Planning Commission on 2026-06-03 8:50 AM

For the record, the staff report and slideshow and application material have been entered into your agenda. Aaliyah Nglema is your planner. Good morning, Aaliyah Nglema with Land Development presenting number 15 on the agenda, LDSPD 2026-1, the Old Dixie Highway SPD. The applicant is proposing a suburban plan development to develop eight single-family lots on approximately 5.29 acres. The subject site is located at 2610 Old Dixie Highway, south of Saddle Creek Road, west of Old Dixie Highway, west of the city of Auburndale, in section 6, township 28, range 25. On May 15th, 44 mailers were sent to area property owners. Three signs were posted on May 15th. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven sign on May 28th with no response from the public. So single-family homes are located just to the north, south, south, and east. Town Tower Manor Mobile Home Park is located to the west of the subject site. The proposed site plan will add eight additional single-family homes to the area, lots ranging from 0.5 acres to 1.3 acres. The site is down the road from Tenorock High School. SPDs require level 3 reviews and RS. The subject site is 5.29 acres and the density is 1.51 dwelling units per acre, achieving 22 locational points. Maximum density permitted with 28 locational points within an SPD is three dwelling units per acre. So this is a modification to a previously approved suburban plan development, LDSPD 2025-1, and it really is to change the access from one driveway on Saddle Creek Road to two driveways on Old Dixie Highway. This change is because of access issues on Saddle Creek Road. The parcels will utilize two easements with no more than four lots to an easement. So the picture on the left is a view of the site from Old Dixie Highway, and the picture on the right is a view from the site from Saddle Creek Road. So in short, the only change is the points of access. The request is consistent with the Polk County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code, and staff recommends approval, and I'll stand for any questions. Any questions of staff? So were they unable to get a driveway permit from Saddle Creek Road? Was that? There's just some access issues. There's, it's hard to see, but it, it, there's a big dip right here. Also there's metal bars. Um, it's a lot of issues on Saddle Creek Road. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Is the applicant present? Yes, sir. Were you sworn in? No. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you give to the Planning Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Uh, Chad, Berker Traditions Engineering at 900 Orchid Springs Drive, Winter Haven, Florida. Uh, I don't have too much to add. I did want to elaborate there on the access issue. So there's a, uh, pretty substantial head wall that runs along the entire property frontage on, uh, Saddle Creek with a guardrail and a sidewalk. The, the revision is to, uh, avoid impacting that because there's also some drainage features there in that area. And so instead of we revised our access points to be to, uh, Old Dixie Highway. There's actually two existing driveways there, um, in both of those locations that we can utilize because ultimately with the four lots access via easement, they're just residential driveways and not commercial. Excuse me. Um, I did want to point out too, that as part of this request, we are actually requesting to reduce the lot density of, uh, of our requests. We have an approved SPD. You can see there on the left for 11 single family lots, uh, on this property. Our proposed modification is only for eight, uh, uh, lesser or larger lots and, and less density. So, um, we think that this is compatible with the area. We think the access points make sense to the existing driveway locations in the lower, uh, capacity roadway that they're connecting to. And I can stand for any questions you have. Any questions on the applicant? Seeing none. Thank you, sir. Thank you. I'll open up the public hearing. Um, anyone in present to speak in favor of this application? Anyone to speak in opposition to this application? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion. I move to approve LDSBD 2026-1. Second. Motion second to approve. Roll call, please. Cindy Jenim also 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. Linda Schultz. For the motion. Motion passes. Next case, please. For the record, Ian Nance Land Development. Staff recommends approval of LDPD 2026-6, a request for 150 single family units through the rural residential development process. For the record, one sign was posted and 104 mailers sent to area property owners on May 15th, 2026, and a legal ad was published on May 20th. Staff has logged three responses in opposition. And as before, the staff report slideshows and application materials submitted into the agenda. Subject site is located at 4235 Decent Road, west of Kathleen Road, east of Payne Road, northwest of the Sea of Lakeland, and section 20, township 27, range 23. It is approximately 153 acres with roughly 80 acres of uplands. Flood zones, wetlands, and a floodway are present on the site, and it is within the Blackwater Creek drainage basin, an area described by the county as a stress basin due to constrained stormwater outfall. The site is within a residential suburban future land use district where the by-right density is one unit per five acres. Through the rural residential development tool, a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre can be attained over the entirety of the site through the dedication of at least 50 percent of open space. Additional density can be realized with a locational score similar to what is required for other plan developments. These are based on proximity to public services, roads, utilities, and commercial areas. Here's the site plan, 150 lots clustered to the northwest of the site and away from the floodway and majority of wetlands. The requested density is 0.98 dwelling units per acre under the maximum allowed with an RRD. The minimum lot size is 9,380 square feet, and minimum lot widths are 70 feet wide. Most setbacks are being met or exceeded, with one exception of a reduction in side setbacks on corner lots to 10 feet, which is consistent with typical side setbacks in the RS. The APKIN is also proposing 39-foot rear setbacks to accommodate buffer and drainage easements. There's one access on a decent road and no access is proposed onto Robbins Road to the north. The application demonstrates consistency with the locational criteria provided by the LDC, including access to an urban collector roadway, availability of utilities, proximity to schools, and emergency services. A minimum of 60.88 percent of the entire site is dedicated to open space purposes, not including the landscaping buffers and recreation areas. Sidewalk will be required along with road improvements to decent road. Internal sidewalks and shielded lighting will also be provided internally. In essence, this will be the development footprint of the site. Moving from the west, half-acre lots are proposed along with open space and wetland tracks in a 20-foot wide type C buffer where abutting existing lots. Combining the buffer and increased rear setbacks, new homes will be no closer than 59 feet from the western and northern property lines. From there will be a step down to 80-foot wide lots before transitioning to the 70-foot wide ones. The standard lot depth is 134 feet. Open space buffering and stormwater management ponds are also located near the entrance to the site. Here's a look at the surrounding development. Most of this was permitted prior to the adoption of land development code and comprehensive plan and therefore lacks a defined pattern of development which is reflective of when these were created. In some circumstances, the proposed lot sizes are similar to what's around and others they are well below. Most do not meet the residential suburban or agricultural residential rural standards in which they are found. They also did not develop with the availability of services today, including a wastewater line to which the development will connect. But this is in an area of residential development with urban services available. For the drainage, the site will be held to close basin standards or to accommodate a 100-year 24-hour storm event. I'm showing two ponds here on the site, but other open space tracks, including to the north and northwest of the site, are being designated as open space but will likely contribute to stormwater management plans when that level of review is complete. Drainage easements are proposed along all lot lines and within the rights of way of the internal roads. It's a quick snapshot of services. In short, capacity is available in utilities, schools, and the roadway network. A major traffic study will be required during the level two review process. On the right is just a demonstration of all the different tracks, and this is included in your agenda packet for their various purposes. But for everyone's benefit, to the left is what all will be reviewed during the level two review process. The engineered site plans ensuring the conditions of approval are going to effect, a species walkover, review of flood studies and wetland delineations, and any roadway improvements. For now though, for this compatibility review, staff finds that the submitted site plan is compatible surrounding uses. These are single family homes among other single family homes. Where there are differences in lot sizes, the applicant has utilized the tools provided by the comprehensive plan and land development code, including increasing landscaping buffer widths, increasing setbacks, and transitioning lot sizes. Urban level services are again available to the site and with available and have capacity, I'm sorry. This request is consistent with the relevant policies within the comprehensive plan and land development code. Staff recommends approval and I'll stand for questions. I got a question, but it may be more to legal than it is to staff, is staff anyway. But does House Bill 399, which went into effect July 1, as I understand it, on compatibility, have any application here? You mean House Bill 399 that was just approved by the government this last legislative session? Yeah, I think it's... That's not effective. Okay. Right now. Right. It'll be effective January 1. Okay. I was thinking it went into effect July 1. And I would like to reference too, if there are any technical engineering questions. Okay. Right. Go back to the... Well, I guess that's okay right there. It looks like that the entrance road on the site plan doesn't line up with... What is it? Greenfield Acres Road? Is that... That appears to be correct. It might be a little off with my overlay there, but I'm sure that's to accommodate some of the existing features on site and I'll defer to... Okay. I just wondered if it needed to or if there was a spacing problem there. There's wetlands and... Okay. ...proposed in that area. Okay. Thank you. Does the applicant present? Yes. Okay. Come on up and I'll come on up. To the podium. Yes. Thank you. If you'll please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm 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. And... Oh, you can speak in. We just need your name and you can speak in this one. It's Eric Swanson. I'm with Swan Capital Partners, the applicant for this project. Good morning. As I said earlier, my name is Eric Swanson with Swan Capital Partners. I do have a handout I'd like to pass out or include into the record. If that's possible. Yes. So today I'm requesting approval of Kathleen Reserve. It's a rural residential development consisting of up to 150 single-family lots on 153 acres along Decent Road. It's within the residential suburban future land use district. Before discussing the site plan and diving into the methods of compatibility that we applied to this project, it's important to explain how we arrived here because this proposal is a result of multiple years of planning evaluation, environmental analysis, flood attenuation review, compatibility modifications, as well as community feedback. As the planner mentioned, we do have DRC recommendation for conditional approval, was found compatible with surrounding uses and general character of the area, and is consistent with Polk County comprehensive plan and the land development code. The site itself is comprised in a unified fashion over three parcels totaling the 153.23 acres. It's predominantly vacant pasture land at the moment and is the last parcel of its size along Decent Road available for residential development. The eastern parcels are almost entirely wet wetlands and flood hazard areas associated with the Blackwater Creek tributary floodway. Now, this slide is really important. The project just didn't simply reappear. Over multiple years, the property was evaluated through several planning frameworks. There were prior SPD concepts, one of which was brought to this planning commission and was approved. There was a rate evaluation. There was a Polk County environmental lands evaluation and subsequent discussions regarding flood attenuation and preservation opportunities. The current RRD proposal is a result of that evolution. Each successive step increased preservation, improved compatibility, enhanced stormwater performance, and refined the overall site design. And one of the key lessons that I learned in this process was that compatibility wasn't just a technical exercise. It's about how development is experienced from neighboring properties. And that influenced the design you're about to see. So a common misconception is that this is simply a repeat of prior concepts and that's not true. The current RRD incorporates larger perimeter lots. The perimeter lots are half acre in size. The yellow shaded lots are intermediate transition lots at quarter acre. And the interior clustered lots are 0.215. The greenish blue are open space, wetlands, floodplain, and preservation stormwater tracks. And then the orange tracks are amenity parcels. The slide illustrates the overall site design. As I mentioned, the larger lots are on the perimeter. The smallest lots are internalized. Density is concentrated up in the upland area. We have 93 acres that are going to remain preserved. The plan intentionally creates transitions between neighboring properties and the internal neighborhood. Overall, the area around this property is a mix of lot sizes, including numerous smaller legal lots of record, manufactured homes, and parcels with multiple dwelling units. So one of the compatibility techniques here was to reduce the road frontage off of Robbins Road. That's that north-south rural collector. That area is going to be just left open space. But with the reduction of frontage, you can see that we're abutting with three lots off of Robbins Road. Comparatively, there's five units off of Robbins Road on the existing development. North of that little line, the red line, it's a non-residential track of 15 acres. It's agricultural. And it also contains some wetlands. But south of that line, off of Payne Road, there's 10 lots. The typical lot size is about 0.88. But some of those lots have multiple family dwelling units. Comparatively to what we have at those 10 lots, though, we're abutting with six lots. There's a community benefit opportunity. We've carved out 18 acres of upland available for future flood compensation and regional attenuation. Now, this is really important. I really want to take my time in reading this out. These are what staff found. This isn't my opinion. For the RRD, clustering development on upland acreage with smaller lot sizes is encouraged through the RRD tool to avoid environmental sensitive areas, maximize stormwater management opportunities, and to take advantage of centralized utilities. Overall, septic systems in such an environment and close to a major floodway are undesirable. The availability of public services are more attuned to the urban growth area, which I believe is up to five dwelling units an acre, and we're below one. In terms of achieving the standards for development per the LDC and comprehensive plan, the project exceeds the necessary requirements. Now, the property has also been evaluated for its broader environmental and flood management characteristics. Because of its location within the basin, the property has been evaluated for flood attenuation, water quality improvement, nutrient reduction, and environmental preservation opportunities. Now, the current RRD proposal reflects multiple years of planning refinement, environmental evaluation, flood attenuation analysis, and compatibility modifications in response to community input and site constraints. Now, this is exactly why the county created the RRD framework to preserve environmentally sensitive lands, cluster development away from wetlands, reduce fragmentation, utilize centralized utilities, protect open space, and improve stormwater management. Now, the question is not whether this property develops, it's the question is how. Right now, the RRD framework provides centralized water, centralized sewer, coordinated stormwater management, enhanced buffering, and permanent preservation of 93 acres. The alternative is fragmented rural development with private wells, septic systems, fragmented drainage systems, and no coordinated preservation framework. Because a significant portion of the property is constrained by wetlands and floodway, this is precisely the type of site the RRD framework was designed to address. It allows development to be concentrated on uplands while preserving constrained lands. It also is consistent with LDC section 303, where it expressly encourages the RRD tool where environmental constraints constraints exist. RRD is the vehicle designed precisely for this condition. And here's just some project steps by the numbers. We're capped at 150 lots. We're preserving 60.88%, 93 acres. We're below the RRD cap, which can only be achieved through locational and design criteria and scoring. We're below that. And we are voluntarily moving forward with a 100-year 24-hour storm standard at a minimum. And to achieve one dwelling unit per acre, you need a 100-point minimum. We've achieved 139. The SPD maximum, and we have a land use designation of residential suburban that allows three dwelling units per acre if we were to pursue an SPD. The max for the RRD is one, and we're at 0.98. Compatibility, as mentioned earlier, we're providing larger lots at the edges. We have no access proposed for Robbins Road, and we have a triangle buffered preservation area to help reduce our road frontage. We have enhanced buffers. We have increased rear setbacks, so 39 feet for our principal rear, and that's excluding our type C buffers. We've utilized natural separation features, stormwater management ponds, to help have more distance separation from public rights of way. And we'll have shielded lighting and trees in these buffered areas. Smart growth and public investment. The availability of public services are more attuned to the urban growth area out here. So we have existing utility capacity, central water, existing roadway network has adequate level of service, pre and post development. We have fire protection improvement, so we'd be required to extend the water line. It's currently at Lewin Drive, so it's about four