Planning Commission on 2026-10-07 9:00 AM - Oct 07, 2026

a regular meeting of the Polk County Planning Commission to order for our October meeting. Could I have a roll call, please? Shane Babalacqua. Present. Cindy Janamon. Present. Roe Bishop. Present. Brooke Agnini. Here. Mike Kickman. Here. Tracy Munster. Okay. We have a gore. Thank you. So next on our agenda is our Pledge of Allegiance. The flag of the United States of America is the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God. So we have our minutes that have been sent to us from our September meeting. Do I have any discussion or changes to the minutes? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Move to approve. Angel Sims, second. Second. Motion, second. All in favor, approving the minutes, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Next, we'll have the attorney give us the explanation of general procedures. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Office of Land Development will introduce cases and disclose any responses to the notifications which were not already provided to the Planning Commission in their packet. The Land Development Case Planner will then present their staff report and recommendation. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak and present testimony on the 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. One, there is no opposition to the case present at the hearing. Two, the recommendation of the Office of Planning and Development is for approval. And three, all the commission members present wish to use this procedure. With regard to Level 3 reviews, pursuant to Section 906 of the Polk County Land Development Code, the Planning Commission may approve the applicant's request, deny the applicant's request, or approve the request with additional conditions. Pursuant to Section 921 of the Land Development Code, the applicant or any substantially affected interest may appeal the final decision of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners by filing a formal application with the Land Development Division and paying the application fee. The appeal must be filed with the Land Development Division within seven calendar days of the Planning Commission hearing. The Board of County Commissioners shall set a date and time for a de novo hearing. If a party decides to appeal a decision made by the Planning Commission with respect to any Level 3 review, he or she will need a record and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made. The record includes all testimony and evidence given at the hearing. Each person or party that qualifies to file such an appeal must independently exercise their right of appeal in order to preserve it. 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 the 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 in such withdrawals. 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 the 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 the 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 communications, the Planning Commission receives numerous communications from the public. Unless otherwise stated, it should be presumed that ex parte communications have been made to the members of the commission regarding the matter. During the hearing, the applicant, organized opposition, and the public may request the commission disclose any ex parte communication or site visits they have had regarding the matter and question the members regarding their communication or site visits. Unless a commission member recuses themselves, he or she has determined that they are able to hear the case and fairly and impartially make a decision on the matter based on the competent, substantial evidence in the record. Mr. Chair, would you like me to swear in the witnesses for today's case? Yes, please. Thank you. If you attend to address the Planning Commission on any case today, please stand up, raise your right hand, and answer out loud the following question. This applies to all cases, so if you believe you may speak, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm that the testimony and evidence you will provide to the Planning Commission today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. You may be seated. I'll now go over some housekeeping items before we get started. First, we need to admit the county's land planners as expert witnesses. They have all been accepted as experts in the past. However, if you would like to voidire any of them as to their background or expertise, then you may do so at this time. Without any opposition to their admission, can we please have a motion to accept staff as experts in their field of land planning? Do I have a motion and a second? So moved. Second. Motion and a second to approve. All in favor, sign up, say an aye. Aye. Aye. Secondly, if we have any experts of applicants, then you may tender them at this time or you may wait until your case is called. Finally, the Planning Commission must review quasi-judicial land use cases. Quasi-judicial means the action entails applying land development policies to a specific land development application in a fair and impartial manner. The Commission's review is limited to two areas, consistency and compatibility. Regarding consistency, the Commission must determine whether the application is consistent with both the comprehensive plan and the land development code. The staff report and presentation will provide expert analysis and opinion regarding the applicable criteria, as well as a recommendation as to whether the application is consistent with those criteria. Regarding compatibility, the Commission must determine whether the application is compatible with the surrounding areas. 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 it as adequate to support the conclusion. The following items are competent substantial evidence, evidence that is fact-based and relevant to the applicable criteria, and staff reports and 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 aesthetics and compatibility of the project with surrounding neighborhood. However, popularity polls, petitions, testimony that is hypothetical, speculative, based on fear, or consist 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, schools, schools, and utility capacity, as well as light and noise pollution, or the applicant's impact on property values, citizen testimony is not competent substantial evidence unless the witness is qualified as an expert in that area. This concludes my comments. Thank you. Thank you. So, we'll proceed with our agenda, and I'll point out that we've been told that case LDCU 2026-3, which is titled Recreation High Intensity, has been withdrawn. So, with that, we'll proceed with item number one, under new business. Again, this is the final order for LDPD 2026-6. There's no presentation for that. It's just the adoption of the final order from the denial. And we heard this on? It was on June 3rd. Yeah. Okay. Do I have a motion to approve the final order? Move to approve. Angel Sims second. Motion second to approve. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Next case. Next case is LDCPAS 2020-6-15, and Robert Bolton is the case planner. Good morning. Robert Bolton with Land Development. Presenting LDCPAS 2026-15, a future land use map amendment from institutional to residential suburban in the suburban development area of the SDA. For the record, 93 mailers were sent to area property owners on September 21st. One board was posted on site September 18th. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun on September 23rd. No responses from the public have been received. The staff report, ordinance, application impact assessment, as well as other application documents are submitted into the record. This is a level four review and will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on November 3rd for adoption. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code and staff recommends approval. The subject site is located west of Kathleen Road on the south side of Glisson Drive, north of Pine Avenue, northwest and east of the CSX rail line, northwest of the city of Lakeland and in the Kathleen area. This is a 2023 contact serial. For context, this is Kathleen Road and Duff Road up here. This is the future location of the Northwest County Service Center and this is the subject site right here. This is a closer look at the surrounding area. The site is located within the center of a fully residentially developed area, except for the subject site. This is the close view of the subject site. The subject site was originally a potable water well site for the Polk County utilities. The site was abandoned in November 2022 with the well being plugged on November 15th, 2023. The site was subsequently sold by Polk County as surplus land. The request is for a future land use change from institutional to the land use surrounding it, that of residential suburban. Residential suburban allows for one dwelling unit per five acres. However, the comprehensive plan policy 2.125 in residential infill development would be applicable along with the land development code section 303 conditional use infill development, which can allow the site to utilize these policies for a potential subdivision into two lots, which is very consistent with what is surrounding, if not larger than the surrounding lots. This is the existing future land use map showing the institutional future land use district surrounded by the residential suburban. This is what the land use map would look like after. This is the subject site looking from the north side of Glisson looking south. This is the north side, the residential units across the street. This is looking east on Glisson Drive and looking west on Glisson Drive. The