Cindy Janamasso for the motion. Merle Bishop. Against the motion. Brooke Agnini. Against the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. Against the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Yep. So the, um, motion to deny has passed. Okay. So the recourse for, um, the applicant is to appeal that this decision to the board of county commissioners. Well, it's level three, Merle, isn't it? No, they can appeal. It doesn't automatically go to the board. Right. They can accept the denial or they can, they're level three. Yeah. The remedial action is to go to the board of county commissioners. They could come back at a lesser number. Yeah. Please don't comment from the public. The hearing is closed, sir. If there's an appeal, they'll get it. You'll get it. You'll be notified. All right. Okay. Next is, uh, LD. It gets easier from here, right? Yes. Thank you. The next two cases, Eric Peterson will read in together. Uh, take motion separately. LDCPAS 2025-19. It's a conference of plan amendment, small scale, and then a district change, uh, for institutional to, uh, uh, LDCD 2025-4. Good morning. Still morning. Good morning. Eric Peterson for land development division. This is a request by, uh, the county or, uh, Polk County utilities division for a new, um, uh, potable water treatment facility. Ultimately the, the land use to set up the new potable water treatment facility. We're asking for a land use change from institutional or from residential to institutional, and then a land use change, uh, or a district change company with that from institutional one to institutional two. And as you know, institutional two carries with it some of the more under undesirable things, but, um, it is appropriate for, uh, the provision of public, uh, public water and you and what wastewater, uh, uh, as a district. There are 142 mailer sent area property owners on March 17th. One board was posted on the property on actually not on the property, but on the access to the property on May 16th, a legal ad was published in the, uh, Lakeland winter Haven sun on March 18th. So far we've received no public response. Uh, the utilities division has been, uh, working with the Ridgewood Lakes homeowners associations and some of the other homeowners associations in the area to explain what we're doing at this site. First off, it's located in a urban area just on the edge of the town of Davenport. Um, the area is, uh, well developed with lots of, lots of single family homes and will continue to develop with more residential and commercial development and it needs water. Uh, we currently have a, uh, adequate water supply for a good amount of development in the area, but this is looking to the future, uh, to bring in the Polk water cooperative, uh, water into this Northeast system. It's our largest utility system, the Northeast regional utility area system. And this is going to be a plant that combines both potable water from the upper Floridan with, uh, water that's been treated down South and piped to the area and is mixing with the upper Floridan treated water and the lower Floridan aquifer treated water. So, uh, it's a, uh, unique type of plant that will be needed in the area. And then from there it gets diffused into the overall Northeast utility service area. So that's why we're requesting institutional, uh, the, the site, uh, would default to institutional one, but because of some of the things that we will be doing in that process, we need institutional two on this property, a little bit about it. It's got 30 feet of access from, uh, of unopened, unmaintained right of way serving it now, but in the future directly to the North, the town of Davenport is going to build a big park and our future access to the site will, will most likely come through that park. Once we reach an agreement, there's a little bit of wetlands on the property. We're staying well out of that. We have over 10 acres. We're probably going to use about two of it for now, um, with the first phase. So, um, it it's that we're requesting change for the entire site. This is how it looks today. And as you notice, this is, you're looking right into the backyards of folks in Ridgewood Lakes, and you can see how well they've buffered their property. We will, of course, add to it with our development. This is looking at from the neighboring subdivision, which is really interesting. I'll show you on another slide. They've got a, a fence here and it, it had, uh, had some damage. This is an older photo. Um, it had some damage from the past hurricane, but it's, it's probably been repaired since then. And then they also have fences along the back. This is a stormwater retention area for the development. It's, it's much higher. It looks lower down on the property. So it essentially catches that. So there's a good amount of separation. This is our 30 foot access. Of course we would pave it and make it into a regular, uh, suitable access for county vehicles, especially things like, uh, the chlorine truck that would have to come in and do some disinfectant on, on the water supply that comes through. But we look at it as a, as a temporary access. Now temporary in terms of utilities can be, you know, five, 10 years to them, but it ultimately we intend, we don't have that much V many vehicles that will be coming down here. Once the plan is up and operational, it'll just be limited to a couple of cars a day. So it doesn't really need that much in the way of impact. Ultimately, we want to come in, we're going to come in through the, uh, town of, uh, Davenport's park once they've