tenths of a mile. There is no fire protection out here, so that would be a public benefit if we had the opportunity to do so. Service is already extended to the area. Last year, there was a wastewater extension, about two miles to a mobile home park closer to Hillsborough County line, and a lift station was also built there. We'd have the opportunity to tap into that extension and actually have a return on investment on our public investments. You saw this earlier, but I want to point out the hydrological tracks. So N, O, and N, excuse me, M. That's approximately 18 acres of land that we're dedicating for floodplain storage, water quality enhancement, and storm attenuation function. Oops. This is, we recognize that this has been a long history and the neighbors care deeply about Kathleen and their homes and where it's located. We've done the best we could to respond through this plan, and I think that's evident with some of the conditions that are in place that directly address those concerns. With flooding and drainage, we will model the stormwater system to a 100-year, 24-hour closed basin design. Post-development discharge will exceed pre-development rates, and the wetlands and the floodway will be preserved. We have adequate level of service for transportation, and we would have a single access from Decent Road, which would be accessible through a turn lane that we would build. There would also be sidewalks along Decent Road, which doesn't exist today. I have been monitoring some of the community feedback online, and I was taken back by a resident whose family member was hit by a car, and this was just what they documented online. Back in the day, I was a urban planner, and that hits close to home, so I think having sidewalks is definitely an improvement for the built environment out there. I mentioned roadway commitments were adequate level of service. We'll have an additional 15 feet of right-of-way dedicated to the public right-of-way out there. We'll have a type 3 intersection and turn lane is warranted, and I mentioned the sidewalks already. It's required for us to tap to central water and central wastewater. We'll have a fire protection benefit as mentioned. We're preserving 93.28 acres. Wetlands, floodplain, open space, habitat protection, floodplain storage, and stormwater treatment. We'll have conservation easements over these tracks. All the wetlands have 25-foot wetland buffers. We did conduct two wildlife assessments prior, and there were no threatened or endangered species that were identified, but we'd have to run that again. And we've already delineated and had a jurisdictional determination with Swift Mud, so we know the boundaries of these wetlands. As mentioned earlier, we'll have a closed basin design standard. No increase to discharge rates. Floodways and wetlands will be preserved, and we'll have agency review and permitting. So final design reviewed and permitted by Swift Mud in Polk County. And that concludes this portion of the presentation. I want to introduce Dakota McCoy. He's a member of my civil engineering team. He's going to discuss the flood and drainage issues out here. Have you been sworn in? No, I need to be sworn in. Will you please raise your right hand? Do you swear, firm, that the testimony and evidence you present to the Planning Commission today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Okay, so I'm Dakota McCoy. I'm with Germana Engineering, the civil firm that has done the concept and also some preliminary drainage assessment for this project just to make sure that, you know, what we're doing here is feasible. So the pre-development drainage currently, there is a, let's see, I have a mouse here. So there's a wetland to the west and there's a ditch to the northwest that come onto the property with ditches for drainage that then bring it to this wetland here in yellow with the floodway kind of sort of where this line is. So the water goes across the site right now and ends up here in the wetland. What we are proposing, so we're going to be with this, you know, we're going to have these houses here. So those ditches are not going to be there. We're going to have an underground storm system that is separate from the storm system for the neighborhood that basically just bypasses what's currently going through the property. So we're not intending to impede anything off site, just pass it through as it's going. And then with our development, we're going to have these blue areas here, which will be wet ponds and also floodplain compensation. So this is going to improve the water quality. It's going to improve the water quantity, the amount of water coming off the site in a storm, as well as we're going to be improving the floodplain because we are compensating cup for cup, but there will be more than what we're impacting in compensation. So we are, we will be improving the flooding situation out there. So yeah, so like I was saying, so water quality, so we've got wet detention ponds that are going to function. We also, by just changing the land use from either, I think it's a sod farm right now, but you know, it was cattle. Both of those are very bad for nutrients and, uh, the waterways, especially, you know, carrying it downstream. Um, like Eric was saying with the Hillsborough river watershed study, you know, the, uh, they're looking at the nutrients down there. So just the change to single family alone reduces the pollutants, but then we're also putting in these wet ponds, which the water and the nutrients will, uh, co-mingle in the wet ponds and it will remove even further the, uh, nutrients that are going downstream. Uh, and then like Eric said, we are voluntarily, we will do the 100 year, 24 hour storm event. The requirement for the state and in the land code is the 25, 24, uh, which is for an open basin, which it is, it goes to the Hillsborough river. Um, but we are told that, uh, this is a, uh, like an impacted basin kind of an area of concern. Um, and the, the county would like the 100 year, 24 hour storm, which is normally would be for a closed basin where you wouldn't have any outlet, right? The water is just kind of going to sit there. Um, so we are, we will be providing that even though this is an open basin, just because of the area of concern and the nature of this area. Um, and then, you know, lastly, just the compensation. I think I talked about that. Thank you. And if anybody has any questions for Dakota after, well, he'll have, he'll come back. Um, so staff found that this project was consistent with all relevant requirements of the LDC. It was consistent with all applicable, comprehensive plan policies. It's compatible with surrounding uses and general character, and it will, it has the potentially to meet concurrency requirements when built. Um, here's a policy, uh, policy 2.102 from the comp plan. Um, and you know, a through a two through a 15, which this project is compliant with. I'm going to summarize. I'm not going to read all of this, but, um, there are conditions of approval in your packet. Um, we're capped at 150 lots. Um, the minimum lot size is 9, 380 square feet. Um, you know, with the setbacks, I think what is nice is the principal rear at 39 feet. Um, at a minimum, the stormwater management plan, um, shall comply with closed basin requirements. So 100 year, 24 hour storm pursuant to section 740. There will be, um, drainage easements, um, provided as shown in the typical lot layout that, um, Ian presented. Sidewalk will be constructed along the front of the decent road and we will have type C buffers. Now, what this approval for today, what it doesn't authorize is construction. This is limited to land use entitlement. Final engineer plans and agency permits remain a requirement. What an approval actually does for today, it preserves 93 acres. It requires central sewer. It requires central water, requires enhanced buffers, requires a hundred year storm standard above and beyond what we would be required to do, requires level two engineering review, requires swift mud review and requires traffic review. So approval today establishes the framework. The detailed engineering remains subject to multiple layers of levels of review and permitting. And with that, I thank you, um, for the time. Um, if there's any questions for me or, um, Dakota McCoy, my engineer, we're happy to answer any questions you may have. Do you have any questions of the applicant? Seeing none, I'll open the, uh, public comment portion of the agenda item and ask, is there anyone here to speak in favor of this application? Seeing no one, is there anyone here to speak in opposition to this application? Okay. Um, again, uh, come forward to this, I guess it'd be easier to this microphone, but if you'd line up again, uh, just an interest of saving some time and ask that you try to avoid repeating any, uh, comments that were made, um, in terms of repeating your concerns or objections, we would appreciate it. And you have three minutes. And, and Mr. Chair, if I may, if, is there anyone that wasn't sworn in? Because I can do that all at the same time rather than doing one by one, if there is anyone, or was everyone sworn in that's planning to speak? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Hello. My name is Guy Lalonde III. Uh, resident is, uh, resident is 6036 Cherry Road, Lakeland, Florida. Uh, we only get one opportunity to make the right decision for this property and this community. Once development happens, we cannot easily undo the impacts. After the recent hurricanes, severe storms, and flooding events, many residents have seen firsthand what happens when infrastructure and drainage are not properly aligned with growth. The main concerns I continue to hear are compatibility, flooding, and traffic. While the staff reports that the project meets current technical requirements, I believe there is a human factor that must be considered. Many families have built their lives in this community. Residents have already, in community, and residents already feel the local roads and infrastructure are stretched thin. We often hear that infrastructure needs to catch up with growth. My question is, why not allow that to happen before approving additional density? The Cathleen and the Cathleen and Decent intersection is already a major concern. Traffic backups from train crossings and continued growth creates delays that affect families, school buses, and emergency vehicles. I understand comparisons are being made to other developments in the area, but respectively, we are here to discuss this project today. Past approval should not automatically justify future ones if this residents, if residents are already feeling experience and experiencing the impacts. I'm not saying growth should never happen, but if development moves forward, it should happen in the way that residents and the board feel confident about years from now. I also have one question regarding this development with a large preservation area being proposed. Who will ultimately be responsible for long-term maintenance of those areas, including drainage and stormwater systems? This is not about stopping growth. It's about responsible growth and making sure infrastructure, traffic, drainage, and public safety are prepared before asking residents to absorb more impact. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Danica Gay and I live at 4940 Maple Drive Lakeland. I'm 12 years old, which means I've grown up hearing about this property. I've seen my parents and my neighbors spend years fighting to keep this land safe. I'm here today because this isn't just about zoning or maps. It's about where I live and where my friends live. I know that adults have to look at paperwork, but I look at this land and I see a flood basin. My parents have explained to me that the Board of County Commissioners has already voted twice to stop this development because the land was too wet and is not safe for more houses. I don't understand how the facts could be the same, but the decision could be different. If it didn't make sense to vote here in 2022 and 2023, why would it be okay in 2026? When I ask my parents for something and they tell me no two times, I don't go back and ask them again because they've already set the standard. I'm asking you to think about the kids in our community. We go to school here, we play here, and we need our homes to be safe when it rains. We shouldn't have to worry about our neighborhood flooding because a developer wants to build where they shouldn't. Please look at the history of this project in the voice of a thousand people who signed our petition. I'm asking you to honor the previous decision and choose our community over a plan that has already been rejected. Please vote to deny this application. Thank you for listening to me. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Caroline Gay and I live at 4940 Maple Drive, just southwest or downstream of the Decent Road property. I stand before you representing over a thousand citizens who have signed our petition at change.org opposing this development. We reach this number in record time because our community is unified in its rejection of this project. I ask you to imagine this chamber filled with those 1,000 people. They are absent today, not because they are indifferent, but because they are balancing the demands of their jobs and the needs of their families. The requirement that our citizens take time off from their jobs and family obligations to stand before this commission on a Wednesday is sometimes an impossible ask. Do not mistake their physical absence for a lack of commitment. Their voices are clear and they're demanding you listen. They are deeply alarmed that you're once again considering the approval approval of a development on a known flood basin. The Board of County commissioners has already examined this property twice and reached the same conclusion both times. In July 2022 and August 2023, the commissioners voted four to one to deny development on this site. The official record of those proceedings highlights that this site is located in the Kathleen drainage basin, also known as North Blackwater Creek, a stressed basin where surface water accumulates after hard rains and where soils do not percolate well. In those hearings, the commissioners provided the common sense reasoning that this community still stands by today. Commissioner Rick Wilson stated it is a very wet piece of property and this is nothing like what is in the area. Commissioner Neal Cumby noted this development looks good on paper, but this is poor property and drainage issues will always be a problem. Commissioner Bill Braswell warned it is not compatible and who would be responsible if the surrounding residents sue because the properties are flooded. Commissioner Martha Santiago added it is not compatible with the surrounding area. Furthermore, this land is not merely just another parcel for development. The public record confirms this site was formally nominated and considered for the county's environmental lands conservation program. By this nomination, the county itself officially recognized that this land possesses the ecological value worthy of preservation for public good. Common sense and consistency are the foundations of public trust. If this land was not suitable for development in 2022 and 2023, those facts remain unchanged today. The wetlands are still there, the floodway is still there, the risk to our existing homes is only higher. We urge you to honor precedent, and we're asking you to listen to those 1,000 voices who cannot be here today and once again deny this application. I implore you to reject this application. Do not simply rubber stamp a proposal that the board of county commissioners have already rejected twice. As the planning commission, you have a duty to uphold the standards of our community and the precedent set by the board. Please act with integrity that this community deserves, prioritize our safety and security, and decisively deny this proposal. Thank you. My name is Brittany Holland and my address is 6209 Robert Road. I'm sorry, I'm a little nervous. I'm speaking on behalf of my entire family. They own the only parcel that wasn't on his presentation. It is the 10 acres directly to the north of the development. So a little history on the property before you today. My family owns the 10 acres. My father and grandfather worked for Mr. Maddox for 20 years before purchasing that 10 acre parcel in 1993. The reason that they did not purchase more of the land at that time is simple. The parcel that they bought was the only dry portion of the property, of the entire property. The remaining land had such extreme water issues that it was considered nearly worthless, and it was not worth paying the property taxes on. You will be hard pressed to find anyone who understands this parcel and how the water flows to and from it better than my family. We have observed this land firsthand for the last 54 years. It is irresponsible for the current owners and the development developers to present a development plan during one of the worst drought periods, then rely on engineers that the developer pays to create a solution. FEMA has designated large portions of the property as flood zones A, E, and A on the federal flood insurance rate maps. Surrounding the parcels also fall within the FEMA zones A, E, and A. My parents, who luckily their house is completely paid for, but after the last hurricane they can no longer obtain homeowner's insurance. So I cannot imagine what any disposition of any rainwater would do to the surrounding parcels. The area functions as an interconnected watershed and flood management system. Solving the developer's site plan concerns does not eliminate the inherent flood risk to the surrounding community. The only responsible decision for the planning board is to deny this proposal and prevent the irreversible damage that this development would cause to our watershed floodplain and natural flood flood management system. And then I have a few seconds I want to add. We have on that 10 acres we have a 46 pond tropical aquaculture farm and unfortunately we have another farm that's located off of Park Bird Road and there was a development that was done along the Banana Road on 80 acres that checked every box just like this development and after the last hurricane we had water that came onto our property from the east and the west which has never happened. We've been there for over 20 years. So that was one event and we're still repairing damage from it. It destroyed the foundations of our buildings that were built within the last 10 years. So I mean these weren't 50 year old buildings that we're talking about. These were modern buildings. Thank you for your time. Thank you. My name is Roger Allen, 5248 Bethel Drive, Lakeland, Florida. I agree with the gentleman in the sport coat and the lady that was in the black dress and we'll repeat it. We live in a senior park at the west end of Deason Road where during the season there are over 500 people gathered together and enjoying Florida. Many of them were there last October when Milton came through and we have Blackwater Creek running right through our park. It always has. When it floods it makes a mess. During Milton it made a real mess. 180 out of 200 and some homes were either destroyed or at least destroyed enough where they were unlivable. Some of them had to be torn out completely. It's a mixed use property as far as the types of dwellings but it put a lot of people in jeopardy all seniors. So far we have not heard of anything and we've worked with the Southwest Florida Water Division. We have not heard anything as to what exactly has caused all of the flooding. We've heard the 100 year flood tossed around and if we have another one it will probably destroy the park completely. It has been noted that this is a wetland that this proposed development is going on. I agree with the fact that it's all the boxes have been checked and I thought what could I say after seeing this beautiful presentation. I will say this it affects our lives when the water comes through. We were there and I implore you to reconsider this. Look at it again when it's the wet season not the dry season. You'll see a real difference and you'll wonder why you would want to have a home in that area and those homes may be dry during the wet period because of all the concrete but everybody else is going to be wetter. You can almost guarantee it. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Cheryl Allen, 5248 Bethel Drive, Lakeland, Florida. My concern is driving up and down decent road almost every day at least three, four, five times a week. There are no sidewalks. There is no room for sidewalks. In order to give sidewalks they would have to take out the ditches on the sides of the road. There are barriers across the waterway along there that have had to be replaced because of trying to go around someone who's riding a bicycle or having a scooter or walking even. There's no bike lane. There's no walking area on that road. The road is so very narrow. There have been people hit and so when you go around and you try to avoid somebody you have to go over the the double yellow line in order to avoid someone that's walking or riding their bicycle already. I don't know how they could put sidewalks in there. That sounds wonderful but it would be a huge challenge and I'm just concerned about the traffic. There are already two new developments, one at the the end of Decent Road adjacent to Kathleen and one just across Kathleen that are already being built and are adding to the the traffic adding to the the concern for safety on that road. And so I just I agree with the the presentations that have been made already. I just ask that you consider the safety of our community that this is not a good place as well as all of the water. Thank you. Hi, my name is Lindsay Hobner. I live at 5130 Greenfield Road in Lakeland. I live directly downstream from the Blackwater Creek Tributary Floodway also known as the Kathleen Drainage Basin and also known as the North Blackwater Creek. In fact, it runs right through my property. My family's owned the property for about 35 years and we have watched the water come go and continue to come and go. I'd like to follow Mr. Swanson's lead and just speak based on a few facts. The fact of the matter currently is we already have a severe drainage and flooding problem in our area. It's been witnessed at least four times in the last six to seven years between hurricanes, typical rainfall and just, you know, your your normal summer patterns with the weather. Of course, Hurricane Milton stands out in everybody's mind because it was really, really bad. There are people on my road that were the original owners that built their homes back in the 70s. Those homes had water inside of them. That was the first time that's ever happened. I'd like to think that Hurricane Milton was that one in, you know, 5,000 year storm or whatever everybody keeps dreaming up. But the reality is the one in 100 year plan that they talk about isn't realistic at this point. We have a much greater chance than one percent of flooding in a year. Mr. Swanson also spoke to the fact that this was the best use of this land. However, we all know by public record that the county has approached the owners of the property to purchase it for conservation. So, in fact, that would probably be the best use of a flood basin. From the staff report, directly from the staff report for this project, I learned that a lot of the man-made ditches out there have been dug since 1941. Again, fact of the matter is this property has always been known flood land. The soil over 90 percent of the developed the proposed development area is comprised of soil that it says not suitable for development. It goes on to state that, yes, that could be mitigated and manipulated in order to build this development. But it seems as though we've seen all over the Kathleen area, much less Polk County, what happens when we continue to manipulate and mitigate these soils and these wetlands. I know I'm running out of time here. I could go on a lot longer, again, facts, but we appreciate your time. So, we hope you make the right decision. Thank you. My name is Nessu Mucciarera. I live at 4212 Decent Road, just directly across from the entrance proposed of this new development. We moved there four years ago and this was a topic of discussion at that point in time. Having recently moved there, we were pretty out of the loop of the area, having not learned what it looked like. I'm not quite sure the standards of a 100-year, 24-hour storm, but I can show you pictures of what happened two years ago in less than 12 hours. I also have worked as a professional firefighter in the central Florida area for the last 12 years. So, I've experienced responding to many severe hurricanes of which we've experienced over the last decade. The flooding that we saw over Decent Road was enormous. It actually turned our house into a lakefront property where they want to put this new home development here. It also covered the entire area of which they want to have the only entrance to this residential area. You're wanting to cut off 150 families from emergency services because of flooding during the worst time of a storm if you go ahead with approving a development like this. That is something to be taken into consideration because there is no, there's only one way in and one way out from Decent Road and there's only one way in and one way out from this residential development. And if it is cut off by flooding, there's going to be families who are set without resources for multiple days, if not weeks at a time, not even able to get in and out. So, they say seeing and believing. I would love to give you guys these photos that you would be able to see with your own eyes what we are talking about when it comes to flooding. So, I implore you all to use this as evidence, factual evidence, and to make a wise decision to not propose the development of this new community. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, we can accept those into evidence for the record. Good afternoon, Planning Commission. My name is Peter Hobner. I live at 5130 Greenfield Road. And today, I really just want to take a different turn. I want to, I actually want to stop and thank everybody who's taking time out of their day, time out of their schedule, taking PTO time or vacation time to be here. We do not get paid to come to these presentations as developers may because if the development goes through, obviously, it is a big score and everybody gets paid. That is what the developer is about. Let's not hide it. I know what it is. I'm in construction myself. But when you look at the map and you look at the aerial topographical views of this property, you have to almost wonder, how come in all the time in Imperial Polk County we've been developing, never developed it? How come in all this time, we've only developed right around the edges of it? Because past commissions and past boards have known and can see it. This property is not conducive. We can talk about it all day long. But what I really want to talk about is maybe three other subdivisions in our area that have been checked the boxes by the staff and planning commission has pushed it forward, which has also put strain and stress on our community. We start with Knight's Landing, which is right there at the end of Decent Road and borders up against Kathleen. Phase one was completed a few years ago. Entrance to that is 50 feet from the railroad tracks, which are about 15 feet from Kathleen, which is an intersection proposed for years to have an intersection and a light put in. It hasn't happened. Probably because of things of planning, where we walk over to Ross Creek, which is right across Kathleen Road. And the intersection there, the entrance of that subdivision doesn't align. Couldn't quite acquire the right property to make it align with Kathleen Road, maybe. I don't know. But it sits there. And in construction, I wonder, why was that never done? Why weren't those intersections aligned and the traffic light put in? So we're not sitting there waiting for people to make U-turns when they come out of Ross Creek and come up to Decent Road and then they want to go they want to go southbound on Kathleen. They have to make a U-turn right there, which actually impedes people leaving Decent Road, making a left, going northbound on Kathleen Road, and even the traffic making a right off of Decent onto Kathleen Road heading southbound. It backs the intersection up currently with phase one at Knight's Landing. People around the afternoon, everybody coming home or going out to the grocery store at dinner. Decent Road's backed up all the way to Llewellyn. Some of those people are trying to make left-hand turns, but you can't get up to the left-hand lane because it's not long enough. The road is inadequate as it is, and yet we have already, I believe, started construction on phase two in Knight's Landing with no other entrance in sight. The entrance is there singly off of Decent Road. So we're going to dump more traffic there. These have already been approved and are in process, but yet we as a community are stressed with the things that are going on due to this. It's too late. As other citizens have already said, once it goes on, it's over. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Linda Campbell. My address is 5154 Rock Dove Loop. I've lived out there 30 years. I live north of the site. Decent Road is terrible. There is no sidewalks. There is no anything other than for two cars to get back and forth, and they're proposing 150 new homes on a road that already is not even hardly a road. Yeah, they'll put in sidewalks. They'll put in sidewalks only to theirs, but then the people that live at the end of the road, Decent Road, in the mobile home park, what are they going to do? They won't have sidewalks. I actually tried to, I do permitting for 28 years. I tried to have, my friends wanted to buy this property, and they said it was unbuildable. That was back in like 2005. Also, when I did my permitting, you had to look at what the surrounding area was. There is no development out there. Everybody's on acreage. They say that the property where they're wanting to put 150 homes, that it's been bad because of the cows, and they're going to make it better, and da-da-da-da. I've never seen any cows. I've only seen water there. Water, water, and water. If they go ahead and they put in their drainage, how are you going to know that's going to help? Two miles north of this, they put in Willow Ridge Community. It flooded so bad that nobody could get out of the community. One way in, one way out. Nobody could get in or out of that community for three weeks while Milton came here till they pumped the water over the fire station and down the road, down Kathleen. I feel the same thing's going to happen to this. Water has a right to go, and it will go. Yes, you can kind of think of where it's going to go and try to manage it here, but it can't happen, and all of us people that have our homes out there for many, many years were the ones that are going to hurt, and let's not even bring up the Deason and Kathleen Road. I can't believe there is not a light there, a turnaround, or something. They added that new subdivision. That is a mess. There's always accidents there. I bet there's an accident two or three times a week. It's ridiculous. Nice to have sidewalks. They're actually putting sidewalks down First Street. That's all, but please deny this. It's just not good for us. It's not good for the community. There's plenty of other building around. Why do they have to build on a wet area? I mean, it is soaking wet. I've never even seen any cows on it because it's so wet. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mark Calamaris at 5944 Robbins Road in Lakeland. I'm just calling, excuse me, I'm just here to show support for my neighbors. Mr. Swanson put on an excellent presentation on paper. However, there's a reason why this project has been denied two times prior, and those reasons haven't changed. The flooding is, the potential for the flooding has only gotten worse, and I think the clear logic has been presented today that we just need to deny this project. Thank you so much. Thank you. Anyone else? I'd like to speak. Seeing no one, I'll bring this back to the board for discussion and a motion. I have a question for staff. What has changed with this project that the BOCC denied it twice? What's changed? Unit counts have changed. Unit sizes have changed. Setbacks have changed. Proposals for drainage have changed. School to get to the density that's requested has changed. We've had to take this. You notice my presentation doesn't have accounts of the old SPDs. This has to stand alone on evaluation. Multiple things have changed since then. So the density is different? The lots are different? Yes, sir. The account lot count is different? If you look under section, page eight of the staff report, I kind of give a history of different approvals and cases on this property from when it was changed from our agricultural residential rural 2022 to residential suburban, which precipitated those applications for the SPDs. And the first iteration was 242 lots. The second iteration was 147 lots, which was approved by the Planning Commission, but ultimately rejected by the board. But the tools changed. How we evaluate SPDs from then to now has changed, for God's sakes. We've gone to this locational criteria that's kind of being adopted now. As opposed to, I don't remember, Miss Agnini and Mr. Hickman might remember. We had a map up there, purple and red, and what was developed are, and Mr. Hickman certainly does. So a lot's changed since then. Well, we have three or four commissioners that are still sitting that this will go in front of who did not approve because of the water. Not so much your different changes, but because it's major flood. So that's basically what was my question. This is going in front of them again. Right. I understand. And I'll tell them the same thing. At this stage, this is a compatibility review, and those tools have been used to address the surrounding uses. As the applicant stated, and we've stated before, this is the first step into the whole development process. If they come in and it comes to county review and goes before our floodplain manager and county engineers, and these 150 lots are too much for what they need to accommodate the stormwater and the flood, they're going to reduce that. And Mr. Swanson might walk away still, but less than what he can develop with and make money off of it. This is a very preliminary stage in this. That's amazing. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. What is the soil classification? I mean, I know it varies, and there's different classifications. I'm just wondering. It looks like, I mean, I'm guessing it's pretty high water table soils. Yes, sir. And I would defer, too, to the applicant on it. But to address the comment about the staff report and the soils, we know the majority of that area that's upland is that Pomona fine sand, which isn't ideal for septic, which the availability of the six-inch wastewater line promotes some of this higher density development there. We know that the applicant will need these 100-year ponds to accommodate the poor percolation rates on this. And again, I would defer to our county engineer for more detail on that or the applicant's expert. I don't think this case automatically goes to the board. Commissioner Janamasso, you had mentioned that this will go to the board of county commissioners. Technically, that's not decided. This is a final decision by the planning commission unless appealed by somebody. So this will not automatically go to the board of county commissioners. Oh, so this will not go back to the VOCC. So this... Only if appealed. Okay. Were the other cases appealed? Yes, sir. Yeah, so... No vote? Okay. Okay. So if we don't approve it, then it will go before the county commission most likely, you know, if the applicant can choose to do that. And honestly, I imagine he would, given all the time and dollars he's spent to get it to this point. You know, normally I'm for development. I think we have a real need in this county for availability of housing, sites, and that in turn keeps the cost of housing down if that's possible these days. But, you know, I've built in that Kathleen area for 40 years and has issues out there. So I appreciate what everyone's saying. To that, I'd like to make a motion to disapprove LPD, LDPD 2026-6. Can I just add something? Second. Can I add something in before we take an official vote? Because even before the public testimony part of this, to me, the footprint of this looks nothing like the surrounding areas. And then considering everything with the drainage, you know, I just am giving reasoning as to why I'm going to vote why I am. Just one more comment. I understand the consistency and compatibility, and I actually have no problem with that. It's the citizen's testimony that has, you know, is going to make me vote the way that I am today. I looked at, because I have access to near map aerial photos, I saw this property about 80% and under water, and an October of 24 photograph, which kind of mimics what was presented here. I think it's irresponsible to put potential new homeowners that don't know that background information that are purchasing homes similar to other. I think it's the Willow Ridge, Kathleen, those homebuyers didn't have that knowledge when they purchased those homes. So I just, I think it's irresponsible to allow such development on such wetland and so close or through a floodway. Before we take a vote, I'll give the applicant an opportunity to respond. I'm not disputing that Hurricane Milton caused flooding. To this site, it was underwater. Homes were flooded off of Deeson. The county declared a state of emergency. So did the state. People died, including in Polk County. A significant portion of the property does flood. This is why the RRD framework was utilized. Development is concentrated on uplands, while more than 93 acres remain preserved as wetlands, floodplain, open space, and stormwater management. With 153 lots, and we've made reference to Willow Ridge, that tract is approximately 25 or 26 acres. This is six times the size. We have stormwater areas, or floodplain areas that we've carved out that are 18 acres. That's nearly the size of Willow Ridge itself. I would say, I want to answer a couple of other things. This is not the same project that was denied. The current RRD incorporates larger perimeter lots, enhanced buffers, increased setbacks, centralized utilities, again, over 93 acres of preservation. And I will point out, you know, I think the question before the commission is not whether flooding exists or whether people have concerns. We know they're real. I've incorporated community input into the design to best handle these issues. The question is whether this application satisfies the comprehensive plan, the land development code, and the purpose of the RRD framework. Staff concluded that it does. And that's really what we're here to vote on, whether it complies with the comprehensive plan and the land development code and the intent of the rural residential development framework. I'll just add to comment that I think you're correct. I mean, and I think that the staff has done a good job in making that analysis. However, we also have the responsibility to determine what is an appropriate location for that development. And given environmental factors, drainage factors, soil factors, floodplain factors, those all have to be taken into consideration in addition to consistency with the comprehensive plan and the land development code, because there's policies in the comprehensive plan that address appropriateness of development with regard to those issues. Which it was evaluated through this RRD scoring framework where I didn't, where we had to meet a minimum of a hundred points. We've, we've surpassed that. We've also had a determination from staff that we've exceeded and overcomplied with stormwater. Thank you. So I'll ask for the roll call. We have, we do have a motion on the floor to deny and a second to deny this request. I'll ask. Did we second it? Yeah, I don't know that we got that because there was. Did we? Okay. Someone seconded it though, right? I thought so. I second. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Roll call, please. Linda Schultz. I'm for the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Meryl Bishop. For the motion. Cindy Janamoso. For the motion. The motion to deny is approved. Thanks, Chase. You're saying. The dogs. The expert take me. Okay. I already said that. I see you. I need to come up. I need to ask Cindy. Mr. Chair, are we ready to do the next case or we take it? Yes, I'm sorry. Okay. All right. Next one, number 17 on the agenda. It's LDCU 202535, the cross-paw rescue conditional use. For the record, the staff report and slideshows and application materials have been entered into your agenda. Aliyah and Gleema is your planner. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I'll be abstaining from this vote. Okay. I will be as well and I will not be making any comments either. Okay. I'm not sure if we need you to vote or not. We may. I need to ask the attorney. Okay. Good morning. Aliyah and Gleema with Land Development presenting number 17 on the agenda, LDCU 2025-35, the cross-paws rescue conditional use. The applicant is requesting a conditional use approval to allow a kennels and boarding use on approximately 4.63 acres. The subject site is located at 3656 Cayville Avenue, south of Highway 92 West, west of the City of Auburndale in Section 18, Township 28, Range 25. On May 15th, 42 mailers were sent to area property owners. One sign was posted on May 12th. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland Winter Haven sign on May 20th with 14 emails in support. Staff is recommending denial. So the subject property is 4.63 acres and is about 157 feet in width and 1,282 feet in length. The subject property is located within a residential suburban land use district intended for residential uses of one dwelling unit per five acres. The purpose of the RS district is to provide areas for suburban residential development to promote the proper transition of land from rural to urban uses. The RS district permits single family dwelling units, family care homes, agriculture support uses, and community facilities. The only category that permits kennels, boarding, and breeding by right is agriculture rural residential, which is generally intended for larger parcels at least five acres to help mitigate potential impacts. They are not allowed in any other residential category. In contrast, kennels, boarding, and breeding within the residential suburban district require a see-through review and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis to address compatibility concerns. So a pet rescue operation has been established at this site. Based on site inspections and case records, multiple animals are being housed on the property in three 30 by 40 sheds associated with the rescue operation. The property owner is pursuing this case to bring the use into compliance. The presence of the rescue has resulted in observable increases of on-site activity, including regular animal-related noise, frequent visits associated with the operation according to code enforcement. The codes case was created March 17th of 2025. A code enforcement inspection of the property found older residential structure, two newer accessory structures, and a concrete slab behind them. Permit records confirmed active permits for the rear buildings and online searches identified cross-paws pet rescue advertising the property as a new facility. During a follow-up codes inspection on July 15th, 2025, staff observed multiple buildings with attached outdoor kennels at the rear of the property and heard barking coming from the inside of the buildings. So three residential accessory permits for detached metal garages were applied for. The site plan provided to buildings shows the existing house on site, forms were filled out saying the sheds will be used as a personal use. LDC section 209 does not limit the number accessory structures a property can have. The proximity of existing surrounding single-family homes and the narrowness of the parcel makes this project incompatible with the surrounding area. As you can see, the sheds are within 200 feet of three single-family homes. The county cannot regulate the number of dogs on site. Three sheds are currently on site used as a kennel, not meeting setbacks. The applicant is proposing three new metal buildings to the rear of the property, meeting setbacks. The staff cannot prove that this will reduce the impacts to surrounding residential properties. Relocating operations towards the rear of the parcel could still create impacts severe enough that neighboring owners can no longer reasonably use or enjoy their property as they previously could, given the narrow width of the subject property. The LDC requires all new structures shall be a minimum of 50 feet from any side or rear property boundary boundary boundary line. At a minimum, a visual buffer equal to a type C shall be provided between all new facilities adjacent to residential properties. The applicant has addressed this, but the current kennel buildings will remain and be used for storage. All kennel sites shall be a minimum of 40,000 square feet. Additionally, all dogs more than four months of age shall be kept in pens designed and maintained for secure confinement. All sanitary facilities shall be approved by the health department. Kennels shall minimize adverse noise and odor impacts detectable off-site. Such features shall be noted on the site plan. These are the minimum standards across all land use districts that allow kennels, but not necessarily prescripted to RS. So, compatible sites include the Polk County Bully Project, SPCA Florida, within a business park center to land use district. Kennels boarding and breeding is a C2 and BPC2. The Humane Society of Polk County is also within a BPC2 land use. As you can see, it is approximately 536 feet from the nearest residential structure. Here are pictures from Google Earth and staff's visit, and this is a view of the entrance of the site. And here are pictures on the property of the sheds that house the dogs. Here are pictures from the neighbor's side to the east. As you can see, there's an eight-foot fence. And here are additional photos from the neighbor's side to the west, and there's also a eight-foot fence. So, part of the review is to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. Given the shape of the property and the operation of the kennel relative to surrounding uses, staff finds this use incompatible and recommends denial. And I'll stand for any questions. I also do want to note that code enforcement is here if you guys have questions for them as well. Thank you. I've got a question. I'm sorry. Yes. Were there a lot of complaints about this prior to this meeting? Is that why we're here today? Yes, there is a code enforcement case for this. Yes. Just a full disclosure on this. Sarah Case called me last week on it, and I guess she was fleshing out what she was going to say today. But just for staff, let's see. So, the new location of these buildings, what are the distance from existing residential properties once they're relocated? And if you, Sarah, if you're going to cover all this. I don't have the distance in my slideshow, but it seems that Sarah does. I'll wait until Sarah does her thing. Any other questions of staff? Say none. Is the applicant present? Thank you. Good afternoon. For the record, Sarah Case. I'm with Next Level Planning and Permitting. My address is 3825 South Florida Avenue, and that is in Lakeland. I have been sworn in. We are here today. I'm going to give you all kinds of backstory information to give you the story of why we're here today. Okay. So, my clients purchased this property in December of 2024 under the name of Cross Paws Pet Rescue, Inc. They are a C3 non, 50C13 non-profit organization. So, when they purchased the property, and I don't know if you can see that without it blurring, but here are the three building permits that were issued for each of the sheds that are currently on site, and that took place in January of 2025. So, they bought the property in December. In January, they applied for permits, for three permits under Cross Paws Pet Rescue, Inc., because that is the owner of the property. Then, there was a little bit of gap in time, but in May of the same year, 2025, they pulled electric permits for all three of those sheds. So, the sheds that are on site, in place, were legally permitted, and they have electricity. They are actually air-conditioned for the comfort of the dogs that are owned by the owner of Cross Paws Pet Rescue, who is Stephanie Badillo, and you will hear from her. So, not to be redundant, because I know staff showed you some of this information as well. So, here is our property, Kayville. Our site is in the turquoise, whatever color, and we back up to CE, Commercial Enclave. And right, this is vacant, and you can tell from an aerial. I'll show you later. But, here is Texas Pipe and Supply Company, an active commercial organization. As staff also indicated, we are RS, and kennels and boarding and breeding is the category, and it is allowed with planning commission approval. So, there was a code complaint file, or I guess, a call from our neighbors in March of 2025, saying that there was noise, odor, lots of barking. There were no dogs on site until after July 4th weekend, because, and I'll go back, in May, we didn't even have the electrical permits with AC for the dogs. They were not on site in March. The C3, and why we're here, obviously, is the code enforcement violation. We were cited in July, and my clients felt like, we're a rescue. We are not a kennel. And I'm going to show you why we are so different than a kennel. However, the code enforcement violation citation was, we were operating the kennel without a C3 permit. So, we filed the C3 permit, and that's why we're here today. So, as staff indicated, and this is also in your staff report, these are, this is in Chapter 3, alphabetical order in the Land Development Code under kennels, boarding, and breeding. So, here is the four criteria that are required for kennels, regardless of land use. This applies to the actual use of kennels. All new structures shall be a minimum of 50 feet from any side or rear property boundary line. We did not build a 50-foot setback for that compatibility buffer because those permits were pulled in January before we were cited. We have decided we are going to leave those sheds where they are now and use them as storage. My client pays for two storage facilities off-site, and she's going to save over $500 a month by using storage on-site. It's too expensive to have to move them and relocate them to the rear of the property. And so, we're proposing new structures at, it would really be the north of the property, but it's the rear of the property, and it would abut that CE land use. Secondly, at a minimum, a visual buffer equal to Type C shall be provided between all new facilities and adjacent residential properties and public roads. On our site plan, that's shown as Exhibit B, I'm sorry, Exhibit 5 in your staff report, you will see that we've put a Type C buffer. All kennel sites shall be at a minimum 40,000 square feet or almost an acre. We are 4.63 acres, so I want that to be noted for sure. All dogs more than four months of age shall be kept in pens designed and maintained for secure confinement. Done. All sanitary facilities shall be approved by the health department. Because we're not open to the public, these are personal dogs owned by Stephanie Padillo, of cross-paws. We are not required to get health department approval. There is a note on the site plan that I want to go over later at the end of my presentation and after we've heard all other testimony that discusses the actual conditions that we are proposing that are applicant initiated. They were not included in your staff report under where the denial was mentioned, but they are on that sheet and I'll reference that. I have a slide later for that. Kennels shall minimize adverse noise or odor impacts, detectable off-site. Such features shall be noted on the site plan. We have duly noted on the site plan. We have, as you saw from some pictures, an eight-foot opaque fence. We've actually triple fenced and I'll show you some pictures to that effect. So, exhibit five, page 17. You will see on that site plan, I had to break it up because of the size of the slide and we had a match line right here. So, here currently are the sheds that were legally constructed. We're now going to use them for storage. The red indicates the 50-foot buffer from all property lines. Again, these are 30 by 40 and we are proposing to put them. This is the north property line. Ethel Avenue is here and you've got Texas pipe supply here. We're showing a type C buffer and we are able to fit the three and we are, I have another slide, but we are approximately between this point, can you see my cursor, between this point here and this point here, is 599 feet. So, I would have to add that to the measurements that are shown on the staff report, but from this north building line to here, and again we're matching lines, is 599 feet, is what we're proposing farther away from the neighbors. So, distance to adjacent to residential homes would be how far to the closest building? So, if I could, I'll actually tell you that. So, let's just say it's 600 feet, it's 599. So, we're just going to add 600 feet to each of staff's, oh I'm sorry, okay. So, property to the east, the closest shed is 187 feet. At 600 of that, we're going to be 787 feet from the single-family home that is on our east. The single-family home that is also on that site, staff is showing 178 feet, adding the say 600 just for fun, it's going to be 778 feet. The single-family home that is adjacent to our west side, staff is showing at 184 feet. We are proposing what will be 784 feet. Here are some pictures that, so we, this was a difficult case because, number one, I had to convince my clients, yes, you've been cited as a kennel, we're crossing that bridge, we're saying we're a kennel, and we're moving forward. This is how we're going to get into compliance with the county. It was very hard for them because we are so unlike a kennel, because we are not open to the public. We are so unlike, and I'll get that, I'll get to that later into my presentation, but we are not like SBCA. We are not like Humane Society. We are not like, you know, Bully Project. We are, this is private property owned by Cross Paws, and you'll hear later, but, and the owner will be living there on site once the single-family home is refurbished. So, so during DRC, staff was a little stumped because they're like, why, why are you here? Because you're not a kennel. They had an issues meeting. We came back, and they said, well, we're going to deny it, and we said, okay, why don't you meet us on site? So we had code enforcement come on site. We had staff, several in this room were with us, and these are the pictures from the public records requests that I received from codes enforcement from their case file. So as you see the date, 2-18-2026. So we were all on site, and I want to say maybe a total of 12 max. There had never been that many people on this site before. So we walked around, and here are the existing sheds. You can see the fence investment that they have made for the property. There's the utility, and then this is going to be facing the west side is where that fence is. Again, all units are air conditioned. And this is where they go out to take a break, and then what CrossPaws does is they collect the solid waste, and they take it to the dump to dispose of. And that's why I was addressing that part about the health department. And as part of the record, we did submit Polk County solid waste facility receipts from her taking that solid waste to the dump. Code enforcement staff indicated that when they were on site that every pin was labeled with each dog's name, their vaccination, and all of that. And this was included in their slides for code enforcement. So this is a little rough, but we're getting there. So here's where I said 600 feet. So this is going to be, so the site itself is 1,282.47 feet. So that's the length of the property. The width of the property is 147, not 157, excuse me. So right now, with the single family home and the sheds, this red line here is where the sheds stopped, existing. So it would be this line here. So this is 431 feet from this red line to this red line. Again, we have 1,282 feet. This is approximately 600 feet. And with the 50-foot compatibility, the setbacks in between the buildings that we're showing on the binding site plan, it's approximately 250 feet. So single family residents, single family residents, and then we're proposing these buildings back here. It's a terrible slide, but I actually cut and pasted it from the staff report, but it just shows on an aerial view of what I just showed you. Here's existing. They are outside of the compatibility buffer. We're now proposing to use them for on-site storage. Here are the proposed buildings that are just like these. So this is existing. This is proposed. Here you have single family, single family, single family residents. This was an actual copy of the survey, which shows you the actual dimension of the 1282.47. This being north, it's just another slide. So at this point, I'd like to pause, answer any questions that you might have, and then, I guess, proceed as you wish. Any questions of the health company? So I guess the first thing is, and this is directed to staff, because we tend to see this, not all the time, but irregular enough that, you know, staff or the building department approves a plan, and people go out in good