to order. Cindy, roll call, please. Shane Bevilacqua. Present. Cindy Janamasso. Present. Merle Bishop. Here. Brooke Agnini. Here. Mike Hickman. Here. Ken. Kevin Updike. Here. Angel Sims. Here. We have a quorum. All right. Very good. If everyone would please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. The flag of the United States of America. To the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, liberty and justice. Okay. Had some issue with the prior month's minutes, so we're going to approve those in the next meeting in December. We had some revisions to the agenda. Ian, if you want to tell us what we did there. Just one case was advertised. It's LDCT 202624. Again, it was advertised, but it needs to be moved to December 2nd. Okay. Just need a motion, since that was advertised, to preserve the... So moved. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion carries. All right. And then we'll have some general procedures. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Land Development Case Planner will introduce the case and disclose any response 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. One, if there is no opposition to the case present at the hearing. Two, if the recommendation of the Office of Land Development is for approval. And three, if all of the commission members present wish to use this procedure. With regard to level three 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 three 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 that right. A party cannot and should not rely on the right to appeal being preserved by someone else filing an appeal on the same matter. Please be advised that a party may withdraw their appeal to the Board of County Commissioners prior to that de novo hearing. If one party withdraws their appeal and another party failed to file an appeal, there will be no appeal or hearing on the matter before the Board of County Commissioners. The application fee will not necessarily be refunded for such a withdrawal. Please further be advised that if a de novo application is filed with the Board to be recognized during the de novo hearing as organized opposition, you must either file the application for de novo hearing or receive written authorization from at least five entities or individuals to speak on their behalf against the application. And they must waive their right to speak during the public comment portion of the public hearing. Regarding level four reviews, pursuant to section 907 of the Land Development Code, the Planning Commission's decision is a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners will ultimately decide the matter at a later date. Regarding ex parte communication, the Planning Commission receives numerous communications from the public. Unless otherwise stated, it should be presumed that ex parte communications have been made to the members of the Commission regarding the matter. During the hearing, the applicant, organized oppositions, and the public may request the Commission to disclose any ex parte communication or site visits they have had regarding the matter and question the members regarding their communications or site visits. Unless 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? 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 at all today, please be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you provide to the Planning Commission today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. 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, can we please have a motion to accept staff as experts in their field of land planning? Say a move. Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. 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. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, we'll go to, uh, old business. Uh, we have, uh, no old business. Is that correct? Okay. And, uh, so that we'll go to a new business. Good morning. First two cases will be heard together by Mark Bennett, the case planner, and that's LDCPA S 2026 16 and LDCT 2026 dash 23. Good morning board members for the record. Mark Bennett with land development presenting, um, um, agenda items one and two, uh, triple E management as Shonda just mentioned. There are two cases. We'll present both cases together, but ask for a separate action on each item. Uh, the request is to change 5.15 acres from residential low to industrial plus a land development code text amendment to limit, um, the intensity of industrial activity on the site. You can see by the, uh, um, two foot, uh, pictures there. The site is located east of Lakeland, um, west of Auburndale, south side of us 92, uh, east of Reynolds road and, um, north of County road 542. As far as notice, uh, 14 mailers were sent on October 22nd. Two boards were posted that same day on the site and legal ad was published in the Lakeland winter Haven sun on, um, the 22nd. Uh, we have not received any response from the public staff does recommend approval. Uh, we're submitting into the record, the staff report application impact assessment, and this is a level four review. So the, uh, board County commissioners will hear this on December 15th. Uh, this is a closeup photo of the site shown in red. Um, again, you can see us 92 north, uh, 542 to the south Reynolds road to the west. Um, the site is located here. There are industrial uses to the west and southwest here. Residential is here as residential is here. Also, uh, next, uh, two or three slides are aerial photos. This is a view of the site looking east. This is a view of the site looking west. And then this site, well, I'll say it's oriented to the northeast, but it's almost looking more down than out. Um, I wanted to spend just a second or two on this because this shows the current activity on the site, which is a mulching activity. Um, our code categorizes mulching activities as a solid waste management facility. Um, I do need to mention that this is currently under a code enforcement action. Um, and this amendment, um, if approved for industrial would not, um, allow this user activity, but, um, that's being worked through the code enforcement process. But, um, for the reasons I'll describe, we still think it's appropriate for industrial designation. The next, uh, few slides here are ground views from, uh, from the site. This is looking east showing primarily the project entrance at the eastern end of the property. The next views are pictures that go further west. Um, this provides an idea of what's occurring at the site. Now, as I mentioned previously, mulching activity, and this is going further west down 542. This is the, at the, um, very western end of the site. There's another name Creek that goes through the property on the western end. And there's also a wetlands and associated floodplain on the western end. And then the last picture here shows the use of the property directly west of the site. This is the current land use map that shows the property is residential low one specifically. You can see, um, surrounding uses, uh, recreation, open space, uh, some county owned property is there, which is part of saddle Creek industrial to the west and northwest, a commercial enclave where there's some existing industrial activity now, and then the residential to the south and east. This is the proposed change to industrial included with the comprehensive plan amendment is a text change to recognize this parcel as having parcel specific conditions. Uh, the first part of it here just outlines what it is and where it is. The key part is, um, we've included a list of prohibited uses. Generally, these are more intensive industrial uses that create adverse impacts like dust, noise, smoke, order, et cetera, et cetera. Um, this text amendment would prohibit those uses within this industrial property. Um, you can see here, there's also some other uses listed, um, signage. We're proposing that only monument signage be allowed and that any required buffering use existing vegetation wherever possible. As far as impacts, we don't foresee any, um, impact from public services or facilities. I did mention earlier that there are floodplains and wetlands on the site and those will have to be, uh, dealt with and addressed as part of any site plan review. So, uh, to conclude, um, our justification for approval on industrial uses in the area, specifically property west and southwest of the site. It is close to an arterial highway. That's relevant because one of our criteria for locating industrials proximity to arterial roads. It's also next to a railroad, which is another criteria. Um, we consider this use would be, uh, compatible with the surrounding uses in the area, um, provided the LDC text amendment is also included, which again, we think is important to minimize, um, certain industrial uses so they don't impact the residential across the street. So, and with that, we consider the request to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and I'll stand for any questions. Thank you. Anybody have any questions for staff? You list the uses that are prohibited in the comp plan text amendment. Yes. What would be the most intensive use that is allowed, would be allowed under this? You're with me. I'm going to, I got a backup slide that lists all the uses. I don't necessarily need you to list all of them. I just am curious as to, yeah, give me an example of what would be the most intensive ones. Uh, perhaps a lighter manufacturing may have additional vehicle trips. Um, I'm scanning the list of uses, uh, perhaps some of the types of utilities. And we did list class three utilities as a proposed C3 use, as opposed to a C2 use, which would normally be allowed. And the reason for that was to, you know, address any potential impacts. Um, yeah, I mean, to try and answer your question, that's why we took all the, what we thought the most intensive uses out. Okay. So, yeah. So what happens to