developed it. This is, this is what this type of facility looks like. This is another similar interconnect with, uh, Toho Picolico. Where is that? This is up on Ronald Reagan Parkway. Um, this is a, the, the design is what we intend to do with the property and you can see it's going to have a big tank. That's the biggest thing about it. And everything else about it's going to be big blue pipes sticking out and going back in, which re innocuous, uh, we'll have a little bit more landscaping and buffering than you see there on Ronald Reagan Parkway. We, we used to have more there until we widened it. So it, uh, it sticks out a little bit more today than it did in the past. So just staff is recommending approval. Uh, the budding residential uses are screened already and we're just going to add to it. So it's a really good site. It's going to be very secluded. It's a low volume use. It's a big tank. It's going to be a few buildings for testing for, for observation. Most of it's going to be operated remotely from our, uh, central, uh, utilities section through the SCADA system. Um, it's, it's, uh, you know, going to serve a big region, uh, that's going to be definitely in need of water in the future, not necessarily in the next five years, but in the next 10, next 20, next 30, as the, uh, um, water that we, we get to survive is limited to the lower Florida and aquifer, uh, facility that we have south of, uh, Lake Wales. And with that, I'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff? Seeing none, uh, well, um, so is the applicant is standing? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Any one in opposite in support? I see none. Anyone in opposition or, oh, I'm sorry. She used to work here. A quick question. Yes. What, what's the extra unappealing piece that makes it? It's not industrial. It's institutional too. We will need to, uh, it'll, it'll be a holding site. Usually our utility sites have other things like out outdoor storage, uh, especially of, of things like pipe culverts and, and man, manholes and stuff like that, that we store on site. Uh, that'll be screened from offsite view, but we, we will also, um, you know, have that stuff along with it that we need the institutional to X and it'll be part of a binding site plan. We still have to get, uh, site plan approval once we get institutional. The one on Ronald Lincoln had some really nice big oak trees. This one is, doesn't have that. Well, it was a grove. Yeah. Not too long ago. It's kind of, yeah. Okay. We'll put, we'll put more trees back. That's what I'm saying. We're going to add the type C buffers around, around the plant. Okay. Any further discussion or motion? Motion to approve. Second. Motion and second to approve. Roll call, please. 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. Mike Schmidt. Mike Hickman. I'm sorry. No, Mike Schmidt. No, Mike's not here. Oh, they wrote the name. You got the, they wrote the name down wrong. I know. On this. I'll vote twice. No. They didn't write the name down wrong. They wrote, they, it's all wrong. All right. Kevin. For the motion. Hold on. Should I do this again on this? Okay. Mike Hickman. I think you, I just didn't take him. I didn't vote. No, he already voted. Well, then we won't have a quorum. I haven't voted. No. Julie. Julie. For the motion. Okay. Motion passes. So that was, and that was for, I should have clarified this. That was for LDC PAS 2025-19. We need another motion for LDC 2025-4. Motion to approve LDC-2025-4. Motion and second to approve. Roll call. 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. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Okay. Motion passes. Next case. While she's going, next case is LDC PAL 2026-1, the Office Center of Texas Amendment CPA, and Shonda Bennett's your planner. Good afternoon. Shonda Bennett with the Land Development Division. This is a request for you to consider, I'm sorry, a large-scale conference plan amendment should say LDC PAL 2026-1. It is a text amendment to the comprehensive plan regarding Office Center in Section 2.113. In terms of advertisement, we had an advertisement in the Polk Sun on March 18th, submitted for the record, staff report, ordinance, and application. Summary, we are requesting to add personal services to the list of characteristics. Every future language designation in the comprehensive plan has a set of general characteristics, and we want to add personal services to that, and I'll show you that why in a minute. We also want to add more opportunity for where Office Center locations can go, meaning they can go adjacent to some non-residential districts. We want to expand that. We also, which is the main reason for the amendment, want to allow it adjacent to legally established non-residential uses in mid-block locations, like churches or old ag buildings that have been been around for 50 years or even longer. We want to remove some limitations of Office Centers. There's a requirement that it has, you can have more than 10 acres of Office Centers within a two-mile radius of an existing one. I'll explain that in a minute as well, why that's there, and then also clarify some language to reword it to make it more clear in terms of access through residential areas. So back in the Conference of Plan Approval days in 1991, Office Center was not a use in the table. It was, offices would have been developed in Business Park Center. In 2000, we did add Office Centers into the comprehensive plan. I actually was the case planner back then. Then in, and it did allow mid-block locations. It just allowed, as long