site is serviced by a full array of public services for the suburban development area and is not anticipated to have negative impact. With a potential for two residential dwellings, the school's calculations, which are calibrated for much larger developments, indicate that there would be no impact to the schools. The requested change from an institutional residential suburban within the SDA. The site was a former potable well site, which has been abandoned and capped and was sold by Polk County as surplus land. The site is surrounded by residential suburban land use district. The comprehensive plan and land development code have policies that will allow for residential infill development of this site. The site has public water requirement for the SDA. The request is consistent and compatible with the comprehensive plan and land development code. This is really just a, almost a poster child of a land use change to be able to use the infill policies that are there. It is consistent. Staffer recommends approval. And I submit this presentation for the record and stand for any questions. Any questions of staff? Seeing none, is the applicant present? Yes, sir. Would you like to come forward? You know, name and address, please. Do you have anything to add to what the staff has to say? A little, a little, a little. Oh. Okay. I'm sorry. James Burke, that's my name, and I'm living at 935 Tangelo Circle, Bartow, Florida. Okay. Thank you. Do you have anything to add or comments? I appreciate the recommendation for approval, and we are looking forward to developing these two partials. And we would like to get the approval from the board to move forward. So your intent is to divide the property into two lots, as was mentioned by staff? Yes, sir. That is correct. Okay. Any questions to the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience to speak in favor of this application? Anyone to speak in opposition to this application? Seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the board for further discussion and a motion. I move to approve LDC-PAS-2026-15. Angel Sims, second. I have a motion and a second to approve. Roll call, please. Shane Bevilacqua. 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. Tracy Muncy. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Number three on the agenda. Next case is a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment, LDC-PAL-2026-8, from phosphate mining to industrial, and Tyler Daniels is the case planner. Good morning, Tyler Daniels, land development. This is LDC-PAL-2026-8. It's a comp plan amendment on 118 acres to change the future land use from phosphate mining to industrial. And SAF recommends approval. The site is in the southwest corner of the county, north of the Hardy County Line, about 14 miles southwest of Fort Meade, in sections 29 and 30. It's on the east side of State Road 37, just east of the Hillsborough County Line and north of Hardy County Line. The amendment area is outlined here. It currently has no structures on it. The area is surrounded by phosphate mining. It's about three miles from the nearest ARR here to the north, and just over five miles from the recreation and open space area to the east, which is the Stream Song Gulf Resort. Here's a close-up of the phosphate mining land use and the proposed as industrial. This is facing just east on the property. There's currently no mining on the property, and all surrounding units have been released. You can see the outline of the property there in the yellow. And there's no impact on surrounding infrastructure. Again, SAF recommends approval. Industrial is an appropriate redevelopment for phosphate mining, and the mining has been abandoned, and the applicant also owns all of the surrounding property. And I stand for questions. Any questions of SAF? What is that going on there in the, I guess in that corner area there, south and west of the site? It kind of wraps around it. Southwest? Yeah, that, I don't know how else to describe it. There seems to be some activity there. I don't know what it is. Oh, yeah. I'll let the applicant speak to that. So let me just stay there just a minute. Any more questions of staff? I have a question. How much of the site has a state environmental release? All of it has been released from mining. I don't think any of it has any state environmental release currently on the property. I'll let the applicant speak more to that. I have a question before we even go anywhere. 10 miles, go back to the previous slide. 10 miles to a fire station and 18 miles to an ambulance is a long time. I'm wondering what's going to be happening here because I wouldn't want to have to wait a half an hour for an ambulance. Yeah. I'll let them speak to what they're going to do on the property. You're the applicant. So go ahead and state your name and address, please. Cali Ward, 414 West Main Street, Wachula, Florida. I work for Mosaic, and thank you so much for the opportunity to tell you a little bit more about my project. The structures or the activities on the southwest corner of that shape is an active pipe laydown yard. So for our mine pipe, we stage the pipe there. You'll see the rail wraps around on the east side and the south side of this parcel. So we deliver it by rail, and that's where we put some of our mine pipes before we deploy them in the mines. Okay. All right. Then to the environmental release, this property has been released from the state of Florida Department of Environmental Protection. All of the mining obligations, it has been released. So it was mined and reclaimed and now released from the state. And then the distance from EMS, I'll tell you a little bit about the pipe extrusion plant. So what they do is they take small pellets of plastics, HDPE pipe is produced. So it's extruded through three different trains that are planned for this site. So you heat up those plastics and you extrude them into the mining pipe that we need. So instead of metal pipe, we're able to use the HDPE pipe. And then so we do have provisions where we're working on a level two application for any fire water that is needed for this site. But there's no structures around, and we also have a lot of ditches and waters surrounding the property. So how many people do you anticipate working there and being there? I think 25 is planned, plus or minus five, is what I understand. Okay. Is anybody on site now with the, I forget what you called it, the existing activity that's there? So we do not have any activities going on at this site yet, but we do have an active pipe extrusion plant south of Green Bay off of 630. So it is already operating, but that's one of the plants we'll be moving to the site. So we have two locations, and we're consolidating into this one location. Will there be any type of conditional use, since it's just general manufacturing? I don't know what conditional use is. Could you explain a little bit further? Do you know what's going out on the site at this point? Yes, so the three trains for the pipe extrusion plants are planned, and some roadways to support in the storage area. So we have a retention pond plan as part of the site plan, but that's what we have planned for this time. Okay. Any further questions? Thank you. Anyone in the audience 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 further discussion or questions and a motion. I'm stuck on 30 minutes for an ambulance for 25 people working there. I don't know what kind of things can go wrong on a project like this, but, you know, when I'm making these decisions, I'm thinking 20 years ahead, you know, probably 20 years ahead it's going to be inundated with all kinds of things. But is anybody else concerned about that, or am I being overly cautious? Isn't that rather characteristic of all that industrial down in that area, though? I mean, and even some of the housing that's there and, you know, immediately around there. Okay. Yeah. Just from having done many of these, I've never approved anything that was that far that I recall. Um, but if we, if there's precedent for it and it's working well, then that eases my conscience a little bit. If I may, there is, uh, a fire station with EMS planned for Bradley Junction. It'll be under construction next year. It'll be closer. Ha ha. Thank you. I can sleep. So I, I would just add that I think that in terms of Mr. Hickman's comments, yeah, this, I mean, he's a big County and there's places that are going to be, uh, I guess, more difficult timing wise to get to for emergency, uh, equipment. And granted, if you accept a job here and you're going to work here, maybe you don't necessarily know that, but it is part of the business of mining phosphate. I mean, it's, it's out, uh, in remote areas of the County and hopefully, uh, Mosaic has a contingency plan for any, uh, catastrophe or accidents that would happen out there that they could do a triage or whatever themselves before any, uh, ambulance or whatever would get there. So I'm just thinking that hopefully you've anticipated that and being able to, uh, handle any fire that breaks out or any accidents that happen. So Mosaic does have an emergency response team that is also serving our mine sites. So we realized we're in the middle of nowhere. And so we have lots of, um, guys on each shift that are trained in emergency response and have even, um, helicopter landing pads for those types of situations. So we do have kind of, um, a self-serving, um, emergency response also. And just as another aside, uh, mining is governed by MSHA, which is like OSHA on steroids. So they are very diligent in their safety protocols and so forth. So, okay. Shonda Bennett, for the record, I'd like to point out one other thing. They technically could do this without a public hearing under phosphate mining, but with the industrial land due classification, it gives them the ability to do industrial and cell pipe to anybody. Otherwise it would just have to be for the phosphate company. So we, if they came in tomorrow with a level two in phosphate mining, we'd approve it, regardless of the fire station location. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments? I'm in a motion. I'm in a motion. I was going to do it. I want to do this one. Go ahead. Go ahead. I feel good about it. L-B-C-P-A-L-2026-8. I move to approve. Second. Motion second to approve. Roll call, please. Well done. Shane Bevilacqua. 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. Tracy Muncie. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Next case, please. Staff. Next case is also a large-scale conference plan amendment, L-D-C-P-A-L-2026-9. There was a mistake with the staff report that Tyler will explain as part of his presentation, but for the record, it was advertised correctly. Okay, this is L-D-C-P-A-L-2026-9. Comp plan amendment for 24 acres to change from regional activity center to business park center. Staff does recommend approval. The site is northeast on I-4 off Highway 27, just over a mile north of Haines City and Lake Alfred. The two parcels here outlined in yellow is the amendment area. Staff notes that the staff report was written for just the southern parcel rather than the northern parcel. However, the case was advertised correctly, as Shonda mentioned. I just want to correct for the record that both these parcels are to be considered to change to the BPC, and staff still recommends approval in the Planning Commission's motion to please include the ability for staff to revise the report before the board's transmittal hearing. And this is a little bit of the developed, surrounding developed area. You can see the BPC is to the west of the area, and this is what it would be proposed. This is the site facing north. That's access road there on the right side of your screen, and this is facing south. There's very minimal impact to the surrounding infrastructure. There's no wetlands or surface waters. Staff does recommend approval. The change to BPC would be contiguous to the surrounding property, and it is lower intensity. And I stand for questions. Any questions of staff? Has there been a traffic study? Yes, I believe there is a traffic study in the staff report, but it doesn't reflect the two parcels, only the southern parcel there. We do have the applicant here as well. What is that located east of the site, at least east of the northern parcel there? Oh, I see. I believe that's a car dealership. No, Jared is south. I don't know what that is. Unless it does look like... The Walmart Center is north of that as well. I don't know what that is. I believe it's some kind of fueling station for fleet vehicles. For what vehicles? Fleet vehicles. Fleet vehicles, okay. It's compressed natural gas. That's what it is. Okay. It's owned by CT Clean Davenport LLC. Okay, I'm just curious. Any other questions? Is the applicant present? Yes, sir. Hello, good morning. My name is Alex Getz. I work with KPM Franklin, civil engineers, land planners, 63 Hazeltine National Drive in Orlando. And open any questions. Any questions of the applicant? Seeing none, thank you. I'll open up the case for the public response. Anyone here to speak in favor of the application? Anyone speak in opposition to the application? So I'll close the public comment portion and bring it back to the board for discussion. Any further questions and a motion? I make a motion to approve LDC-PAL-2026-9. If I may ask, Mr. Hickman, does that include the ability for staff to update the staff report to reflect both parcels? Yes, with corrections to be made. Thank you, sir. Tracy Mounsey, second. Motion is second to approve. Roll call, please. Shane Bevilacqua. For the motion. Cindy Janamoso. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Tracy Mounsey. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Item number five on the agenda, staff. All right. Number five is LDCU-2026-16. This is a conditional use request for a duplex in the Eloise area, area, area, area, and with Aliyah and Gleam as your planner. Good morning, Aliyah and Gleam with Land Development presenting number five on the agenda, LDCU-2026-16, the second street duplex. This is a request for a conditional use approval for a duplex to be located on 0.15 acres within a residential low for future land use district. The subject site is located at 119 2nd Street, north of 3rd Street, south of Highway 17, and west of Snively Avenue, north of the city of Eagle Lake, and Section 5, Township 29, Range 26. On September 21st, 92 mailers were sent to area property owners. A sign was posted on September 22nd, and a legal ad was published in the Polk Sun on September 23rd with no response from the public. So the subject site is designated as Lot 13 in the J.A. Leslie subdivision recorded in January 18th, 1926, prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. The R04 future land use designation is an accurate representation of the existing lot sizes. The subject property is part of the Eloise Redevelopment District, and the site is within the transit corridor within the transit center, which allows up to 15 dwelling units per acre. So the surrounding homes were built between 1960 and 1970, and the previous home was demolished. The proposed duplex will be approximately 1,790 square feet, and the duplex will resemble a single-family structure and meet all setbacks. And here is a photo from my site visit. Staff finds that the placement of a duplex at this site does not represent any apparent incompatibilities. The subject site is within the Eloise Redevelopment District and within the TCCO. The proposed request is consistent with the LDC and the Comprehensive Plan, and I'll stand for any questions. Any questions of staff? Do you know, are there any other duplexes in this neighborhood? No, there's not. Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask, is the applicant present? Okay. I'll open up the item to the public comment. Anyone in the audience to speak in favor of this application? Anyone speak in opposition to this application? So I'll bring it back to the board for further comment, questions, and a motion. I suppose the applicant knew about the meeting. I mean, any communication with them recently? Not recently, but they do get notified. Right. Oh, yeah. So I have a question. The owner doesn't match across all your documents. So a few of your documents say SAW Properties, and a few of your documents say Vesquez. So what happened there was when the application was received, it was a previous owner, but the property appraiser didn't, like, update it to the new person who purchased the property. So that was my fault, but it is the SAW Properties LLC. Oh, it's okay. And the other question I have, throughout the documentation, staff says it's septic, but the applicant says it's city sewer. What's going on there? Yes, that was another error on my part, that it is city of Winter Haven. So it's city sewer. It is, yes. That's all I have. Any other questions, comments, motion? I move to approve LDCU-2026-16. Mike Hickman. Tracy Muncy, second. Motion is taken to approve. Roll call, please. Shane Bevilacqua. 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. Tracy Muncy. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Item number six. Number six, LDCU-2026-24, the Lucerne Park Event Facility. And Eric Peterson is your planner. Good morning, Planning Commission. Eric Peterson for the Land Development Division. We have before you LDCU-2026-24, conditional use for an event facility consisting of 10,000 square feet, reception hall, and a 4,000 square foot chapel. It's on approximately 19.39 acres. This is the site of a previous agritourism use, which is preempted from our review. It is approximately 3,864 enclosed. It's a little bit bigger with a wraparound porch. On September 21st, 13 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on September 22nd. And a legal ad was published in the September 3rd, Polk Sun News. This is a great location. They are in the center of it all. You see it's surrounded by many cities, many growing populations. This is an excellent place for an event facility to locate. It's still a little rustic in the area and wide open, has a little agricultural feel, but it is close to a lot of populations to be served. And when you Google event facilities in this area, everything is way out. So this is filling a void here. The site is across the street from a self-storage facility. There's also Tucker Paving. The Walmart distribution facility on Lucerne Park Road is right down the Lucerne Parkway, not too far. There's residential developments that are fairly separated. The site has access to Lake Hamilton Drive through an easement in the Platte. However, the primary access, and we have a condition of approval that this facility will only take access on Lucerne Park Road. The site is residential suburban. Two land uses where you can do event facilities in a residential area are residential suburban and agricultural residential rural. This is one of those. As you can see, it's surrounded by the city of Winter Haven. The city had no comment. This is how the site plan lays out on the property. It will be primarily grass parking. There will be some stabilized dry vials. The reception hall will be fairly close where the existing facility is. And a chapel will be not too far from that with its own parking and access as well. The site is considerably limited in its environmental properties. It is almost entirely within the 100-year flood. There are some supposed wetlands. There is some modification since