And I'd like to ask everyone, when you give a motion or second, if you would just state your name, please, because we have a new recorder, secretary, staff, person that would really help her out. So first order of business is to have a roll call, please. Robert Beltran. Present. Cindy Janamasso. Present. Merle Bishop. Present. Brooke Agnini. Here. Mike Hickman. Here. Angel Sims. Here. Julie Jackson. Here. Linda Schultz. Here. Kevin Updike. Here. We have a quorum. Thank you. And next we'll stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. With God and faith, Son of God. And next we have the minutes from the June 3rd meeting and the July 8th meeting. Move to approve. Angel Sims. Second. Yep. Okay. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed. Same sign. Thank you. So now ask our attorney. Do you want to confession? Oh, yes. I'm sorry. I'm jumping ahead. We need to confirm the revisions to the agenda. So do we need a motion on each one of those? The ones that have been advertised, we should probably just get a motion to continue to the date certain of September 2nd. Okay. So do I have a motion to continue the four cases that have been presented to us as continued to September 2nd? So moved, Robert Beltran. Second. Mike Hickman. I have a motion and second to approve continuous of those cases. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Now, our attorney will present us our procedures. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Land Development Case Planner will introduce the case and disclose any responses to the notification which were not already provided to the Planning Commission in their packets. The Case Planner will then present their staff report and recommendation. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak and present testimony on a case will be sworn in. The applicant and others in support or opposition of the case will be given the opportunity to speak. The applicant will be given the opportunity to respond to any opposition testimony. The Planning Commission will then discuss the case and vote on the matter. Expedited hearing procedures may be used by the Planning Commission under the following circumstances. If there is no opposition to the case present at the hearing, if the recommendation of the Office of Land Development is for approval, and if all of the commission members present wish to use this procedure. With regard to Level 3 reviews, pursuant to Section 906 of the Polk County Land Development Code, the Planning Commission may approve the applicant's request, deny the applicant's request, or approve the request with additional conditions. Pursuant to Section 921 of the Land Development Code, the applicant or any substantially affected interest may appeal the final decision of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners by filing a formal application with the Land Development Division and paying an application fee. The appeal must be filed with the Land Development Division within seven calendar days of the Planning Commission hearing. The Board of County Commissioners shall set a date and time for a de novo hearing. If a party decides to appeal a decision made by the Planning Commission with respect to any Level 3 review, he or she will need a record and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. The record includes all testimony and evidence given at the hearing. Each person or party that qualifies to file such an appeal must independently exercise their right of appeal in order to preserve that right. A party cannot and should not rely on their right to appeal being preserved by someone else filing an appeal on the same matter. Please be advised that a party may withdraw their appeal to the Board of County Commissioners prior to that de novo hearing. If one party withdraws their appeal and another party failed to file an appeal, there will be no appeal or hearing on the matter before the Board of County Commissioners. The application fee will not necessarily be refunded for such a withdrawal. Please further be advised that if a de novo application is filed with the Board to be recognized during the de novo hearing as organized opposition, you must either file the application for a de novo hearing or receive a written authorization from at least five entities or individuals to speak on their behalf against the application, and they must waive their right to speak during the public comment portion of the public hearing. Regarding Level 4 reviews, pursuant to Section 907 of the Land Development Code, the Planning Commission's decision is a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners will ultimately decide the matter at a later date. Regarding ex parte communication, the Planning Commission receives numerous ex parte communications from the public. Unless otherwise stated, it should be presumed that ex parte communications have been made to the members of the commission regarding the matter. During the hearing, the applicant, organized oppositions, and the public may request the commission to disclose any ex parte communications or site visits they have had regarding the matter and question the members regarding their communications or site visits. Unless the commission member recuses themselves, he or she has determined that they are able to hear the case and fairly and impartially make a decision on the matter based on the substantial, competent evidence in the record. Mr. Chair, would you like for me to swear in the witnesses for today's cases? Yes, please. Thank you. If you intend to address the Planning Commission on any case today, please stand up, raise your right hand, and answer out loud to the following question. This applies to all cases, so if you believe you may speak today, please be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you present to the Planning Commission today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. You may be seated. I'll now go over some housekeeping items before we get started. First, we need to admit the county's land planners as expert witnesses. They have all been accepted as experts in the past. However, if you would like to voir dire any of them as to their background or expertise, then you may do so at this time. Without any opposition to their admission, may I please have a motion to accept staff as experts in their field of land planning? Do I have a motion? Angel Sims, so moved. Cindy Janamasa, second. Do I have a motion and a second? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you. Secondly, if we have any experts of applicants, then you may tender them at this time or you may wait until your case is called. And finally, the Planning Commission must review quasi-judicial land use cases. Quasi-judicial means the action entails applying land development policies to a specific land development application in a fair and impartial manner. The Commission's review is limited to two areas, consistency and compatibility. Regarding consistency, the Commission must determine whether the application is consistent with both the comprehensive plan and the land development code. The staff report and presentation will provide expert analysis and opinion regarding the applicable criteria, as well as a recommendation as to whether the application is consistent with those criteria. Regarding compatibility, the Commission must determine whether the application is compatible with the surrounding area. The Commission will be presented with testimony and evidence at the hearing, both written and oral. By law, the only evidence the Commission may consider is competent, substantial evidence, which means evidence that is sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The following items are competent, substantial evidence, evidence that is fact-based and relevant to the applicable criteria, staff reports and staff presentations. Citizen testimony may be competent, substantial evidence, so long as it is fact-based and may include testimony regarding subjective matters that do not require expertise, such as aesthetic and compatibility of a project with the surrounding neighborhood. However, popularity polls, petitions, testimony that is hypothetical, speculative, based on fear or consists of generalized statements that do not address the land development criteria are not competent, substantial evidence. For example, fear that the project will cause increased traffic or crime is not competent, substantial evidence. Lastly, when expertise is required for technical issues like traffic, engineering, drainage, wetland impacts, school and utility capacity, light and noise pollution, or the application's impact on property values, citizen testimony is not competent, substantial evidence, unless the witness is qualified as an expert in that area. That concludes my comments. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So, under our agenda, we have under old business, one item, staff. Would you present, please? Okay. Good morning, Ian Nanceville Land Development. This case, LDPD 2026-4, was continued from the July hearing for the applicant to address some concerns of the commission. They have submitted an updated site plan, and staff still recommends approval of this plan development for 170 dwelling units consisting of single-family detached and townhome lots on approximately 17 Upland acres. I'm going to skirt through this fairly quick, since I presented it last year, and I think everybody was here, but this context area of the subject site is located north of Pace Road and the Berkeley Road intersection near the Polk Parkway and I-4. Florida Poly is off screen to the west, and SunTracks and the Auburndale Innovation District are located to the southwest, with large distribution centers located to the north and west. Two school sites are located east, and this location is not far from multiple parks and recreational facilities, including the Tico Trail along its western border. As we went over last time, the site is in a residential low one future land use district, but it's also within what is known as a transit supportive development area's transit center overlay, which provides extra density incentives based on its location near transit routes. And with shaded in green, that green circle, you can get up to 12 dwelling units per acre. This is the updated site plan, which again remains a maximum of 170 units split between single-family detached and multi-family townhome units. The major changes from the previous site plan are an increase in the buffer width on the north side of the property from 15 to 20 feet, which exceeds the 5-foot standard in the code. The African is also proposing 30 additional parking spaces, which exceeds the 25 extra spaces that would be required by PD rules. This will complement the two spaces per unit already required by a land development code that can't be garage parking or tandem parking arrangements. So, to break it down, each unit is going to have to have two driveway parking spots. On top of that, they're proposing an additional 30. Our code for PDs, when you go under a certain lot size, you have to provide up to 25. So, they're providing an additional 5 on top of what would be required. There was confusion regarding the floodplain because of a typo in the staff report at last hearing. They submitted some documentation that shows that there's approximately 1.63 acres of flood zone located down here in the southeast corner of the property where you see the wetlands and the proposed stormwater ponds. No lots are being proposed within that floodplain area. The major change here was at the last hearing, they were proposing 2.5-foot side setbacks. They have increased this to 5 feet for the standard lots and also introduced the zero lot line design. It was very similar to their other project that was in here last month. Zero feet on one side, 10 feet on the other, and there will be easements for each lot so you can maintain that zero-foot setback for those lots. Either way, you're going to have 10 feet between structure now, which is different from before. Again, brief summary of the services. Capacity is available, and that meets timing policies of the comprehensive plan. Level 2 review factors, if this is approved, we'll have to review later. I did speak with the city of Auburndale after this regarding some of the utility plans, and Mr. Opswell, I think, can go through some of this too if you'd like. But we do have conditions of approval that they have approval from Auburndale for the location of a utility easement along their northern and western property lines to provide wastewater services, which was a big sticking point with them. So, happy to have that resolved. Again, staff recommends approval. The site is mapped for higher density development in an area that has experienced significant public investment into the services necessary to support this growth as well as the surrounding uses. The site is near major transit areas, schools, university, and major employment centers, the exact areas where higher density development is planned. Staff finds the application compatible with these surrounding uses and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code. Thank you, and I'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff? Seeing none, I'll ask if the applicant is present. Come forward, please. Good morning. Logan Opsall, 215 North Eola Drive. Thank you, Ian. We have a revised presentation, which is very concise. He's got a big agenda today. So, appreciate going over the changes. From our original hearing, we had a number of items that the commission shared would need to be revised, some of which we were able to agree to, but all of which needed to be incorporated into the binding site plan, which is now before you. And that includes five feet on each side of the single-family lots, and that'll be 10 feet for the zero-lot line. So, all residential structures will have the 10 feet, so that was an increase from last time. We also wanted to address parking, which Ian just outlined to you. The two parking spaces per unit are provided. That excludes the garages, so those are driveway spots. And we've provided some additional guest parking spaces. Because at our last hearing, that was a little difficult to see, we just wanted to annotate that to call out some of those areas, as well as those additional five above and beyond code minimum, so those 30 additional extra spaces. For the northern buffer, the existing requirement is a five-foot minimum. That's from the code. We were able to expand that up to a 20-foot landscape buffer with a fence. I think you'll see from the staff report and from the next slide that there's quite a bit of employment industrial centers. We had a multifamily. So, this is an area in the TSDA that's experiencing a lot of growth. Notwithstanding, there is an existing one residential structure to our north. It's about 60 feet of separation, wall-to-wall. And so, this 20-foot additional landscape buffer, 15 feet above code minimum, will help buffer that area to the north. We have expansive, about 641 feet, structure-to-structure to our west, and about 199 feet, to be exact, to the TECO Trail. Lastly, Commissioner Jackson rightfully called this out at the last meeting. The FEMA flood zone, there's about 1.63 acres, just over an acre and a half, of FEMA floodplain area. We wanted to overlay that area with the site plan so you can see all structures are outside of that area. No proposed homes will be within the FEMA floodplain. To the extent any impacts need to occur on the roadway or otherwise, of course, all required floodplain compensation will be provided. Zooming out from the property, you can see it highlighted there in red. And then, there's a number of the educational. There's the Berkeley Middle School, the charter school, an expansion area to the east, and then rather large, over a million square feet of industrial, some substation. You have your sun tracks, more industrial, and, again, that 350 multi-unit development to our south. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions, but thank you for your feedback, and we're happy we're able to incorporate it. Mr. James. Yes. In that first slide, you said five feet on either side, and then you said zero lot line, ten feet on one side. Which is it? Yeah, so it's five feet between the single-family structures, and then you have the zero lot line, and then ten on the other. So, the zero lot line is only applicable to certain lots? That's correct. Okay. And all of which the structures will have a ten-foot minimum separation. Okay, very good. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. Seeing none, thank you. Is there anyone in the audience to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone in the audience to speak in opposition to this application? Seeing none, I'll bring this back to the board for further discussion and a motion. I move to approve LDPD 2026-4, Robert Beltran. Second, Mike Hickman. I have a motion and a second to approve. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. I just, before I vote, I just want to make a comment, because I was probably the biggest fusser over this, and I appreciate the adaptations that you guys have made. It was the 2.5 feet, I think, that caused lots of us to kind of reel back. And as I was thinking about this case since last month, projects that have lot lines like that that are 2.5 feet, to me, being put next to an existing, say, apartment complex where it's kind of like an upgrade. To me, projects like that make more sense. But I like what you've done here. I think that it fits well, and I appreciate all that you guys did to get this done. I approve. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Motion passes. Next case, please. Next case is LDCPA-S 2026-12. It's a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment, and one of our new planners, Tyler Daniels, is presenting. Tyler Daniels, Land Development. This is a small-scale comp plan amendment to change the development area designation on 38.22 acres of a 58.91-acre parcel from rural development area to urban growth area. The developmental change would not change the industrial future land use on the site, but would increase impervious surface ratio and floor area ratio for future development. The northern portion of the parcel is already UGA industrial, and the request brings the balance of the parcel into the same base district. The site is 2925 Pavers Road, south of State Road 570, the Polk Parkway, about a mile east from Bartow Road. It sits just outside the Lakeland city limits. This is the site in its regional context between Lakeland and Bartow, south of the Polk Parkway corridor. You can see the established industrial and warehouse development immediately north of 570 along Pavers Lane and Main Avenue. The parcel itself is undeveloped, and some remnant pavement at the eastern edge. The established future land use is industrial and is not changing. The industrial extends west across the Polk Parkway corridor. To the northeast is residential low. To the south is agricultural, residential, rural. And the industrial designation on the site has existed independent of the surrounding rural character. Not sure why the colors didn't come up on here. The current amendment area is rural development area. Urban growth sits immediately north and east. And TSDA development area runs along the Polk Parkway to the west. And under the proposed change, the immediate remaining area of the parcel becomes urban growth area, contiguous with the UGA to the north and the west. These are site photos taken on staff's visit. The amendment area with the existing pavement on the site edge, the public hearing sign we posted on the property, the access drive looking toward the 570 Polk Parkway overpass. And this is looking west on the property. The impact assessment, the proposed change would have no significant impact on the surrounding area. Staff recommends approval. The site is contiguous to the urban growth area to the north and the east. The industrial area has already permitted future land use within the UGA, and the future land use is not changing. The intensity this allows matches what already applies to the industrial land next door. And the change continues the industrial pattern along Paver's Lane rather than pushing development into rural areas. And I'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff? I got a question. I'm looking at the site, and it looks like it's very similar to the rest of the property to the, I guess that would be to the east and to the south, which is in the RDA. I just wonder, how much of this site is floodplain? I mean, it looks like it's been previously mined. And it's hard to tell. I know we don't have a site planned before us, but I'm just wondering, is how the site is suitable for development? I found only 5.1 acres were wetland, and 3.7 were floods on A. Okay. I'm just trying to visualize how the site can be developed. Okay, yeah. Impact statement? Site plan should be in there. Content plan. Let me, let me, is there any other questions of staff? So, you're the applicant? Yes, sir. I'm the engineer of record. Okay. So, there is floodplain along the northern border, which we would utilize the existing, you know, natural grade. I'm sorry. I need your name and address, please. Zachary Thornton, Madrid CPWG, 5001 North Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Sorry to interrupt. Go ahead. So, where the pond area is and to the north is floodplain area, we would utilize the area on the northern portion of the site as floodplain compensation, and most of the eastern portion of the site would be a paved area for, like, a storage yard for crane equipment is what we're thinking at this point. Okay. So, most of the site is going to be, you know, drainage, dry retention, and wet detention ponds with just a storage yard. Any questions of the applicant? Is this outside storage? Yes. And it will meet the new ordinance that was approved, I think, a couple months ago. And there will be a 100-foot buffer along the east and in the south portions of the site that abut the – Residential? Yes. Okay. Just popping in my head, will this be fenced, like, with having cranes and things, kids wandering onto the property, climbing all over? Yeah, it will definitely be fenced. Oh, okay. I think that's part of the outdoor storage ordinance. Darn it. I wanted to climb on those toys. No, I'm kidding. And that's just – I just know that's one of his clients, but there's not an end user at this point. Okay. Can I have a question? Just looking at the impact statement, there are just some drawings there, and it kind of talks about future warehouse buildings. Yeah, there's the potential, like, two or three, you know, five – I can't remember. It says 6,000 square feet. Six, yeah. Yeah, so, I mean, we're nowhere near the existing FAR requirement of 0.5. I think the total warehousing for future is at, like, 5% right now, and I'm not exactly sure if he's going to go through with the future warehouse buildings, but we will probably, you know, show those on the level two submitted. Mr. Chairman, if I may, Shonda Bennett with land development, just to clarify, this is not a land use change. This is just a development area change. Right. So it's already industrial. Biggest difference is a 50% FAR under the current development area, which is a rural development area, to 75% floor area ratio. Also a shift in impervious surface. But you can see they've got challenges, whether they stay RDA or move to a different development area. Thank you for the reminder. Any further questions? Thank you. I'll open the case up for any comments from the audience. Is there anyone present to speak in favor of this application? Seeing none, is there anyone in opposition to this application? Seeing none, I'll bring this back to the board for discussion and a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDC-PAS-2026-12. Second. Mike Hickman. Oh, Angel Sims, sorry. I have a motion and a second to approve. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. I'm for the motion. Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Motion passes. All right. All the way down to number seven on the agenda. This is LDC-2026-10. This is the Airport Impact District's text amendment. And Leah Anglima is your planner. Good morning. Leah Anglima with Land Development presenting number seven on the agenda. LDCT-2026-10. The Airport Impact Districts. This case is a county-initiated request to amend Chapter 6, Section 641. The Airport Impact Districts to include standards for permit and notice requirements under the Polk County Airport Zoning Regulations and Joint Airport Zoning Board. They include airport height zones and amending the airport names. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun on July 22nd with no response from the public. The purpose of this amendment is really to improve the consistency between the Land Development Code and the county's airport zoning regulations. The proposed changes incorporate existing permit and notice requirements, recognizing those airport height zones, and updating airport names. These amendments do not create any new regulations. Instead, they incorporate the existing requirements that were adopted in 2019 by TPO into the Land Development Code, making them easier for the public to locate and understand. The revisions also provide clear direction on when airport zoning review is required and improve accessibility by placing these regulations within Muni Code. So, the proposed amendments include three primary changes. First, the airport impact district standards are revised to clarify when those airport permits and development review requirements apply. Second, references throughout the section are updated to ensure consistency with the code. And finally, the amendment establishes those height zones used to evaluate potential airspace obstructions and updates those airport names to reflect current designations. So, overall, the proposed request improves clarity and public accessibility to county regulation, is consistent with Senate Bill 180 of the 2025 Florida legislation session, and is consistent with all policies and objectives in the comprehensive plan. And I'll stand for any questions. Any questions of staff? I'm just curious. Was this change considered or presented to the Joint Airport Zoning Board? I know they don't meet very regularly. I'm just wondering if they have had any opportunity to see these changes. They have not, but we've had a lot of discussions with TPO, and they are fully on board with this amendment. The, Eric Peterson for the Land Development Division. The airport zoning board actually adopted these regulations. They just sit in a different document that's buried on our hard drive. It's not ADA compliant, and it's not accessible by the public right now unless you know somebody on planning staff that knows where to find it. This is putting those into our code, which will be in Unicode, ADA accessible, accessible to anybody in the county or whoever needs to look at our county's code. So that's one of the major things, is that it's in the code. It's been adopted by reference, both by the board and by the Joint Airport Zoning Board way back in 2019. It's just, it's not accessible if we don't put in the code. I'll open up the meeting for any public comment. Is anyone to speak in favor or in opposition to this request? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion. Cindy Janamasso, motion to approve LDC-T-2026-10. Mike Hickman, second. Motion to approve. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso, for the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Next case, please. Next case is LDCPAL 2026-7. It's a required item that all governments have to do in the state of Florida as an annual CIE update. Just referencing different items that different boards adopt. And Robert Bolton is the case planner. Good morning, Robert Bolton with Land Development, presenting LDCPAL 2026-17, a comprehensive plan amendment to Chapter 4, Section 4.2, Capital Improvements Element. For the record, a legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun on July 22, 2026. Staff report ordinance and rather large attachments are also submitted for the record. Typically, a text amendment updates, adds, deletes, modifies the text. This action, the action of this amendment to the capital improvements element is Florida Statutes 163.3177, which requires that the capital improvements be reviewed on an annual basis. And the comprehensive plan, Section 4.2, of the capital improvements element, which are on the screen there, Policy 4.206 requires the adoption of the capital improvement programs into the comprehensive plan by reference. That's the three attachments that we are doing by reference. Policy 4.27 sets forth the concurrency management. The three capital improvement plans or programs provided provides the path for future concurrency needs and the fiscal path to provide for the concurrency. The three attachments, which are the Board of County Commissioners Community Investment Plan, or CIP, for 26 through 30 years. The Polk County School Board's five-year capital plan for the years 2024 through 2028. And the Polk Transportation Organization's Transportation Improvement Program for years 26, 27 through 2030 and 2031. This text amendment should not be confused with the comp plan update that you've been receiving updates for about the past year. And we're going to today, but not. This is a state-mandated update for the review and reference to the programs for concurrency evaluation within the comp plan. With that, I submit the attachments, the ordinance, and stand for questions. Any questions, staff? Seeing none, I'll open the case up for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience to speak in favor or in opposition to this request? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Board for discussion and a motion. I move to approve LDC-PAL 2026-7. Robert Beltran. Mike Hickman, second. Motion to second to approve. Roll call, please. Robert Beltran. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Julie Jackson. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. So next on the item was to be comprehensive plan update, which we're not having. So the next, I see, I guess this is interim presentation. So the next is right-of-way presentation. Well, yeah. Let me just introduce the whole concept of our summer internship program, if you're not aware of it. Every summer, Polk County has two interns. We usually try to get one from an undergrad program in planning and one from a master's degree program in planning. It's a three-fold process by which, during the first month, we train them on everything that's land development code or comp plan and all about Polk County and all about planning. And then they go on to put together a land-use hearing officer case that's taken before the land-use hearing officer. And then we also assign them a summer project that is more like a research project that builds the basis for the county's work program to come forward in the next year. These projects, the first one you'll see is about illegal use of the right-of-way or construction in the right-of-way without authorization. And how we should tackle that. The other project is about the big, you know, the three corners of the county. We've got Green Swamp, the bombing range, and then the phosphate mining area. And we're not mining phosphate anymore. And we've got to find out, figure out what to do with that. And it's laying the groundwork for identifying what are the opportunities, especially in the way of industrial and commercial opportunities that are out in that area. Our two interns. I'll introduce Abigail Hutchinson. She is from Florida Atlantic University. Go Owls. And after her. You didn't sound real convincing with that. Go Owls. After she goes, is Judson Lizenby. He's from Auburn. War Eagle. War Eagle. Did anyone? Yes. And he'll be presenting on the Southwest District. These projects lay the groundwork for future ordinances and comp plan amendments and things that you'll see in the upcoming year. So this kind of gives you an introduction to the things that the planning staff will be working on. They give us a launch, a good amount of background research and direction from where to take in without further ado. Well, I've got a question. So did they get to choose what projects they're working on, or did you assign them? We assign them. As staff, we get together before the internship season and figure out some of the top priorities that we have. And when they arrive, we do some assessing, and then we assign them things that we think will be in benefit to them. And it is a national program. Our internship, we advertise nationally. The notices go out in January. They apply. Judson and Abigail were picked from about 30 candidates that we interviewed. And it's a real dynamic program, and we're real proud of it. And we're real proud of Abigail. She's going to teach you about our right-of-way issue. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. Okay, so the county right-of-way goes far beyond pavement. It's a public corridor used by everyone, and much of it is out of sight. Unauthorized use of the right-of-way is damaging county infrastructure, and this presentation will lay the problem, solution, and where we go as a county through a phased approach. Is this better? Yes. Wow, okay. The county right-of-way serve as the conduit for all infrastructure on or under the surface. It is any land owned or maintained by the county that may be reserved for public infrastructure. For instance, some of the things we typically see are roads, sidewalks, sewer, and drainage pipes. But what we don't see are the underground infrastructures, such as sewer, sewer drains, sorry, my bad. Sewer and drainage pipes, gas, and water mains, all of which make up the right-of-way. But the question here is, why does any of this matter? First, it protects public safety and supports motorists and pedestrians as everyone uses or interacts with the right-of-way on a daily basis. And second, it supports emergency access and roadway maintenance. Extra time navigating through an impaired right-of-way may be the difference between life and death. Lastly, it accommodates utilities and drainage systems, especially during the rainy seasons. And that combination of being critical but not always visible is precisely why unauthorized work is such a major concern for the county. When work happens within the right-of-way without authorization, the damage is real and the costs typically fall on the county. And the conditions that cause it remain, so it happens again. These four steps reinforce one another, resulting in an ongoing cycle of unauthorized right-of-way use. In many cases, the cycle starts with uncertain county right-of-way boundaries. And as a result, construction or other operations begin without the necessary approvals. This leads to destruction of public infrastructure as well as creating public safety issues. And the county's current regulatory framework exacerbates the problem. The current code has extremely limited sanctions and enforcement measures, making it difficult to hold responsible parties accountable or limit further infractions. And without clear boundaries, stronger coordination and significant enforcement, the cycle repeats itself. Staff finds that some of the most current occurrences within the right-of-way is presented here on this table. First, the miscommunication between engineers and contractors, as well as cities. On many projects, responsibilities are shared among several parties. And sometimes the assumptions are made that the permits have already been obtained when that's not really the case. And when those assumptions are wrong, work begins, unauthorized work begins, and that leads to damages again. Next, county roads often pass through cities. And without proper coordination, work may be performed in the county row or right-of-way without realizing county approval is still required. And while these situations are different, they all point to the same issue being a lack of awareness and coordination. And that's why education is our first step in preventing unauthorized work before it becomes a costly repair or public safety concern. And if these listed previously are some common problems that we face as a county, the next question is, how do we prevent them? And it starts with helping people understand when county approval is required and what steps they need to follow before beginning work. One of the things that we want to get across to the public is that it's not just limited to defining the row or right-of-way, but also the different activities that require county approval and the step-by-step processes that are involved. For instance, some of these activities include building or modifying driveways that connect to county roads, excavating or making changes within the right-of-way and even installing utilities and any work that hinders or prevents traffic flow, like lane closures, lane or road closures. And these projects may seem routine, but they can damage underground infrastructure, block drainage or even create unsafe conditions for the general public, especially if those plans aren't properly reviewed. And that's why the county's permitting process exists, to identify those potential issues before they become costly problems. Rather than trying to address everything all at once, staff proposes a phased approach that builds from education to implementation and, finally, enforcement. And phase one here involves spreading awareness and information about the row. And not just to other staff, but also to the general public, inclusive of property owners, developers, contractors, and even the different cities. Phase two would be our implementation stage, where staff drafts an ordinance on the unauthorized use of the county right-of-way. And this ordinance would establish a clear process, define responsibilities, and give the county a consistent framework for protecting public infrastructure. Phase three, our final stage, would involve enforcement and mediation, where the county would have the leverage needed to identify responsible parties, mandate repairs, and take the appropriate enforcement actions when necessary. And this may include revoking professional licenses, restrict project bidding and submittals, as well as increase fines. Currently, the county's first offense fine, per Section 10 of the Code of Ordinances, is $25. And considering the cost of repairs, these penalties are not sufficient to discourage repeat offenders. The proposed ordinance would give the county stronger enforcement tools, greater leverage, and greater leverage, sorry, to protect public safety and infrastructure while holding those responsible parties accountable. One important thing here is that these three phases build on each other. They're not separate. And education does not stop at the first phase. It goes on towards the enforcement phase. As part of our phase one, staff proposes a public know-your-row viewroom. And it would help anyone answer these questions before starting a project. One, who owns the road? Two, which jurisdiction, being city or state or county, issues the necessary permit? And having a public-facing map would streamline not only the permitting process, but it would also target the confusion between who owns that right-of-way. Ultimately, this proposal isn't about creating more regulations. It's about having a straighter, clearer process. At the heart of this proposal, it's increasing public awareness and education of the county's right-of-way while protecting public infrastructure and services that our community needs and relies on every day. And that is the right way, to use the right-of-way. And thank you. Good job. Do we have any questions? I'm just, I got one. It's not really a question, I guess, but I'm curious in your research, did you identify any problems maybe with the county? I say that because, you know, contractors and builders are always, they, you know, time is money and they need to get going. And so they asked their engineer, you know, why isn't this project getting started? Well, we're waiting on the county. And I'm just wondering if there was anything that you identified that was, that that was part of the problem. I mean, could the county do better in terms of its response to permitting and, and getting projects started? A lot of times the, the, the blame is on the county, but the problem is they haven't submitted plans yet. So we can't hold it up if we don't got nothing to review. Was there any attempt or anything that you identified, well, this is a, this is a problem. The county's process causes delays. Our county process is, is pretty efficient. We, we have a 10 day review and, uh, we do a lot of turnaround, uh, modifications and things in