as it was along a collector roadway, it was, that was a location criteria and it was consistent. Back in 2012, the Board of County Commissioners was concerned about the number of Office Centers being requested along 540A, and we had to reassess the location criteria for Office Center. And at that point, it was changed to only be at the intersection of a local or a collector road, or adjacent to an activity center like Convenience Center or Neighborhood Activity Center. We recently added commercial enclave to that list. So part of this request is basically, Office Centers should be allowed next to any non-residential land use classification, regardless of location. It's part of a transitional idea. It makes sense next to certainly more intense uses. But there was a requirement that if you're locating a new office center within a two-mile radius, you can't have an additional 10 acres. So there's a limitation. But since this has been adopted, that hasn't really been a concern or an issue when we've adopted or recommended new office center locations. So it doesn't seem necessary anymore. So that's part of what we're recommending to remove that limitation. And I am not singling out Commissioner Hickman, but I'm singling out his office. In a positive way. In a positive way. Actually, both of these. So the Hickman office, it's a very good example of an office. One, it meets the location criteria and the development criteria for the 98 SAP. It was built to Strickland. I'm sorry, built to Clubhouse, which is on the north side. This is Strickland and this is Clubhouse. And so this is on the west side of US 98. But it's at an intersection. So it fit all kinds of different location criteria. It made a lot of sense. The other office you see here on the right-hand side is a hair salon off of 540A. And that subdivision surrounding it is a Hickory Ridge subdivision. That's actually the first subdivision I lived in when I bought a house in Lakeland in the year 2000. And that's Pollard. Technically, it's not an intersection, even though Pollard's there on the north side. But the office center location isn't at an intersection, per se, where there's another roadway that it could access. That building started as an ag office back in the 80s, perhaps even longer. And it shifted into a personal service. But it's the only use in that office center. And it works there. It makes sense. We don't, I don't, I've not heard any issues about that. It makes sense. So that's an example of where personal services as a primary use in office center makes sense. In terms of the different jurisdictions that we reviewed, there was only two of them that we found that had office in the land use category itself. That was Hillsborough County and Seminole County. And otherwise, the jurisdictions just allowed offices as part of their mixed use categories. And those mixed use categories varied and were, had different kinds of location criteria. But for Hillsborough County and Seminole County, they did allow them what could be mid-block, although they didn't specify it. They just said it had to be located along a collector roadway. And the map that you see on the upper left-hand side is just some of the different office centers that you see in different parts of the county. That's kind of where we were with these photographs that you see along 98 South Florida Avenue. This here on the left-hand side is in the Winter Haven area. This map here on the left side is basically just where all the clusters of office center are throughout the county. So the changes are to allow it adjacent to a legally established non-residential use. Not every legally established non-residential use has a non-residential land use category, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense for offices to be adjacent to it. We removed that 10-acre limitation within two miles of a proposed office center. We added more flu locations that an office center could be adjacent to. And I will tell you that to bring it back to what it originally was that allowed isolated or mid-block locations, we are bringing that up with the Conference and Plan Advisory Committee to vet that. I felt hesitation to bring it all the way back because it was the county commissioners that directed us to change it to begin with. So it made sense maybe to if we're going to bring it back to what it was that the advisory committee kind of vet that out before we bring it back for a full official change to even expand the office center locations to a wider degree. The justification for approval is that it makes sense to locate them next to legally established uses like religious institutions, churches, and agriculture-related structures like the ones on 540A. It allows more flexibility. It gives more opportunities for more office centers to be located throughout the county, which increases the job potential job opportunities with the county. And we find it's consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code. And I'll stand for any questions. So since you put my office complex in that picture there, just a question there pertaining to that. Um, it's immediately surrounded by residential on both sides. Uh, so you, what you're proposing would allow for it, say, I want to expand that commercial area. Could, could you do contiguous properties next to that to do a commercial? Oh, absolutely. Yeah. The only limitation would be office centers have a limitation max of 10 acres. And what's above that would be business park center. Okay. Yeah. I mean, it just seems like a reasonable use of the property right