the Platte was approved in 1991 or 97, I believe. There is a lot that will need to be done to bring this to a county standard for an event facility. The current facility, once again, did not get reviewed, didn't even get a level two review because we were preempted from any regulation of agritourism. This is a full-fledged event facility and has to meet our standards. So they'll have to do a lot to bring this site up to our current standards, and it'll actually improve a lot of things as far as flooding and stormwater management. Also on the site, there is a residence and a horse stable here. The residence will remain and have access to the easement to get to Lake Hamilton Drive. Matter of fact, the current address for the residence is on Lake Hamilton Drive. The horse stable was part of that agricultural activity and in the past has leased out stalls under an agricultural exemption to be able to do that for keeping of others' horses there. That operation, we've conditioned that it can continue and to use that access. So those are the two things of the site that will continue to use that Hamilton Drive access as they do today. The expansion of this event facility will be solely on Lucerne Park Road. So you'll see probably larger retention ponds. There will be really no formal connection between the two parts of the site. We've conditioned in there that they can have the additional residences. If they want to put some residences up close to the facilities here, it's 20 acres. They're eligible for it. So they're eligible for at least four units at one unit per five acres. The side entrance will have to be approved by FDOT. This is a state road. The separation distance from the intersection there is 930 feet. For this context classification, the level of activity coming in and out of this driveway would be in compliance with DOT standards there. So they shouldn't have any difficulty getting an FDOT permit with regards to driveway separation. Design is a whole other thing. This is the current facility. So it's plus or minus is close to 4,000 when you consider the overhang and things of that nature. So it's going up to 10,000 square feet enclosed. And then if it has a wraparound porch or something, it'll have more area under roof. There is the home you can see in the distance and the horse stable. The access will not necessarily, the new development will not interact with those for the most part. The current driveway is not two ways. It's a one-way drive. It'll have to be brought up to both county and FDOT standards for access to a commercial facility such as this. It'll be the equivalent of our type 1 driveway. They'll probably have to raise the grade on it. The slope of the driveway is pretty significant coming off. I don't anticipate the need for any deceleration lane based on our projections of the average annual daily trips. But once again, that's up to DOT. We are not the ones to review and approve that. The sidewalk that abuts the site will be extended. So it will further provide more sidewalks on Lucerne Park Road. This is looking to the east and the approach. As you can see in both photos, there's plenty of site visibility. There's not a lot to obstruct. Once the driveway is brought up to grade, it'll easily become a safe driveway. So with that, I will stand for questions and just say that the event facility was there in the past. So this is really just increasing the potential use of the site. The access is FDOT. Drainage will be county standards. And our county standards, as I told you during training, are better than all the cities and the water management districts. So they'll be handling more of the drainage. So that shouldn't be an issue. And we've put conditions in the approval, recommended conditions in the approval, to limit the access to Lake Hamilton Road. Even though it is an urban collector, it's just an easement, and it actually passes by another residential property. So we don't want to increase any use of that just for emergency vehicles. And I'll stand for questions. Any questions? Eric, I have a few questions, only because my son's wife's family owned this property back in the day, so I know it very well. A few things. The conditions say something about 200 guest cap hours, weekends only, lighting, blah, blah, blah. But the applicant's hours are conflicted. So will these be made conditions in this? We put a condition of approval that excluded it from becoming an outdoor concert venue. It would meet their event facility management plan, which is included in both the staff report and as a separate attachment. Perfect. Our county curfews are only for outdoor. Outdoor. Indoor activity is outside of the curfew requirements. The code says on the premises alcohol consumption may be licensed, but the applicant plan says alcohol will be served. It will have to be served through a caterer's license. Okay. Yeah. We will not issue an alcohol beverage license in an RS district. Okay. And because this is an open-air chapel, the sound structure will be in the four sides. That's why we put the outdoor concert definition, that you can't be that. The chapel will be at a much lower scale of, I guess, celebration than the reception hall, which is where, I guess, the fun happens. So I don't anticipate them pouring concrete, so it'll be like grass parking? Yeah. Yes. There will need to be some, probably some fill brought in to raise that parking right now. I went there on a rainy day and it was kind of mushy. So I anticipate, because grass parking works with facilities that are only open like two days a week, like a church or something like that, doesn't stand up to everyday use. And also, if it rains, even grass parking is somewhat mud parking, so they will have to have some stability and some drainage to move the water out, prevent ponding, and also a stabilized, probably a stabilized surface for the dry vials, you know, asphalt millings, gravel, or something like that effect. Well, I've had a few good parties out there, so that's all I have. Chair, I have a question. You mentioned that residential would be allowed by ride. Is that what I heard? Yes, it's nearly 20 acres by our standard. It's 20 acres, so they could have four dwelling units. They have one currently. Okay. They could add two more. Often, these facilities like to have a kind of home setting for, like, wedding prep for the bridesmaids and the grooms to have their own building. So they have that ability to do it. But we wouldn't want that, the residents to the south to be used for that because there would be this temptation to come in Lake Hamilton Drive, and we don't want to increase the traffic. That was my next question. So the access to any new residences would be off Lucerne Park as well? If it's part of this facility, it goes up there. If it's, if they do add residences that they're legally entitled to, they would have to do a Platt amendment. Okay. The current Platt only allows the one structure. So I have a question. The staff report included what's called a site circulation plan. It's the very last page of the staff report. And I'm looking at that, and I'm looking at the site plan, and there's a lot of inconsistency. So I'm just wondering, why is that even included? Because the parking is different, the location of the units are different. I'm just, I'm confused. The applicant could address that, but I think they generated that on AI. Yeah. And AI doesn't work in two-dimensional space. I guess it's a kind of, it's more of an architect's rendering. The site plan you see is how it would fall on the site. From an engineering standpoint. All right. Okay. And for other questions, I'll ask the applicant to come forward, please. Is the applicant present? Name and address, please. I'm Derek Epperly. Good morning, everyone. This is my wife, JC. We currently reside at 2120 State Run 40 in Deleon Springs, Florida. We're asking for approval of conditional use of proposed event center at 5713 Lucerne Park Road. It's a 10,000 square foot reception hall, 4,000 square foot chapel, roughly 19.4 acres. Before we walk through the slides, we want to say this up front. We've read the staff report, and we accept the seven conditions. And what we'd like to do in the next few minutes is show you a site. Show you the site and how it will operate in the comments for making part of this request. And, yes, sorry about the AI rendering. It's not as smart as it says it is, I guess. No, I get it. I just was a little bit confused there. Okay. The first point we'll make is simple. This is not a new business for us. It's not an untested concept. We currently own and operate a successful wedding venue in Volusia County. Because of that experience, we understand from doing it every week how the guest flow works, how vendors load in and out, the schedule day-to-day, and who's accountable when something needs attention. The proposal builds on that operating experience. We carry proven procedures into the site that's designed for these events. So Lucerne Park Road has established high traffic, one clear entrance, signage, and defined arrival points, so there's no confusion on where the property is or where to turn into. On-site queuing, internal drive aisles and parking provide room to organize away from the roadway. Service separation, vendor loading follows a marked route, which is currently what we have at our other venue, that is distinct from guest walkway paths. Orderly departures, the firm event ending time at 10 p.m., and a staff-directed departure. Okay. These are the four commitments at the center of our proposal. We're stating them as firm promises, not as aspirations. Number one, all music is going to stay indoors. Number two, the event is going to end at 10 p.m. That's the shutdown. The clients