the mulching operation that's there? Well, they're under, um, code compliance action. They'll have to be, they'll have to come into compliance, which I think the answer to that is they would have to stop operations because they're not allowed in that land use category, the current or the proposed one. Okay. Mark, I have a couple. Sure. Um, so does the site meet the sewer requirements since there's no sewer out there? Yeah. The property is in the transit, transit support development area, TSDA sewer is required there. Um, there is no sewer nearby. So what would occur is that when they come in for, um, a level two site plan approval, we would require them to either connect the sewer or provide documentation that it's not available. So the most likely course of action is they'll get a letter from the city of Lakeland that says we don't have sewer out there. And then that requirement would be waived and the buffering for the residential. I see this trees in your picture, but will there be additional buffering? Yes. Um, I don't remember exactly what type of buffer, whether it's a B or C, but our code does require buffering between a site and not only residential, but also between a site and a roadway. So the intent of that condition is to try and use existing vegetation instead of clear cutting a site, replacing them with two inch thick trees that take a generation to grow back. So perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I may add, um, a couple of comments, um, my colleague Ian was helping remind me of some of the other uses. Um, they're more impactful commercial vehicle parking, storage yards, outdoor storage, and auto body repair would be what would be, um, allowed in what's being proposed to you. And what's to the west is commercial vehicle parking. Okay. Any other questions for staff hearing none? Is the applicant here today? Please come up and state your name and address. Is it on? Okay. Uh, Lakeland, Florida, three, three, eight Oh one, um, here on behalf of the applicant. Um, um, thank you Mark for the staff report and presentation. Um, I just liked it. Yeah. I I'd like to, um, clarify too. Yeah. The uses we essentially went through the industrial uses, um, um, that were not included in business park center. So really went through business park center. Um, that's, that was our original goal was to change this to business park center. Um, but there's a, um, 10 acre minimum, I think in the comprehensive plan, this site's only five acres. Um, so what we did was we went through the business park center uses, um, if they weren't, um, um, and, and went through industrial, if they weren't allowed in business park center, those are the ones that we, that we struck and added to the text amendment. So essentially it's limiting the uses just to what's allowed in business park center. Um, the applicant understands that this change does not resolve his code compliance case. Um, he's going to work to resolve those. He owns the property to the West. Um, so essentially he's trying to expand his truck parking business. Um, um, and this allows that expansion onto that parcel. So, um, um, um, um, but happy to take any other questions y'all have. John, how many of the five acres is wetland? We haven't done an actual wetland evaluation of it, but, um, I it's sort of, it's in that Southwest corner. Maybe it's a half acre, um, just based on the GIS maps. It's not a, it's not a large area. Okay. So most of your five acres will be developed. Yes. Most likely. Yep. Perfect. Thank you. Uh, so you said that he owned the existing, uh, heavy equipment storage to the West. That's correct. And I see, I've seen on several of these maps, it looks like the five acres actually is on part of that property. It's almost like the heavy equipment storage has kind of spilled over onto this site. And I just thought, well, that must be an anomaly of the, the aerials and the, and the property, but it looks like maybe he's already kind of intruded into this property that he, I understand he already owns. That's the, I believe there's two parcels in this request. Um, so this is to bring that up, to bring that parcel as well, that, that has that expansion on it into industrial to get that into compliance. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? All right. Hearing none, we'll, uh, bring it back to the board for, uh, discussion or, uh, a motion. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, public hearing. Oh, uh, okay. Uh, is there anyone in the, there's nobody out there. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor or against the motion? Seeing none, I will then turn it back to, to, uh, to the board for their, um, comments and a motion. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve LDCP AS 2026-16. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Uh, we will do the roll call for approval of the motion. 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. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Motion passes. Okay. And I make a motion that we approve LDCT 2026-23. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Um, any discussion on that motion? Um, all those in favor, um, Cindy, if you'll call the roll, 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. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Motion passes. Next case. Next case is LDCP AS 2026-18. Small scale conference and planned amendment. And Tyler Daniels is the case planner. Good morning. Tyler Daniels Land Development. Presenting LDC PAS 2026-18. This is a small scale comp plan amendment at 5955 South Florida Avenue. The request is to change the future land use designation on about 4.1 acres from Business Park Center to Institutional in the TSDA. Uh, notice was provided 32 mailers to the area property owners. One sign posted on October 18th and a legal ad on October 22nd. No response. The amendment area is the eastern portion, um, of an 11.82 acre parent parcel and carries the parcel's entire frontage on South Florida Avenue. The remaining 7.72 acres stays Business Park Center. Uh, the site is just south of Lakeland on the west side of State Road 37, about a mile south of the city limits. Site sits just inside and established non-residential corridor with nearby commercial warehouses, storage, and medical facilities. The nearest residential structure is about a sixth of a mile west. The amendment area is 4.102 acres with 408 feet of frontage on South Florida. The rest of the parent parcel to the west is not part of the request. The current designation is Business Park Center within the TSDA. And you can see some other institutional patterns in the area. Six institutional parcels roughly a half a mile away. This is the proposed designation as institutional. And again, the western part of the parent parcel stays Business Park Center. This is photographs of the property. I believe it was most recently operating as a nursery. And you can see the access there off of South Florida. Uh, it is similar intensity. Uh, we don't foresee any impact. There is this trip increase and South Florida has the capacity for it. SAF recommends approval. Uh, the surrounding pattern is non-residential on all sides. The Business Park Center to the north, south, and west. And LCC along SR 37 with frontage and other institutional parcels in the vicinity. Institutional carries. Institutional is allowed in TSDA. And the intensity is similar. And South Florida has the capacity for the additional trips. Again, SAF recommends approval. And I stand for any questions. So this property came before us back a year or two ago for a similar use. And the reason they're back again is because the original deal fell through and there's a new applicant. Is that why we have to revisit it? Yeah, I believe so. And, and the intent is a medical office, uh, this time. We do have the applicant here as well. So I'll let them speak to that. Okay. All right. Any questions for staff? Uh, if the applicant would like to come forward, please, please state your name and address. Yeah. Good morning. Clayton Brickelmeyer with Brooks Rocha on 400 North Tampa Street. We just moved in Tampa, three through 602. Um, this is, uh, we are brand new to this deal. We had nothing to do with the previous one. Um, so our luck, I guess, but, um, we appreciate staff's work on it. This is going to be a really nice medical office. Uh, and we're available for questions. We appreciate Tyler's work and, uh, and the recommendation. Okay. Any questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you. Thanks. Is there anybody here to speak in favor against the, uh, the, uh, ordinance? Uh, seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for comments and a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve LDCPAS 2026-18 in its entirety. Can the angels in second? All right. We have seconds. Um, you know, please call the roll. 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. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Motion passes. All right. Number four on the agenda is LDCU 2026-22, the Martha Ruth event venue, and Kyle Rogus is your planner. Good morning. Kyle Rogus with Land Development presenting LDCU 2026-22, the Martha Ruth event venue. The applicant is requesting a conditional use approval to allow a special events venue on approximately 2.17 acres in the Agricultural Residential Rural Land Use District. On October 19th, 25 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property October 19th. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland and Winter Haven Sun on October 22nd. Staff has received three emails in opposition. This is an outdated slide, so that should be three emails in opposition for the record. Staff finds the request compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code, and staff recommends approval. The subject site is located at 4016 Knight Station Road, north of Bella Vista Street, south of Glen Road, east of Walker Road, west of Sands Road in Section 5, Township 28, Range 23. The subject site is located in the Agricultural Residential Rural Future Land Use District in the Rural Development Area. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 205, Section 205, Table 2.1, an event facility is allowed within two land use designations, the agricultural residential rural, and the residential suburban. In both land uses, an event facility requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission prior to any level two site plan review. The property is in close proximity to the Commercial Enclave Land Use District that is currently developed out as a liquor store. Tony's Liquor has operating hours ranging from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekends. Similar operation hours to what is proposed by the applicant in their submitted management plan and condition by staff. Outside of the hours of operation, liquor stores often generate more reoccurring traffic throughout the day and evening. The existing liquor store and proposed event facility are different uses. However, the existing commercial enclave shows that non-residential activity is already a part of the surrounding neighborhood. This location will not have any outdoor gatherings or amplified sound. As such, this facility will not be utilized as an outdoor concert venue. If the applicant wishes to introduce outdoor sound in the future, a modification to this conditional use will be required in accordance with outdoor concert venue requirements located in Chapter 3, Section 303 of the Land Development Code. The structure will be fully enclosed and the near structures to the event facility are over 200 feet to the west. Stormwater retention ponds are located to the northwest portion of the site, which adds an additional spatial buffer between parking lot and the surrounding residences. This red line is what represents the 50-foot compatibility buffer that is Section 220 of the Land Development Code. In green is a more identified version of that Type B landscape buffer that you see depicted here. According to the applicant's site plan, all parking spaces and building dumpsters included are outside the 50-foot compatibility zone pursuant to Section 220. The applicant is proposing a 5-foot wide Type B landscape buffer with an opaque fence per figure 7.3 of the Land Development Code along every property boundary abutting residential lots, including those under the same ownership as the applicant to the east. Event facilities, traffic mimics those of religious institutions, which religious institutions require the Type B landscape buffer when abutting single-family residential, remaining consistent with the review as well as with the parking. The opaque fence, understory, and canopy trees will be a barrier for light and sound pollution, blocking vehicle headlights from bleeding into the neighboring properties. The landscaping will provide a visual transition between the residential and non-residential uses. And staff recommends approval. The proposed 4,000-square-foot event facility is compatible with the surrounding residential properties, as it is relatively low intensity as to other uses within close proximity, and the use is site design techniques to mitigate impacts to the surrounding neighbors, predominantly to the west. The abutting property to the east and the south of the site is also owned by Cairn. Through site design and conditions of approval, staff finds the request is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the Land Development Code and comprehensive plan. I request that the presentation be submitted to the record, and with that, I will stand for questions. Any questions for staff? I just have a thank you. On the slide that shows the proximity to the neighbors, and it's outlined, the three opposition sites are outlined for us to see clearly. I appreciate that. Yes, thank you. That's a nice add. Frequently, we're going, now, where do you live? So, that's helpful. Thank you. So, the applicant owns the property that's, I'm trying to think how to describe it. There's that whole property from Night Station Road going south of that. Correct. And the property to the east, that. Yes, correct. What about the other piece to the south of that one? That one. They do not own that portion of the property, and I don't have off the top of my head the owner of that property. That's okay. I just was... So, just as a way of disclosure, I built that home that is on that property currently for Karen Houts. Originally, it was 19 acres. They split it into three parcels for family members. It looks like the family members never built on those sections. And so, I guess she's trying to figure out what to do with her property there. But, you know, it's got a convenience store across the street. It's very rural there, and it seems like a suitable spot to build. Any other questions for staff? Would you mind just sharing, again, the provision about the noise and music and the provision in there about open air and live music and things like that? Yes. So, it is part of the conditions within Section 303 for event facility uses to where they are not allowed for the outdoor amplified sound. If they are to have that, they need to go through the proper procedures for outdoor concert venue, which is a separate condition to use within Section 303. There is, within the site plan, the enclosed structure is that larger rectangle. And then you do have about 15-foot wide open overhang. So, there is going to be some components that are not full. The whole structure is not fully enclosed. But for any additional components as to concert venues, amplified noise, it will be required to go through a modification. And the county restricts noise levels by 65 decibels is the lowest for kind of our lower intense land use classifications. For our more intense, it's about 75 decibels. And that's measured within property lines. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? All right. Seeing none, will the applicant please come forward? Good morning. For the record, Sarah Case with Next Level Planning and Permitting. My address is 3825 South Florida Avenue. And that is in Lakeland. Today, I'm the applicant for the subject request. I am the authorized agent for the property owner. However, my client is under contract with the property owner, Karen Houts, to purchase 2.17 acres for this event venue. So, as staff indicated, we're requesting conditional use approval for the Martha Ruth event venue. It's a 4,000 square foot enclosed facility for weddings and private gatherings at 4016 Night Station Road. This is a use that the county's LDC specifically allows in this district and staff recommends approval. We've read the letters of opposition and we appreciate the comments and take all concerns mentioned seriously. Outdoor amplified sound is prohibited. We volunteered a buffer with an opaque fence along every residential boundary, even though the code did not require. Stormwater will be fully engineered during the Level 2 engineering review and the site sits outside of any flood zone. Staff's analysis shows ample roadway capacity, no strain on public services, and a use that is less intensive than other options allowed here. We respectfully ask that you approve this application with the staff conditions and I will stand for any questions that you may have. Any questions for Sarah? If there is anyone who would like to speak in either opposition or approval of the project, please come forward. Please state your name and address. John Conklin, 4002 Night Station Road. Which, I assume you have a home there, John. Yes, we're at 01490. Okay. Yep. So, first off, I want to let the, make the record clear that I did not receive any mail regarding this. The only way that I found out about this was by noticing Mr. Rogus unintentionally in my driveway and I approached him to see what was going on and ask for information regarding a road sign that had been run over and who I would talk to about that. So, I have not been properly notified. Me being here has been of my own research and using the internet to learn more about this, but I've not received any formal notification. And your comments? Yeah, my objections are regarding the low frequency bass music. Bass can travel quite far and while Tony's liquor is across the street. I did choose to build my home in 2024. However, Tony's liquor was already there. With Tony's liquor is, yes, there's road noise, but that's it. There's no low frequency bass music being proposed to end at 10 p.m. I feel sorry for the neighbors next to the facility within about 70 feet proximity. But bass music is going to cut through the homes. There's no speculation. And I am requesting, if this is approved, that a site-specific noise impact study and noise monitoring plan be properly done. I have water concerns as well. I did send Mr. Rogus information regarding the flooding during Milton that Polk County is well aware of. Property directly across the street experiences extensive water. Here's a, I don't know, Mr. Rogus has this information. I don't know if you've been provided, but that's a photo of my home. It looked like a lake. I am concerned about additional runoff water and measures being taken to prohibit the water coming. Also, I think it's noteworthy that on Saturday, November 29th of 2025, approximately at 8 p.m., there was an individual named Kyle Cole who was killed in a motorcycle accident in front of Tony's Liquor, approximately 250 feet from the proposed venue's property line. Traffic has increased greatly, especially with the new developments in the area, especially on Walker Road. There's a very large subdivision being built there. So I have a seven-page document. I ask that that be put in and considered. Can I say one last thing? Sure. Go ahead. I do ask that this be moved to a later