faith and build what they intend to build, and then all of a sudden somebody complains about it, and, you know, staff kind of says, oh, well, and you've got to go through this whole process. So, I mean, if they came in and apply for three buildings under the name of Cross Paws Pet Rescue, wouldn't somebody ask and say, you know, what is the purpose of these three buildings? I mean, you know, and again, that would have probably solved a lot of these issues right out of the gate. They either would have been disapproved, or they would have been before the commission and got this right the first time. So that's just a comment. To staff, you said that they had no limit on the dogs, but we could, as a commission, limit the number of dogs allowed on the property. Is that correct? Okay. Distance, you know, 700 feet. You mentioned that SBCA is 600 feet away from the nearest residential, so it certainly seems like they have the ability to have distance from existing residences. And then if, so if you get this designation, Sarah, would you be required to then be regulated by the health department? No. No, we would not. So, when does the health department come into play, then? So, it's the type of facility. This is personal property, residential property that we're asking for a C3 for the kennel. This is private property, and all of the dogs on site are registered to Stephanie Badilla. All of them. They're personal. They are her dogs. Some of them she rescued 10 years ago. I mean, you're kind of mincing that. You got an LLC that owns the property and is submitted for permitting. I'm not sure where an individual comes into play on this. Well, we will actually address that in some future lives and comment. Merle, may I, am I going to vote on this? There's five, right? No, we have a quorum. Okay. We have a quorum even with two recusals. I want to make a comment just from what Mike said, and this is, if I'm a staff member, I don't want to have to disertain from somebody's LLC name on what they're doing. Now, that, I think we're putting a lot on staff to, to make that. And if you look under the findings of fact, this was supposed to be three residential accessory permits for metal garages with no concrete or with concrete and no electric. Now, we've pushed the limits here. That's, that's all I need to say. Good point. I thought I heard staff say earlier when you presented this case that the permits, when the permits were issued or applied for, it, it stated they were for personal use and didn't elaborate any beyond that. But there was a residence on the property at the time? Yes. And it wasn't used, but they wouldn't know that, right? I do want to go on record and say, we are trying to come into compliance with all of these. My point with when we built them was that it was unknown that we were in violation because we did not consider ourselves a kennel per land development code. We are not asking you all, hey, we're fighting. We want to take these buildings that are there now and give us a waiver on this 50 foot setback from every property line. We're not saying that. We also don't want to move them because of the cost of that. We are proposing as a mitigation factor to build new buildings farther away. And it's more than just 700, 787, 789 and, and all of that. So, so, so another question for staff, if I've got five acres and I want to keep 80 personal pets on my acreage, is there a limit to that? So, so, so the, the real factor is what the noise? That was the allegation. Yeah. And, and what's our decibel, um, limit to a noise off of a property? I mean, we pass water pumps that, you know, crank out a pretty good decibel level. Uh, I mean, what, what exactly are they saying is the problem here? I mean, operational, the non-residential use between two residential properties to sum it up. I mean, no, there might not be a restriction on personal pets, but we're also not offering up our personal pets for adoption all the time. People come in and go and it's the activity on the site. That's really in the question here and how that conforms the land development code. Well, is that the case? No, it is not the case. Nope. The, the site is closed to the public. This is personal property. The site is closed to the public. They do not have any adoptions on site. People don't, there are board members, volunteers, they've never even been on site. And that is one of the conditions that we are proposing to lock it in specific to this site is that it is closed to the public. That's how we are different than SPCA and animal control in the humane society. You said there's no volunteers on site. I don't know what I, I'm sorry. What I said was there are volunteers and supporters that have never been on site. This is not a public gathering space. This will be Stephanie's home. Well, there must be a limit because you've just got so much space. I mean, so if she's rescuing dogs, how do you rescue dogs and add to this? If you're not, I guess, having any way for the dogs that you've got to place them somewhere else? Because you're, I mean, there has to be a limit, a capacity I would imagine. So, um, you're going to have an opportunity to hear from Stephanie and she will answer some of that as well as one of the board members, um, to address that specifically. Um, so I'll ask staff, go ahead. So you are limited. You've got three buildings, so you can only house so many dogs. Is that correct? Each building, um, can house 27 dogs. Actually staff had a better slide from our site visits in February that just showed how they're divided up. There were also some pictures in the code enforcement, um, records. So how many dogs are there currently? Well, there are approximately 66 dogs. So 27 times three, so three buildings, 81. And Stephanie just went last week to Maine where she works with another rescue and she transported 15 dogs to Maine. And this is a no kill. This is rescue dog. This is to assist the county in not killing. Mm-hmm. This is no kill. So let me ask staff, what is, I mean, how does this jibe with a kennel? Is there a definition in the code of a kennel? She has. Yes. In chapter 10. Yes, sir. Correct. It's, it's under, uh, breeding and boarding. And there are a couple of different levels there, as I recall. And there's some nuance in the language here that is what Sarah's point is about it being an adoption rescue clinic versus what you would consider like a breeding kennel or where you'd had to take your dog to the SPCA for while you go on vacation. So does this, but it's still a housing. That's the issue. We don't have a definition that exactly lines up. This is kind of a gray area maybe? It's a little green. Is it? You're saying it's a kennel. She's, she's arguing it doesn't meet the, the letter of the. I crossed that bridge and came directly to you for a C3. Okay. My clients were saying, well, we're not a kennel, not a kennel, not a kennel. I said, we're, I'm not taking this case unless we say that we're a kennel. And then we can, because it is a conditional use, a C3 use allowable in RS, you all can place conditions on this site that make it site specific as mentioned in the code that is allowable through the C3. You all can make those decisions. I suggested some language for conditions and we can get to that once the public. Okay. So let me go back to my previous question. What was the basis for code enforcement, uh, citing you all? Neighbor complaint. Neighbor complaint. Of noise and odor. And so what basis that you were in a non, that you were non-conforming or that you, or the dogs were noisy or what? In March, we didn't have the dogs on site. So. And I am under oath. We did not have the dogs on site in March. Okay. So they cited you. What did they cite you for? A kennel. Operating a kennel. Well, and we have code enforcement. I just want to point out officers here. Code enforcement is here. The question for the county. Okay. All right. Thank you. So I'm not, I am not saying we are not a kennel. I'm asking you to put conditions on us that make you all feel better about us being the category of a kennel. Okay. Any further questions? Just one, Sarah. So the, I think I'm on the right website. The cross pause. Okay. You're telling us that these are your clients' personal dogs. And what do they do with them? Are they, they look for homes throughout the United States or I'm kind of reading up on their website a little bit. I am going to allow Stephanie to discuss that when she speaks. Okay. Um, no new rescues have come on this site. Every dog that is there now is registered to Stephanie. They are hers. She's had them for 10 years, nine, six. And we told staff that on the staff visit. So, so people don't go there to adopt a dog. No one is allowed on dog. Oh, okay. Except Stephanie, her sister who feeds the dogs, Stephanie's husband. And then when we have a meeting with staff, when we invited them out to look at the conditions of the property, it is not, it will never be open to the public. Okay. So as part of the applicant's presentation, unless you have more, I'll let, I guess you want Stephanie to come up. And then after she comes up, I'm going to ask code enforcement to come up and clarify, hopefully maybe clarify some issues. So if, if it will please, and if I could please ask for permission, um, I would like a couple other people to speak before Stephanie, because they, I have not been involved as much as they have from the beginning of this foundation, they can talk to you about that answer questions about the land, do that kind of thing. And they are part of, they have written statements. They're prepared to present. Um, and how long is there, is there presentation going to be three minutes each? All right. Okay. I'll allow it as part of the applicant's presentation. Oh, no, no. I meant during the public hearing. Oh, during the public. Okay. So, so you're through with your applicants through with their presentation. Almost there. Almost for now. Yes. But I would, I would ask, uh, for the opportunity to come and address any concerns that you all have. So if you want them to come up before Stephanie, cause I'll open it up for the public hearing for people in support. So I'll ask for code enforcement. So I, I would actually like to ask because this is a code enforcement violation and it was called in by a neighbor. Could we have those in opposition speak so that we know what concerns there's are, they have, and to answer, you know, some of your questions? Well, they'll have a chance to speak. Yes. Okay. So, and then you'll have a chance to rebut anything or answer any questions that come up from that. So, all right, we can, we'll do it that way then. Who from code enforcement is going to come up and discuss this with us? Good morning. My name is Tanya Long. I'm code enforcement supervisor with Polk County code enforcement. And my name is David Lambert, code enforcement investigator. And we were both here earlier when y'all swore in at nine o'clock. Okay. What would you like to? Well, I guess the main. This is the first time I think code's been here. So yeah. I guess the main question was what was the nature of, or what, what was the complaint that was called in and what did you, what are your findings and what is the basis for the violation? But I guess, first of all, what, what caused or precipitated the complaint and the violation? The initial complaint, I believe we got was in March, but it was more because there was, I believe either had been hosted or were planning to host some type of a fundraising event on that site. Um, so they were concerned about the traffic in back in March. Um, it then took us a couple of months of doing research with their website, speaking with the owners when we went out to talk to them to determine what was happening, what was not happening. Um, during that investigation, we learned that this location is used just to house the dogs. Um, it appears she has another site inside the city limits of Auburndale where most of the daily operations of come meet a dog, adopt a dog that's done from a different location. Um, it's not that I get to come here and just like you said, do the SPCA walk through kennels and pick out the dog I want. Um, I guess she arranges that to be happening in another location, not at this site. So this is just the fact that she does take in dogs in whichever way she, she obtains dogs, um, and houses them there until she can adopt them out through her rescue. Cool. Um, so when we went there, that is basically, this is just the location that she is housing multiple dogs. Um, during our research, we found that last year, um, and I confirmed this morning, October 21st of last year, she posted on Facebook, her number 400th dog intake for the year on October 21st of 2025. She'd already taken in 400 dogs. Um, this year on her Facebook website, three days ago, she had, she announced that she adopted out her 159th dog for this year. So that many dogs are coming in and out of this location and being housed and fed, um, and maintained here until that transaction happens with that. That's why we determined it was more on the kennel side because she's housing them until that portion happens of finding new homes. But you don't know how many dogs were there at one time. I mean, obviously there wasn't 400 dogs there at one time. I believe, um, David was there on the February 18th visit, February 18th visit about how many dogs were there at that time. All right. So what, what we heard, uh, Sarah case say that, and I don't have my dates. I don't remember the dates, but at the time there was a violation, uh, registered and, uh, or a complaint made and you went out there, there were no dogs on site. And she says that she has evidence or can present evidence that there were no dogs on site. That's correct. On March, when I went out there, there was nobody or no, but no dogs on site or anybody living on site that I'm aware of. Um, they weren't cited with a violation until July. And that was after I received a complaint in May that dogs had been moved onto the property and that there was an RV on site and someone was living in the RV. At that point I posted, I, I went physically to her other property in Auburndale with a courtesy letter, just advising her of what the problem could be. And also took a courtesy letter and taped it to the door of the RV, letting her know what potential violations there could be. And at that point I hadn't cited her. She then called me. We met at the Auburndale diner. We had a conversation out on the sidewalk and I advised her that in order to have a kennel inside the County, she needed to have a land development review. She needed to contact land development. Um, several other times I received phone calls from her partners or whatever. I advised them the same thing that they needed to contact land development. And then eventually when we saw that there were dogs on site and we were getting complaints about odor and barking, then that's when I cited it for having a kennel when, without a review, the, the real, the real violation was doing this without having the land development review. So the specific violation then was for operating a kennel without the proper land use approval. Yes, sir. Okay. And, uh, the facilities were there in March when you went there. She just hadn't moved dogs into it at that time. March 18th. I believe if I'm not mistaken, there were two of the buildings were done and there was concrete slab. The third one wasn't, wasn't done yet. Okay. They did move out of the RV. They did comply with that when I told them they couldn't live in the RV. So they have been, you know, compatible with that. All right. All right. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to open the, um, public comment portion of this agenda item and ask for those who want to speak in favor of this application to come forward, please. Good old glasses. Uh, good afternoon. And thank you for your time. My name is Peter Galacco. My address is 4524 Nunswood lane, Lakeland, Florida. I'm here today to support Crosspaw's rescue. I am both a donor and a proud sponsor and supporter of the organization. I'd like to take a few minutes to explain why this property and the conditional use permit is so important. The board of Crosspaw selected the property very carefully and for several important reasons. The property provides ample space for the dogs to exercise and enjoy a safe environment. It is pretty much secluded, which is beneficial for both the animals and the surrounding community. Most importantly, it offers the opportunity for Stephanie to live on site and care for the dogs that depend on her every day. I want to be clear about the dogs that are on site. Every dog on site is owned by Stephanie personally. She does not bring dogs on site that are not owned by her. All those dogs stay at the other, the other place. So these are not shelter dogs being brought in and out on a continual basis. These are dogs that Stephanie has personally adopted and registered to her own name. These are the dogs that were unable for whatever reason to be adopted. They're all her dogs there. Rather than seem abandoned and euthanized, Stephanie gave them a home and made a lifelong commitment. Stephanie has already begun to rehabilitate the house that's on the property, but the board asked her to stop. There's no reason to put more money in the property if we can't continue with our mission. As a non-profit organization, CrossPaws must be careful and be a steward of their money. It would not be prudent to continue to invest funds and improvements before knowing whether the property can be used for its purpose. I'd also like to address the ownership of the property. The property was purchased with financing provided by a private foundation that supports charitable causes. To comply with this requirement associated with the funding, the property is currently owned by CrossPaws Pet Rescue, a recognized 501c3 organization. At its core, this request is about providing a safe and appropriate place for these animals to live while allowing CrossPaws to continue supporting animal rescue efforts throughout the community. This property is uniquely suited for that purpose. I respectfully ask that you support this conditional use permit and thank you for your time and consideration. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer. Any questions? Yeah, I do have questions. Um, so, uh, how many of these, what's the turnover of your dogs, of Stephanie's dogs? So there are no turnovers, Stephanie's dogs. Well, I take that back. She did take 15 up to another rescue, but those that are there on the property are registered to her. They're her dogs. Um, she's not taking them to the other site for adoption? No, no, no, not, not according to what I know about it. Those are all registered to her. Those are the dogs that were not able to be adopted for a lot of different reasons. She takes in dogs that are, that are hurt, that are sick, that are abandoned, that people just don't want. And if there's dogs that people don't want, there may never be a home for them. And that's what she does. She steps in and takes these dogs that nobody wants. I assume there's a vet that, that she works with. Absolutely. And there, and there's a letter from that. The vet wasn't able to be here. He had surgery, but we have a letter that's going to be read from the vet. So let me ask, I mean, you said this property was purchased by a nonprofit for this reason, but why this property? I mean, there had to been other choices that may have been more conducive to this. I don't know. I'm just wondering why this property, just because it was for sale or? Well, first of all, they looked at a few other properties. Okay. This one was large enough and long enough for the dogs to have access to and run on. Also, we're a not-for-profit. It fit into our budget also. So, you know, having the foundation that sponsored this saw the need that she had all these dogs that she was keeping and there's nowhere to put them. And as she gets dogs that are not able to be adopted, where do they go? So this foundation was kind enough to step up and say, we want to solve this problem for you. We want to be able to house these dogs safely in a great environment and allow them to live out the rest of their lives. And because of the 501c3 rules, it had to stay within the not-for-profit. So that's the reason why it's in that. I got another question. I'm not sure you're the person to ask this, but the code enforcement mentioned that on the website, he referenced, what was it, over 400 dogs? Those are adopted out of the Auburndale location. Those dogs do not come out of the property and leave. Okay. So what is the relationship with the Auburndale location and this location? This location is, the location was purchased for Stephanie to live on the property and take care of the dogs. Because, you know, having 40 or 50 dogs, it's very difficult to have a house that houses all of them. So there's issues along the way. This gave the ability for her to be there for them all the time. And we're going to come across a few dogs every year that will not be adopted. And we still need a place to put them. So this would be a facility then that would take absolutely the bottom of the barrel as far as dogs are concerned, that no one's going to adopt. And your only other choice, you send them to the county services, they're going to put them to sleep. And that's not, you know, in my opinion, that costs a lot of money to our county. This is funded by individuals in the community. And this will help with the expenses of euthanizing dogs. And also, it allows her to live with her dogs, you know, consistently. They'll be there till they pass on. They'll be there till they pass on. And you're going to, and you'll, you're limited into a number of dogs. Absolutely. And again, Mr. Chairman, if I may, we need to focus here. All right, we're trying to determine whether or not this is, we need to approve this today. This is all circumstantial evidence like your county attorney spoke of at the beginning of this meeting. We need to redirect here. I'm not sure if it's circumstantial evidence because this is really what the property. It is when we're talking about dogs. We're trying to determine, we got to get a hold of this. We're going to determine whether this is the proper location for this type of, and if it fits underneath the code. But I think this is important because we have the ability to put restrictions on this should be granted. And unless we know the scope of what they want to do, I don't know how we put restrictions on it. Right. And each of them have three minutes. So we need to adhere to that. Well, we, that's correct, but we kind of got off track by asking the questions, which extended to three minutes. So thank you, sir, unless you have something else to say. No, I don't, but I appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Okay. Next, please. Hello. Thank you for hearing me out. My name is Cheryl Sylvia. I live at 209 Rose Street in Auburndale. I have been sworn in. I'm sworn in at nine o'clock. I'm speaking today on behalf of Cross Paws Pet Rescue. I'm here to read a letter from the vet's office. I've assisted Stephanie. I'm her sister. I help with feeding the dogs and taking the dogs outside. I do not help with the dogs that she adopts out because they don't come to the facility. I am at the facility every day caring for dogs. This is the letter from Hardy Animal Clinic. They are at 1927 Highway 17 North in Wachula. Hardy Animal Clinic, it says to whom it may concern, Hardy Animal Clinic, PMA, began working with Stephanie Baddiel in 2019 to provide a low-cost spay and neuter service for her animal rescue. Cross Paws in Polk County, Florida. Stephanie has been a great asset to Polk County residents by rescuing homeless, abandoned, and starving animals. She willingly goes wherever needed at any time to trap and rescue animals in need. At times, her personal home is full of puppies and adult dogs requiring care and treatment and placement. Stephanie nurses these animals back to health and works to adopt them out through events held throughout the year. She has also established a system for placing the adoptable animals out of state, including in Maine. Hardy Animal Clinic, PMA, has given Stephanie our full support in her animal welfare efforts. Our service to her is based on the belief that every dollar saved creates another opportunity to use that saved dollar to treat and rescue other animals. This allows more animals to be rescued and cared for at a reasonable cost. Stephanie works tirelessly and sometimes to the point of exhaustion to save abandoned animals. Her rescue has grown over the years and has received a great amount of support through donations. Her facilities are kept clean and provide an ideal environment for animals and in her care. If any dog has a medical problem, Stephanie calls immediately for instruction on how to proceed. I have never seen Stephanie abuse any of her animals. She does not allow animal abuse on her private property and takes the welfare of her animals very seriously. We are now in our seventh year working with Stephanie and we hope to continue working with her for many years to come. Please understand that Stephanie's rescue is the real deal. This is her calling and her gift. Respectfully, William H. Lovett and it has his license number of Hardy Animal Clinic. I've worked at this facility since she opened it or I'm sorry since she purchased it and I have never one seen a dog born on that property. Not one time and I have never had a dog adopted off of that property. That's all. Okay, thank you. I am Marianne Mottola and I live at 2265 Palm View Circle in Auburndale and I have been sworn in and I thank you for your time. Today I'm speaking on behalf and in support of Cross Paws Pet Rescue. Ten years ago, I started following a rescue called Marley's Mutts in California and wished that there had been a local place where I could get involved. After meeting Stephanie at a local dog adoption event, my wish was answered. Since that day in 2017, I have done my best to support her by giving her my time and my talents when needed. I have never met a person like Stephanie in my life. Her compassion and dedication are unlike anything I've ever witnessed. She works non-stop for the love of her dogs. She traps dogs, nurses them back to health, bottle feeds litter of puppies that are dumped in a field, and takes injured dogs that may require thousands of dollars in vet care. She even hired a drone pilot recently to locate a lost dog one night and return it to its owner. Together, we have rescued and placed thousands of dogs that otherwise would have died or had a life in the wild. Very seldomly do we take any surrender, owner surrender dogs. Over the years, we have spoken to many groups, including Auburndale Rotary and local community events, educating public about the problems with unwanted dogs. We hold annual fundraisers with local communities like Shalimar Creek and the Hamptons, along with many local businesses and restaurants that have sponsored Cross Paws. Over the years, my work has included working at and setting up events, reviewing adoption applications, arranging meet and greets, driving dogs to and from vet appointments, and hunting lost dogs. In 2019, I was asked to serve on the board of Cross Paws and have been a board member ever since. Stephanie and I and many other volunteers do not receive any salary or any form of compensation. As you know, Poe County Animal Control has one of the highest kill rates in the state. We have a huge problem with stray and abandoned dogs. Cross Paws has placed over 600 dogs in loving homes in just one year. In 2019, my husband, Frank Mottola, and I opened a thrift store on Main Street in Auburndale with the mission of donating all proceeds to Cross Paws. In 2025, we transitioned this location to host our adoption meet and greets and to conduct office work. This location is now called the Adoption Depot. Cross Paws has a facility on K-Ville Road and does not conduct any business or allow the public inside to see the dogs. This way, the property on K-Ville could be dedicated to getting dogs healthy enough while housing them in safe and in a comfortable place. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Hi. Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Kay Bork. I'm at 1133 Brook Road in Fort Meade. I'm here today in support of Cross Paws Rescue and the request for the conditional use permit. I've been a supporter and a donor for Stephanie for a number of years also. But as a Polk County resident who's been advocating for improvements in animal welfare at the Board of County Commissioners meetings over the last year, I'm aware of Cross Paws' mission to rescue all those pets who are abandoned, mistreated, and in need of medical help. The impact of this rescue's work is great, and it's immensely important for these animals who cannot help themselves. Additionally, this work is an integral part of the effort to reduce the intake at Polk County Animal Control, which will, in fact, reduce the euthanasia rate. When I saw that Cross Paws has requested the conditional use permit, I thought, how perfect. I was excited as I see it as a win-win. It's a win for the animals in Cross Paws, and it's a win for the residents of Polk County as we continue the work to improve animal welfare in this county. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Erin Galako. My address is 2710 Derbyshire Avenue in Lakeland. I'm a donor, vice president of the Board of Directors, but most importantly, an adopter of the rescue. With Cross Paws Pet Rescue, our mission is to save the forgotten, abandoned, abused, and neglected dogs that others give up on. We are committed to rescuing dogs from the streets, woods, shelters, cruelty situations, and life-threatening conditions, no matter the time, weather, or circumstance. Every dog we save is given a second chance through medical care, rehabilitation, nourishment, safety, and love. We believe every dog deserves dignity, compassion, and a family willing to fight for them. We are not government-funded and receive no grants. Our rescue is powered by sacrifice, community support, and an unwavering commitment to the animals who have no voice. From emergency trapping and critical care to transport and adoption, we stand beside these dogs every step of the way until they find the loving homes they deserve. Our mission is more than rescue. It is restoration, hope, and giving back to the dogs nobody else could save. In January of 2021, Stephanie found Tank, a German Shepherd puppy, on the side of the road with two broken legs. He was in terrible condition, but through her dedication and care, Tank made a full recovery. I adopted Tank on March 28, 2021, and that is when I first met Stephanie. Since then, I have witnessed firsthand her commitment to helping animals that others may overlook. Our paths crossed again after Hurricane Milton, when she rescued Milton, a German Shepherd mixed puppy found on Highway 27. As with so many other animals she has saved, Stephanie stepped in when no one else could. Tank and Milton both found loving homes with me, but not every dog that comes to the rescue is easily adoptable. For those dogs, Stephanie does not give up on them. She provides them with safety, care, and a chance at a better life. When necessary, she makes them a permanent part of her family rather than abandoning them or allowing them to be euthanized. Again, the purpose of this property was to give Stephanie a place to live with the dogs who become permanent members of her family. The property provides a space necessary for these animals to live safely and humanely while allowing Stephanie to continue providing them with the care they require. Without this property, many of these dogs would have very limited options, and some may not have survived in the first place. It is important to understand that this is not simply a rescue operation located on a piece of land. This will be Stephanie's home, and it is the permanent home of animals that she has rescued, rehabilitated, and committed to caring for when no anyone else would. Thank you so much. Thank you. Good day. My name is Saina Woolwine. I live at 261 Greenfield Road in Winterhaven. Could you pull that mic down just a hair? Thank you. I'm vertically challenged. In 2018, I was following viral videos of Gypsy, a standard-sized beagle that had been roaming all around Polk County, Haines City, Winterhaven, and finally in Auburndale. I saw a video of Stephanie at the Auburndale Police Department parking lot on a cold November night. No shoes, just muddy white socks crawling in the mud to save Gypsy. So many people were following Gypsy that her rescue made it onto Bay News 9. I knew I had to help this rescue. Instead of saying, I wish I could, but, I donated a trunk load of dog food and started fostering. I believe so strongly in the work at Cross Paws Pet Rescue that I have fostered over 30 dogs in the past seven years. This rescue has over 59,000 followers on Facebook alone. It is supported by the community, its followers, and fosters. Over the years, the community has raised thousands of dollars to get dogs food, medical help, spayed and neutered, microchipped, and on preventative medication. The rescue has probably rescued about 2,000 dogs or animals. A generous supporter donated the funds for the current property. Followers donated thousands of dollars to provide the secure building, so much fencing, and supplies for the dogs' comfortable housing. During the layout planning, Stephanie took into consideration the privacy, security, and safety of the rescue's dogs and neighbors. Now the rescue and the community need your support by approving this conditional use so they can continue to provide solutions to a challenging time in our community. I hope the final outcome will be your approval so this rescue and its followers can continue to save lives by providing a temporary solution on one dog at a time. Please don't be the one that says, I wish I could, but be the one that says approved and help save more lives. I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you. I'm very nervous. You did good. My name is Stephanie Medillo, and I'm the founder of Crosspaws Pet Rescue. I live at 106 Margaret Street in Arbindale, and I have been sworn in. I wanted to provide some of the backstory of the rescue. In 2017, my daughter called me about two small dogs that had been thrown from a truck near my home in Lake Alfred, Arbindale area. I went out, and I spent 11 days trapping them. After getting them healthy, I contacted a rescue, hoping that they could take the dogs in. But when I arrived and saw the conditions of that rescue, I made a decision that changed my life forever. I'm going to read this for her because she's having such issues. And I'm just going to say real quick, if you don't mind, but she will have it together to answer all your questions. So it's just very, she's very passionate about this. So she changed her life forever. I would start my own rescue. At first, I only planned to help a few dogs. I began trapping stray and abandoned dogs, rehabbing them, providing veterinary care, getting them spayed and neutered, microchipped, vaccinated, and then finding them loving homes. Everything started out of my home. But before long, it became overwhelming. As more people reached out for help, I rented a building to continue rescuing dogs on a larger scale. Over time, social media helped spread awareness about what we were doing. I created a website and a Facebook page, and our rescue community grew rapidly. Today, we have over 60,000 followers from around the world. People contact me from everywhere, Canada, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, and beyond, asking for help with abandoned, abused, and neglected dogs. While I cannot travel everywhere, I do everything possible to help the dogs in need here in Florida and the surrounding areas. One rescuer I'll never forget was a frozen mother dog, or I'm sorry, one rescue I'll never forget was a frozen mother dog with seven puppies in Georgia. We were told that she had died, but when we arrived, I noticed her eyes were still moving. We saved her, rehabilitated her, and today she has an amazing home, along with every one of her puppies. I have transported over 500 dogs from Polk County, Florida, to rescue partners in Lewiston, Maine, giving countless dogs a second chance at life. I also help families who cannot afford veterinary care by paying to have their dogs vaccinated, vetted, spayed, and neutered whenever possible. We are not government funded. We do not receive grants. Everything we do is supported either out of my own pocket or through the generosity of our community. This includes appealing to the Facebook community, requesting donations directly to the veterinarian we exclusively use in Hardy County. Local agencies regularly call on me for help, including the Polk County Sheriff's Office, Winter Haven Police Department, Lake Alfred Police Department, Davenport Police Department, Polk County Animal Control, and even as far as Hardy County. I've trapped dogs that other counties or other people couldn't catch. From starving dogs deep in the woods to frightened strays running rural areas for the weeks. A few months ago, I helped trap a Great Dane that authorities had been able to catch in Fort Meade. Animal control and deputies were unable to secure two abandoned dogs. After they left, I stayed and I caught them. Are you close to finishing up? Yes, I'm almost finished. Okay. This is simply what I do. I do not breed dogs. I do not board dogs. My private residence is not open to the public because I value the safety and privacy of my home and my family. We operate adoptions through our adoption center and the adoption depot, which is run by Frank and Marianne Mottola. My mission has always been simple. Save the dogs. Nobody else will save. I take dogs that are starving, abused, abandoned, injured, sick, or near death, and I give them another chance. My rescue is a spay or neuter, microchip. My rescue is spayed, neutered, microchip, deworm, vaccinated, or prevented prevention medicine and treated for any medical needs, including heartworm disease. Seven days a week, 24 hours a day, I answer the call when a dog needs help. I never expected this life, but somehow God placed me exactly where I was meant to be, fighting for the ones who cannot fight for themselves, especially when there is nowhere for those dogs to go. I realize my time is up, but I will definitely answer any of your questions specific to the rescue. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? No? I am curious as to what research was done prior to buying in this zoning for the purpose that you intended. We didn't log it. We did go up and ask, and we were told that we could have as many dogs as we wanted on the property. So we went with it. We filed all the permits, did everything like we were supposed to do, and we thought we were doing everything right, because they are my dogs. Who told you that? I'm sorry? Who told you that? She didn't log it. Marianne is the one that asked before we bought the property, because we wanted to make sure we were doing the right thing. So she's logged in that she was there that day, but she doesn't remember who she talked to. So if I can understand this correctly, this is where you live. This is your home. Well, I'm going to live there. I was living in the RV. Okay. I rented my house to my best friend, and I was living in the RV, but then David told me I was not allowed to do that. So I filed for a permit to live in the RV, and I was denied. So that's why I'm not there. We are redoing the house. Okay, but is that your homestead? That's where I'm going to be living, yes. Okay, and these are your private animals that you have on your land? They're the dogs that nobody would adopt. I understand that. I understand that, but there's two different entities we're talking about here. One is an adoption place, and I'm looking up on your website. That's somewhere else. We're not talking about that. Right now we're talking about this is your home, and you have dogs on your home, and that's that, right? Dogs. Okay, so it's not a kennel. It's not an adoption center. It's not whatever else. This is your house, and these are your dogs. That's correct. Is that where we're with the whole thing from the beginning? I do want to clarify the application is for a conditional use permit to allow a kennel. So they have been advised, and they are seeking that use, and the board can place conditions on it, but that is what they're seeking, even if it doesn't perfectly line up with the definition. They understand that, and they are requesting a CU to operate as a kennel. Okay, again, I'm confused. She wants to have kennels on her property to house her dogs. The definition of kennel in the Land Development Code is what we're using. We have to have a definition to relate to. We understand it doesn't line up accurately. She needs to be here today because they're not giving her any choice. It's either get rid of her 80 dogs or come in here and get conditional use. And I think because of the unclarity in the code of a kennel and how it's being applied, that she's being, I guess, asked to get approval for a kennel, and the applicant, through her representative, has suggested that we can place conditions on that that would allow her to do what she's doing. Okay. That's my understanding. If that's, in that way, she's clear of any future code issues or violations or what have you. So are we going to do that today? I don't know. Well, we'll do something today. I'm not saying what it'll be, so. There's a big distinguishment here that keeps going back to. They're my personal dogs. This is a business entity corporation that owns the property. But if they're your personal dogs, do you personally pay all the vet expenses and treatment and care and food for your animals, or is the rescue? In the last 15 years, these dogs were rescues. But now, whose dogs are they? They're mine. Who's going to feed them? Who's going to take care of them? Me. Well, then this can't be your homestead. Right. If this property is owned by an LLC or a corporation, this is not your homestead. Right. I am going to live there with my dogs. But you would not personally own the property. The nonprofit owns the property, as I understand. Cross-paws, and I'm cross-paws. Yeah. I understand that's you, but that's a nonprofit organization that has a board of directors. I just want to advise the board of commissioners to be careful. I mean, obviously, we do have homestead property. People title their property in a trust. There can be. True. So the ownership of the property, how it's titled, doesn't necessarily matter. Yeah. I mean, they do LLCs all the time. So that can't be indicative. Okay. Well, no new dogs come on the property. They all go into fostering. My intake is completely closed right now. New dogs come in. They go to foster, or they go to the adoption depot. No new dogs come in on that property at all. The dogs that are there, I've had 10 years, 6 years, 5 years. Right. So going back to my original statement to you, this is your home, and these are your dogs. Right. Period. Period. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Now, I'm going to ask if there's anyone in opposition to this request to come forward, please. Next door. I'm the one that started the... Okay. Were you sworn in? Yes, sir. Okay. Would you like those entered into evidence? I'm not sure what they are. Yes. Okay. I only had 10. I thought it was only 10. Okay. It was going to be here. Give us your name and address, please. It's Gary Bozeman. It's 3642 Cable Avenue. My property butts up to their property, Cross Falls Pet Rescue at 3656. On March 17th, I filed a complaint with Code Enforcement for a business running dog kennel. David Lambert with Code Enforcement said he could not do anything until dogs were on the property, and they moved into dogs on July 4th. Since then, that's when I called and let them know the dogs were on the property. Did nonstop barking for hours. The smells have turned into cameras now installed on top of their eight-foot fence pointed directly onto my property. I called the sheriffs, said, well, nothing they could do. So, and that was on July 27th of 2025. I ordered mine, got them at August 2nd, installed them towards her. She called, they called the law, a sheriff's office. And when I talked to the sheriffs, they did nothing they could do. Hard to read my own handwriting. And he said, she showed them my cameras pointed at her. When he came talking to me, I showed him her cameras pointed on my property, directly on my property. He said that she didn't show him them. Told me that I should leave my cameras up because there's no telling what they will do. Stephanie Badello filed an injunction on me for protection. She said I had cameras on all areas of her property and home. She has not lived on the property from the beginning and still doesn't. She wants me to remove my cameras while hers are still aimed directly on my property, stating she is in fear of a man watching all of us. Women and stalking them because of previous charges I had. Lo and behold, she's been accused of the same charge on 2024. Stalking with violence. Then puts up a sign. Stop watching us, pervert asshole. My attorney showed her attorney. Well, I just really want this. You don't need to, though. Oh, I'm sorry. Over that part. All of my evidence and my pictures with metadata, my Amazon delivery date. Then she stated she did not want to pursue the charges. The property damage had done by cutting down my tree, cut two more in half, didn't drop them completely, and has encroached her fence on my property. I sent all three officers cross-paws a letter stating with the sealed survey. Had to hire a lawyer for the fence to be moved. Still has not moved one part of it. Still on my property. All of the, they have received and gone a year, six, oh, the dogs bark six to eight hours a day. I do have a recording. I know y'all don't want to hear it, but I could play you what it sounds like on my property. This is in my backyard. Would y'all like to hear? Sure, I'd like to hear it. And this goes on for hours in the morning and afternoon. Any questions you'd like to ask me of the stuff I gave you? Anybody have any questions? Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anybody else would like to speak in opposition? Yes, ma'am. My name is Marion Bozeman. I live at 3636 Cayville Avenue. And thank you for the opportunity to let me speak today. I'm 90 years old and have lived in my home since 1964, more than 61 years. I raised my four children here as a widow, built my life here, and until recently, I have lived peacefully and independent. In all my years, I have never experienced the level of stress and emotional distress that I am enduring now. Since the arrival of Cross Paws Pet Rescue next door, the mental anguish caused by this business has significantly affected both my emotional and physical health. I own five acres, which I have walked daily to maintain my strength and well-being. I also have a coey pond and a garden that I tend with great care. These activities are no longer a source of peace for me. The constant barking and whining from numerous dogs makes it impossible to enjoy my property. I now walk in fear, fear that a dog could escape and confront me while I am alone. The noise is unbearable, and the odor is something no homeowner should have to endure. After I contacted code enforcement to seek help, cameras were stopped facing my property. In addition, my character has been publicly attacked on social media by the operator of this business. Being defamed in a community where I have lived nearly my entire life has been deeply hurtful and humiliating. Most troubling of all, a man was sent to my home to question me about my objection to this business. I live alone. Being approached while working in my yard by a man asking pointy questions was frightening and humiliating. I consider this behavior to be bullying and harassment, and I believe anyone in my position would feel the same. This property was purchased with the intent to operate a dog rescue, a commercial business. Since then, there have been reports of increased stray dogs in the area, either because people abandoned animals believing the rescue would take them, or because dogs are escaping the property. This poses a serious safety concern, not only for me, but the entire neighborhood. I respectfully ask, how can the county allow this activity to continue? This business has no circumvented regulations and proceeded without regard for proper zoning, permitting, or well-being of surrounding residents. I fear that without meaningful intervention, this operation will only grow larger, further impacting the safety and quality of life of those who live nearby. Liens and fines may be discussed, but I ask you, are they truly affected when the business is funded by donations and already demonstrated disregard for laws and regulations? Where are my rights as a homeowner who has followed the rules, paid taxes, and lived peaceful for decades? At my age, I should be able to enjoy the home I have lived in for most of my life without fear, harassment, or constant distress. I am asking this county to protect not only me, but the integrity of the community. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else speaking in opposition? Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant to come back to the podium. Thank you for the opportunity to kind of clear some of this up. It is cloudy, and I know. We understand. Before I continue, did everyone receive a packet that I put around? Okay, so. I think so. Oh, I meant this. Yes. So you should have in that packet, there is, and there were extra. I did 10 also. So if our neighbors wanted to have a copy as well. In there is a letter from a former animal control with Polk County officer. She was there for 11 years. In that packet also is a letter from a current Davenport police officer, and he used to work for Winter Haven. And there's also one from Winter Haven. But also, in there, I did put in some case file notes from David Lambert from the 218 site visit that we have with staff. And I highlighted his notes for that day. And he lists who all was there. Stephanie, board members Marianne, Peter, Aaron, myself, Jessica Phillips with Code Enforcement, David, and land development members, Kyle, Andrew, Chandra, and Alea. He says, I observed another wooden fence has been constructed around the dog kennels, further securing them on property. We were given access to the inside of one of the three buildings used for storing dogs. Inside the building, I observed five-by-five pens with approximately 27 dogs. We were told all three buildings are the same. With that being said, approximately 90 dogs were on site. Each pen was labeled with a sheet of paper, identifying each dog by name and tag number. A strong smell of ammonia was smelled inside the building. On this date, I did not observe a strong odor of feces or urine outside of the structure, but I have observed that in the past. I also did not observe any dogs barking until we physically went inside the building. I've also witnessed that in the past. During our visit, one of the board members inquired if the violation would go away if the property was put in Stephanie's name instead of the rescue's name. They were told that would have to be researched, and then there were inspection photos. So, that brings me to a couple points. Sir, could you tell me when you audio recorded the dogs? We really can't. We can't do question and answer with the audience, sorry. You can provide rebuttal testimony from what you heard, but we can't do. Okay, with all due respect, I apologize. I did not know that. I do think it is important to know when that date was because I want to eliminate all of the he said, she said, whatever stuff. The talk of Polk County, which is my point. Excuse me, Mr. Updike, the problem is this. Our opposition was attacking the credibility of the site. We are asking for permission. That's not what's in question, Sarah. We're trying to decide whether or not this is a conforming use. That's all we're doing. The dogs, all the other he said, she said. You know this is not part of this, the heartstring deal. If I may continue. Please. What is in front of you right now is we are asking for permission for a C3 use to allow kennels as decided by code enforcement, which is why we're here. We are saying that we are, we have mitigating factors for any visibility, noise, pollution, all of that. We are proposing, we're asking for forgiveness that we placed buildings that we thought were legal, that were legal. Okay, forget it. We're not even asking for that. We're saying, by right, in front of you, we want the permission and for you all to consider approval of us building three sheds 787 feet away, 778 feet away, and 784 feet away from where they are now. You all know, with a 50-foot compatibility buffer, an opaque fence, vegetation, excuse me, that would be required, and the distance itself, we will be a budding conditional, I'm sorry, commercial enclave, and then there's a railroad on the other side of that. You said, you mentioned earlier that you had conditions that you were. I do. So let's go to those. Yes, I am under oath, and I want you to know there have not been advertisements for anything on site, and we are proposing, again, that this site not be open to the public. So you are not giving us permission through this binding site plan, conditional use permit, for us to grow this area. The binding site plan, these are our suggested conditions. I believe in your little note packet as well, we did get some just general notes from Ms. Howard, and on, and this is also page 17 of the 21-page staff report. So we are asking for you all to approve and put the condition on that the conditional use will run with cross-paws animal rescue and or Stephanie. You can, this is, we are proposing, this is draft language. I just want you all to consider that so that you have more of a comfort level of this type of use that we're proposing. We've already stated that the subject site is closed to the public. This is in writing on the binding site plan. Subject site prohibited to the public. That is not what the operation is. It never has been, and we're stating this on this new property as well. Part of the level three conditions of approval talks about grooming and boarding. There will be no grooming and boarding. All of that will be prohibited other than the canines registered to cross-paws or Stephanie. In the last, because originally there was a complaint about odor, we wanted to make it a condition or suggest that you all make it a condition that we maintain records, so proof that we go to solid waste facilities to dump the solid waste and we have receipts. So I just talked to my team about it and threw it out there a couple months ago, and it is for you all. I didn't just come up with this. We've been wanting to discuss this to give you a level of comfort on how this can live more as compatible. We've shown mitigating efforts with buffering and moving, or I'm not even saying moving because we're going to have personal storage, but constructing new kennels as far back as we possibly can with the buffer. Staff indicated in their staff report that there's a concern that there will be increased traffic, activity on the site, staff and people, and I am under oath telling you, this is closed. This is closed to Stephanie and her husband, by appointment just for board, I guess, I don't know, but it is not open to the public. Adoptions do not happen on site. They happen at the Adoption Depot in Auburndale. Anything that was advertised, yes, we have a new site, but what was advertised is meet us in the park, not on site. So, I will stand for any questions that you have. It's a noble cause, and I can see that, but, I mean, there is some evidence presented here that in August of 24, that she was searching for big buildings with property for a kennel that has to be commercial. That kind of tells us she had the foresight and had awareness of she was purchasing in a residential zoned area for that, ended up purchasing in a residential zoned area, knowing that she needed to be commercial, and I just kind of feel like this is the asking for forgiveness after the fact. Yes. I'd like to comment to that because I spent 40 years in this county, and you go down to the county building department, and depending on what person you talk to on any given day, you're going to get a different response to your question. So, should they have known that this is a commercial operation? Probably. But, you know, if they're giving them the benefit of the doubt, if they went in there and asked the question and someone either didn't give it full thought or otherwise, but, you know, so it is not unlikely that they got a response maybe that they wanted, but they probably did get a response that said, oh, okay, we don't have to do the commercial thing. We can just go, you know, hither and yon, put up these buildings. Now, I think they personally, I think they just, you know, really gave very little thought to the surrounding property owners, and I, you know, I sympathize with that. But we have an opportunity to, you know, one, support a worthy cause, and that's exactly what it is because this county spends a lot of money to take dogs in and kill them. I mean, that's what the Sheriff's Department does. They probably put to sleep anywhere from 1,000 to 1,500 animals per year at great expense to the taxpayers. So when volunteers step up and, you know, private money supports some little facet of it, I mean, obviously 80 dogs isn't going to change the world, but, you know, it's 80 dogs that don't have to go to the county to be killed by the Sheriff's Department and all the other efforts that they make. So that said, I'd like to make a... Are we to the... We can have a motion, and then we'll still have discussion, just because he makes a motion. So I'd like to make a motion for consideration that we