the field. Uh, if there's necessary changes and things, we were very accommodating. A lot of times it, as, as Abigail mentioned, it's just not lack of awareness. I got my city permits, you know, I'm on, you know, uh, you know, I can go ahead and start building. Well, no, it's the county's right of way. And we didn't want you to do an open cut there. Uh, we, we want you to do a directional drill to the, the road foundation is not suitable for, for an open cut. So that, that it's those kinds of things that we want to avoid. And this is kind of the launching point to that. And she laid out a very good process for, uh, informing. Thank you. Did you, did you pass out the brochure? Oh, yes. Yeah. Yes. She, so the brochures are going out to the city's permitting departments and there's, there's a, there's a QR code on there that they can snap to get to that, that, uh, website viewer. So, Abigail, is there anything currently in place that you reviewed? That I reviewed? Yeah. I mean, what, what, what have we been doing? Obviously you've been controlling right of ways for decades. Oh, we, yeah, we didn't have them, uh, review plans, uh, in this session, but, uh. Okay. But I mean, you don't have any regulations in place that govern. Oh, we do. As she, as she mentioned, we do and, and, and violation is, is a $25 fine. So it's really, as you mentioned, it's not a real deterrent. Well, I like the part about imprisonment. Jail. That's, that's what you, you found what other, some other jurisdictions are a little, take it a little more seriously. Yeah. Is that for the county officials or is that for the county? Um, just two thoughts. One, I love this map. I think this is genius. I think even when it came time, comes time to do elections, people don't know in my county and my city and we're looking at our trash cans going, what am I? So I think that is really going to be very helpful. And a question I have on the, the process, the one, two, three slide. Can you grab that one? Is the educating the people, educating about, there it is, the awareness and information, that's just about, this is what a right-of-way is? Because it seems to me like we should figure out what we're going to do and then educate people about how it's working. Or is the first one just about, this is what a right-of-way is? It's, it's not just what the right-of-way is, it's like everything. So even that public view that you showed, anyone can access that. So they can go on their phone and say, okay, county road, I need this permit. City road, I need that permit. So that's, that's where we, we aim to go with education and awareness. Okay. Thank you. I just want to add one thing real quick too, that, you know, one of the big challenges that, that we deal with is as fast as the county's growing and as fast as some cities are annexing, it's a cumbersome process of dealing with both a municipality and a county. So when we started the comprehensive plan update now two and a half years ago, I think it was, Shonda and I actually went and met with each of the city managers. And one of the things we're trying to do is continuously improve the relationships that we have with the cities and particularly the management office and the planning staff. So where we see an opportunity, we're, we're offering county staff, usually the engineering staff to go attend meetings at cities. We just went and attended a big meeting at Lake Wales last week. So while we do have a good process, there's always ways for us to improve. And one thing we're trying to do is to, to improve that relationship and that dialogue with the cities as cities and the county have turnover in staff. They may not know, in particular, the municipalities may not know the county process, but if we can embed county staff into those, those meetings and into those processes, that, that's certainly a systems improvement that we're trying to make, especially in some of our faster growing cities. It seems to me that if you had a site that you could go to and identify who's right of way it is, that would be the most helpful thing. So if I have a piece of property, I can, you know, sometimes it's cities, county, state, and who we have to deal with to get something done. Well, yeah, I would suggest that in addition to what you guys have talked about, the site of clicking on a road and you get who's right of way it is, but it'd be great to have a link right there to take them to their permitting site, right? So if you're going to work on this road right of way, click here, boom, here's your application for your right of way use permit. Great idea. Okay. But great, great presentation. Thank you. Good work. Thank you. Next up is Judson Lizenbeek from the great Auburn University. Well, before he starts, I'll say most people who know me know that I am a gator, that I bleed orange and blue, but what you probably don't know is how close I came to being a War Eagle. So my second university that I do root for is Auburn. Is it a far second, Merle, or a close second? That's the question. No, far second. Far second. Okay. You know, I will say I will support UF before Alabama, so we're in the same boat right there. But let me hunch over a little bit tall, but good morning, everyone. My name is Judson Lizenbeek. On everything it says, Robert Lizenbeek, that's my first name. Go I mill name, a little bit confusing, but I just wanted to say thank you all for having me here, and thank you for your opportunity to speak here. I've been a planning intern this summer for the Land Development Division, and I wanted to talk you through what we call the Southwest Polk Parcel Evaluation. The name's a little bit of a tongue twister, but this is the project that I've been working on this summer. I'm going to hunch over a little bit. Working on this summer, and it's focused on the southwest corner of the county. And so that's along the State Road 37 Corridor, which is the old phosphate mining district where not much mining's going on anymore. This is running south of Mulberry, through the Fort Meade, Fort Green, Bradley, and Agricola areas. So what I set out to do, just for a little context, is to not just to evaluate these parcels and give you some sort of a snapshot. What I wanted to do was build some sort of repeatable method, essentially kind of a calculator that can score each parcel of this phosphate mining district on a consistent 100-point scale and point to maybe what's the best land use it could be used for in the future. My internship, it will end, but I don't want this tool to. So to build and test it, I ran a total of 399 parcels through it, pulled the owner value acreage data for each one, and packaged everything into a companion workbook, which is being passed around now, and also provided the project framework through a written evaluation, which each of you have a copy of. So before I start, I would like to ask that to think of this today as a foundation for the project. The division's larger goal is to protect this corridor for employment use and steer it in the right direction economically and developmentally-wise. What this gives you is a repeatable, evidence-based way to do exactly that, parcel by parcel, throughout the end of my internship, and so on. So I'll keep this walkthrough short and sweet, and we'll get on with it. There we go. See if you can get that ribbon there. Ribbon? I'm so sorry. I might have to escape out of it and enter. For some reason, all the slideshows are showing in the box. There's the escape. You know, you would think I'm 23. I know to use a computer, guys. Okay. I can't. Yeah. Close some of those out or something. Yeah. You know what? Oh, there we go, guys. Finally. Oh. There we go. Okay, you know? There you go. Yeah. Sit up a little bit. Yeah. Thanks. Much better. All right. There we go. We got that out of the way, and I got the microphone a little closer. So now we're going to talk about how the actual parcels are ranked. So each parcel got a score out of 100, and it's built from the six factors you see here. The two out of them that carry the most weight are accessibility and utilities, and that's deliberate. If you can't get in with a truck or if you can't run water, it's not going to be