point because I don't think, I didn't receive anything in the mail notifying me. So I really did have to scramble to put together stuff. Okay. Thank you for your comments. And if you do, sorry, sir, if you have copies or if you have a copy or we can make a copy so you can enter that, if you'd like that entered into the record, what you brought. I'm happy to submit this. Mr. Rogus has received an email with a PDF that can be submitted. Okay. Thank you. So quick question on staff. How many mailers did you say were sent out? It was 25 mailers and I have the mailing list here as well and I can provide this as a copy to the record. Was that site included? Yes, I have in yellow here of the three complaints, their address that was listed on the property appraisers would have been the address that the mailer would have been sent to and they were included on this mailing list. In pink is the property owner's mailing. Okay. And would someone like to address John's concern about the low frequency sound? Yes, they're still going to be required to have that 65 decibel if they wanted to do concert venues, things like that. The conditions within an outdoor concert venue, they have specific requirements in terms of their submill process, in terms of a noise plan and a sound plan that has those types of concerns addressed within that use. It's not something that's conditioned or required within a event facility use that's being proposed today. If those modifications were required, that information would need to be part of the record and their submittal for providing that outdoor concert venue use. Were there any restrictions on days of operation or hours of operation? Just the hours I would defer to the applicant in terms of their weekly schedule. So it's available for use every single day of the week up until 10 o'clock? 10 p.m., correct. Did you receive anything from the individual that lived at parcel number 014040? You're referring to this parcel here? Yes. No, I have not received any communication from any of the parcels that are on the west side. And I do have a extra exhibit slide that identifies the proximity from the proposed event venue. This is approximately the distance from those residential structures and then from the Tony's Liquor Store and the installation use that's done on the property further to the east. And this is the proximity from those residents that came, the provided emails from the other commercial uses within the surrounding neighborhood. So those three that you've indicated, I assume those emails were not in approval of the project? Correct. That would have been from this gentleman here and then these two parcels, these two residences. Any more questions for staff or the applicant? Mr. Chairman, there may be other people in the public that want to speak to this, is there? Yes, sir. Oh, please. Thanks for keeping me straight, Kevin. Hi, my name is Jimmy Vu. I'm on the property 2970 Saddle Ridge Lane. I'm just worried about, I have a brand new family, a little toddler, and we have another baby coming on the way. And, you know, events going on to 10 p.m. every single day, like, that's going to really affect my life. Which home is yours, sir? Mine's on the right of his. Okay. I think we're all worried about the low decibels. I get there won't be any speakers outside, but there will be speakers inside with bass. So, and if the sides could open up, you know, like, that bass could travel pretty far. And I don't know if I could even live there anymore if I'm going to hear music until 10 p.m. every day, potentially. And also, I didn't receive a flyer or an email regarding this. John actually told me about it, and that's why I'm here. Okay. Thank you for your comments. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions for staff, for the applicant? And I will say, I just want to clarify that these distances are from the actual structure itself, not the individual property line. So, some of these numbers, like for instance, these two are outside of that 500-foot radius, but that is not, that distance isn't measured from the property line where those notices would need to be measured from. So, that's why you may see these larger numbers, but they were still notified, just for clarification. So, if the, if they have noise issues, then it would, they would have to file a complaint. It would go through the code enforcement process, and there's the noise ordinance that's restricting that, that type of expansion outside of property boundaries of the amplified noise. Okay. Sarah, you have some comments? Yes. I just wanted to say that we do appreciate your comments, and we, we want to be good neighbors. So, the property owner, as mentioned, you build a house for her, she is staying there. She would not allow anything to be built next to her that would be, would interfere with her relationship with the existing neighbors and that type of thing. You know, we, we volunteered to do the type B buffer that was not required, and by design, we kept everything, parking and building in the dumpster proposed inside of the compatibility, well, outside of the compatibility buffer. I will say that what is enforceable is going to be the land development codes, decibel ordinance, and that type of thing, and it would be enforceable if there was a phone call, but we do not, we're asking for permission for permission for this use at the maximum that it would be utilized, and that's what you all review. So, but we're, reality is that we will not be operating seven days a week. Sure. Reality is somebody might want to do a baby shower in the morning from 11 to 1, and the, the thought of enclosed sound, if you think about it, and if the neighbors are being bothered by it, people could not hear inside that building. But again, I'm not an expert in that. I would ask you all to consider this based on competent, substantial evidence, and as mentioned previously, the stormwater design, driveway construction, and chapter seven development standards all have to be addressed. This would be the first step to get the entitlement, and this is a binding site plan, but staff knows once we do all of the studies and that type of thing. It could change a little bit. However, our engineer of record, Alan Rayl, we teamed with him for this to present to you. So, I do ask for your favorable vote, and I will stand for any other questions that you may have. Okay, thank you. I have one question. Sarah, you mentioned other uses that you could already do there. Give us some examples. So, this is not just a wedding venue. No, no, no. I mean, other things other than an event venue that could already by rights go on this property. You said that there were other more invasive. Well, so staff indicated that in their staff report, that there could be more intense. I'm just looking for a couple examples of what. Staff found the venue less impactful than an outdoor facility or agritourism use. Okay, thank you. Okay, any more questions for Sarah? Okay, I'll bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion. I got a couple thoughts. These come before us pretty regularly here, and I have some personal experience with one. My husband and our family has a little camp land north of I-4 off of 557, and directly across the street is a venue just like this. It's about 850 feet from where we sit around a campfire, and at most all we hear ever is like, hooray, in the distance, and we're sitting outdoors, so we don't hear a bunch of base concussion and things like that. So, I would imagine, especially if you're sitting inside your house, it's really, you know, those, I understand those concerns, but having camped near one of these many, many, many times, it's really kind of a non-issue and is a, I think, is a good use for the space. Anybody else? Care to venture a motion? I move to approve LDCU 2026-22. Second. Cindy, if you'll do the 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. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Motion passes. All right. Number five on the agenda is LDPD 2026-14. The Christina PUD modification. This applicant is requesting to modify PUD 71-4 to change open space to two residential units, and Aaliyah and Gleema is your planner. Good morning. Aaliyah and Gleema with Land Development presenting number five on the agenda, LDPD 2026-14. The Christina PUD modification. The applicant is requesting to modify PUD 71-4 to change the open space to allow two residential units on approximately 7.6 acres. The subject site is located north of Woodside Court, south of Woodside Drive, east of Christina Boulevard west, and west of Shadow Lane, north of the city of Mulberry, and section 24, township 29, range 23. On October 19th, 104 mailers were sent to area property owners. One sign was posted on October 19th. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun on October 22nd with no response from the public. So the subject property has a history of dating back to 1971 when the board approved a planned unit development with a rural conservation classification. In 1977, the board approved a modification to the concept plan and granted approval plans for Christina Woods. The subject property is located within the transit supportive development area and is designated as residential one. Each lot will exceed the RL1 minimum lot size standards. So as part of the approved Christina Woods-Platt, the subject property was designated as tract B. However, tract B was never dedicated to the HOA. The site is designated as park on the PUD binding site plan. The designated park area was never developed or approved for recreational use and has remained vacant and undeveloped since the original approval. This application seeks to amend that existing PUD designation to allow for the residential use of the property. And the property has been under private ownership since 1995. So here's a photo of my site visit. There is a existing sidewalk network within the Christina development. So overall staff, the subject property believes is suitable for the proposed two single family residential development based on its relationship to the surrounding residential neighborhood. The proposed modification would allow an existing long-term vacant parcel designated for open space to be utilized for residential purpose. And I'll stand for any questions. So what entity owned the property prior to it being privately owned? I mean, I'm just trying to figure out, you know, I'm pretty familiar with that site. I've jogged by there too many times. It was the developer, but I don't remember the name at the top of my head. Okay. So it was actually under IMC who was the developer, who was the developer, who was the developer. Okay. Yes. Well, they actually contracted for it to be developed, but they were the original owners, IMC chemical. Yeah. What's that? He's trying to make me feel a little, I wasn't here in 71, but I was here in 77. Yeah. I mean, it's, it has never had a use, that property. It's always been rather marginal. I'm not quite sure why it never was, but obviously it's not being used for, you know, any kind of public good. So I'm kind of surprised it's been maintained over the years. I mean, since it wasn't a park or owned by the HOV. Well, I had heard that there was some issue with, it was marginal soil types and so forth, and they didn't want to do anything with it. Well, that could be. But nowadays people will do just about anything on any piece of property. So it would certainly be a nicer appearance to the community to have, you know, somebody living there and landscape. I just, I wouldn't want that much yard to maintain. Do you want to have the applicant? Yes. Applicant can come forward. Tom. Good morning, everyone. For the record, Tom Woodridge, TDW Land Planning. With me is the client representing the property owner. Yeah, this has a long history to it and a lot of question marks. Why is it still vacant? It's been maintained very well over the last few years. The soils are suitable for residential development, especially on this site. There are some things that you're not seeing on the site plan where there's drainage easements going across the, I'm not sure if I have access to click around this, but up at the front of the property where Leah's putting the mouse now and then kind of running in that front area, the lower area, but the back area is outside of floodplain. Soils are good enough to build on. There's just a lot of potential here that's been held up by ownership, I think, and lack of decision-making. We decided to go with using, if you notice from the site plan, it looks very simple. That's intentional. We just went with the existing parcel outline. We're going the simplest, less is more perspective when we went for this. We looked at a couple of different layouts and potentials for the property because it's beautiful and it is surrounded by, you know, decent size lots, quarter, third acre lots or so that are all around with nice size homes on them. We could have gone that route and built everything that's what you see in the area. And we decided, let's just do a couple larger lots where someone wants a little bit more elbow room and privacy. That's harder to find in this zip code, in this community where someone can actually have a little room to grow, a pool and maybe a pool cabana house and have like enough room to stretch their elbows, so to speak. So that's the perspective that we're taking with this development layout. And I'll just come up to ask our answer any questions that you have as well. Will there be any easement issues on the sewer or water lines going into that middle area? I think you mean the stormwater perhaps? Yeah. There is a stormwater easement coming in straight off of where you see the word Tina of Christina on the MySite plan. I can't point to it without a mouse. But there is an existing drainage easement there that kind of runs along the center of that dividing parcel line and then cuts down to where you saw, Leah, down to parcel 002311, kind of in between those two. So, nope, down a little bit further, kind of in and bound bending southeast from there. So we plan... So it follows your dividing line then? Somewhat, yes. And we try to find the pipe. It's buried underneath soil and dirt and I'm sure it's there. We'll just need to do some further digging, but we're just there to maintain the property for now until we've got further traction on this with you all. So, but yes, we will maintain that. Those are recorded easements. We'll need to make sure that everything stays in place. And thankfully, with two residential homes, we're not going to put enough impervious, even with the driveways, to create any issues for the residents. So we'll make sure everything's still fine with retention and drainage in the area. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Is there anybody in the audience that would... Can I say something real quick? Sure. So when we looked at... Please identify yourself. Terry Tootin. I'm the... I'm sitting in for the property owner. I would be taking over the property once this is approved. And your address, sir? It's 2323 EF Griffin Road, Bartow, Florida. Okay. So when we originally, me and Tom looked at this, we were going to subdivide this up a lot more. But me being a large partial owner and wanting that more in our community, I looked at this property. I've been maintaining this property for years for the owner. He's old, so he doesn't have the ability to get out there and maintain the property any longer. So when I looked at the property, though, there's a lot of established nice trees, oak trees, live oak trees on the perimeter. The property is really kind of slab ready for the existing partials. But I'm really an advocate for less is more in our community. Bigger lots, bigger space for people to actually have family space and whatnot. And keeping the few trees we have left in Florida available for those kids to play in their yards. So when me and Tom looked at this, yes, we thought about breaking up more. But I really wanted to keep that property as, you know, less impactful as possible so that the community could enjoy those surrounding developed trees and natural kind of landscape. So that's kind of where we went with this. Very good. Thank you for your comments. Any questions? I'll bring it back to the board for, I'm sorry, public hearing. Anybody out there that would like to speak for or against seeing none? Oh, I'm sorry. You're right behind the screen. I couldn't see you. My apologies. My name is Kathy Sikolsky. I'm at 111 with Christina Boulevard. I'm the house that's directly south of where the property line is. Yes, that's us. And so I'm just have a few questions. We were told when we bought, and maybe these can't be answered, that anyone who built on that would have to use pilings because it's an old phosphate settling pond. Is there any knowledge of that? If you want, you can just use your full three minutes and then the applicant will have a chance. And then we'll have an opportunity to get your answers. So if that happens and that proves to be, will that require another hearing? Because pilings around all that is what would have a lot of impact, I believe. Also, I don't know about the floodplains. Everybody says we're not, but our yard floods every time there's a storm. So we're concerned about the flooding in that area. I did not receive any mailings. I don't know if anybody else received any mailings. I saw the sign because I drive by it every day. So that's how I found out. The QR code does not work. It sends you to some other site, redirects you to a site that doesn't tell what's going on. So just so somebody's aware of that. I have no objections to two homes on the land. I'm glad to hear that that's the plan. More than two would be hard because it would generate a lot of traffic in that area. So if that changes, would that be brought up again? Would there be another hearing if that were to change? That's another question that I had. And then you mentioned the trees that would be saved. So along the southern border of that, is your intent to save all of those trees? No. Okay. So the driveways would then go maybe closer to the middle of the property coming off the boulevard? Correct. Okay. All right. That's all I have. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments. Would the applicant like to address those items? So yeah, we looked, we haven't found anything on any records about soil samples ever done to the property. And of course, these are two very large lots. So the person purchasing these lots, I'm not guessing is going to build a small home. So if they needed to drive pylons and if they did soil samples, or if we chose to do soil samples before we sold these properties, then I think at that point, that's just, I'm not sure of the laws on that. But I think driving piles is not an issue with this day and time. I know a lot of houses in this area have been set on piles for years because it's all, I mean, everyone's building on reclaimed land. That's correct. So yeah, and that's what her concerns were our concerns, right? Like we wanted to do this in a way that was going to please the neighbors, not frustrate the neighbors and cause as little impact as possible. That was our thought process and, and, and maintain all the flooding. So I've maintained the property for two years out there after major storms out there. I mean, this week, for example, the property gets wet, you know, like any grass property would, but there's never been standing water on any of that property since I've maintained that in two years. So I don't think flooding, I do know on the kind of property lines, it kind of does fold off a little bit, but with two houses kind of set, we would set these houses, I'm sure in the middle of that, that