approve LDCU-202430-36, I'm sorry, dash 35, with the following conditions. Maximum of 80 dogs. Kennels to be at least 700 feet from any residential structure. The kennels to be fully fenced to contain any dogs that might get out of those buildings. Proof on an ongoing basis of waste disposal. And that the property not be for public access. If I may, sir. This is kind of... I need to jump in. Can I do that? Can you tell me I can't do that? Well, I'm not sure you can do that as far as a setback for those structures. You might be able to get them set back from these folks here, but as you move them to the rear, you're bringing more people in to the west. That'll be 350. You have commercial property. Oh, no, sir. No, back to the west is a residential suburban still. To the north is your commercial enclave in the railroad. So if you move those structures up to the north, you're going to bring these structures into new people, more or less. Not as close as they are to these folks now, but they might be 700 feet away from them, but they're now 300-some feet away from the folks in the west. Looking at two commercial properties. That's the immediate rear, but... So tell me where residents can go in. That home is 300 feet from... Which home? There's homes right here. They're 300 feet from the property line. Well, our width is 117, so... It's 350 feet. We've measured it a few times while sitting here. And this is sort of the trouble we've had with this case. There's so much uncertainty of what we can measure and what we can enforce. The operation of personal pets, we know this property is in association with a rescue facility, with off-site adoption. We can't monitor our dogs all the time. We can't monitor the noise. You know, even if they move it to the rear 700 feet and this gentleman wants to go mow his backyard, he might have 80 dogs barking at him. It's just... We very rarely, very rarely recommend denial, and I hate that this is the case to have to do one to, given it a cause. There's just too much we can't monitor for non-residential use right between homes. And that's kind of our staff's argument on it. The whole thing about how it was permitted and kind of inconsequential at this point. That's... Right. And there's just too much we don't know that we can't drill down with... We've worked hard with Sarah for months now to try to come up with some solutions to it. And we're still at this point. We rarely do this. There's currently houses to... To the west. To the west. East of Powell Street. Within what distance to her property line? I think it was right about 300 then. I can't do a survey on the data viewer, but the data viewer shows about 316 feet from the property line. So you add 50 feet, then it's what? 316 plus 50. We all need protein. I can't add that quick. Right. So... But that's not, you know, necessarily a... That's to those houses on Royal Street. Royal Street, it looks like. Powell Street. Powell Street. Sorry, Ian, what you're saying. Oh, is it... I'm sorry. It looks like an R. We're just displacing the... Potentially. And if you... But if you recommended that a condition of approval, it wouldn't be enforceable anyway. So, yeah. I'm just saying that there's more impacts than just what we're seeing here. What is intended? If you... Structures? Yes, sir. At the 700 feet that you'd propose. You wouldn't physically be able to do it even if you move it out to the north. You'd be able to get away from these folks over here, but what I'm saying is you'd end up impacting these folks back off to the west, off Powell Street. So that was the motion. Do you want to amend the emotion? Amend your... Well... Not emotion. Motion. Yeah, but... You got a second. Yeah, so to make it... Well, I don't... Yeah, I don't know if he wants to... Change it to 350 feet or whatever. Could we amend it to be specific to at least 700 feet away from the two adjacent property owners along Kayville? Yeah, but Sarah, that doesn't address... Okay, I'm... I get you. ...trying. All right. I don't think that addresses... You know, are we just moving the problem down the road there? Can I weigh in for just a second? I've abstained from this vote because I've supported cross-paws through my business. I've hosted events to raise money for their efforts, and I'm not going to go down the road of believing in what they're doing, but what I will say is I went by the property and I parked in front of the closed area, and I stood there for about 10 minutes waiting to hear dogs barking, looking for any smells. I heard nothing. I smelled nothing. I got in my car. I honked my horn. I still couldn't hear dogs barking. So that was just what I went and saw for myself, and... And there, you know, there is ways to contain noise. I mean, SBCA and a lot of these places, they have concrete buildings rather than metal buildings, and those, I mean, you can reduce decibel count just through construction methods. May I add, also, there are things called bark boxes. They have not installed them pending the outcome of where these kennels will go. And, again, we have code enforcement staff, and we have staff here. That is not barking. It's not 24-hour barking like that. So, Mr. Ziskel... I am trying to... Yeah, so we're installing bark boxes. Can you help us out, Ben? Well, I've got a topic that I think I need clarification from. There's been a lot of discussion about Stephanie and her possible intent to live on the property, the fact that the property is currently owned by the nonprofit. Ms. Stephanie did give an address of 106 Margaret Street, which is what she read into the record as her address. That is her homesteaded property that she lives in. So I think as you're deliberating, we need clarification. There's been a lot of discussion about her living on site. Is that going to be a condition that she lives on site and there is 24-hour care at this facility? Because if she has another property that she's living in that is a homesteaded property and nobody is living 24 hours, there's a different operation and a different traffic pattern of people coming to take care of the pets but not living on site. And I'm not suggesting which way you go with that but there's been a lot of discussion about that and I think as you make a decision, we will need clarification as far as what is the expectation of maybe not. While you were saying that, I see her nodding her head in agreement that she will live on this property. Yes, Mike. Well, people purchase homes, homesteads and LLCs all the time. My personal residence is in an LLC. So, and I can get, I have homestead exemptions. So, I mean... I'm not concerned about the ownership. What I'm concerned about is the expectation that there is somebody on that property 24 hours to care for the pets versus living across town and seeing out more volunteers coming in shifts. There's a different traffic implication. There's a different... Caretaker residents is basically, we would agree to a condition that someone is going to be definitely lives on site. All right. What about the distance thing and the noise factor? You didn't like my other suggestion. Well, I'm not sure what the other is. The site plan's binding and Sarah showed it at the back of the property. So, I don't know if the distance requirement's necessary because if you accept... It is what it is then. It is what it is. Approving a site plan. So, if it changes, it's got to come back. If she adds to it, it's got to come back. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Yeah, and I guess we wouldn't want to put a distance in there because someone can go put a residence, a second home right behind their existing home and to negate your conditional. Okay. All right. So, this is the binding site plan and this is where we would reword those conditions. So, say your conditions again. Okay. So, I am recommending approval. They're up 2025-35. With the following conditions, maximum 80 foot... I'm sorry. Maximum 80 dogs allowed on the property. This is 35, not 05. I'm sorry? It's 202-2025-35. Yeah. Not... Oh, you're on 18. We're on 17. I'm 2026... Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. LDCU 2025. Yep. Okay. All right. Maximum 80 dogs. Fully fenced kennel area to contain any loose dogs. Proof of waste disposal, not for public access. And... Now you may mean... A condition that someone lives on site to maintain their residential use. Full time. A caretaker to live on site. 80 dogs is a lot. Do we have a second? 80 dogs is a lot. It is a lot of dogs. In a neighborhood with neighbors. It's... That would be a hoarder. That would be a hoarder. We can ship them over to... ...under services and they can do away with 80 dogs. Any other individual person at a residence, they'd call that a hoarder. So we need to know if there's a second and then we can discuss the motion. Is there a second? Otherwise, it will fail for lack of second. Second. All right. I got a second. We seconded it. Now we can discuss it. Other discussion? What I don't want everybody to imagine is 80 dogs running freely around the property. I mean, we've seen pictures of what the kennels or what the spots are like that the dogs are in. And, you know, I don't see a world where a responsible rescue is going to let 80 dogs running around the yard at any given time. So just that two cents. Well, and I understand. I have a lot of experience with rescues and dogs, not this particular one. But, you know, a lot of times that adoptability concern isn't just health reasons like was presented. or age, it's aggressive dogs. It is, you know, there's other undesirable traits that you're going to cluster up to 80 dogs that are fenced apart. They're not. Yes, but that's where the noise comes. And that's going to then disrupt a residential area. So I would also suggest that if there is any noise problems that violate county code and the decibel levels, that that's still subject to code enforcement. The land development code doesn't have decibel levels for residential districts, so it would be the sheriff's department for noise. But it can't be regulated? That's correct. Not by land development staff. It can't be regulated by land development. Yeah, so we don't it wouldn't be a condition of our that's just going to be an option of any resident around it. It'd be very difficult also to enforce the maximum number of dogs without creating some operating permit or some procedure to report in proof of ownership and things of that nature. Well, the facilities are designed so that would limit them from adding more facilities at a later date. The binding site plan would too. Site plan would. And as you said, 27 per building? There are 27 5x5 units per. So that condition really doesn't factor in. You're going to use those buildings to their most efficient use. And you're only getting three buildings? Correct. Can strike that condition of what else you got for me, Ian? Oh, no, no. It's a process. Come on, get it out. We've batted through a lot of this stuff already. Oh, no, I know. I got that. I got that message right from the kitchen. So just for clarity, I just want to make sure on that motion, are we removing the maximum of 80 dogs and otherwise the motion stands? Do you want to remove the maximum of 80 dogs? That's correct. So what's left? Fully fenced to contain kennel area, proof of waste disposal. Is that something we can... I guess we can get an email once a month not to be facetious about it, but I'm not sure Yeah, it would just be a matter of who's going to enforce it, I think, logistically. I mean, obviously, if there's a smell complaint, then they would have proof of removal and not for public access. Is that what we have? And that a caretaker is on site. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Seconder of the motion is okay with that? Mm-hmm. Yep. Yeah, with just removing the maximum number dogs. Okay. Roll call. Okay. Julie Jackson. Against the motion. Angel Sims. Oh, you abstained. Mike Hickman. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Merle Bishop. Against the motion. Cindy Jenamasso. For the motion. One, two, three. Motion passes. Okay. Thank you for your time. I know it's late. So just the mission's approved. You have seven days to file an appeal. A level three. So you have seven days to file an appeal for a de novo hearing. Okay. They can help you. Yeah. Yeah. Next case. I believe it. We have a call. Okay. Three, three. Ready? Are you ready? Yeah. Yeah. I'm ready. I'm ready. So the next two cases are related. It's a conference of land tax amendment and a land development code tax amendment related to Indian Lake States. LDCPAL 2026-5 and LDCT 2026-12. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun on May 20th and staff report and ordinance and application are submitted into the record. The conference, this is similar to a case you heard last January but it's a little different because there were two building permits issued for a duplex in error. One is here and one is here and the conference of planned for Indian Lake Estates restricts densities above two units of the acre to have to be on sewer. The lots in RL4 are half an acre so if you put a duplex on it it's four units of the acre it has to be connected to sewer. Permit was issued there is no sewer in Indian Lake Estates so it can't meet that provision in the conference of planned so that's part of the amendment and the other part of the amendment is to restrict in land development code that if duplexes are permitted they can only have one septic tank per unit so it doesn't mean that all the lots you see in RL4 will be doubled in terms of septic which was the biggest issue last year when the planning commission and the board considered this case these cases that was very similar and the other item in the land development code is to make duplexes remove it being a level 3 in RL4 as it is anywhere else in unincorporated Polk County and make it a conditional use level 1 in RL4 Indian Lake Estates is a plaited subdivision it was plaited a few decades ago several decades ago it has about 8,000 lots that's both in the front and in the back I'll explain what that means a little bit later there are some dirt roads in Indian Lake Estates when you get back here in fact this permit back here was issued on a dirt road but when the comprehensive plan map was adopted in 1991 it wasn't given a land use other than pre-DRI number 1 pre-DRI means DRI means development of regional impact it's a state statute regulating large developments but the property was given a land use back in in 2009 in the Lake Estates you probably know where it is it's west it's on the very east side of the county east of Lake Walk on the Water between State Route 60 and Highway 630 two permits issued with the duplexes are circled in black there are a couple other stars that you see where we've had other interest in duplexes those stars were the generator of the cases from early last year there is a gate in Indian Lake Estates you can see that in the yellow we as staff refer to things behind the gate and in front of the gate behind the gate is residential suburban I think I have land use residential suburban is back here there's no sewer there is some water public water throughout Indian Lake Estates but you can see the more urban densities and intensities are outside the gate that's where the public can access you have to have a obviously live back here to get through the gate I should mention Canopy Oaks is down here and Canopy Oaks is relevant because it was a case that we had in terms of lots of development activity in this area and this is part of the military compatibility zones related to the Avon Park Air Force Range the Air Force Range submitted a letter last year but submitted the same letter with this case which states they don't necessarily have a concern with these amendments because there will still be development residential development in Indian Lake Estates just expressing concerns for new development that impact the maneuvering of training sessions for users of the Air Force Range this is the Conference of Plan amendments we had to restructure a little bit the intro into this table this is the table that dictates what densities you have to have water and sewer you can see an RL with central water but no sewer to dwelling into the acre has to be on public water above that we have to assume the more restrictive it has to be on public sewer that's not there so then we rewrote this language down here duplex units may be allowed on a single lot as long as that parcel existed on August 16th which is the adoption date scheduled by the Board of County Commissioners without connection to public sewer then if you get to the land development code we did a little restructuring here in terms of just some simple updates to the language there is an approved land use map for any like states now so we're removing that these are the conditions that state that it has to have one unit per duplex one septic tank per duplex unit and it also has some language about the minimum rate of the capacity of the on-site septic tank to 100 gallons per day per bedroom as managed by the health department or DEP who's ever the issuing jurisdiction for the septic tank we're also adding a use table part of the confusion i would imagine for the duplex permits being issued is there's no use table where these regulations are listed in land development code it's used in another chapter so we're adding this table to help provide some clarity going forward and you can see here that duplex is a c1 the comprehensive plan does limit or prohibit class 3 utilities so this is so these are the two differences from table 2.1 that we use for use table for the rest of the county and it's blank here so with that staff is recommending approval increasing it does increase the housing types within Indian Lake Estates and already existing community limits the septic tank per unit and changes the use table to help alleviate and add a use table to help alleviate confusion for staff and i'll stand for any questions any questions to staff seeing none i'll open the public hearing anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this case seeing none bring it back to the commission and i'll entertain any further discussion or a motion i move to approve ldcpal 2026-5 second motion second approve roll call please for the motion for the motion for the motion for the motion for the motion for the motion okay i'll open the public hearing for ldc 2026-12 seeing no one to speak for or against i'll bring it back to the commission for any discussion and a motion move to approve ldct 2026-12 second motion second approve roll call please for the motion for the motion thank you i don't have a conference to plan update no i'm so disappointed no no i love you and i love hearing about it but i've got to go but we do need to say goodbye to miss lindsey today is this is her last planning commission she's moving on to more experience um it's going to make her cry i don't mean to make her cry but anyway so wish her luck we wish her luck don't tell him or else they'll be mad at him yeah that's it we don't want to prejudice you for future cases really are you going to be doing this similar thing okay all right well good all right yeah well and we welcome lisa sitting next to her to replace motion to adjourn move to adjourn second move all right all in favor say aye aye all right we're adjourned thank you and we're going to continue