know that when they sign their contract. Number three, there will be landscape buffers that will plan around the property for noise and visual screening. Number four, surrounding wetlands add real distance and separation from nearby properties. According to the staff report, the closest home is over 1,100 feet from the venue. Safety and service access are visible on the plan. Emergency routes dedicated marked past supports and medical access to the fire site. I know fire station in Winter Haven, number two, is about a mile and a quarter away with a six-minute response time. Pedestrian routes are defined walkways from the main venue chapel, separating guests from vehicles and vendor routes that are marked as well. We believe that a well-managed venue can add value without changing the character of the area. Every one of these events is going to support local businesses. Couples and their guests are going to hire out florists, caterers, photographers, transportation services. Their guests are going to stay in local lodging. It's going to be a recurring business for Polk County vendors, not just for us. And then we are the applicants. We also are going to be the operators. We're going to live there on site. So there's a clear point of accountability, which will be us. So we respectfully request approval, subject to a 200-person maximum capacity, 10 p.m. shutdown, indoor-only music, and with the landscape buffers in all applicable county and agency requirements. Great presentation. Thank you. Any questions on the applicant? Thank you so much. So you're going to live there in the house that's there off of Lake, what is it, Lake Hamilton Road? Lake Hamilton Drive. Yes. Lake Hamilton Drive. We're going to move there. We don't plan on building any of the other additional houses, even though that we would be allowed to. We don't plan on building any other residents on the property. So you're going to utilize the existing facility that's there and just add to it? Yeah. So we'll get back a rebate for impact fees on that building. So we would have to tear that down. The building currently is one foot above the FEMA base flood line. When we're done, parking lot's building, we're going to probably be around that four foot above the FEMA base with a better interest rate as Eric. So you're going to tear that building down? Yeah. And rebuild? Yes. Okay. No. But I like your picture. And welcome to Boat County. Thank you so much. Any other questions? Thank you. So I'll open up the item to the public and ask, is there anyone to speak in favor of this application? Anyone speak in opposition? Okay. Come forward, please. Okay. I'm really nervous and my papers are a mess and I thought this was really, really a cool deal. Did you set your name, please? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. My name is Donna Pine, P-Y-N-E. I live at 116 Gordon Drive. My family bought from the Cooters in 1998. The 28 acres is slot number two to the east. That easement was, there are restrictions against commercial. There's restrictions against one home using access across my property that I pay taxes on. So, I'm sorry. Your property is to the east, immediately east of this? Okay. And where is the easement? You could see the dark, the white line. Okay. Okay. Okay. It's a compacted, it's just compacted dirt and gravel. I thought this was great as long as it wasn't like a storage facility. And, but what I have a problem with is on page five, number five, it says they can put two residences on there. Now, I don't want any more people coming and they have to build. I don't want trucks and everything else coming through there. If you have to look at their other, and it's nice to meet you at all, but on their other White House, the Whitewood Ranch, is there are two residences that they have that's in Ormond Beach. They rent out for 30 people. So, that's 200 people at the event. Plus, if they put the houses there, because this is like a bait and switch in my mind, is you get this little bit in here and then they just slam it in and put anything else in. And with two more residences in there, that they rent the other facility out at 30 people. 30 people a night at the home, plus 200 people at the event. That's 230 people. So, you all have to figure out where they're going to put the septic in and not impose upon the wetlands and everything else when we get storms and flooding. Because from, I'm not an engineer, but when you put a mound up for your septic and you have flooding, all that sewage water goes everywhere. And that's all I have to say is, I just want to build my little farmhouse. And if somebody offered me a million dollars, I wouldn't be selling my land. And all I want to have is a couple of chickens, a horse, and a cow. And that's all I ask. And I also don't want to make enemies with my neighbors. Thank you very much. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else to speak regarding this application? I'll give the applicant a chance to respond. Our staff, do you want to respond to that regarding the... I believe the way we've crafted the conditions, the only residents that will have access to the Hamilton Drive access is the one house that exists today. They have the rights from our land use to have the other houses. The way we crafted that, those would have to take access through Lucerne Park Road. So there's a clear separation. Comment about the renting out those houses for different people to stay there? That would be under a different request. They'd probably have to do short-term rental requests for that. And in that plat, when you do short-term rental in a plat, the whole plat has to be approved for short-term rental. So that would bring a lot of people there. We just... So, you know, in that report, they have the rights to do the... You know, regardless of this approval, they have the rights to do three more homes on the property under our land use code. We put the condition in there that prevents those three from any access to the Hamilton Drive. If they were to rent them out on less than 30 days, and anything less than 30 days, they would have to come back in, modify this conditional use for short-term rental. Okay. We don't plan to do that. Our current wedding venue in Volusia County, we partner with an Airbnb, but they're 12 miles away. So they're nowhere near. We're not affiliated with them. We're just helping them out. Yeah. That was the 30-bedroom. We don't plan to do any overnight rentals at all. Do you have any long-range plans to build any additional residence there? No. Absolutely not. Okay. I have a question, because the 10 p.m. shutdown time, I understand for outdoor events that that's a noise thing. Is that your choice? You want to shut down at 10, or is that something the county's doing? Because I'm just about government staying out of your way, and I mean, if I'm having a wedding, I'm going, all right, we could go to midnight or whatever. Just I'm wondering how you came to that number, and if it's something being imposed. It's currently how we operate our wedding venue in Volusia County. It tends to work really well. We have sometimes overnight turnovers, so our cleaners have to get in there and clean up before the next Sunday. So I think that's how we're going to structure it this time, too. Cool. I just want you to be as free as you can. And we don't allow any shots or anything on the property. That's the one reason. We do a strict 9.30 beer and wine and two signature drinks. 9.30 is the call for alcohol. Yeah. And our bartenders serve them. Everybody gets carded, and they have a $2 million liability license in the state of Florida. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. So do I have any further discussion, or I'd like to have a motion, please? I think this is... Go ahead. I'll let you do it. That's a fun one. I make a motion to approve the Lucerne Park event facility, number LDCU, 2026-24. Angel Sims, I second. Motion second. Roll call, please. Shane Bevilacqua. 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. Tracy Muncy. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Congratulations. Thanks, Chase. All right. Number seven on the agenda is LDCU 2026-11, the Mulberry Construction Aggregate Processing Case. And Kyle Rogus is the planner. Good morning. Kyle Rogus with Land Development presenting LDCU 2026-11, the Mulberry Construction Aggregate Processing Facility. The applicant is requesting a conditional use approval to allow construction aggregate processing on approximately 8.04 acres in the industrial land use district. On September 21st, 48 mailers were sent area property owners. Two boards were posted on the property September 18th. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun. On September 23rd, we have received no response from the public. Staff finds this request compatible with the surrounding area. It consists with a comprehensive plan and land development code. Staff recommends approval. The subject site is located at 4435 Highway 60, north of Highway 60, south of Shepard Road, east of Coronet Road, west of Willow Oak Road, and section 29, township 29, range 23. The subject site is in an industrial land use district within the suburban development area. To the northeast of the site is the Ramblewood Subdivision. The Ramblewood Subdivision is comprised of 80 single-family residential lots on approximately 40.55 acres. The subdivision is within the residential suburban land use district and directly abuts the subject site requiring specific development standards to address concerns with compatibility. The remaining abutting land use districts are a residential to the east and linear commercial corridor to the west, both developed with similar intense uses. The site fronts State Road 60, which bifurcates the site from the creek side subdivision to the south. Aggregate processing facilities fall directly in line with the industrial characteristics outlined in the comprehensive plan and land development code. The question is not whether the proposed use has industrial impacts, but how those imposed, those industrial impacts are appropriately located, designed, and buffered and regulated. The site plan calls out approximately 200.81 feet of separation. While the Ramblewood Subdivision was platted for 80 single-family residential lots, only four of the lots within the subdivision are abutting the industrial site, having the biggest concern for compatibility. While the distance alone meets the separation requirements pursuant to Section 303 of the Land Development Code, a 20-foot drainage easement along the entire southern property boundary of the Ramblewood Subdivision, most notable on the three single-family flag lots that are directly above the site, as you can see here, as lots 42, 41, and 32. Lot 45A is also used as a drainage area. Dense existing vegetation limits, accurate measurements from the proposing activity to the residential units. However, based upon the 20-foot drainage easement and that 200-foot separation, the nearest residence is to be a minimum 220 feet away. A Type B landscape buffer and a 6-foot opaque fencing is conditioned along the abutting residential property lines and right-of-ways. These conditions of approval provide this physical separation and screening listed in the Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.113A3. The proposed accessory storage piles are regulated through the conditions of approval to ensure compliance with Section 303. Storage piles will not exceed the maximum permitted height of 75 feet. Dust associated with aggregate processing is also addressed through the conditions of approval, incorporating dust prevention measures. Staff recommends approval. The request is compatible with the surrounding area. The subject property is situated within an area not limited to residential development or lower intense uses. The property is already being used as an auto salvage yard within a larger industrial and linear commercial corridor land use districts. To the east and west are similar uses directly abutting the subject site. The Ramblewood subdivision to the north does not automatically make abutting industrial development incompatible. Instead, the Comprehensive Plan and LDC policies require specific separation, buffering, screening, access, and development standards to address any incompatibilities. The existing developments show us that residential development can safely abut more intense uses. I submit this presentation into the record, and with that I will stand for questions. Any questions of staff? I have a couple questions, and these may be for the applicant. How will the material arrive? I don't see any rail, I don't think. So I'm wondering, is it going to come in by truck? I would defer to the applicant for how they are going to be processing and the activity being done on site. Okay. I'll wait for the applicant. Any other questions? Is the applicant present? No. Did you want to? Yes. I would believe that from conversations, there were no conversations about it coming to and from the site based off of rail. So the access would be using that State Road 60 access point that's already existing on site. And it's to my understanding that there's multiple sites that they own and use similar kind of use. And so it's kind of an as-needed use type. So it's not a, you know, constant 24, 7, 7 days or 5 days a week. It's more of a use that is similar to sand mines where it's based off of production need for the uses to come and go. So, and while I'm seeing processing on there, what type of processing are they? It's the recycling of that old used concrete. Like crushed concrete? Okay. Okay. Okay. So this is to, uh, for, uh, I guess a material, uh, remanufacturing facility for aggregate. Is that in addition to the auto storage? Yes. So 75 feet height of, uh, material, that is kind of hard to buffer. I have a site photo. They do it. And you can kind of see on the site or the aerial here, they're not having it stacked high. It's, they have such a large acreage of property in association with that auto salvage that they're in the site photo. You can see, this is the piling of that, that concrete. And the rock crusher would be to the rear here. And so this is the approximate location of that processing and storage. And then you have your Northern property boundary approximate location along this vegetation where you will have that screening buffering, that six foot opaque fence that's required with a type B landscape buffer and the 200 feet separation. So I'm going to make a comment here. And this may be a little bit personal. And the reason I say that I have few regrets in my career as a planner. This is one of them. Years ago, uh, after the owner applicant came in and requested to do a heavy equipment sales and service, that was it. We recommended approval. It morphed into a heavy equipment parts scrap yard, which morphed into a auto salvage yard. Every time I ride by this place, I cringe and thinking, boy, we blew it. I'm sorry. That's the way I feel about it. I can't support this. I don't think it's compatible. I think the 75 feet, you can't buffer it. I think the dust, the noise is just going to add to the incompatibility of an auto salvage yard. So that's my take on this. I'll share your concern. Um, is there any estimate of how many trucks does it take before they're on highway 60 waiting to get in here to pick up a load? I don't have that direct information. I would have deferred to the applicant for that. That was going to be so there wasn't a traffic study or anything. Correct. There was no traffic study. Correct. I have to agree with Merle. We've just seen this proliferation of really junky industrial all up and down 60 there. I mean, and I drive by there on a regular basis and it's a mess. Uh, and that's, you know, someone coming 60 from Hillsborough, other areas. That's what they get to see when they hit Polk County. So I just don't think this is something we should keep on encouraging. And if I may, with the applicant not being here, we, we support continuing this case. So Mr. Rogas has a chance to discuss some of this and make sure he's here to present his case as well. County attorney. Can we, can we make a motion without the applicant here? Because I don't think we need to continue this. I, the applicants, well, um, I want, it was, I was holding for their comments. So, so I have a question. Was the applicant noticed this? Was the applicant aware of this meeting? Yes. There's been continual conversations between me and the applicant about the, this case has been continued a couple of times. So they were made aware of the application that was going to be held today at this public hearing. You say it was continued a couple of times? Yes. This was previously, um, advertised. It was supposed to go towards the July planning commission. Okay. In terms of the site plan, we needed some revisions to kind of call out those separation requirements that would be touching. So we didn't continue. It was continued by staff. Yes. Okay. Okay. So, I mean, the more conservative approach would be to continue it, to allow them to show up next month, next, at the next commission meeting. However, since they were noticed, if you choose to take action, they've chosen not to show up. Um, so you would be able to take action on this matter without them being here. I don't think my opinion is going to change next month. My opinion won't change either. Yes. Yes. Whatever, whatever your desire for a motion is. Okay. Uh, I, um, move to deny LDCU dash two Oh two six dash 11. Real quick. I'm sorry, Mr. Hickman. Uh, was this open for the public real quick? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. Well, I asked for the applicant present. Is there anyone in the audience to speak in favor or opposition of this? See done. Okay. We have a motion. Do I have a second? Angel Sims second. Roll call, please. Hold on. Okay. Uh, Shane Bevilacqua. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso. For the motion to deny. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Tracy Muncy. For the motion. Okay. The motion to deny LDCU 2026-11 has passed. Thank you. Next item on staff. Yes, sir. Number eight on the agenda is LDCT 2026-16. This is the Juanita neighborhood plan text amendment to add gas stations to the neighborhood plan. Kyle Rogas is your planner. Good morning. Again, Kyle Rogas with land development presenting LDCT 2026-16. The Juanita neighborhood neighborhood plan gas station LDC text amendment. This is an APKIN initiated LDC text amendment to chapter four, section 40301-C, table four, the Juanita neighborhood plan use table to add gas station as a conditional use in high impact commercial center land use district. The legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun News on September 23rd. We have received no response from the public. Staff finds this request compatible with and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code. Staff recommends approval. And then the transmittal date for the board will be November 3rd. And then the adoption date will be that December 1st. High impact commercial centers are intended for specific commercial needs that because of their intensity or operation can have adverse impacts on adjacent and nearby properties. Generally, this land use category will include but not be limited to such uses as truck terminals and truck stops. The land development code defines a truck stop as a commercial facility used for fueling and parking. It also allows