big rectangle, it'd be nowhere near that impact zone for just a slab for a home or, you know, detached, you know, structures. So a community, I think you'd have runoff maybe issues, but with two homes, I don't think it's going to impact the property in any aspect. Okay. And if I might add a couple things to your concerns, the, when a home is built, it's required to not allow water to, to, to sheet onto other properties. So it will have some kind of swell around the perimeter of the property. And as far as pilings are concerned, that's a function of the building permit. So it would not require any additional, uh, at least from this board, any other board to weigh in on that. That's just, uh, that's just part of the operation of building in Florida. I would just add that back when this, and this whole area was mined for phosphate, and there was, this is so far back, there was no records that were, uh, that survived all that. And so it's incumbent, I think, upon the realtor and the builder for liability that you do a soil survey or soil sample to some depth so that you know what you've got, because you're right. I mean, they're right. You can build on this and not know it, and it could start with the weight of it could start to subside. Yeah. If I take this all the way through, we will 100% do soil samples. Um, we're not going to build a million plus dollar home on this without verifying that the foundation's solid. Yeah. Yeah. Definitely recommended. Okay. Um, any other comments, any questions from the board? I'll entertain a motion. Uh, commission. I move that we approve, uh, LDPD 2026-14. Angel Sims second. All right. Cindy, if you will call the roll. 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. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Motion passes. All right. All right. Number six on the agenda is LDCT 2026-21, the Agricultural Enclaves LDC Text Amendment. This is adding a section to chapter nine and chapter 10 of the Land Development Code regarding Agricultural Enclaves. And Tyler Daniels is your planner. Tyler Daniels presenting LDCT 2026. Uh, this is a LDC text amendment to add a section to chapter nine and a definition to chapter 10 regarding Agricultural Enclaves, consistent with the Senate Bill 686 that was passed in legislature during the 2026 session. It created a new process that lets the owner of an Agricultural Enclave apply to the county for certification. Our Land Development Code does not currently define an Agricultural Enclave or reference that process. So this amendment adds section 916 to chapter nine, which says certification applications and development plan review are processed under the Florida statutes. And it adds a definition of Agricultural Enclave to chapter 10. So an Agricultural Enclave is an undeveloped agricultural land that development has grown up around. The proposed chapter 10 definition reads an unincorporated, undeveloped parcel or parcels under single ownership or control in continuous use for a bona fide agricultural purpose and largely surrounded by existing or planned industrial, commercial, or residential development. And it does have some specific criteria like five years of continuous bona fide agricultural use and acreage maximums. This is the process under the new law. An Agricultural Enclave no longer goes through a comprehensive plan amendment. Instead, it is certified at a single board hearing. The county has 90 days from the application to decide or the parcel is certified automatically. On a certified parcel, single family residential development consistent with the adjacent parcels is treated as a conforming use. So far, staff has not identified a parcel in unincorporated Polk County that currently meets the statutory criteria. Staff recommends approval. The amendment keeps our land development code consistent with state law and it does not add any county requirements beyond the statute. Staff does not anticipate many of these applications in unincorporated Polk County. Similar sites would typically continue through a CPA or residential infill process. I do want to note that this state process is temporary. It expires January 1st, 2028, unless the legislature extends it. And after that date, the statute reverts to the earlier comp plan amendment process. And our amendment does not need to change when that happens because it refers to the statute and will follow whichever version is in effect. I'll stand for any questions. Any questions for staff? I've got one question. Uh, the 1280, two sections of land, is that, is that just something we pulled at a, or is, I see other counties are 1280 to something like double of that. I'm just curious where we came up with that for the county. That comes right out of the statute. Okay. Yeah. But there, there is different maximums in other statutes for other counties, correct? Yes. It depends on population. Okay. Yeah. But, and this is lower than the typical, I mean, this is like the lower end is that's, that's the only reason I ask. Yeah. Tyler, we, we, we wouldn't go up to the higher end until we got to a, a higher population. I think we'd have to exceed a certain population. Okay. Why is that? I had no activity writing the bill. Right. Why does anything? Legislature and their great wisdom. The legislature does these days. Um, I have a quick question. Um, with the automatic certification on 90 days, um, will staff have the capacity to, you know, meet that deadline? Yes. Okay. We have, we, we don't see a lot of applications of this. Okay. Good. There's, there's really not a lot of places where this would be the desired option for somebody in this situation. Uh, most often, I mean, we, we, we have infill policies. Most often what we're up against is they want more than what the infill would give them. Right. Want considerably more. So it's, it's not. And we don't have areas like, as far as Polk County utilities is concerned, we don't have areas where we extend lines without first changing the land uses to, to correspond with that investment. And the cities don't typically either. I'm sorry, Eric, the, the current infill policy, is that a percentage of the acreage? No, actually 80 acres or 80, 80 stands. It's only 80 acres. We, we, ours is very limited in it and it serves a niche that is more, more, uh, often utilized, uh, in, in the county is more than, than this would ever come close to. And that one more question. I'm sorry, guys, if it pops up back, I got to ask, uh, how do they determine and that it's developed all the way around there? Are there criteria that they, are you just like, well, this is developed or do you name that that or that's, that's really for the board to decide on that hearing and understand it's not an advertised hearing. This is, this is an item going before it would be an item going before the board of county commissioners on, on a piece of property. And they would evaluate whether they felt it, it met that or it didn't. So there's, so it requires the board to certify the fact that they meet the criteria and in staff will do a considerable amount of analysis. So there's some subjectivity to that, but there's also some criteria. There's some criteria. Yes. I learned at a good job. Uh, I do want to mention, cause I did prepare for the 1280, uh, question. The 1280 comes from the average size of an enclave, which is about two square miles. So that's where the 1280, uh, comes from. And this is the, uh, exemption note here is it can get, it can go up to 400, I'm sorry, 4,480 acres, which is about seven square miles. If it's almost completely surrounded by neighborhoods, meaning residential development at at least three quarters of its edge, those neighborhoods also have to be fairly dense with at least 1000 people per square mile. Once they're built out in that situation, the state treats the whole area as already urban. So it allows bigger farm parcel to qualify. So I did have that prepared just in case. If the enclave is certified as residential and the County wants it to go industrial, how would that happen? Or if the County has kept it for industrial at some point and the enclave is now certified as residential, what happens then? I think ultimately we would want to correct the map in the end, but I mean, this is where this legislation opened, you know, a lot of questions. Uh, so it seems like it was written for a specific area. Yeah. That's what I was going to say. And it's not in Polk County. This seems like, this seems like one of those legislations. It was, uh, somebody had a problem and they went to the legislature to fix it. And this was the fix and it applied to everybody. So I have a question. It's down the road. I have a question. Uh, rubber meets the road. So there's this little seven acre section out on five 59, right in the middle of where it's about to go kaboom with all kinds of things. It's, um, already agricultural. Does this change anything for that? What does this do with that little seven acre track that it sounds like is what we're talking about this kind of thing? Yeah. A lot of that's been annexed by Lake Alfred. I, I, you know, I believe the critical areas are exempt from this. Is that correct? Yes. Critical areas. So the green swamp would, would, would trump that as long as no, this is, this is right. Oh, I'm sorry. Grand central station, five 59 and Gapway road out in that area. We, our family has a little seven acre grove that we put one little house in and it's still a grove. We're turning it into a mango trees, doing all kinds of stuff with that. So what, what does this do? Yeah. That's in the city, but no, it's not in the city. No, it's not in the city. No, we're counting. Yeah. You, you would look at the abutting. What is the abutting density? And, and they would have, they would go with that abutting uses. And now, like I was saying is like a lot of times when you have a parcel like that, you're not necessarily going to take the abutting lot sizes. You always want a little bit more because you, you know, you don't have a, as much to develop. Yeah. Well, it's going to be mango trees for as long as it'll be a little weird. Yeah. Well, there you go. Well, they're coming back. It's, it was intense. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Uh, entertain a discussion and emotion then on this, Mr. Chairman, I moved to approve uh, let's see. It's LDCT 2026-21 in its entirety. Angel Sims, second. We have a motion and a second. Um, Cindy, if you'll please call the roll. Shane Bevilacqua. Reluctantly for the motion. Cindy Janamasso for the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Motion passes. Next. Good morning. Shonda Bennett with the Land Development Division. This is a request to consider LDCPA L 2026-13, a text amendment to several sections and policies to the comprehensive plan, adding a new future land use designation called conservation. In terms of advertisement, this case was advertised in the Lakeland and Winter Haven Polk Sun on October 22nd, 2026. The staff report and application and PowerPoint are submitted into the record. The new flu, future land use, is divided into an objective, purpose, characteristics, designation and mapping, location criteria, and development criteria. This flu is being added to all selected area plans except the State Road 559 selected area plan and all the special protection areas of the Green Swamp area of critical state concern. This was reviewed by the Conference of Plan Advisory Committee and directed to move forward by the Board of County Commissioners ahead of the comp plan rewrite. So this is your first comp plan rewrite policy amendment that you're considering? Yes. It's exciting. Yes. The purpose of this land use is to accommodate conservation-based educational programming through educational centers and exhibits. Conservation areas may include wetlands, surface waters, floodplains, listed species, habitat, significant geological features, and strategic ecosystems. There are two similar future land use designations titled Recreation, Open Space, and Preservation. You can see some of them highlighted on the map. I circled them. I've got the Avon Park Air Force Range and Gator Creek Preserve and then the Circle B Bar facility in the middle of the county. ROS is meant for an active recreation where preservation is meant for maintaining an unmodified landscape. The conservation flu is meant to provide for an option in the middle so that Polk residents can trust the flue map to indicate the property's use. For example, Circle B is ROS and ROS permits lighted ball fields and active recreation. However, the land is used for educational purposes and passive recreation. But preservation is too limiting because it prohibits the construction of any building and the conservation flu will allow buildings for educational and maintenance purposes and caretaker residences. The location criteria is based on the Polk Green, which is based on the Florida Ecological Greenways Network, local, state, and federal management lands, as well as private lands with an ecological value. The development criteria permits 20,000 square feet of building for educational or exhibition uses or more depending on the management plan approved by the board or by the regional water management district, as well as a caretaker's residence and passive recreation, hunting, and overnight primitive tent camping. The length of the ordinance is so long due to adding the conservation to all the selected area plans, which you see on the map on the left, except for State Road 559, which is circled. It was larger as a selected area plan when it was first adopted. It's been annexed by the jurisdictions in the area, and there's only a little bit left. And as well as adding the conservation designation to all of these special protection areas within the green swamp area of critical state concern. Staff is recommending approval as it provides an additional future land use for conservation and preservation choices. It's consistent with the conservation element, and the changes are based on the public engagement process for the comprehensive plan rewrite, and it was recommended by the comprehensive plan advisory committee. I'll stand for any questions. Were the, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, were there instances where they wouldn't allow conservation within these areas before? That surprises me if, I mean, that's why we're passing this, right? This allows it in any designation? No, that's a new, it's a new land use classification. Okay, so it's a brand new, okay. It's a brand new one. So, for example, the county bought the, through the Environmental Lands Program, the east side of Lake Merion, most of it. And there's only a small portion of it that's going to have the educational facilities. But if we advertise that we're changing all of that lakefront to recreation open space to allow lighted ball fields. Yeah, gotcha. It gives the wrong impression of what that land is to be used for. So, the preservation prohibits the ability to build those educational facilities. So, the conservation's in the middle. And private entities could use it too, like Tiger Creek Preserve or to allow for the building of facilities and a caretaker residence. So, what does Circle B designate it as? Recreation and open space. So, would that be a candidate for this new designation? Yes. Probably the reason for, but many others. It's not necessarily, the board hasn't directed us to change the land use of the property, but at least it gives another option. Because that's why they picked recreation and open space instead of preservation. Because preservation didn't allow the construction of the buildings. It just gives another option. The land use allows the discharge of firearms, but there are none that I know of. Pretty good duck cutting. They didn't shoot. I've got it. I've discharged it. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. In the trails, I'm just saying. Every land use, well, they didn't, they didn't request the ability to do the discharge of firearms. So, they can't do it. If that alligator's coming at you, you might want to discharge it. Yeah. That's my next comment. Yeah, I guess so. Well, I mean, every use in the, there's a bag of uses for every land use classification. And you just don't automatically get to do it just because you have the land use. So, if the county wanted to allow the discharge of firearms, they'd have to submit a level two review. They'd have to comply with the standards for that, which I think requires a public hearing, if I remember correctly. So, right now, if I should. No, not in RS. Not in RS. Okay. Thank you. No, I think there's a lot. So, is it fair to say that this creates a, get a space to be able to leverage conservation land for things that are maybe not so really, really specific as before, but not as broad as like commercial baseball fields. And it kind of creates a gap in the middle to do conservation, thoughtful conservation development on that land. So, it doesn't have to completely change to something much more dramatic or do nothing on it. Correct. Okay. But, but even if, like a future commission came forward and said, oh, we want to put ball fields and, and so forth and so on there, they would still have to have public hearings and approvals and all that. For active recreation? No, not in RS. No, not in RS. So, they could, so someone could just say, hey, this would be a great place for a soccer field in the middle of. There are some grant limitations that paid for the land purchase that kind of keep us from doing that, but. So, another, another example, what is Colt Creek? Is it preservation? I think that's this piece or this piece. Yeah. Well, because there's education at center at Colt Creek in there? I don't know for sure. I've been there a long time. I think so. I know they have facilities on site and equestrian and stuff and they have demonstrations and educational programs all the time there. We have some of it is still an ARR as well. I believe we had a public hearing on, on the campgrounds about 10 years ago. I'm just looking for examples. I just want to add one thing. Shonda had mentioned the, the property on Lake Marion. The purchase of that property included both state and federal partners. And in order to do the recreate, the, the cultural facilities and the educational facilities, when we said we had to put that as recreation open space, those funding partners were very, very nervous about using their state and federal funding with that designation. So this provides a little bit of comfort to, to our partners when we're, we're trying to get funding as well. Okay. Any other questions? I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of, sorry, I still have to have the public hearing. I know there's no one in the audience, but we have to do it. Anybody out there that would like to speak for public hearing? I'll get that figured out eventually. Bell, you don't want to come up and talk? Mm-hmm. The last person standing. Are we ready? Okay. All right. Seeing no public input, I'll go back to the board. Move approval of LDCPAL 2026-13. Second. Cindy, if you'll do the honors. 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. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Motion passes. Okay. The last case before your training. It's, again, for the record, Shonda Bennett with the Land Development Division. This is a request to consider LDCPAL 2026-15, text amendment to Section 2.124F, Redevelopment Districts, within the comprehensive plan. In terms of advertisement, this case was advertised in the Lakeland Winter Haven Sun on October 22, 2026. The staff report application and PowerPoint are submitted into the record. Redevelopment districts are those areas in the county that have been identified as needing additional incentives and support for redevelopment. This was reviewed by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee and directed by the board to bring these changes ahead of the Comprehensive Plan Rewrite so the residents can benefit from the changes. So this is your second plan amendment based on the Comprehensive Plan Rewrite. The changes correct typos, change the periodic review of the redevelopment district list, allow for density increases in two methods, and remove a 10% commercial office limitation in redevelopment plans. This map displays the redevelopment districts with the development areas, such as the transit supported development area, urban growth area, suburban development area, et cetera, and city limits. The majority of the redevelopment districts are located near cities and few within the rural areas. The original policy that included the list of redevelopment districts required a review on an annual basis. This has been changed to be with each evaluation and appraisal report. The policies displayed on the screen list the land uses within a redevelopment plan, which was removed, except to keep the requirement to prohibit heavy and light industrial uses, which is currently prohibited because it's omitted from the current list. There are few incentives permitted for land uses if incorporated into a redevelopment plan, such as 150% density increase, as well as an expedited permitting and impact fee reductions. The top policy on the screen allows for these incentives to occur outside of a redevelopment plan being present. Next on the page, there is a current limitation on the amount of commercial and office permitted in redevelopment districts proposed, and it's proposed to be removed as the land uses or the redevelopment plan can provide the land use policies. The final is the alternative method for slightly increasing density in the redevelopment districts, which is to use the density within a quarter mile in two instances, either to add up to two additional units or up to five total units with allowing the density to be in the next higher category of land use. Staff does recommend approval as the amendment updates the review of the list to evaluation and appraisal report, allow some flexibility with the future land uses within a redevelopment plan, additional flexibility with density incentives, supports housing infill and housing diversity, which is consistent with the housing element, and this was supported by public engagement and reviewed by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee. And I'll stand for any questions. So I'm curious, do you see any hint of immediate response to this, or that this was going to actually, you know, do what's intended? I mean, I'm just wondering, what's on the horizon? Are you seeing things that are on the horizon that's just waiting for this to happen? Yes. What we're finding, I've had requests from Florence Villa area and in the Inwood area, and they're not able to get to the 150% with the current land use. They're doing a land use change, but the problem is getting to that residential higher, that higher end, they still need a slight little bump to just get maybe one more unit, and they're doing duplexes. They're not necessarily doing large apartment complexes. It's really, it's just, it's smaller. And it's in some of these communities where they're zoned for needing sewer to get the densities for sewer, but they don't have sewer. But they have lot sizes that would indicate that they have a much denser community, and they don't. They're about three to five dwelling units per acre. So, you see this maybe moving the needle a little bit for affordable housing? A little bit. I wouldn't say a leap, but a little bit. Okay. So, these individual items you're bringing forward to us because there's more urgency to them than rather as a collective presentation? Yes. In fact, one gentleman I told if this is approved and his comp plan amendment is approved, then he'll be able to use these policy changes to get one more extra unit on his property and inward. Okay. Any more questions? I'll entertain a motion. Oh, sorry. Anybody out in the audience that would like to speak to this? Seeing none, I'll now entertain a motion. I move to approve LDC-PAL-2026-15. Second. Roll call, please. Shane Bebalacqua. For the motion. Cindy Janamasso. For the motion. Merle Bishop. For the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Kevin Updike. For the motion. Angel Sims. For the motion. Motion passes. All right. Thank you for all your hard work. Staff. One last thing on the comp plan amendment. We did, the consultant for the comp plan update and staff made a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners a few weeks ago, and the board directed staff to bring forward the non-burdensome, non-restrictive policy changes forward through the process. So we're anticipating March to come before you. I do owe you some elements. Some of you don't have any at all. A few in the audience. So we'll be working to get you those in the context with which the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee reviewed them, but when you get the actual amendments in March, it will be bifurcated. But I thought it would be helpful for you to see the full context of all the amendments, but it will look different when you actually get them in your packets for that hearing. I do have one question for staff. We had several speakers come forward and say they weren't getting their mailings. What's going on? We don't do them certified return receipt. We put them in the mail, and they get sent. We don't know when they receive it. We don't know who's picking them out of the mailbox, who's reading them. You heard Mr. Rogus testify that the address was on the list. It wouldn't be on the list if it wasn't pulled from the database that we used to draw in. This has got to be a function of the mail. I mean, who in here, if you have to have something there, do you use the post office? I don't. No. Send it to me electronically or, you know, mailing of checks. All this stuff anymore is not. That's why there's three methods of advertisement. And most people notice the hearings because of the sign, not because of some. Some do get the letter. That's what I was going to say. It always got me because somebody would inevitably come up and say, I didn't get notice of this meeting. And you want to say, well, why are you here? Well, you know, what Kevin is saying, I think that people are just not paying attention to what's coming in the mailbox, especially now with all of the mailers and all the stuff. And I know that Winn-Dixie flyer gets stuff stuck in it, and bam. So I don't give a lot of credence to that when people come up and say, if I tried to tell the IRS I didn't get my notice. Yeah. So let me ask this. I know that used to, I think it still does, there were three methods of advertisement. Of course, you have to advertise in a local newspaper or whatever, and I don't think you can do it online. And you have to post the property, and you have to send the mailer. But there was a requirement that says if you failed to do the posting the property or sending the mailer, if those fell through for some reason, didn't nullify the hearing because you met the legal requirement to actually advertise. But still, that's currently in the code. And we have, I mean, all the time people remove the boards. I mean, for all intents and purposes, if those three methods of advertising are met, then the county has done its job of noticing due process has been afforded. That's county code. Yes, the land development code. Well, it matches the statute. And actually, some of the provisions in our code are more strict or more cumbersome to us. I think our mailing distance is long, is 500 feet versus 250. So, yes. And I think if they keep proper records like you did today, I think it was Kyle's case. He said, here it is. They're on the list. And we do use the address that's listed on the property appraiser's website. So if they, you know, reside somewhere else for part of the year and they have a different address listed, or if they have a P.O. box or for whatever, a business address, there's all kinds of reasons. But staff does an excellent job, as you pointed out, of noting when the mailers were sent and recording all the addresses. So that's the most we can do unless the legislature tells us we have to start sending certified return receipt requested. Well, I think the conversation up here was justified because we've had three people show up this morning asking that or addressing that question. So I'm glad that we've discussed it and we've covered us. Well, mail's become archaic. I mean, I don't even like going down to the mailbox anymore because it's all junk. So do we really need it? You have to have one of the three forms. I mean, we'd have to come up with another form, which might be the solution. Most people are getting them. I mean, we've heard, what, three today, but typically. Right. Well, we only had about five people speak. So, and people's address is available through the property appraiser, but people's email address is not. Yeah. So there's no way to know how to send an email. Right. It's like the commercial on TV. You know, call me. I'd call you, but I don't have your number. And Ben, am I correct that we also, if you just go to the county's website, we have a list. You can go right there to see all the current pending land development cases. If somebody, I mean, maybe we, the board needs to direct us to do that better. To the layman. Yeah, right. Good luck with that. If we addressed it, we're good. Okay. All right. Moving on. Now for our education. Thank you. Now we are going to close this meeting. I think the next question is not going to be televised. Okay. I'll entertain a motion to close the commission meeting. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye.