Polk County Land Use Hearing Officer on 2023-10-26 1:30 PM

There hasn't been any request to do that. My name is Naysa Borkert. I'm an attorney with Garganese, Weiss, Diagresta, and Salzman, and we're a law firm out of Orlando. I've been appointed by the Polk County Board of County Commissioners to serve as the land use hearing officer and hear variants and special exception cases. If anyone has a pending case with my law firm or myself, please let me know. I want to be able to avoid any potential conflicts. Okay. During the meeting, please put all cell phones on silent and other communication devices on vibrate. Okay, I'm just going to explain the procedures a little bit for you. Variances and special exceptions are quasi-judicial proceedings. That means that they require due process and generally follow the rules of evidence. As I said before, cases will be called in order. When your case comes up, county staff will present the case first. You, as the applicant, will be able to come up and make a statement here at the podium and provide any additional information and answer any questions that I may have. And then I'll open it up for public comment and members of the public can come up and speak as to the case. After that, after public comment, I'll come back to staff and the applicant to see if there's any concluding statements or to get any questions answered. And then the case will close. During public comment, please make your comments clear and concise. The first thing you do when you come up to the podium is introduce yourself, state your name and address for the record. If you have any questions that come up during the presentation, please ask them during public comment. And myself or county staff will try to get an answer for you. Please also remember that these proceedings are recorded, so it's very important that you speak into the microphone and you make your comments clear. After public comment closes, as I said, the county staff or the applicant will be able to reply to any comments or answer any questions that come up. And then after the concluding statements, the case will close. My decision will not be given today. My decision will be given in writing within 14 days of the day of this hearing. Typically, it doesn't take 14 days, but the code allows me to take 14 days to issue the written final order. All applicants will get a copy of the final order, but if you're a member of the public here to speak, you should fill out one of the comment forms and check the box that said you'd like a copy of the final order. If there's anyone here that needs an interpreter, please let staff know. And for the record, I've had no ex parte communications regarding the cases on today's agenda. Now I'm going to turn it over to the clerk for the swearing in. If you're going to address the land use hearing officer on any case today, please stand, raise your right hand, and answer out loud to the following question. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you provide today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Thank you. The first item on the agenda is minutes approval. That's the minutes for the August 24th, 2023 meeting. Clerk, do you have a... Did you send me a copy of those? Okay. Then I did review them at the end of last month. Okay. I reviewed them, and they're approved. Old business, case number LDLSE 2023-6, Tabitha Way, special exception. That case has been continued to the December 12th, 2023 land use hearing officer meeting date. For new business, the first agenda item is LDL-TSE 2023-7, the Clerk Street, TSE. That's whenever you're ready. Our first case is LDL-TSE-2023-7, the Kirk Street, temporary special exception. The applicant is requesting a temporary special exception to allow a mobile home to be placed on a property related to medical needs. For purposes of notification, 13 mailers were sent October 6th, 2023. One board was posted October 4th, 2023, and a legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on October 13th, 2023. Staff has received no response, and Melissa Celestine is the case planner. Good afternoon. For the record, Melissa Celestine presenting LDL-TSE 2023-7. Staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request for a temporary special exception to allow an additional mobile home to be placed on site for medical hardship purposes. The applicant has provided a site plan and a physician's letter in accordance with Chapter 2, Section 207J. The property is approximately 1.8 acres located west of Reynolds Road and south of Skyview Drive. It is also within Crystal Lake Farm Track subdivision, Platte Book 7, page 31. Although the parcel is less than the five-acre requirement for the residential suburban district, the parcel is a lot of record and has ample space for the temporary mobile home and associated septic tank. Here is a close-up of the subject parcel and a view of what the proposed structure would look like if the TSE is approved. Although Kirk Road is a private unpaved road, this has no bearings under applicant's request as there is currently a primary residence on site and the parcel is a part of an approved subdivision. According to the submitted site plan, the proposed structure will be located to the rear of the home as required per Section 207J. The site plan also identifies the current structures with the proposed temporary mobile home exceeding setbacks for the residential suburban district. Staff recommends approval. The proposed request meets the requirements outlined in Section 207J. The site is over an acre. The temporary mobile home would be located to the rear of the primary residence, exceeding setbacks, and the applicant provided a physician's letter which can be accessed upon request. With that, I thank you, and I'll stand for questions. Okay, so just to get that straight, because I believe I read this in the state plan. I mean, I read this in the staff report. The mobile home will not be for the person with the medical issue. It's going to be for the caregiver. It can be for either or, but we can confirm with the applicant. Okay, so the code allows for either the caregiver or the person with the medical need to be in the temporary mobile home. Okay. Thank you. I'm just looking over the letter now. Could you put this? Oh, it's back up there. So there's plenty of room, I guess, because the site's so big, to place an additional septic tank on the property, and that's permitted by the health department? Okay. Okay. Okay, that's all the questions that I have. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Come on down. Good morning, ma'am. Hi. Just state your name for the record. Roberta Schafferbauer. Hi, Ms. Schafferbauer. Is there anything that you'd like to add to what staff put on the record? Other than medically needing assistance, which is in my physician's letter. Yeah, you don't have to get into that. I'm not asking any questions about that, but yeah. Okay, and in this case, are you or the caregiver going to be? The caregiver. The caregiver is going to be there. Okay. And do you understand that the conditions placed on the temporary special exception, that there are certain conditions where if you move or it doesn't become medically necessary any more than the temporary special exception expires, it's a temporary approval? Yes. Okay. Just wanted to make sure that that was all clear with you. Okay. I don't have any further questions. Thank you. Thank you. Have a great afternoon. You too. Are there any members of the public that would like to speak to LDL TSE 2023-7? Okay. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to staff. Staff, do you have anything further? I do not. Okay. Thank you. With that, I'm going to close the public hearing for LDL TSE 2023-7. Okay. The next item on the agenda is LDL SE 2023-21. That's the Castro special exception. Our next case is LDL SE 2023-21, the Castro special exception. The applicant is requesting a special exception to park a commercial vehicle on residential property. For the purposes of notification, 14 mailers were sent October 6th, 2023. One board was posted October 6th, 2023, and a legal ad was published in the Lakeland ledger on October 13th, 2023. Staff has received five responses in opposition, and Aaliyah Nglema is the case planner. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Aaliyah Nglema with Land Development presenting LDL SE 2023-21, the Castro special exception. The applicant is requesting a special exception to park a commercial vehicle, which is a 2001 Kenworth truck at their residence on approximately 2.93 acres within a residential neighborhood. The subject site is located off Sweet Hill Road, north of I-4, south of Dean Still Road, east, east of Sweet Hill Road, Polk City, and Section 9, Township 16, Range 26. The property is 2.93 acres within the Corex, Grain Swamp area of critical state concern, rural special protection area, and the rural development area. The property is frontage on Sweet Hill Road. Access is proposed from existing driveway on Sweet Hill Road. The vehicle will be placed 20 feet from the northern property line and will be more than 200 feet from the right-of-way on Sweet Hill Road. The applicant was cited by code enforcement in the past for parking a vehicle at this location. A resident in the neighborhood lodged a complaint that commercial activity was occurring on the property. Code enforcement staff investigated and discovered the commercial vehicle. Photos taken can be shown from off-site. The code enforcement case was closed as the owner corrected the violation. The owner now is seeking approval for parking the commercial vehicle on the property. The applicant's property is large. The truck will need to meet the screening and buffering requirements listed in Section 2, 16D, Commercial Vehicle Parking and Storage, of the Polk County's Land Development Code. Screening will be required along the entire property of where the truck is proposed. The home on the property to the south sits further back than the applicant's home. There are places the truck may still be seen. Sweet Hill Road is a local road, and Dean Still Road East is an urban collector. The vehicle will access Dean Still Road East from Sweet Hill Road, which is two miles north of the subject property. There are no weight limit restrictions on these roads. LDL SE 2028 was approved on September 1, 2020, just one-fourth a mile south of the subject site. A commercial driveway apron is required to protect Sweet Hill Road from the stretching caused by such a heavy vehicle's turning movements on and off the property. The truck will be passing 23 homes on Sweet Hill Road. Staff recommends approval. The proposed placement of the vehicle will be on the side of the primary structure and shall meet the screening and buffering requirements. A commercial driver apron is required to protect Sweet Hill Road from the stretching caused by the vehicle's turning movements on and off the property, and the surrounding roads near the properties have no weight restrictions. And I'll stand for questions. Thank you. So is the request just for the semi-truck itself and no trailer? That's correct. Okay. So if it were to be parked there, it'd be required to be parked just the truck, no trailer, and free of any load or any... Correct. Okay. Can you go back to the picture of the house from the road? I'm assuming you took that picture. So it's a little bit difficult to see the cars there. In your opinion, would it be difficult to... Can you point out where the truck's going to be parked? The truck will be parked right here. Is it planning to be parked with the front of the truck facing the road, so the narrowest part? Do you know the width of Sweet Hill Road, the width of the right-of-way? A hundred. A hundred feet in width. And do you know how wide the pavement is there? I didn't know if it was in a survey somewhere, if you guys knew. It's okay if you don't. I mean, if you need time to figure it out, that's fine. But have you been out? So you've been out to the site. Yes, I have. What do the shoulders look like there? I mean, are there any sidewalks? Are the shoulders maintained? Are they direct swales? Or can you just explain that to me? There's no sidewalks. The road is about 20 feet wide. Here's a good clear view of what the road looks like right here. Okay. So it's about 20 feet of travel lane total? Correct. So that leaves roughly 40 feet on either side of shoulder. How far is the distance between where the road is and where the parking area is intended to be? I believe it's on the site, Pam, but I don't think I could read it in the copy that I got. Yeah, I couldn't realize. Is that 230.4 feet to the front of the house? Yes, ma'am. Okay. So approximately 230 feet. Now, I saw in the first pictures that you put up here that it was, the truck was in a structure, but I think it was the next, there were some pictures of the truck. There we go. So that structure's not on the property, that picture's just taken in another location? I believe so, yes. Okay. So there's no structure on the property, correct? No. If there were a structure on the property, would the applicant have to go through this variance? If there was a structure that parked the semi-truck in it, would the applicant have to go through this variance procedure? No. Okay. Okay. Is there an existing driveway apron on the site? I think that there was, right? Yes, there is. And has it been verified that it's up to commercial standards? During inspections, it will be verified at that time. Okay. So we need to include a, there needs to be a condition included that requires a commercial vehicle driveway, right? Number four of the condition states that to the commercial driveway standards. In the staff report? Yes. Okay. So it'll have to be checked first, and if it's not, it'll have to be brought up to commercial driveway standards. Okay. I believe that was my last question for you. Thank you very much. Is the applicant here? Hi. Hi. Just state your name for the record. Jose Castro. Thank you. Are you going to be translating? Yes. Oh, okay. Just one second. We have to do one thing. Do you swear or affirm that you truly and correctly will translate English into Spanish and Spanish into English here today? Yes, I will. Thank you. And could you just state your name for the record? Juana Bustos. Thank you very much. Okay. So is there anything you'd like to tell me other than what staff has put on the record? Okay. So is there anything you'd like to tell me other than what staff has put on the record? Okay. Okay. Okay. So he just wanted to make sure about that he's trying to obtain all the permits in order to park. Right. This, if approved, this would allow you to park one commercial vehicle on the property, only one. There's no problem. Okay. I have a question that I have to ask everyone that comes in for this type of request. And that question is, what would be the hardship on you if this request were denied, if you weren't allowed to park your truck at your property? Entonces, ¿cómo te afectaría esto si no podían darte permiso para parquear este vehículo? Pues me afectaría económicamente porque ese es mi sustento. Y, you know, me afectaría también en el parking porque por eso compré mi terreno, mi casa, pensando que podía parquear mi camión en mi casa. Okay. So this would affect me financially because I really thought about getting this property the way I can park my own vehicle. So this is an effect for me, economical, and also for my family. Is this your, is the trucking business your primary business? Esto de Viento es para tu trabajo. Esta es clase de tu trabajo. Si, es mi compañía. Es una compañía. Yes, it's my own company. And do you operate your company out of your house? ¿Tu operas esta clase de trabajo fuera de tu casa? El trabajo como tú. Si, afuera, ya. Yes, it is. Has, have you, do you understand the requirements to screen in the parking area where the truck will be parked by either with landscaping or with a fence? ¿Tú entiendes los requisitos que vas a tener que hacer para ponerle este vehículo? Sería la verja, la fence, el permiso de entrar y salir para el driveway. Claro. ¿Todo los requisitos? ¿Lo entiendes todo? Claro. Para eso estoy aquí. Para mejorar eso. He sure does. I just, that's what I'm here for, to fix it up. Okay. Okay. Thank you. That's all the questions that I have. Thank you. Okay. I have two public comment cards. And if you didn't fill out a card, it's okay. You can still come up and speak. The first is from Amanda Price. Hello. I'm Amanda Price. I live at 13022 Sweet Hill Road, which is about, I think, six houses north of this property. Okay. I'm coming more from a parent's perspective. As mentioned before, there was a citation before of them bringing multiple trucks. We've had several incidences of trucks driving down, honking their horns at my children while riding their horses, riding their bikes. We're very scared because they speed down there. There's been a lot of issues with seeing trucks doing that. We're very scared about that continuing to happen. The shoulders are really not big in most places. It's ditched into swamps. So if trucks do come by and my children are on their bikes, there's some places where they don't have much room to get over, and those trucks are huge. So we're very nervous. And our horses, because we do ride our horses. We have personal horses. We ride up and down the road to go visit our friends, things like that. But I also, my daughter wrote a letter. Am I able to read that? Okay. Sure. She wrote this the other day. She says, hello, my name's Kira. I am 11 years old. I live on Sweet Hill with my family, and I'm worried about the trucks coming down our street. We like to ride our bikes and horses down the road, and am I worried about the trucks passing us? Sorry, this is from an 11-year-old. I understand. One time when we were riding our horses, a trunk honked its horn and scared all of us and our horses. I think it's scary, and I really do not want trucks coming down our road. They like to speed down the road, and it's not safe for us to play or ride. I am also worried about the pollution that the trucks give off. I am afraid it could make our animals sick, and they are part of our families as well. And then she says, thank you, and she signed it. But that's just our concern mainly is the safety, because the shoulders, some areas the shoulders are great, other areas they're not. And we just care for our children. And we moved on a nice, quiet road for a reason, and we'd like to try to keep it that way. Okay. Thank you. Can I ask you a quick question? Yes, ma'am. Do you have ag operations also in this area, because it's in a rural area? I mean, people own horses. Right. But there's no, like, sod farms or anything like that? Okay. No. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. The next person that filled out a card is Clayton Meadows. Hi, my name's Clayton Meadows. I live right next door, 12780 Sweet Hill Road. Oh, could you hold on just a second? I'm writing notes, and my pen just completely went out of ink. Oh, okay. Thank goodness for this lady. Okay. Okay, go ahead. Yeah, so my main pressure, well, of course, I'm right next door. The truck's starting up early in the morning. Like, I'm talking sometimes 3.30 a.m. Coming in late, one of the trucks got stuck, and it was like, they were trying to pull it out at, I think it was like 11.30, 12 o'clock at night, one night. Um, it's just really, really loud, and because I wake up, I have to wake up for work really early, I have to go to bed early, and it's just the noise from the trucks itself, because they're right next door, it was pretty bad. Another thing, I also have a horse, and I was riding my horse down the road one day, and one of the semis came back, and I don't know whose semi it was, but it was one of them that went into that, um, that property. My horse, it, it was coming by at a pretty good speed, and my horse saw the truck coming and heard it, and, and spooked into the road, and the guy didn't even, like, let up on the gas, it was, it was insane. So, I, like, feared for my life at that point in time, but that's, that's the main concern, plus my kids, we do ride our bikes up and down the road, and having a semi come down the road, when the road isn't really that wide to begin with, and the shoulders are definitely not, I don't think you have 20 foot on each side, uh, along the whole road, because, like Amanda said, it drops off into the swamp. So, I think the shoulders, maybe, most of, most of it, I think, is about, around about five foot of shoulder on the road, going up, because I do one pass with my mower, and I can, I can knock out the, the, one of the sides of the road, and again, pollution as well, and we went out there for the same deal, we wanted quiet, nice, seclusion, and safety for the kids, and I think that would kind of hinder it. Okay, so you said the five, the shoulder's about five foot wide by your house? Mm-hmm, on the other side of the road, yep. On the other side of the road? Mm-hmm, so. Anything else? Anything else? This is my wife. Okay, just state your name for the record. Hi, my name is Tatiana Meadows, I also, I'm his wife, I also live in 12780 Sweet Hill Road. Um, for me, my main concern, obviously, also the safety, but, um, we, you know, that area is known for being, like, a quiet, rural community, you know, where people have horses and all of that stuff, and, uh, whenever you have, we had the trucks around, it was very disturbing because, you know, first of all, visually, it's not great, having semi-trucks right next to your house, uh, and also the, the loud, the noise pollution and visual pollution, pretty much, I think, because it's just not, it's not relaxing. That neighborhood is supposed to be a relaxing neighborhood, and whenever the trucks were there, and it was not just one truck, it was multiple trucks, it was not, it did not, it pretty much took away the relaxing environment that we moved there to have, that a lot of us moved there to have. So, that's pretty much what happened. Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else, members of the public, that would like to speak as to this case? Sure. Come on down. Hi. My name is Mike Fitch. I live at 12756 Sweet Hill Road, so about three properties down Mr. Castro. So, I'll go. My concern is, is several. I think, uh, you know, as, as, uh, Clayton, uh, has mentioned as, as well, you know, the, the width of the road is greatly exaggerated. It is nowhere near, uh, 20 feet wide, and these big shoulders, there's hardly any shoulders on these roads. And we have a lot of, uh, residents with horses. We have a riding stable, uh, just down the road where riding lessons are given, and there's always people riding down the road to these, uh, horses. A lot of them are children, so certainly there's a safety factor here that has to be considered. Um, and environmentally, I'm quite concerned myself, uh, you know, a truck will hold about 300 gallons of fuel, fully loaded, or fully, you know, both tanks full. There's no containment on that property. If you develop a fuel leak, uh, we know that they pressure wash trucks on that property. There's nothing to contain, uh, any, uh, fluid leaks, and we all are on wells and, uh, Sweet Hill Road, so anything that leaks or is washed off that truck goes into our drinking water. So, uh, I believe that needs to be considered, uh, for sure. Um, and again, I think some of this, I guess we've addressed the amount of trucks was a concern, trailers. We know in the past that they tend, uh, they've tended not to follow, uh, you know, the rules in our neighborhood, and there's been, as mentioned, multiple trucks there. Um, as recently as, uh, within the last month, you know, they've had that truck, just the one truck, uh, given that there, but pressure washing on the property, and as far as I know, none of this has been approved yet, but they're still, uh, defying the, uh, you know, the, the rules for our, our area. So, that's, uh, what I would like to present, uh, is an environmental factor and a safety factor, and, in my opinion, you're reducing the quality of life for the residents that are on that road, that bought those properties for that seclusion. It's a dead-end road. There's very little traffic. You know, that's why we bought there, and, uh, I think, uh, to put trucking in that road, uh, affects our quality of life and the quality of our, uh, the value of our properties. And that's what I have to say. Thank you very much. Thank you. My name is, excuse me, my name is Tracy Fitch. I am his wife. I also live at 12756 Sweet Hill Road, and he just capped off what, the one thing I wanted to mention is that it is a dead-end road. There is no other commercial vehicles other than a delivery vehicle that comes in and off that road. Everybody else is people that live on that road. There isn't any throughfare of, you know, people out for a Sunday drive, and they just happen to be driving by, only people on that road is people that live there. And at one time, I think there was five or six trucks with trailers lined up in the yard, and that started shortly after he purchased the property, and where we had never had this problem before. And, you know, and like it's been mentioned, this is why we purchase property out there for the seclusion, for the quiet. You know, there's the kids outside, there's people walking their dogs along the shoulder of the road, because it was a safe road to be on. There's no throughfare, there's no racing, there's no, you know, none of that, and that's all been taken away from us now. And so we're just concerned about having these trucks on the road, and that's what I have to add. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, is there anyone else that would like to speak to this case? Okay, seeing none, I'll bring it back to staff. And the applicant, does the applicant have anything to add? Just, you can come on down. Staff, do you have anything while they're walking down? No, ma'am. Okay. He don't have no other questions, but I just want to make sure that if, what else do I need to do in order to get this permission approved? Right, so this is the, you know, if your case is approved today, it has to come here to this hearing. And then, if it is approved, there'll be a final order, and it'll have conditions on it, and you'll have to meet those conditions. And then once those conditions are met, then the use is approved, and you can have the truck, the one truck at the property. That's the process. He's working permits. Oh, the permits. I'm working on the driveway already, I got a permit, and I'm thinking about actually maybe getting like a shop where I can put it in instead, maybe in the future. Yeah, so just to cover it all up. Okay. Can I ask just one more question? How often do you use the truck? Do you do short-term, short hauls or long hauls? Okay. So the truck normally is going to be parked the majority because I'm just like emergency driver, so if they need me, that's when I just have to go. Okay, so it's more of a short-term drive, it's not long haul where you're gone for weeks at a time. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. It's parked there. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. That was my last question. Okay. If there's nothing more from staff, I'm going to close the public hearing for LDL SE 2023-21. Okay, the next item on the agenda is LDL SE 2023, the Moore Special Exception. Our next case is LDL SE-2023-22, the Moore Special Exception. The applicant is requesting a special exception to park a commercial vehicle on residential property. For the purposes of notification, 28 mailers were sent October 6, 2023. One board was posted September 22, 2023, and a legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on October 13, 2023. Staff has received no response, and J.P. Sims is the case planner. Good afternoon. J.P. Sims of Land Development. The applicant today is requesting to park one semi-truck without the trailer on their property. The location of the site is just outside of the west end of Mulberry off of Highway 60. So this is Highway 60 right here. Like I said, we're towards the west end of the county, so this is County Line Road. The site is highlighted right here so you can see the future land use. It is residential suburban in that area. If you follow Willow Drive, this is Highway 60 right here, so it's a very short, I believe it was just over a quarter mile from the highway to the residence. This is kind of a contextual aerial, so you can see what's going on around it. Like I said, you follow the road out to Highway 60, not a super far distance. I have already spoken with the applicant as far as providing some sort of buffering around the property or the vehicle if it is approved on site. It is a 2009 Kenworth truck. The applicant is already in the process because there's actually two separate parcels. They're in the process with the property appraiser right now of combining the two parcels into one site for tax purposes. The truck is showing at about 13 1⁄2 feet in height, and the closest residential structure from where the parking spot is going to be on the site plan is about 50 feet away. This is the site plan that the applicant did provide to us. Here is the house that's currently on site. This is where they're going to be parking the truck, as I'll show in one of the pictures. And there is distance from where the truck is going to be over to the property line. The 20 feet will be met by the applicant. You mean the property line of the property that's being combined with the subject property? Because he owns both properties, but he's combining the two to give him more space. Okay. Now, this is the site pick that I took. This is the truck that's currently on site. Now, you'll notice that there is a box truck over here on the side. I have already informed the applicant that the special exception is approved. It is only for the one semi-truck vehicle. The other one will need to be moved into a separate parking area. And as I mentioned before, the request is for the one commercial vehicle. Once the site is combined, it will have more than enough space on the side for it to have the 20-foot necessary buffer. And they are planning on putting up some sort of fencing around the property to help with any kind of buffering. It is parked on the same lot as the owner. It does have a current registration, as was provided by the applicant. And upon my site visit, I didn't see anything that stood out to me that would be a hindrance to the local community. And with that, I'll stand for question. Okay. Thank you. Just want to verify. The size of both the lots combined is 0.70 acres. Is that correct? Which one is 0.35? So when they're combined, it'll be 0.7. Okay. There's just a typo in the staff report. It says 0.07 on just the front page, I think. But then the rest of the time. So I was a little confused. I'm like, how are they even going to? Yeah. That's really small. How are they going to meet all that? But okay. Okay. I just wanted to verify that. So I noticed in the file that the registrations to Zerl Logistics LLC, is that the applicant's company? I believe so, but you probably went. I can verify with the applicant. Yeah. Okay. As far as the road where this is located on, Willow Drive, and if you could go to the overhead map. So are there any sidewalks in this neighborhood? I see there's probably a couple roads that they'll have to access to get out to State Road. I don't remember State. Do you know the width of the shoulder, or should I ask that to the applicant? I believe that road is 20 feet, but I could be wrong. 25? Okay. That's the pavement? What's the right-of-way? Do you know? 50 feet. Thank you. So it's a local road, right? Okay. So there was no mention about a commercial driveway installation. Have you made the determination, or has staff made the determination that one's not necessary, or do we need to include a provision? We typically do with these, so. I believe we'll have to include that provision. Okay. Can you put the close-up aerial back up, please? Where is their driveway? So it's kind of faded, but from when I was out there, it looked like it's right there. Okay. Okay. So in addition to the conditions in your staff report, staff has no objection to adding a condition that would require a commercial driveway to be installed. Okay. I think that's all the questions that I have. Is the applicant here? Afternoon. Hi. Just state your name for the record. Eatmore. Hi, Mr. Moore. Thanks for coming down. Is there anything that you'd like to start off by telling me? Any additional information you'd like for me to know? Well, this truck is mainly used for business. I retired four years ago, and I bought the truck. Well, I purchased the truck for an additional income, and mainly the truck is used for business purposes, but it's not used every day, probably like three or four days out of the week. So it's mostly used for short hauls, day hauls, or day hauls. Yes, ma'am, short hauls. Okay. And is the Zerls Logistics, Inc., is that your company? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And you operate that out of your home, out of this subject property? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Okay, so one of the, and you may have heard me ask the other applicant this, but one of the things I have to consider, and that I always get testimony from in special exception cases or variance cases, is the hardship. And so I always ask applicants, if this request were denied, or if it weren't approved, same thing, what would be the hardship that will result on you? Or what are your purposes for asking for this variance? Well, the purpose of asking for this variance is financially, because it's extremely high if I have to find a parking place. So it'll probably cost me just as much to park the truck as I would be making. Because you do it on a part-time basis? Yes, ma'am. And I know staff mentioned this, you understand the buffering requirements and what you're going to have to do to screen the truck from the outside area. Do landscaping around or put a fence up, it's your choice. You can put it around the perimeter of the property, or you can put it around the parking spot, either way. Yes, ma'am. Well, I was told by the code of enforcement I could use the buffering on the side of it. They said I could basically, if I so chose to, it could be open, just as long as it wasn't visible, you know, to the neighbors beside. Yeah, it can either go around where you're going to park the truck, the little spot, and you can just park it right in there. Or you can do it around the whole perimeter of your property, either one. That would be a lot cheaper, just go around the truck. It would be, yeah. And also, just so you're aware, you know, if this is approved, we are going to require, you may have to upgrade to a commercial driveway. You may have to reinforce your driveway in some way, but the staff will be able to tell you that, because we always require that. It breaks down the edge of the road. Um, when you're entering and exiting, you know, the property, so just so you know that. Okay. Um, I think that's all the questions I have. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Are there any members of the public that would like to speak on LDL SE 2023-22? Okay. Seeing none, I'll bring it back. Staff, do you have anything further to add? Okay, with that, I'm going to close the public hearing for LDL SE 2023-22, the Moore Special Exception. Okay, the next item on the agenda is LDL VAR 2023-44, the Brass Variance. Our next case is LDL VAR 2023-44, the Brass Variance. The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the right-of-way setback from 35 feet to 19 feet for a carport. For the purposes of notification, 22 mailers were sent October 6, 2023, one board was posted October 6, 2023, and a legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on October 13, 2023. Staff has received no response, and Aaliyah Inglema is the case planner. Good afternoon. Aaliyah Inglema with Land Development presenting LDL VAR 2023-44, the Brass Variance. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the right-of-way setback from 35 feet to 19 feet for a carport. The subject site is located off Kathleen Road, west of Willow Wisp Drive West, east of Kathleen Road, north of Willow Wisp, northwest of Lakeland, and Section 16, Township 27, Range 23. The property is 0.25 acres within a residential low 3 future lane use and in the urban growth area. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the right-of-way setback from 35 feet to 19 feet to build a 24 by 24 carport. The property is within the residential low 3 future lane use. RL3 right-of-way setbacks for urban collector roads are set at 35 feet for primary and accessory structures. This home is within the platted neighborhood called Willow Wisp Phase 2. Willow Wisp Phase 2 subdivision plat was created on March 27, 1984, prior to the Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. The applicant wants to build a new carport to accommodate storage of vehicles and to protect from weather damage. The home not having a garage for storage and a 15-foot rear utility easement significantly limit the amount of buildable space without some relief from setbacks. Can we just pause here real quick? Is there a septic tank in the back too in Drainfield? It says by the pool it's a septic. Yes. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Staff finds this request will not cause any harm to the community. The subject parcel is surrounded by a cluster of lots ranging in size from under an acre to five acres and in some cases larger. The carport in question is 24 by 24 and will be built within the front yard of the property on Kathleen Road, which is a urban collector. The subject property currently has no garage for storage. There was no evidence found that would suggest that the variance, if approved, would be injurious to surrounding homeowners or otherwise be detrimental to the public welfare of the neighborhood as it meets 8.1 of the LDC for minimum clear recovery zone of four feet, and special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved, is the home currently does not have a garage for storage, and there is a rear 15-foot utility easement that affects the use of the lot. And I'll stand for questions. Okay. Thank you. So, in the staff report, it says, Table 8.1 of the LDC mentions the distance required for structures to meet the minimum clear recovery zone is four feet for urban areas that have a posted 45-mile-per-hour, I guess that's speed limit, on collector roadways. This request is approved will meet the standard requirement. So, could you just explain that clear zone to me? Can you explain that to me? The clear zone, it depends on the speed of the road. In this case, the road is 45 miles per hour, so there has to be four feet from the roadway. That means no structures within that four feet. Is it four feet from the right-of-way or four feet from the travel lane for the clear zone? I believe, property line. From the property line? Okay. So, this will be 19 feet from the property line? Yes. Or a port will? That's the measurement? Correct. Okay. And Kathleen Road is 75 feet in width, I guess, from this? Oh, no, no, no. That's not right. That's the width of the lot. Okay. Do you think that this request, I'm assuming this is going to be an open carport, but do you think that there would be any benefit in the conditions to requiring that the carport's never enclosed? Sometimes we've done that with carports in the past, where there's been a history of enclosures. Kind of, it's usually though in mobile home parks where they've put a bunch of stuff on. That's generally because it's in a mobile home park, we want them to have habitable structures. So, this one, I mean, if they wanted to put an enclosed structure in the front, we would probably still support reduction to 19 feet. Right. The lot is large enough that I don't think it would need that requirement, that it can't be enclosed. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I believe that's all the questions I have. Okay. Yep. That's all the questions that I have. Is the applicant here? Oh, come on down. How you doing? Good, thanks. David Brass. I live at 7441 Kathleen Road. Thank you, Mr. Brass. Is there anything that you'd like to start off by telling me? No, just, you know, when I purchased a home, you know, it didn't have a garage. The previous owners did permit and have it closed in. Since I've purchased a house, bought a new truck, new car, and I just have no way of storing it, you know, with the Florida heat, weather. Okay. So, it's basically to protect your vehicles from the elements. And I guess that goes into the question you've heard me ask the three other applicants or two other applicants before this about what the hardship is if this were denied, so. Just the value of the vehicles would be my main concern. And the size that you're requesting, the 24 by 24, can you just explain to me why that's necessary? And I'll explain why. One of my criteria is that, that I have to look at, is that this is the minimum variance required. So, um, I always have to ask applicants, you know, is this the minimum amount of area that you need to fit two cars? You know, I know you said it's two cars and you have a truck too, so is that the basis for the size? I have a Ram 1500 four door. So, I mean, it is right at 20 feet long. Okay. So, it's 20 feet long. Now, the carport, I do, I did have, you know, 24 by 24. That is from corner post to corner post. Okay. There is an overhang on the roof, which puts us at 26.8, but that, that 19 foot, uh, setback will allow for that overhang for the roof. Right. To go on the other side. So, it's actually not, is it attached? No, it'll be detached, but the part closest to the house will be over top of the roof of the house. So, there'll be a separation in between. So, it'll kind of overhang. Do you still need a variance if it's detached? Okay. Because the accessory structure in the front, right away, right away, setback? Right away, regardless. Okay. All right. Just making sure. Okay. Okay. So, you need it, so 20 feet long and then you have two vehicles, but it's still going to, it's going to meet the 19 feet from the, okay. Correct. Okay. I think that's all the questions that I have, unless you have anything else to add. That's it. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thanks. Okay. Are there any members of the public that would like to speak on LDL VAR 2023-44, the brass variance? Okay. Seeing none, I'm going to bring it back to staff. Staff, do you have anything further? No, ma'am. Okay. With that, I'm going to close the public hearing for LDL VAR 2023-44. The next item on the agenda is LDL VAR 2023-46, and that is the McJunkin Road variance. Take your time. Get myself situated. Get yourself situated. Our next case is LDL VAR-2023-46, the McJunkin Road variance. For the record, Amy Little with land development. For the purposes of notification, 12 mailers were sent October 6th, 2023. One board was posted October 10th, 2023, and a legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on October 13th, 2023. Staff has received no response. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the western side setback from 20 feet to five feet, and staff is recommending approval. The site is located at 2430 McJunkin Road, east of the city of Lakeland, north of the Polk Parkway. This area of the county has a lot of industrial and warehousing uses. The primary structure on the site was constructed in 1966, prior to the adoption of the land development code and the comprehensive plan. When the comprehensive plan was adopted, the zoning district was general industrial, or GI. Side setbacks were not required when adjoining industrially used or zoned property as long as the building separations were met. Now the site is within a Business Park Center 2 district, which requires a 20-foot side and rear setback. The site could achieve a zero lot line design through a Level 2 review. However, the applicant has opted to request the variance for this structure. If approved, any future structures would be required to meet the setbacks for BPC2 or apply for another variance. Can we pause on that for a minute? So you said the applicant, yeah, that was one of my questions. I just need a little discussion on this, on the zero lot line design could be accomplished through a Level 2 review and planting? Correct. So what that does is it would allow them to reduce the side setback on one side to zero feet, but then they would still have to meet the setback for BPC2 on the opposite side. And I believe there is a structure that has been there since the 80s on the eastern boundary that would not meet that. So it was best for them to just do the variance for this one structure instead of going for the zero lot line because they wouldn't meet it on the eastern boundary. There's already a structure there that's very close to the property line. And they'd have to meet what on the eastern boundary? They would have to meet the 20-foot for BPC2, yeah. And that's along the whole boundary line of it because it's an odd shape block. Correct. Yes, it would be an entire... So it has that one existing, a couple existing buildings. Okay. So this is a pole barn structure. It's not a building. It's not enclosed. The three, they have a code enforcement case for these three structures. There's pole barn number one that you can see here just to the south. There's pole barn number two. Those meet setbacks. So that's not part of the request. So those are just code enforcement because they were built without permits? Correct. So there's currently a level two for the site design in-house. But they did need this reduction in the pole barn number three from the western boundary. And I believe that's the last thing that the level two is even waiting for this approval just for that. And then they can permit those buildings as well. Okay. And they... I'm going to ask this question, too. Because of its... Because this is such a severe setback decrease, do you think we should add a condition prohibiting it from being closed in? GAF would have no problem with that, with having a condition that it not be enclosed. Okay. I mean, unless they come back and go through. And, I mean, five feet is adequate enough for maintenance of the building. And, you know, the closest neighboring structure is probably another 60 or 70 feet away. And we would apply the building separations that are required by the building code and fire in those cases, too. We would require... Yeah, but that's putting a burden on the adjacent property owner. And I don't think that that's fair to them to take the burden of the increased setback because a building becomes habitable space. Yes, correct. Right now, as a pole barn, it's not habitable. So, okay. Sorry, I keep going. I'm sorry I interrupted you. You're fine. Here's a view from the road. You can see this is an active lumber company. They're using these pole barns to store the lumber. Placing the buildings closer to the property lines actually benefits them quite a bit because they do have big trucks that are going through. And there's a travel route that they have to do. So having the buildings meet the 20-foot setback would actually hinder the safety of the travel on site. So it would actually be better if it was closer to the property line so they can travel through there, unload, reload, things like that. Staff finds that this is not going to be injurious with the proposed conditions of approval. We find that the appropriate separations from neighboring structures can be met. And the cover will not be injurious to the area or detrimental to public welfare. We are recommending approval. And with that, I will stand for questions. So this is kind of like it seems like an accessory structure. Yes. To the commercial or is it an industrial use? What's the? It would be kind of warehousing with the lumber. It is not open to the public. So as far as I know, it's just maybe a light industrial. Light industrial would probably be what we would consider it. And this area, most of what is surrounding it is warehousing. You can see to the north there's some warehousing. To the immediate west, they have commercial vehicle parking. So this is what we would expect in that area. So typically accessory structures, side setbacks are at five feet anyway, at least in residential. In residential, yes. BPC 2, it's 20 feet for side and rear. And they're actually, because they're next to a rail line, they can go to zero feet to the north. Right. So it's really just that western side setback that the request is for. Okay. Okay, I think I have, I think that's all the questions that I have for you. I have a couple for the applicant. Is the applicant here? Angela Williamson on behalf of the variants for the company. Okay, so you're here on behalf of the Roger Lumber and Drew. Yes. Okay. Do you have anything you'd like to put on the record? No. Actually, Amy's touched on every basis. Okay. Let me get back into my notes here. So has the owner of the property always been the owner, or was it purchased by your company at some point? No, I'm actually the permit runner for the actual contractor that's going to be permitting the structures that weren't permitted without a permit. Okay. And these folks here just acquired the property just several years ago. Okay. Prior to that, it was another company that had it. So prior to that, so they had some of the structures that are there existing were prior to the owner? Yes. Okay. Do you have anything to add on that, Amy? Okay. No, ma'am. Do you know which one those were or not? No, at all. Okay. And you said it was a couple years ago or a few years ago? And so you've heard me ask this of the other applicants I'm going to ask you, too. If this variance were denied or not approved, what would be the hardship that would result on the owners in this case? Well, they would probably be required to have to remove the building, which therefore would alleviate a lot of storage that they have for their lumber. They wouldn't be able to have the quantity on hand in order to distribute. Okay. So they are using these pole barns for storage of lumber? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And can you explain, or if you know, about kind of how, why these pole barns are placed where they were from a loading and unloading standpoint? Do you know? Are you familiar with that? Yeah, I've been on the property, and it's just in order for them to be able to get through with the semis, to be able to load the product onto the semis, and be able to come out of the property, you know, without hitting anything. It's not a big piece of property there, so it's just enough room for the semi to come in and load and come out. So there's just enough room, then? Yes, ma'am. Okay. I think that's all the questions that I have. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. This is a public hearing. If there's any members of the public that would like to speak on LDL VAR 2023-46, the McJunkin Road variants, please come up now. Okay. Seeing none, staff, do you have anything further to add? No, ma'am. Okay. With that, I'm going to close the public hearing for LDL VAR 2023-46. Okay. The next item on the agenda is LDL VAR 2023-47. This is the Tiffany Loop variants. Our next case is LDL VAR 2023-47, the Tiffany Loop variants. The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the western right-of-way setback from 15 feet to 11 feet for the extension of an existing screened pool and patio enclosure. For the purposes of notification, 47 mailers were sent October 6, 2023. One board was posted on October 5, 2023, and a legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on October 13, 2023. Staff has received no response, and Ian Nance is the case planner. Good afternoon, Ian Nance for Land Development. Staff recommends approval of this application to reduce the western right-of-way setback from 15 feet to 11 feet for a 35-by-20-foot extension of an existing screened pool and patio enclosure. Subject site is within PUD 97-5, located in the northeastern section of the county. Specifically, this is Lot 40 within Phase 1 of Royal Palms Subdivision, originally approved prior to Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan through the PUD process in June of 1997. The lots and subdivision were later recorded in 1998, and the home was built in 1999 with the existing pool and enclosure. The lot is approximately a quarter acre with dual frontage on Majesty Drive and Tiffany Loop, so the right-of-way setbacks must be enforced off both roadways. The western property line is also influenced by the path of Majesty Drive, bulging inwards to this site. This and the dual frontage create hardships for adding accessory structures on the property, and no other lot within this subdivision is affected as such. The request is to reduce the right-of-way setback off Majesty Drive from 15 to 11 feet. Here you can see a little better the way the property line curves inward. If Majesty Drive was a linear design, it's possible this variance wouldn't be required. All their setbacks can be met, and this is probably the best location for this structure, as it will be built away from the neighbor to the east. Can you go back to that real quick? Oh, it doesn't show it on here. So the wide horizontal lines are the screen porch area, so that's going to be a roofed area, and then the close lines are the screen enclosure? They're going to extend this covered screen out here, and then this will be an extension of the screen pool from how I understand it. Okay, so part of it's going to be, because just the screen enclosure doesn't require a variance. It all will because it's a right-of-way setback. It's not your standard side setback. Okay, that's right. So whether it's a principal structure and attached with a roof or just a screen cage, it's all 15 feet. It has to be reduced. Okay, sorry. No problem. See, I got tripped up. This right-of-way setback is tripping me up this month. They'll do it every time. Yeah. This site visit picture from a few weeks ago, the enclosure will be behind the six-foot opaque fence on the western side of the house. This application has demonstrated it will not be injurious to the public welfare, and sufficient hardships exist that the request meets the variance criteria found in LDC Section 931. Again, staff recommends approval, and I'll stand for questions. So from this view, then, will the fence remain? Yes, ma'am. What I understand if – let's see, we'll go back here. It kind of looks like it's – And they can detail this. This is an older picture from 2020, I believe. This, I believe, has been removed, and they've added the fence since then, so the pool closure. No more vegetation. Again, I'll let the experts speak to what's there, rather my memory. Okay. But it does look like it was all removed. Okay. All right, I don't think I have any more questions for you. Is the applicant here? All the applicants are here? You guys have been really good. Thank you. Very patient. Very patient and respectful. Thank you. I'm Cheryl Webb, and my husband, Tim. Hello. Hi. We just – what we knew that we had to have three feet from the fence for the screen, so we're seven and a half feet, actually, from our fence, and we had a new patio laid, and we have all the footers put in, and then when the people came to get a permit, then we found out that we were over. Right. It's just ignorance on our part. Okay, so in this picture, can you just explain to me? I guess the screen enclosure is going to come out. You can see the top of the screen. Yes. And then I kind of see a little roofed screened-in area. It looks like it's a pretty small covered – That's the lanai. That's the lanai, so – And the new screen will come straight out from that lanai also. Okay, and it's going to have a roof on it, or is it all just going to be screened? It's going to be screened. Oh, okay. I just didn't understand on the site plan – They gave us two quotes. Okay. One for if part of it had a roof or if it was all screened, but there's not a footer in the middle to support the roof. To support the roof. Okay. All right. So it's just all going to be screened, and you guys are looking for a little more screened-in area because it looks a little tight. Yes, it's – Yeah, and we're not little people, and we have a lot of – You brought the evidence to the hearing. That's good. Thank you. And the hardships would be if it's denied, we have to have the patio tore up, new footers laid, and then $1,000 for the architect to redesign a new enclosure. And the insignificant ones are the fact that, like, if we couldn't have a screen – My reason I want a screen is I'm petrified of snakes, and that way I know I'm not going to be sitting there and one's going to crawl across my foot. It can happen, but it's less likely. I mean, it could happen. It's happened to me. Not sitting by my pool, though. And, like, right now we use the patio, but you've got to go in and out of the screen, so it's not really convenient, you know, when you're carrying stuff out to grill or whatever. You're opening up a screen door constant to go back and – I'm sorry, back and forth. Okay. And this way it will all just be one area instead of two. And I'm assuming that you probably have issues with insects and, like, we all do in Florida as far as – Well, it's mainly the snakes. Yeah, just the snakes. Just the snakes, really. They don't know how to open the door and come in the screen, you know, so. So this – so the size of the area was chosen to be able to accommodate your family. Yeah, we just wanted, like, a really big area, and that way we have, like, an eating area, a sitting area, grilling area. Is there anything else that you'd like to add? No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. This is a public hearing. Are there any members of the public that would like to come up and speak to this case? Okay. You guys don't have anything to say? Okay. All right. I'm going to bring it back. Staff, do you have anything? No, ma'am. Okay. With that, I'm going to close the public hearing for LDL VAR 2023-47. Okay. The next item on the agenda is LDL VAR 2023-48, the St. George Drive variants. Our next case is LDL VAR 2023-48, the St. George Drive variants. The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the rear principal structure setback for an existing home from 5 feet to 0 feet, the western side principal structure setback from 5 feet to 2 feet, and to reduce the western accessory side setback to 0 feet for an existing detached RV port. For the purposes of notification, 33 mailers were sent October 6, 2023. One board was posted on October 5, 2023, and a legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on October 13, 2023. Staff has received one response in support, and Ian Nance is the case planner. For the record, Ian Nance for land development. Staff recommends approval of this request to reduce the listed setbacks for an existing home and existing RV port on a lot in Deer Creek in northeast Polk County. Deer Creek has a long, complicated history in the planning sense. It was first approved in the late 80s through PUD 8624 as an RV park and rental community on a golf course. As detailed more thoroughly in my staff report, multiple modifications have occurred since this time that have shifted the purpose of this development from a traditional RV park to one with planted long-term habitable residences, including site-built modular homes and park models, which are technically RVs. The site-built homes were assigned setbacks of 5 feet in the side and rear yards, while park models and RVs were kept to 10 feet apart from one another, regardless of lot lines. Variances to habitable site-built structures were forbidden through one PUD modification, but this was later remedied through an LDC text amendment to Section 303 for vested RV parks such as this one. I imagine this has created confusion over the years as the site-built homes were developed on former RV pads. This is evidently what happened here in this case when the subject home was permitted and built in 2012. Staff believes that 10 feet between structures standard was applied rather than 5 feet between the property line. This would make sense as the properties to the north are vacant and the one to the west is still an RV pad. Under different owners, this house was built and a 52-foot RV park was permitted and constructed in 2016. According to the application, the current owner wants to sell the property but cannot because of the setback violations. To recognize the existing structures, the rear principal structure setback should be reduced to 0 feet, the side principal structure setback should be reduced to 2 feet, and the accessory side structure setback should be reduced to 0 feet. These structures were all placed to accommodate the existing driveway and slip that were once used for RV parking. On the survey, too, and as we go through a couple of these slides, it looks like there might be overlap of the eaves. I've been overwhelmed with different site plans and drawings of this site, so a lot of what we're requesting here going down to 0 feet to the rear, we could be looking at a foot and a half. It's just kind of a safer measurement to go with. But anyway, on the notes on the plat, there's no area here where we see eaves going over the property line, which is important to note. This is a look at a site in 2009 when the lot served its purpose as an RV slip. You'll notice here that the lot is irregularly shaped, so the setback requests reflect those points closest to the property line. This is the RV park. These are common throughout this development to this size and length. I would guess and imagine the applicant can speak to it. Every third property has one of these, it seems like, so they're common in there. This is the home that was built at the end of the pavers for the original RV pad. And this is looking from the rear of the home. I'm actually standing off-site. It's an older development, so where the property lines are with the property of the north, which would be commercial property, aren't well-defined. But I'm guessing here that the actual property line is right here by this bottle brush tree. It's probably a foot and a half room to walk right there. At its closest point, it's a little over a foot. It says 0.7 on the survey. I'm thinking that came off the eaves. But, again, just to be safe, it's 0 feet. But there's enough there to maintain it, and they're not going to add any more additions to the back of it. What is that property behind it? It is vacant commercial with frontage on Ernie Caldwell Boulevard. It's part of – I'll go back to the front here. It's this right here. It's part of the old Posner Park. Usually you have, like, a tract or something separate them. Again, this was designed back in the day where there's not some sort of maintenance track or utility easement or anything there. The back of their property is the back of their property. And then into a CAC or Community Activity Center land use district. Which, for note real fast, too, with the setback reduction, our land development code in Section 220 requires any non-residential development here to be at least 50 feet away from this property line. So reducing this isn't going to create any great burden to – Right, they're going to have to put in a – One way or the other, correct. And if they – you know, CAC does allow – I say this hesitantly because there's a cap on it here – does allow some multifamily. But, again, you're likely going to have driveway or drive aisles between here, and it's not going to affect those buildings. But this is an SAP selected area plan. It has all different rules for multifamily development. So I can't say for certain right now whether that can go there or not. Is there a warehouse that's been built there now? Okay. That makes sense, then. All right. Or the house. All right. And, you know, as you've read my staff report, it's pretty exhaustive. I don't think I've ever spent as much time working on a staff report as I have for this one. I used it to go to sleep last week. I would think so. Yes. It took me a good three days to get through all this. And I've tried to summarize it as much as possible. But staff still does find this request meets the variance criteria in Section 931. There's no reason to believe it's injurious to surrounding property owners. It has been here since 2012. Even with this request and keeping 10 feet between the structures, the neighbor to the west can one day build a home of a similar size as the applicant without requiring a variance. And even if they did, there is room to accommodate such a request. The irregular lot shape and previous use as an RV lot has created a burden on the property that was seemingly overcome through the use of a different setback standards than what should have been used. And, of course, the applicant purchased this property with the structures already on site. No other structures are being proposed at this time. And, again, I don't think there's any other room to put it close to those property lines. With that, I thank you, and we'll stand for questions. Okay. Thank you. And I do appreciate the comprehensive staff report that you gave. And I did read it, and I did not go to sleep. That was a joke. Okay. I have some questions. So everything on site is permitted, was permitted by the county. Okay. So the thing, really, in all this that I'm struggling with is, you know, I don't approve structures that are within easements. And I didn't see in here where it said there are no known active water or wastewater lines in your staff report, but that doesn't cover, you know, whether there's telecommunication lines or where are the electrical lines at that go back to the home. I mean, and the structure is essentially built over the entirety of the utility easement. So that's my concern. I don't know if they're on this side or the other side because there's a utility easement, a five-foot utility easement on the other side, too. So the lines may run down there, but the fact that we don't know, essentially, approving this would approve a structure over an easement. Well, we'll start from the beginning here. If it was a drainage easement, we would have to recommend it not because our code clearly says nothing can be in the drainage easement. We've had structures go in utility easements in the past, sometimes because we know that there's nothing there. Sometimes we get close to it. We've rejected them in the past if there's a sewer line there because they're deep and require large equipment to get them out, and you'll tear up the personal property of somebody, and that's what we've been concerned about in the past. Again, I don't have any evidence that there's a line running, you know, close enough that it would merit that concern here. I don't believe there is. As far as telecommunications, this, again, it's all under pavers, and you have support poles that are up here. I believe this thing is 14 feet high. It's tall. It could be 16 feet tall easily. So there's room to work. If it was a solid structure, enclosed structure, it would probably be a bit more concerned, but as it is, it just has your support poles for at least the RV port. Okay, so do you think, then, it would be pertinent to add a condition that prohibits them from enclosing the RV port at any point in the future? I would entertain that, sure. Sure, that's, yeah, and as you mentioned that, I think there's something in one of the PUD modifications that prohibits specifically enclosing RV ports for more habitable space. If you want to double down while we're here, and since I don't have it in front of me, we can do that, but I believe it's specifically forbidden. Okay, yeah, I mean, if it, that's, but, you know, we don't regulate, well, no, you said it's in the PUD, not the HOA docs, okay. Apparently it's in the HOA docs, and it's also in a PUD approval that you can't enclose these RV ports. Okay, and then, I mean, do you think it would be beneficial for the county to require to hold harmless be recorded in the public record that says, hey, we're allowing this, but you, we're allowing this RV port over this utility easement. However, if there's any work that needs to be done within the easement by any utilities, you agree that, you know, you won't come after the county for tearing up your pavers and your RV port? I don't know that I can speak to that in my role here as a planner. I'd probably have to defer to our county attorney for any sort of language like that. Okay, Elizabeth, if you're listening, think about it and come and tell me. It would make some sense, but that's kind of, that's out of mind. Right, because, you know, like I said, I'm just concerned about this utility easement and setting precedents and putting things, allowing things to be in the utility easement. I mean, I understand that it was permitted, so I have to assume maybe someone checked that before they allowed the home to be built, encroaching into it part of the way, and the RV port, because everything was properly permitted. So that really wasn't on the, that wasn't the applicant's fault. It's likely any utilities here are going to be in this green space between, but it is a platy utility easement, and I don't have the information saying where it is. And again, I want to point out, too, we're requested zero feet here, and the way that this tapers in, there's probably still a foot or so here. We're just measuring off the eaves, but it's kind of deceptive looking at this picture. Where you, where you see this first post is really kind of at a corner where it makes a 100 degree, 120 degree turn in. Yeah. So it's, there's likely room for your utilities that have gone through this green space on either side that looks like a box there, where it's not, it's not going to be zero feet all the way down the property line. It's just at that closest point. Well, I'm assuming the lot next door also has a five foot utility easement, too. So if they're, if it's run down the center of both and peels off, it may not be right under the RV port. That would be about right, 10 feet between the two. Right, right. Okay. So, okay. I have a question on Ordinance 19-069. So, I remember when we did this and I remember when it went through and it was implemented. So, the new, the section 303 where it's codified, it says in the staff report, through section 303, all accessory structures shall be set back three feet from the interior lot lines or six feet from any other structure outside the space or lot measured from the leading edge of the structures, whichever is more restrictive. So, is it staff's position that, I mean, is it six foot away or how do we get around this provision to allow a zero foot setback? It's still, even that ordinance allows a variance to that. It allows a variance to the 3D? Or even the original PUD, even section 930 would allow that as a PD modification. I'm sorry, as a variance to the PD approval, PD approval. Okay, so you're saying that section 303 provides, because the staff report says platted lots are now required to provide minimum five feet setbacks for all structures from the interior lot lines but may be eligible for a variance. Through section 303, all accessory structures, so you're saying that you can get a variance from that three feet or the six feet. Correct. Okay, okay. Either way, this is eligible for a variance. Okay, got it. Okay, the other thing I need explanation on is the last criteria, whether granting of the variance does not circumvent a condition of the intent or the intent of a condition placed on a development by the Planning Commission or BOCC. So you state, LDC section 930.B18 allows variances to PUDs, specifically to the linear distance measurements and heights approved by Level 3 or Level 4 review. Still, PD 86-24M and LDPD 2019-26 explicitly state in the conditions of approval that no setback variances shall be granted for structures containing habitable living space. Since platted lots have been sold, development-wide PD modifications have been difficult, as it has required all owners to sign off on modifications. Changes adopted by the BOCC have allowed variances. So are you saying that the new LDC, the relatively new LDC section 303 trumps the LDPD 2019-26? Correct, and it's kind of charged the history here, or how you normally go through this variance process. Ordinarily, we'd allow, or well, not allow, but you could do a variance to a PUD, and one of those modifications back in the day, probably prior to when this was platted, there was a rule about no, not getting any, I'm sorry, not having a variance granted for permanent structures and for habitable structures that are site-built homes. There was a litany of these kind of cases where a lot's been sold, and you have to gather all the homeowners up to do some sort of PD modification to remove that condition. Right. So Section 303 came in, and then the Texas Amendment to that to apply just not only to this one, but I don't know. To the list of all. Several dozen that are in there that came in prior to our Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan that allow us flexibility there. Okay, all right, so essentially that came in and globally applied the ability to get a variance and struck the condition prohibiting variances. It's not clean, but that's how it went down. This is great. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, that's all my questions. You have 1,200 units. It's hard to get everybody together on a PD modification. Yeah, absolutely. There's tons of lots. Come on down. Daniel Herbert and Cindy Herbert. Hello. Thank you for coming. Is there anything that you would like to add to what Mr. Nance said? We were completely unaware of this. We bought the property in February of 2020. The property was under contract to be sold, and a new survey basically brought this to light. But during the title search and things like that, nobody brought it to light when we bought the property. Okay, so the new buyers got a survey, or you got a survey, and that's what opened this literal can of worms, Pandora's box. Okay. And our neighbor wrote a letter saying that they're okay with the variance. So you all didn't do any of the permitting for this property. You just bought it the way that it is? The golf cart girl. Oh, the little, okay. And that was done in, okay. So there was another approval. That hadn't shown up on the property appraiser yet. That's why I noticed it in our Acceler program the other day. But I can see why there's been confusion and some consternation over this, because the site plan for this little golf cart garage has almost six feet between the house and the property line. In the back, it has over two feet, which just isn't what the survey is saying. So that's why we're kind of being in abundance of caution here, and it's important to note that eaves aren't going off property lines, and there might be a little bit here and there, six inches, to get it through. So what was being used to determine the golf cart wasn't necessarily accurate. Okay. On top of the old rules of planning. You mean you guys aren't surveyors? What? What a mess. We've seen three different surveys of the property. Okay. Okay. So the hardship would be? As far as the utility easements? Yes, yes. The water lines run across the back of the property, and they're fed off the street. Basically, everything is at the street, and then it goes down those two common green areas. On either side of the lot. On either side. So all the telecommunications, all that has all been pre-wired. Okay. Do you know which side, if it goes, do you know which side the utilities will run through? It's every other property, basically. Yeah, right, right. So our water line runs down on the right side, and all of our electricity runs on the right side. So if you're looking at the home, it's on the right side? As you're looking at the home from the street. Okay. And then there's a service that runs underneath the driveway to service the RV that's on the left side. It's on the left side. It's under the pavers. It goes underneath the pavers. Oh, like a sewer? Like a 50-line, and sewers over there. Sewer and a 50-amp circuit. Oh, so you just have one electrical going in? Yes, it's like a shoreline of a boat, you know. Yeah, okay, got it. But the main utilities are on the right side. That clarifies a lot of things. Thank you. Okay. So I'm assuming the hardship in this case would be if it wasn't granted. You'd have to demolish everything on the site, not be able to sell it. Our realtor is telling us property's been sold that has the issues like this, and people find out. I'm like we found out about it. But it surfaces when the buyer suggests a survey, and then that's when it surfaces. So are you guys getting a survey for your next property that you're purchasing? That is not germane to this situation, but it sounds like it'd be a good thing to do. No, no, no. Okay. Thank you so much for coming down here. Sorry for your issues. Okay. Are there any members of the public that would like to speak to this case? Okay. Seeing none. Staff, anything further? No, ma'am. Other than we'll probably see a couple more of these in the future. Yes. Okay. With that, I'm going to close the public hearing for LDL VAR 2023-48. Okay. The next item on the agenda is LDL VAR 2023-49, the RK roofing variance. Our next case is LDL VAR 2023-49, the RK roofing variance. The applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the southern side setback from 20 feet to 4 feet for a 50-by-120-foot building, and the front setback from 50 feet to 35 feet for a 24-by-40-foot office building. For the purposes of notification, 19 mailers were sent October 6, 2023. One board was posted on October 5, 2023, and a legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on October 13, 2023. Staff has received no response, and Robert Bolton is the case planner. Good afternoon. I'm Robert Bolton with Land Development, presenting LDL VAR 2023-49, the RK roofing setback variance. The request is for reduction in the side setback from 20 feet to 4 feet, and a front setback variance from 50 feet to 35 feet within a business park center to land use district. The request will allow the existing warehouse building to come into compliance and allow for a proposed expansion of the warehouse and construction of office space for the site, and staff is recommending approval. The subject is located at 5105 Rucker Highway, which is on the west side of Rucker Highway between Auburndale and Winterhaven. This area has historically been warehousing, manufacturing, and light manufacturing in its land uses. This part on the east side of Rucker Highway used to be the old Scotty's warehousing dating back to the 1970s. This commercial boulevard loop right here was developed in the 1970s. As you can see, it's just generally a fairly large land use district area, as evidenced by the large area of BPC2, BPC land use district within that area. This is the subject site with the existing warehouse right here with the silver roof, and this is where the proposed warehouse and office building would be located. There was a recent survey done, which indicates that the existing office is 4.7 feet from the southern side property line. To the east or the front of the warehouse is a temporary office trailer. The requested variance is for a side setback from 20 feet to the 4 feet. One, to bring the existing warehouse into compliance with setback for the site and to allow for the construction of the warehouse expansion. And also, for the proposed office building, it's going to be about 7.5 feet from the side property line. And the existing office trailer, temporary office trailer, would be removed. The second variance request is for the front setback from Wrecker Highway from 50 feet to 35 feet for the construction of this proposed office. This is the proposed site plan for the existing warehouse and the proposed warehouse expansion office addition, as well as the existing driveway, which was Wrecker Highway is a state road, state road 655, and driveway permits go through state FDOT. So this is the location where DOT approved their drive access, pretty much in the center of the 150-foot frontage on Wrecker Highway. The existing warehouse is a 45-by-60-foot steel frame warehouse, and the survey right here shows 4.7 feet. So can I ask a quick question about that? Yes. The staff report says that it was constructed in 2012. Correct. So was the 20-foot setback in place in 2012? Yes. If I can, I'll get to that. Oh, yeah, go ahead. Like, next slide. That's sort of a, how did we get here? Right. Sort of trying to give a bit of an overall, because there's a lot of moving parts going on here. Great. More moving parts, just what I wanted after. It's that kind of day. It's that kind of day. It's that kind of day. So we've got the existing warehouse. The applicant is wanting to expand his warehouse building to basically westerly and pretty much line it up with the existing one and also add the office building to the front. The reason that the 20-foot setback is going to be very difficult is that with the existing driveway, you'd wind up having about a 25-foot deep warehouse, which is a substandard size. By being able to keep the driveway access with semi-trucks coming in for deliveries, that type thing for his business, and being able to maintain some sort of decent truck court type of activity going on there. And this has got a, like I said, the existing concrete driveway and pavement there. How do we get here? This, as I said, the DOT permit for the driveway also came in for a Level 2 review for us. That's why we have this site plan for the driveway. And it came in. On it, it has right here location of temporary office trailer and future 40 by 60 building. Showing a 5-foot setback, a side setback, and a 40-foot setback from the, from State Road, or Record Highway. This was a driveway permit. We can't, we've, I've searched records. We do not find any other Level 2 for the building. This building, the original building, the building that is on there was permitted by Polk County. It is, wasn't built illegally, anything like that. It appears that when they went in for the building permit, they saw a Level 2 for the driveway. With this building, apparently made certain assumptions on that. We never, there's no record of a variance coming in. That is why we're including this at this point in time. The cert, this shows 5 feet, but the survey shows 4.7. Sort of like with Mr. Nance, an abundance of caution. The foundation may, may have been poured at 5 feet. Survey currently shows 4.7. So we're going to 4, 4 feet. And that's sort of how that building appears to have gotten. The existing building appears to be how it, how it is. Does that sort of get to where you were wondering? Yeah. Mm-hmm. Okay. This is the site with the existing building, the office trailer there. Looking back, this is the, you can see this sort of the northern part of the site there. This is looking from the rear of the property. The warehouse expansion would connect to where you see those two roll-up doors and come past that mound of dirt coming out this way. This is the southern property line where the survey shows 4.7. We're requesting the 4 feet setback. The existing building has downspouts. It is a little overgrown right now, but the staff believes that there's enough room there for maintenance of building upkeep. The property adjacent to the south, you see a outdoor, a double-sided outdoor advertising sign. So as far as the adjacent property owner, that is actually in line with pretty much the front of this warehouse. So with setbacks, there would ultimately be plenty of room between adjoining buildings with the variance granted. So there's no other structures on that property? No, the property to the property of the south, you've got the billboard, and it's used for commercial parking. Okay. And it's not owned by the applicant? That's correct. It is not. And this is looking from the front, again, showing that gap right there. The existing office trailer is closer than the 4.7. The survey, I didn't see a measurement showing where it is exactly. This pole right here that you see in the rear is actually their power line drop with their electric meter on it. So it's accessible. The power company gets to it on a regular basis. This is the wrecker highway is over on the left-hand side. This is the front. The office would be coming out into this general area. They really couldn't go any further forward because they have their septic tank. It shows on the survey up front right here. The – you have asked, and I'm not sure what the road width of wrecker highway. It is a state road. It does have a wide right-of-way. Yeah, it's 100 foot. Okay. And the asphalt is 32 feet. Okay, I couldn't – and on my printed, I couldn't read that that well. So we don't see an issue with a 35-foot front variance. The request will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The property is within a greater BPC2 land use district, which was developed in the 70s with existing building constructed in 2012. And the area functions as typical BPC2 land use district without any detrimental effects. The existing building location and the FDOT-approved driveway access point, basically bisecting the site, has been workable for the existing building and would also work for any of the proposed buildings, as well as being able to operate with a decent truck court maneuverability. With that, I thank you and stand for any questions. I think I've asked all my questions, actually, or you've answered them already. Thank you for the thorough presentation. Ready. Okay, is the applicant here? Come on down. Just state your name for the record, please. Good afternoon. My name is Robert Kilpatrick. Okay. Mr. Kilpatrick is property owner. I'm Sarah with David Norris Engineering. We did the permitting for the site plans on the original site permitting, and we also have a level two in right now for the expansion. Okay, Sarah, what's your last name? Ram Noreen. Can you spell that? R-A-M-N-A-R-I-N-E. Okay, just like it said. Okay. Do you have anything you'd like to put on the record before I ask you a couple questions? No. When we originally started the project, it was in anticipation that we had some expansion, and now we're getting ready to expand, and we've run into these issues, so that's pretty much where I stand. The driveway, like the gentleman said, the driveway is located where it is, and if we had to have that set back, then it would limit that warehouse space. That warehouse was built for an expandable end wall. It would mean that end wall would come out when we put another warehouse on it, and it would just be one continuous warehouse. So that was going to be my question. Why all the buildings, why they have to be lined up? Do they have to be lined up? And I guess they do, and that was the intent of the original building. Okay. So that just, they're all connected because that is the flow of your business. And what is your business? Roofing business. I believe Mr. Kilpatrick also planned to park vehicles inside, and he needed all that 50-foot length to park his larger vehicles. Okay. So you mean... And even if we had the 20-foot setback or put the building on the other side of the property, we still don't have that 50 feet. The width, because of the 20-foot setback on either side. Because the width of the property is like 150 total? Yes. Okay. So you're going to park your vehicles and equipment inside this warehouse? Yes, ma'am. So I guess that's the hardship, if this variance isn't granted? Well, the hardship would be that the property wouldn't be fully utilized for what it was originally designed for. Well, it couldn't be utilized for your purposes either, in addition to what it could be used for, but for your purposes specifically. So did you own the property in 2012 when the... Did you put in the first warehouse? Yes, I did. Okay. So you've always planned on this expansion, I guess, when you did the original permitting. Yeah. The retention area and all of that in the very back was designed for a larger project to start off with. That's why you only have to add the little part out in the front, yeah. Yeah, that seems like a pretty big retention area for just the... Very large retention area. Yeah, for just the little warehouse. When David Norris designs his retention areas, he does it for the most amount of impervious area that can go on site generally, which is... Newer from... Well, so if mud is 80%, but the county is generally up to 70%. Okay. And I believe this property was designed for around between 17 and 20,000 square feet, and we are under that for this expansion. Okay. Okay, I don't have any further questions. Is there anything else you'd like to add? We're good. Okay, thank you for your patience. Thank you. All right, are there any members of the public that would like to speak to this case? All right, if not, staff, anything to add? All right, with that, I'm going to close the public hearing for LDL VAR 2023-49. Okay, the last item on the agenda is LDL VAR 2023-50, the Highway 60 variants. Our last case is LDL VAR 2023-50, the Highway 60 variants. For the record, Amy Little with Land Development. Staff is recommending approval of this request to build a detached accessory structure that exceeds the height and square footage of the primary structure on the property. This is located east of Bartow in a rural cluster center residential land use district. For the purposes of notification, 14 mailers were sent on October 6, 2023. One board was posted on October 10, 2023, and a legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on October 13, 2023. Staff has received no response. Subject property is a lot of record created prior to the Land Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. It's approximately 2.42 acres. Minimum lot sizes and RCCR land uses are 20,000 square feet, which this lot exceeds. If this looks familiar to you, it is probably because it was in September 2021. It received an approved final order for this exact structure. Unfortunately, the order, as a condition of approval, the applicant had one year from the date of the final order that it was rendered to obtain a building permit, and that was not completed. The applicant did not receive the permit within that time frame, so they are requesting the variance again. Here's the site plan and the provided justification. The structure will meet all the requirements for setbacks in RCCR land use districts. The structure was already constructed. There is a code enforcement violation, but the issuance of the building permit is pending the approval of this variance. Okay, so it's, it wasn't, didn't get permits. I believe, and we can ask the applicant, I believe they were having trouble getting the engineer plans for it. It took a little bit longer than they expected. So it was like not within? It was not within the one year. But it was close thereafter then, because we're one year out from that. This is almost two years out. This was 2021. Yeah, but we're one year out from the deadline, and they already have the structure up. Correct. So, okay. Yeah, but the, the, the, um, the permit is pending issuance right now. So they've gotten the engineered plans. They've, it's gone through the whole process. They're just waiting for the, if the variance is approved, then they will issue the permit. Okay. The structure is detached. It's an enclosed garage that's intended to store personal vehicles and livestock accessories. The lot is split between RCC and RCCR, which you can see right here. The lighter pink or orange is the RCC. The RCCR is the darker. They built the structure in the RCCR, which makes it that they have to follow the, um, the structure has to be smaller than the primary. If this were a commercial use and they built it in the RCC, this would not even be required. So, I mean, if it was built 20 feet to the north, 30 feet to the north, we wouldn't require it. For these reasons, staff is recommending approval. The proposed structure is not injurious to the surrounding areas or nearby homes. It has been on the site for a little over two years, I believe. Um, it's a reasonable use of the property. The structure is going to meet all other setbacks and height requirements for the land development code. And with that, I think, yeah, and I'll stand for questions. Okay. So this was the same, it's the same property owner. Same property owner, same everything. Yeah. I actually did remember this property because it was, this was one of the first ones that was done after the home-based business. Correct, yes. Um, regulation passed. And so we added the condition, um, that you can't operate a business out of it. Correct. Yeah. This was the first. It was, I think it was, it may have been the very first one after that was passed. I think it was. And I think there were two brothers that came in. I believe so. Okay, the applicant, thank you so much for your patience. So just state your name for the record. Hello, my name is Robin Wedekin. I'm here on behalf of one of the brothers, Pentaiotus Malus. Okay. Okay, so do you know, are you familiar with the history? Most of it, yes. Okay. All right. Um, so basically, can you just go through what happened in your? So from what I understand, after it was approved previously, they worked on getting the permit. But, um, combination of things. And I believe it was mostly just like a backlog of getting the permitting done from COVID and everything. They weren't able to get the permit issued before the one year deadline. So it had to be re-requested for this variance to be approved. Okay. So the, the, the structure's on there now. Correct. Okay. Yeah. But it's just not CO'd. Yeah, it's just waiting for the permit to be issued and that we just need this approved to do that. Okay. And there was no, do, do we have the option to extend? There was no request to extend? Um, there was no request to extend. I did talk to Elizabeth regarding, there's a note, um, in the general notes that it says, all conditions of approval, unless otherwise specified, shall be met prior to the effectiveness of and validity of the variance approval. Okay. So initially we were going to just ask for an extension. Um, but Elizabeth believes that that phrase makes it so they need to actually come back because they didn't do that within the one year timeframe. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I don't have anything further. Thank you. Okay. This is a public hearing. Are there any members of the public that would like to speak on this matter? Seeing none, I'll bring it back. Staff, anything further? No, ma'am. Okay. With that, I'm going to close the public hearing for LDL VAR 2023-50. And as that's our last case on the agenda, I'm going to adjourn the October 26, 2023 Land Use Hearing Officer meeting. Thank you.