super attractive to developers or employers that are looking to provide industry in those areas. A parcel can look really, really good on paper, but without those, without power, without other things in that previously mined area, it's not going to be attractive. So the other factors that fill out the picture are highway frontage, road width, essentially how hard it is to move the parcel off the mining designation to another use, and any other prior contamination in the soil or in the water. So essentially the higher the parcel score, the better fit its industrial and employment reuse is. The important thing is that this is an opinion. I wanted to make it as quantitative and objective as possible. So each of these 399 parcels is measured in the same way against the same yardstick. So we're going to move on from the scoring and go to our map. So this is our custom GIS map. This was built out of the scoring data. And on the left on the screen, you can see that it has a bunch of different layers. The one that's displayed here is the parcels by score. So this allows you to see the patterns that are exemplified throughout those attributes visually. And you can see a pattern. So the strongest parcels are not scattered at random here. It's that dark green. And they're up along State Road 37, close to the rail line and the power corridor. This clustering is important to note. It means the best opportunities are right next to one another, which makes it possible to assemble them to something larger, potentially. Also, they may have the same owner, which we'll get to in just a moment. So I want to talk about why these things matter. There are four things I want you to take from this slide. First, residential growth is moving north. Since Manatee County opened its land beyond their 1989 growth boundary back in 2021, the housing demand has started looking for cheaper land in southwest Polk County. And that's this area that we're talking about today. So second, and this is one part that I want to mention, is industrial land rarely comes back. So you can hear about industrial land, other land being converted to residential. But you rarely hear about industrial or residential land going to industrial. No one really wants to live by a factory. If you told them that, they'd probably say no. So it's important to kind of conserve this area and make sure that it's available for developers in the future because it's very hard to get a second chance on that. So also, this is a weak residential zone. Most of this ground is reclaimed phosphate mine land, the phosphatic clay setting the areas. It has a very poor bearing capacity, not the best drainage, lots of processed ponds, and it's located 50 miles inland. Last thing I want to mention is timing. So many subject parcels can be immediately or easily transformed into those active industrial sites we want to revitalize. Now is the optimal time to, one, maximize the economic development impact, but also to kind of negate the negative impacts it could have on people that may be settling there and may be developing residential sites in that area. So, what that data shows, out of the 399 parcels, 207 were flagged as conversion opportunities. There are 175 owners in that district, and out of all of them, that 49,762 acres, it's valued at about $134.5 million, according to the Polk County Property Appraiser. Now, recommendations and next steps. So, it may seem obvious, but reach out to the major landowners. This ownership is very concentrated. Mosaic owns about 52% of those parcels. So, the small number of conversations, you can cover the corridors faster, have less conversations, but they'll be a little bit more meaningful and productive. Use. So, with that companion workbook, that one is just the rankings. There are a few other tabs. I just did not want to overload you guys in information. It includes each parcel's owner, their mailing address, the assessed value of their parcel, the acreage, and an owner contact directory that's already assembled. And all of that information, as well, can be, is arranged in the way that it converts directly into a shape file or a CSV file. So, it can be converted and added into that map within five minutes. Working with the owners. So, working with them, not around them. So, county and landowners, they share a very similar interest. Economic development, revitalization, and I think coordinating it rather than working or just making things very, very clear that we're on the same page would be the optimal option. Considering acquisition. So, where the fit is right, where a good deal could be arranged, the county could reasonably explore purchasing parcels from the willing owners to bank employment land for the future that could be more attractive to developers nationally or internationally to settle in that area. And then setting a clear path. So, establishing a straightforward route from phosphate mining to employment designations so this land is not lost to housing or anything else by default. So, once again, my name is Judson Lizenby, and I will stand for any questions you may have. Any questions? Yes. I had a quick question on the scoring matrix. Do you have scoring criteria for each of those six categories? So, if you go back to that slide, I think the first one was accessibility. Do you have, like, a distance? Is it like it's a five? Yes. So, they all have their each unique values. That's listed out and explained in the actual, like, master Excel workbook. It's a little bit confusing to try and get it out of 100 since all of those, like, utilities, power, gas, and water, those are three separate scores combined into one score. So, the system is broken down. I'll provide that. I'm happy to email that out. The system is broken down. It may look a little bit wonky, but it's the best way to balance it and get a clear score out of 100. Does that answer your question? Yeah, it does. Thank you. And a quick follow-up question. You mentioned a lot of this is phosphate from land. And did you look at the reclamation plans relative to those phosphate lands and how that might fit or change your scoring? Absolutely. So, I've seen a good amount of past examples, especially ones from Mosaic. And that, I would say it does, I wouldn't say it influenced the scoring here. And I say that because what ultimately you're looking for is to convert it on the easiest turnaround, the most economically efficient one, to where we're maintaining that industrial kind of hub in that area. So, I would say if you're referring to past reclamation projects that are more environmentally driven or something more along the lines of ARR or recreation, this is focused a little bit more towards industrial, but it still keeps that opportunity open if the actual criteria are set for it. Does that answer your question? Thank you. And did I hear you suggest that the county would look at purchasing land banking? I'm sorry. Yeah, the county owns some of that land. A lot of it is owned by, I mentioned Mosaic and some of the other larger companies that did phosphate mining in the past that are moving south. I believe it could be a good idea, but obviously, you guys are the professionals. So, I think it would be good to bank land to attract maybe larger industrial employers, larger groups, just to think for the future. Maybe. Actually, the county has done that in the past. Do you know the area that we saw today with the comp plan amendment that Maine, Maine is in the state, not Main Street, and the Pavers Road in that area was originally purchased by the county, and an industrial development authority was created to make that industrial park long ago. But it was on top of former phosphate mining land as well. So, I got a question. Was there any consideration for limiting factors? I mean, because some of this land, as it's been reclaimed, is like tailings areas for phosphatic clays, like you mentioned, and other. So, it's not all really available because there's limits. And also, what about, I mean, particularly some of the older lands, you would want to develop because it's environment, it's kind of habitat now for all kinds of wildlife. Yeah, absolutely. That's a great question. In that master Excel sheet that I plan to share, in the contamination prior use section, it outlines all the soil surveys. And it was taken from the National Soil Survey resource that Eric provided us at the beginning of our internship. All of that is listed out, and that is considered for and accounted for in this course. And that was probably part of your 50, it looked like 50% of it you had identified as being used for industrial or whatever uses you're talking about today. I think he did say that in one of the slides. It was like half. Any other questions? Good job. Thank you so much, guys. I appreciate it. Okay, Mr. Ziscoll, I believe you're up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a handful of remarks. First, you know, great job to the interns. And I want to thank, in particular, Eric and Ian and Mark for not only this summer, but the last few years we've really grown this internship program. And really what we've tried to do is you go through school, whether it's the undergrad or the graduate level, especially for planning, there's a lot that you can learn in a classroom or in a book that is not real when it comes to what we all do, whether it's staff, whether it's you as an appointed volunteer planning commission, or whether it's elected officials, you don't learn in a classroom how to deal with a disgruntled property owner or a neighbor. You don't see the public hearing process. You don't do real research on real properties. In a classroom, you can learn of a utopian city where everything is perfect. But in the real world, it doesn't work that way. And I think the internship programs that urban planning schools have, usually as a requirement for graduation, really give that real work experience, ideally between junior year and senior year, so the students can get a summer of learning and then go back and do their senior year and then really know what they want to do from a career standpoint. The urban planning profession, especially when you're in school, you could start at a base level of an undergraduate degree and really go a multitude of directions. You can be a land use planner working in public sector. You can go into the transportation world. You can go into economic development, GIS, environmental planning. There's just so many things you can do with the degree that they're earning, and we hope that we can provide three months of real-world experience to help them understand what they want to do. So, Abigail and Judson, I just want to say publicly thank you for what you've done this summer. We hope that we gave you a valuable experience. What we've tried to do with this program, and I'll just elaborate a little bit more, is a few years ago we were getting a handful of applicants from those universities really within a commuting radius of Polk County. And staff and I had a conversation and said, let's think big, right? People love Florida. People want to come to Florida. They may not know exactly how hot it is in the summer, but they want to come to Florida. So, we did research a few years ago, and we put together a database of all of the accredited urban planning schools in the nation. And we found, whether it's their register office, whether it's their urban planning department head, whatever email or address we could find for all of the urban planning schools. And every year in the spring, late winter, early spring, when people are starting to think about their internships, we're sending out a notification to all of those universities that we have internships available. Eric mentioned that we selected Judson and Abigail out of about 30 applicants this year, and I can tell you those came from New York. They came from Oklahoma. They came from Florida, from Indiana, from Michigan, all across the country. So, we're getting into the urban planning programs nationwide. We were able to get, you know, Abigail comes from South Florida, Judson from Auburn. Last year, we were able to get someone from Ball State in Indiana. So, this program is getting a reputation. The universities sort of expect to hear from us, and it's something that we've been able to build off of. And I think case in point today of what Eric and Ian and Mark have been able to build as far as a work product to be able to do a professional-level presentation to the Planning Commission of the fastest-growing county in the state of Florida is a pretty darn good project for an intern. So, again, thank you all. Eric, Mark, Ian, thank you. And Judson and Abigail, thanks and best wishes as you go back to school and graduate and start your planning career. The last part that I want to do today is we, it's a bittersweet moment anytime someone sits on the dais for the last time. So, I'm honored, but also, again, bittersweet to have to say goodbye for now to a couple of you on the dais. But thank you for your service. I've said this before. Today, we had a very mild agenda. But as volunteers, and I want to read, volunteers to serve the community, you all make probably the hardest decisions that any volunteer board makes in government. And those decisions are often blasted on Facebook. You often get comments from the podium. You're personally attacked. Your family's attacked. All for trying to do good for the community. So, this process can't work without volunteers. We have a staff. We have elected officials. But the state of Florida, and I think every single state, requires a volunteer board in this capacity to review land use cases and make decisions. And you make important decisions that are binding and that last decades and generations. So, thank you all, but also special recognition for two of you today. First is Julie Jackson. And Julie was in a unique position of filling out a term. And that's a weird position to be in, that it wasn't a full term. But knowing that and still wanting to serve the community, she graciously agreed to fill out that term. So, we do have a recognition to the dedication and commitment as a member of the Planning Commission from January 26 to August of 2026 to Julie Jackson. And I'll just say, before I move on, from Julie, I've been doing this 22 years now. And I think this is the first time I've had someone on a Planning Commissioner or Planning and Zoning Board that had the insurance expertise and asked the insurance questions, which is a valuable part of this discussion. So, Julie, thanks for bringing that expertise. Again, I've worked with hundreds of Planning Commissioners and have never had that insight. So, thank you for bringing that. And the next one is completing his second term. So, it's termed out and must now leave the dais from September 2020 to August 2026, recognition to Mr. Robert Beltran for his service. And, again, with Mr. Beltran, I mean, the expertise, having worked at the Water Management District and just how important the water resources are in this county and how important that evaluation is to development projects is unmatched. Never met someone that's such an expert in that topic in that field. So, Mr. Beltran, thanks for bringing that to this dais and to this county. Mr. Chairman, that's all I have. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, if I could first. Thank you. I just wanted to say thank you to all my fellow board members. I've learned a lot from each of you, and I appreciate your cordial demeanor, how we talk about things, and how we get things done together. Especially, I want to thank staff for always helping us and educating us and being a good, balancing, sound off board for everything you guys do day in and day out. I know your jobs are not easy. I've been there on your side of the equation, and it's not easy. And I think you guys do a great job presenting the facts, keeping it clean, and making sure that we're making good decisions up here. So, I just wanted to thank everybody, both current commissioners and past commissioners I've served with for many years. So, thank you guys all for your help and support. Thank you. It's been a pleasure serving with you. Any other comments? Seeing no other business on the agenda, do I have a motion to adjourn? Second. Motion second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. We're adjourned. We're adjourned.