now. It's, you know, like there's a residential track and then there's, uh, an electrical station and, and nothing's done on, you know, it just seems like it'd be a logical expansion of that to turn that into commercial or commercial or office center. I'm sorry, office center. Yeah. And you can, and, and whether it would be like 540 A or Strickland Avenue, you could either direction. Yeah. It would meet the location criteria. And, um, although I can't from a legal standpoint, completely analyze that here. Cause we have no, no, no, I'm just, I'm just trying to say that, but, um, I will say that office center does currently allow 10% of the district to be for commercial retail use, like a sandwich shop or coffee shop or something like that. So we do allow some mixed use there. Any further questions? Seeing none. You need to vote on both of them, right? I did not present the second one because it's got a different twist to it. And I'm letting Eric, you need a vote on this one. Yes, sir. Before we hear from Eric, I'll make a motion to approve, uh, LDCPAL dash 2026 dash one in its entirety. Second. Motion, second to approve. Roll call, please. Cindy Janamoso 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. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Mr. Peterson. I tried to get him to combine them for the record, but. Next, there's LDCT 2026-2. This is the office center consistency and Eric Peterson is your planner. There is a method to my madness. Eric Peterson for the Land Development Division. This is slightly different. Uh, Shonda's amendment to the comprehensive plan is more about where we locate the office centers. This one is kind of riding the ship in the Land Development Code. There's a lot of inconsistencies with the office center comprehensive plan, even before the amendment, uh, that we need to correct, but also, uh, to expand the possibilities because this office center really, uh, gets at a need for mid block, non-residential uses. There's a lot of non-residential uses that aren't commercial, that aren't retail, that aren't gas stations and things that we could typically think as corner commercial. We need that mid block type of use for those low volume types of uses. So this is what, uh, we have, and I just want to mention that it was advertised in the Lakeland Winter Haven sun on March 18th. I had no response from the public, but when it comes to the first step, for one, we have a requirement in the Land Development Code that anything that comes in office center needs planning commission approval, even in office, which doesn't make a lot of sense. So we're requesting that the, uh, requirement that all development in the OC, uh, not require level, uh, three approval before the planning commission. We also expand the description of it in the Land Development Code to include medical offices of medical clinics and personal services, which are some of those low, low volume types of uses that we need in these areas. And just to show you, to demonstrate it in the graphic, a lot of this contemplated this type of office, but that type of office doesn't go in office center. These, these properties are not that big. This is, this is your business park center type of office. Most of our offices are little offices, small proprietors like the ones you saw in there, uh, low scale, one story type of office uses. So we, we, uh, went through the list of uses that also require level three and decided that, Hey, there's, there's not really the need to have a public hearing on some of these other ones. For instance, agricultural support, while agricultural support is a big category and that in other places needs a level three, the only thing that would go here is an agricultural office, which is one of those items in agricultural support. So it would just be, you know, an agricultural office is really no different than any other office. So we thought, well, let's make that administrative careful. It's special, but it's, it's not more intrusive, um, government facilities. Well, we specify that the government facilities that go in office districts or offices and not necessarily other things. Uh, so, um, we would reduce that down to a level two research and development. As long as you did it inside in an office building, it would probably fit in any office center because there's all types of research and development. We're not talking mad scientists necessarily. Uh, but we're, we're talking all types of what we would typically view as, um, as office uses. Oddly enough, uh, retail less than 10,000 square feet is an, is allowed as an accessory to the office. So you've got to actually have office that would demonstrate the need and it's only 10% of it anyway. So we've kind of felt that that that would be just a function of the office center. You would, you wouldn't necessarily need to come back to the planning commission to, to dedicate a portion of that office complex to a coffee shop or something like that, or, or retail. So we suggested, um, making that down to a C2 because it's truly got to be accessory. Anyway, same with the restaurant, sit down, it would fall into that. Uh, leisure, special interest schools that, that can be anything from teaching piano lessons to karate to all the types of aftercare programs. And those usually work very well in office center districts. So we decided to add that to the list. We went through it and put in the conditions necessary to implement the comprehensive plan policies in the development criteria of the office center for all these uses as well. Um, limiting them to their intended level of use. And I can go into depth with it, but essentially we're just bringing them into comp comprehensive plan consistency. We're also making it consistent all throughout the selected area plans so that when you go from one part of the county to the other, the office center has got the same policies to go along with it. We did a good analysis. Unlike comprehensive plan future land use maps, most jurisdictions do have an office zoning district. So we looked at office zoning districts as a comparison for that. And we found that medical clinics, banks, and personal services were almost always permitted uses in these districts. So we felt safe there. And, and, uh, so on through them, uh, there were some other things that we even added, um, going back to one of the things I kind of over overlooked, uh, funeral homes and related facilities. Those aren't permitted in office districts, but we looked at that use and there was a few zoning districts that, that allow them and it made us think, well, what could go wrong here? So we introduced them to not being permitted to a level three homes and related services are a broad gamut. It could be a, a, you know, a small, you know, casket salesman, or it could be a full mortician, or it could be crematoriums, or it could have a, um, a chapel for, for wakes and things of that nature. So there's so many different uses in that category. We felt, well, when the time comes, that's the kind of thing to bring to the planning commission and decide whether it's appropriate to have a, say a hundred seat chapel in this, this area versus just a, uh, funeral car. So our study led us to this point. And what we do, we feel is this, this, uh, part of the amendment provides more alternatives to entrepreneurs, especially those that are moving from that home-based business to the next step. You don't want those type of people to go have to reach that barrier of buying high volume, you know, high accessibility commercial properties or, or renting or leasing those. Those make it harder to get, you know, for small businesses to grow. These properties will be located in, in areas that don't have as much accessibility because they don't need them. They don't need that level of accessibility. Even your, your personal services, your, your hair salons, your, your, your doctors, you, you go to them like, you know, or a dentist, you go to, you know, once every six months, if you're lucky. Um, you don't need to go there every day. So you, so it's okay to do a U-turn and have to come back, you know, at a median cut to go there. So the mid block uses are good for these low volume uses and they don't have to overspend for property that their business really doesn't need. So with that, I'll stand for questions. Any questions of Eric? Seeing none. We need a motion. Motion to approve LDCT 2026-2. Second. Motion and second to approve. Roll call, please. Cindy Janamaso 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. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Ms. Bennett, comprehensive plans. Yes, sir. For the record, Shonda Bennett, Land Development Division. I passed out earlier the data analysis and the changes for the public schools facilities element, your next monthly installment for the comprehensive plan update. We did meet with the school board staff before we brought the changes to the committee and the school board staff was present during the committee meetings because Josh McLemore is one of the members, official members of the committee. So we vetted these policies with school board staff. There are changes to shrink. It takes some things out to help, you know, not have so many words, make it easier to read. We made changes that are more consistent with how the practices are, with how we negotiate concurrency with the school board and allowed some of the changes to be those things that they negotiate with staff rather than dictate things in the element. We added some things that have been recently brought up to the attention of the elected officials throughout the county by Mr. Hyde with the superintendent with the school board in terms of sidewalk needs for need for more sidewalks. So there's language in here about doing more coordination for sidewalks, more coordination for bus stops. Some of the language that you see highlighted in yellow is language that we think could potentially be considered more burdensome or restrictive. Now you'll start seeing in all of the elements more that kind of policy. The final decision, we do have to coordinate that with the county attorney's office to see if it really is more burdensome. You might have heard that there was supposed to be a fix to the bills that were passed last year about more burdensome and restrictive language and there was not a fix. So is that language stricken because of that? I mean, no, no, no, no. We were directed by the board to ignore the more restrictive. Okay. But it's, but we just can't bring it. Highlight persons are stricken. Right. Okay. Right. So meaning if we do bring it to the board, to you or to the board of county commissioners before the timeline is done for the, for that language, then we have to bifurcate the, the changes. Which we intend to do. So, but that's all I've got for you today. Any questions? Thank you. Uh, we have no further business to come before us. So I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Oh, oh, I'm sorry. Welcome. Welcome. You got a good group of staff to work with. Okay. I had a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. We're adjourned. Thank you.