restaurants as an accessory use, which falls directly in line with the general operations of a Wawa gas station. The comprehensive plan further establishes that high impact commercial centers should be located in close proximity to existing industrial development, creating a transition or step down in uses. Based on the future land use map provided, this pattern already exists. You have industrial lands located to the east of the site of Rifle Range Road, transitioning westward to high impact commercial centers and then further west to residential suburban. While the map on your screen does not show the development, a racetrack is located directly to the south of the subject site across State Road 60, as you can see here. This site also sits within the high impact commercial center. The racetrack was permitted through a level two engineered site plan review under case file LB non-2023-246. The only reason the proposed Wawa is not allowed is due to the Juanita neighborhood plan boundary, not because of the difference in use or intensity. And you can see the Juanita neighborhood plan boundary is this red outline here. And further in this application in the staff report and presentation, you'll see why this portion here. If they wanted to proceed with a gas station, they are allowed to permit through a conditional level two in the NAC. So just to the east of that existing racetrack. The Juanita neighborhood plan currently restricts gas stations uses within the high impact commercial center, even though gas stations are permitted use in the standard land use districts elsewhere in the Polk County. Introducing gas stations as a conditional use in the high impact commercial center would correct an inconsistency with the Juanita neighborhood plan's current use restrictions since gas stations are allowed in similar standard districts elsewhere in the county. Again, a great example of this is that racetrack that is just south of State Road 60. And then allowing gas stations as a conditional use in the high impact commercial center would make the Juanita neighborhood plan consistent with the countywide policy, aligning with comprehensive plan objectives, and ensure that similar high intensity commercial uses are regulated uniformly across Polk County. I submit the application and presentation into the record and I stand for questions. Any questions of staff? Seeing none, um, this is, is the applicant present? Yes, sir. Were you sworn in? Not yet. I'm Wright Bars, uh, Wright Worker Real Estate, 3708 West, uh, Swan Avenue in Tampa. Um, sir, real quick, can you raise your right hand and answer the following question? Do you swear and affirm that the evidence and testimony you'll give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Okay. Um, I don't have a presentation to add to what staff has already presented, um, but I am present. Okay. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience to speak in favor or opposition of this application? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the, uh, to the commission for discussion and questions and a motion. Uh, Tracy Mouncy, move to approve LDCT-2026-16. Second. Motion to approve. Roll call, please. Shane Bevilacqua. For the motion. Cindy Jenna Mosel, for the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Tracy Muncy. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Next case. All right. Number nine on the, on the agenda is LDCT-2026-20, the state compatibility, compatibility rules amendment. Aaliyah Inglima is your planner. Good morning. Aaliyah Inglima with land development presenting number nine on the agenda, LDCT-2026-20, the compatibility text amendment. This is a county initiated request to amend chapter nine to modify compatibility standards, standards to comply with state statutes. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun on September 23rd with no response from the public. So since Florida House Bill 399 passed, local governments are required to establish factors for evaluating the compatibility allowable residential uses within residential districts and residential future lane use categories. House Bill 399 changes how compatibility is reviewed, but it does not eliminate compatibility review. The amendment adds requirements for identifying areas of incompatibility, considering feasible mitigation measures, and documenting the basis for a compatibility-based denial. It also clarifies that compatibility concerns may be addressed through conditions of approval and incorporates the statutory limitations applicable to residential compatibility reviews. And I will stand for any questions. Any questions of staff? So this just relates to compatibility among residential uses. Correct. So if commercial use came in, you still got the same compatibility review. My other question is, didn't the staff do some some sort of attempt to do, I remember something about a compatibility assessment or looking at ways of measuring compatibility in the past? It really was 2019 we proposed a text amendment, a board-directed text amendment to make it more prescriptive with lot sizes against existing lots, the two-to-one ratio. And then if you didn't meet that, so much separation. And that ultimately was denied by the board. Okay. So how does this relate to that at all? I mean, I know it's different, but I'm just wondering if that... I'll say that we pretty well do this already. After speaking with Ms. Howard, with the county attorney, we sat down and decided just to add this as a section of the code. So if we do come to y'all with a recommendation of denial, we have followed these steps to explain why. Kind of a good example of how we followed already is that final order that you approved here at the start of the agenda. It goes through a specificity of why they did it. So we kind of agreed that we do this already, but we're going to go ahead and try it into the code. I mean, our staff reports very thorough about compatibility and we do a lot of mitigating, I guess, before it reaches y'all too. I have a question probably for our attorney. How does this House bill affect in any way the language that we need to use or what we say as if we're voting to deny something so that it's legally defensible if it's appealed? So, I mean, the answer is yes and no. There's no magic language that you have to say in your analysis or your recommendation or your vote. However, the clearer you are as to the reasoning, the easier it is to defend. But it's not like you have to say something specific when you're either discussing the matter or when you make your recommendation or vote. So if we fail to say something, then it's up to Randall and Sandra to figure out what we meant. Yes, sir. That's exactly right. Yes, sir. Okay, I'll open up the item to the public and ask, is there anyone here to speak in favor or opposition to this? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commission for discussion and a motion. Tracy Mounsey moved to approve LDCT-2026-20. Second. Mike Hickman. Motion and second to approve. Roll call, please. Shane Bevilacqua. 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. Tracy Munsey. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Next case, please. Ian S. with Land Development. Staff recommends approval of LDCT-2026-19, the county-initiated Land Development Code text amendment, to remove mobile homes and mobile home subdivisions as separate uses from site-built homes from Land Development Code in accordance with the newly adopted state law. On September 23rd, a legal ad was published, and staff has logged no responses. Similar to the last case, in March of this year, Florida Governor DeSantis signed House Bill 399, which prohibited residential manufactured buildings from being denied a building permit for placement on certain lots. The key of this bill is a subsection that prohibits the local government from adopting or enforcing any zoning, land use, or development regulation that treats an off-site, constructed residential dwelling unit differently or more restrictively than single-family site-built dwelling allowed in the same zoning district. And this is set to be effective on January 1st of 2027. This amendment is a response to this. It is going to remove individual mobile homes and mobile home subdivisions and their conditions for approval from the Land Development Code. In effect, mobile and modular homes will be allowed by the county and residential future land use districts where any other single-family uses are allowed. So, there will be no more planning commission hearings for mobile homes going forward. Staff is likely going to follow this up in the next couple months regarding mobile home parks, and if we're going to allow mobile homes as ADUs, which the law is not clear about, but we have some discussion, and that will probably be here towards the end of the year. For this amendment, though, staff recommends approval. Find a request consistent with a comprehensive plan in state law, and I'll stand for questions. Thank you very much. Which is regulated by the Department of Business and Professional Regulations. So, even a true mobile home that has the HUD seal that's not built to the standard building code could go locate anywhere. We're no longer regulating any type of manufactured or modular building. With the exception of wind loads, we're in a different wind load area than other parts of the country. So, there are certain mobile homes that can't locate here because they won't hold up. So, there's certain, under the HUD code, there's different wind codes for design. So, it really won't change. So, that would be determined at the building or the permitting level? Yes. Yeah, there's a certain seal on the homes. Plus, they don't travel that well. So, most of the homes we get here, new ones, are manufactured within the state. And any RVs or HUD model or the park model, I mean, wouldn't be allowed under this either. NZ is not. NZ units are not considered. So, outside of the actual structure, does the county then regulate site location and setbacks and drainage and access? Yes. Everything exterior is still regulated through. Skirting or anything like that? Skirting and stairs are still a requirement. Okay. And private county. Also, if mobile homes that don't meet the current standards still have to be brought up to the current Florida standards for mobile homes. So, if you relocate a 1974 home to, you have to pull, when you place it on a new property, you have to bring it up to the 2003 wind load requirements, tie downs, and all that stuff. It's a sad day. That's all right. Yeah, I agree. Very sad. I agree. It's one of those state preemption bills that got passed. Unintended consequences. Yes. It doesn't change the mechanics of siting and permitting a mobile home and all. It's just where they go. Where they go. So, this just complies with Florida law, then, what you're doing here? Yes, sir. Okay. Any further discussion or questions? I'll entertain a motion. I move to approve LDCT 2026-10. I'm sorry, that. I need my glasses. 19. 19. I'll second it. Motion to second. Okay, reluctantly, I guess. This has to go to the, this will go to the county commission for consideration. Okay. Roll call, please. Shane Babalacqua. For the motion. Cindy Janamoso. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Tracy Muncy. For the motion. Motion passes. Hey. Next item. Again, the enhanced land development. Staff recommends approval of LDCT 2026-22. To overhaul office uses within the land development code and introduce two new uses, contractor and professional offices. September 23rd, a legal ad was published with no response. And board dates are set from November 3rd and December 1st of this year. Currently, the LDC has two office uses, office park and office. These work reasonably well for offices as one thinks of as a law office or accountant's office or similar businesses where clients will visit a site for consultation services and which fit relatively easily within commercial and retail areas. They're poor terms, however, for other types of offices, what we're going to call contractor offices, that serve as hubs for businesses that conduct their work off-site, such as plumbers, HVAC companies, and other contractors. These often utilize flex-based buildings with warehousing area and administrative spaces and are better suited for business park districts. However, the comprehensive plan limits offices, along with retail uses, in the BPC. When one of these businesses runs against this limitation, they're retitled warehousing, which is permitted by the BPC, but these contractor offices aren't warehousing and distribution uses. This amendment's goal is to provide a clearer direction for these uses. Offices and office park will be eliminated, and in its place will be professional office, which essentially replaces office as it was intended by the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. These are those law and accounting offices and will retain many of the conditional use criteria and parking standards currently in the code. Definition of a contractor office to the upper left, again, these are uses you'd normally find within business park areas and are for those uses where the work is done off-site and visitors to the side are limited. With these uses, however, come the potential of outdoor storage of equipment, commercial vehicles, and other heavy machinery. Given the variety of these types of businesses, this new use will be allowed in most future land use districts, but the outdoor storage will be limited to the land use districts as appropriate. And the conditions on the right are mostly derived from existing code and comprehensive plan language for these accessory uses, like outdoor storage and commercial vehicle parking, but are repeated here for the ease of customer service. Also, given the fewer customers that visit these offices, parking standards have been reduced and is based on research from other jurisdictions. Final thought here, these new uses come with a condition that addresses that when there are conflicts in interpretation between different uses that might occupy similar buildings, the one with the higher intensity of review will be in play. Like, for example, Mr. Bishop's heavy machinery example, we recently had someone wanting to do heavy machinery sales and leasing on a site that didn't allow it, but called their contractor office, it's an office use. We said, no, no, no, it's heavy machinery sales and leasing. So that's clear language in there now. If there's conflict, the higher use will prevail. Again, this amendment is intended to better describe uses that are currently in the code and provide for more reliable customer service. Uh, staff recommends approval and we'll stand for questions. Any questions, staff? Yes. It's been a listed use, but there's no conditions for it. And, you know, it could mean a couple of things. It could have been these contractor offices. It could have been the larger professional office center. It was just kind of superfluous when we got to it. But the definitions kind of stay the same. We're going to keep it in there. Sure. And what about medical offices? They kind of lost their use in this. They are their own use. Okay. A financial institution, institutions and medical offices are their own use. We're going to remove financial institutions with this, but it's actually in the comp plan being excluded from offices. So we're just leaving it for now. Okay. It seems like it basically clarifies it a little bit more, gives it a little bit more definition. So you have a better understanding of what the use is and how it should be treated. And we've had a run, especially these contractor offices of late, as the bigger warehousing has taken over BPC. These smaller businesses are having a tough time locating. And they get to pre-application meetings with us, and we're trying to decide which standards apply and which don't, depending on where you are. And this gives a little bit clearer path. That's right. Hopefully easier. Do I have a motion? Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDCT 2026-22. I have a second. Second. Motion and second to approve. Roll call, please. Shane Bevilacqua. 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. Tracy Muncy. For the motion. Motion passes. Thank you. Ms. Bennett, you're on. Comp plan update. It's really short today. I don't have a handout for you. Tentatively, on October 16th, we will be presenting a workshop with the board on the comp plan update. The consultant will be there. The chairman of the CPAC committee, Kim Long, will be there as well to present to the board. So I just wanted to give you that. You could watch that on TV. You could attend the meeting if you'd like to. Anyway, I just wanted to give you that information. Thank you. It's an agenda review. Oh, it's an agenda review? Mm-hmm. So that's up. Is it going to be here or upstairs? Upstairs in room 413. No. 413? 407. I think it's 407. All right. It's a smaller conference room on the north side of the building. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Next on the agenda is election of officers. Chair, I would like to nominate Mike Hickman as incoming chair, as he's currently vice chair. It seems illogical. And I second that motion, Mike. And you can't get out of it this time. I have a motion and a second for Mike Hickman to become the chair. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you. You were very emphatic with that. Okay. Next is election of a vice chair. I'd like to recommend, in his absence, Kevin Updike as vice chair. Second. Does he know anything about him? Oh, yes. I'm sure he'll be very fine with it. This is called payback. Yes. This is payback. He's been chair before. Yeah. So any other nominations? Seeing none, all in favor of Kevin Updike as vice chair. Signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Next is secretary. I nominate Cindy Janet Monson to continue her turn. Aye. Second that. She's learned all the names, so. Yeah, she didn't pronounce it by name. So I have a motion to have a second or nomination second. All in favor of Cindy. Aye. As the secretary, aye. Aye. Okay. See what happens when Tracy sits up there? Yeah. Thank you. So if there's no other business to come. I just have one thing about our training. I just want to let you know that we're going to turn the cameras off and at the end of the hearing and we'll have the training after that. Uh, so it, you won't be televised while having the training and we're going to focus on just some, uh, recent court cases and, uh, hot topics in, in planning that you'll see come before you in the next year. That'll be your training. So that's next, that's next month, right? That's next month. Okay. And I'm not slated to serve, but should I just come anyway to participate? Yes. Okay. Yes, please. How long will it take? Okay. Thank you. Uh, do I have a motion? Oh, wait. We have one question. The code requires two hours. It won't seem that long. We'll, we might leave you with some homework to consider as part of that. Okay. We'll give you a homework assignment to fulfill that requirement, but. Are you going to serve food? That's at the pleasure of the chair. Let's talk with Mr. Pittman. It depends on, depends on how the, how the, yeah. What prerogative does the chair have? We can make this really fun. Yeah. So do I have a, uh, motion and second to adjourn? Move to adjourn. Second. All in favor of singing by saying aye. Aye. We're adjourned. All right. All right.