Polk County Land Use Hearing Officer on 2024-04-25 1:30 PM

They're speaking at the podium. The county, the applicant, and I will try to note any questions you raise during your comments and try to have them answered following the close of public comment. When it is your turn to speak, either for your case or while you're expressing your opinion on an application, please state your name and address for the record and speak directly into the microphone. These proceedings are recorded and it is important that you speak into the microphone to ensure an accurate recording. After public comment closes, the applicant and the county will be given the opportunity to answer any questions or to reply to comments that may have come up during public comment. They will also be able to make any concluding statements they would like. The hearing will close for each case following the concluding statements of the parties. My decision will not be given today, but it will be provided in a written final order within two weeks of today. Again, if you would like a copy of my decision, please fill out the form on the back table and provide it to the clerk. For the record, I want to note that I have received no ex parte communications. That means that nobody has contacted me about these cases outside of the hearings today. If anyone should need an interpreter for today's proceedings, please let the clerk know and county staff will try to arrange one for you. All testimony today must be given under oath. So I will now ask our clerk to swear in all speakers. If you're going to address the land use hearing officer on any case today, please stand. If you're going to address the land use hearing officer 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. So question for our clerk. The first item on the agenda is minutes approval, but there are no minutes noted there. Are we not? The March 25th minutes are okay. So if we could note that I have reviewed and accepted those minutes from the March 25th, 2024 land use hearing officer meeting. And then it looks like we have one case that we want to continue. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay. So LDLVAR 2024-6, the Buggy Road variants will be continued to the May, what, what's the date of the May hearing? May 25th? May 23rd. May 23rd hearing. Okay. We will do that. And then we now move to old business, which is LDLVAR 2023-65. LDLVAR 2023-65, the Ali variants. The applicant is requesting a side setback variance from the five-foot accessory structure setback to one foot to accommodate an existing pole barn. The site is located at 6718 Broken Arrow Trail, southeast of Red Fox Run, east of Tomahawk Trail, west of Lakeland Highlands River. Road in section 20, township 29, range 24, south of the city limits of Lakeland, north of the city limits of Bartow. On April 10th, 16 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on April 1st. A legal ad was published in Lakeland Ledger on April 12th. So far, we've received one letter in opposition and 25 letters in support. Shonda Bennett is the case planner. Good afternoon. Shonda Bennett with the Land Development Division. LDLVAR 2023-5 is an applicant-initiated variance for a side yard setback reduction from five feet to one foot for an existing pole barn. It's related to a previous case from 2022, LDLVAR 2022-64, and staff does recommend denial of this case. The subject site is about 1.8 acres in size. The documents submitted into the record for today's hearing include staff report, the applicant's application and supporting documents, the building permit for the pole barn, BR2021-2693, applicant variance question response, and a notice of commencement for the building permit for the pole barn that you see on the picture to the left. One of the items that we thought as staff might be a question is what are some of the new documents submitted for this request versus from 2022. The applicant had a revised justification from last time, which is part of their second document after the staff report submitted in the record. They offered pictures of other accessory structures in the area and their information on the gutter systems that the applicant plans to install. Those new record documents that you identified, do I have them yet? Yes, ma'am. You do. They were provided to me? Via the Legistar system. Okay. They were not part of the staff report that was sent to me, but they're in here? Is that what you mean? Yes. Okay. Yes. Yes, ma'am. And if you need a hard copy, I can provide you mine if you needed to. No, I'm going to find them in here while you continue, and if I need help finding them in here, my clerk will help. I can understand needing help on software. Absolutely. In terms of location, the property is in the Indian Hills subdivision. It's an unrecorded subdivision, meets and bounds, meaning it's not platted, south of County Road 540A, east of Carter Road, and north of the Lakeland Highlands scrub property. This is an arrow photograph to give you some context in terms of its placement in the subdivision. It borders the Lakeland Highlands scrub, the larger lot, unrecorded subdivision, and then its context with all the other subdivisions that have been constructed really over the last 20 years. This is a 2020 aerial photograph, more zoomed in on the property. You can see there used to be a pole barn on the site. The main house is on the northern part of the property. Another accessory structure in the back, and then this pole barn here. And what I added to the staff report today was a 2023 aerial, which is this aerial here, that shows the new pole barn constructed. There's also a survey as part of the application, which I have a slide here to show that. The survey, this picture shows the pole barn going over the property line more than the survey does. I think that's just because of the angle of the camera, et cetera. I just wanted to point that out. But it does show that this pole barn is larger in size than the previous. What is the date of the first photograph? 2020 aerial. Before the new structure was built. Yes, ma'am. Yes. Other information that staff evaluated for the request is the elevations of the property and the neighboring property. Since this structure is on the east side of the property, the focus was the eastern property rather than the west property or any of the other properties in the subdivision. The house, the main house, is at 239 feet above sea level at elevation. And then you can see it slopes, the property slopes to the southwest and then to the east and southeast. The lower, so it slopes down to the property on the east at about an elevation of 235. And there is an existing pond there today. And you can see that in one of the other photographs I have. This is the future land use designation or the land use districts in the area. This subdivision is in the residential low one land use district along with the subject site. And you can see again how it borders the Lakeland Highlands scrub. And that has a designation of recreation and open space. This subject property is about 1.8 acres in size. The neighboring property of the east is 3.7 acres in size. The picture on the left is the survey provided. And the picture on the right is a site plan submitted with the building permit for the pole barn. What's, I think, relevant to note on the survey is it surveys the existing pole barn, the new pole barn. And it shows the point at which this northeast corner of the overhang and the southeast corner of the overhang are in relationship to the east property boundary. So in the southeast, it says it's right on the property boundary. And the northeast corner of the overhang, it states here it's slightly in by 0.4 of a foot. So just less than half of a foot inward into the subject property. And that offset is to the edge of the overhang or to the pole, the supporting pole? So let me restate that because I want to make sure I'm on the same page with where you're going. The northeast corner of the existing pole barn is offset into the subject site by less than half a foot. So the property, the driveway and the pole barn aren't exactly parallel to the east property line. There's a slight angle. So the southeast corner will be closer to the east property line than the northeast corner. So it's at an angle. I understand that. Okay. The distances that you're providing to me are the distance between the property line and the closest edge of the roof of the structure? Yes, ma'am. Okay. The site plan submitted with the building permit on the right side shows the structure of the pole barn to be in line with the existing concrete slab rather than having any of that east of that concrete slab. Some of the documents that were submitted with the building permit itself are something that all contractors have to sign when they submit a building permit that states that any inspections that we do are not to verify the setbacks, that it's in compliance with the setbacks. It's upon the property owner and their contractor to ensure that the setbacks are met. And specifically it says, if the structure does not meet applicable setbacks or encroaches into an easement, the owner and or contractor will be responsible for moving the structure, restoring the easements to its original condition, or otherwise making the structure come into compliance with applicable county setbacks and other land use regulations. And I will state there are many ways or reasons why our residents come before you asking for setback variances. Certainly a very common one is they've bought the property when a structure is already in place and either didn't have permits, wasn't permitted properly, or placed inconsistent with the building permit. So it's not their fault, and not that certainly the applicant had any intention in doing something that was inappropriate, and I'm certainly not saying that. But in this case, the property owner was the one that initiated the pulling of the building permit. This is a photograph looking south. You can see the building pull barn in the background and the eastern property line and the main house on the right. And I have a couple of photographs here that were from 2022 because I didn't think to recreate them for this case. But this one I wanted to use in terms of it had, it was right on the fence line, and it shows the distance between the existing driveway and the fence to give you some other content characteristics of the property that's 14-foot distance. You can see on the left-hand side, you can see on the left-hand side, the eastern neighbor, the pond that was at 235-foot elevation. They have a well facility there. And then in the background, you can see a fence that goes back into the eastern neighbor's southern property. Again, they have over three acres of property on this side. And, again, the applicant's property is at about 1.8 acres. This is another picture, again, that I, from the 2022 case, I picked, again, because I got it right on the fence line. So it just provides a different context. This tractor is not there today, and I'll show you a picture that's what's there today. But it also gives you a different perspective of the roof line in relationship to the fence and the poles. And this assumes that the fence is pretty much on the property line. This is a current photograph taken in the fall of 2023. You can see that where the tractor was, there's a boat there now. And using that for reference on the next two pages, our next two photographs. So I used a yardstick because it's three feet. So that gives you an idea of, it's hard to really read what's on that yardstick at this scale. So it gives you kind of a scale idea in terms of how the distances of the existing concrete slab is to the fence. So, obviously, the northern part of this concrete slab, again, it's not completely parallel. It's over three feet. Then the back portion of the concrete slab is still over three feet, but closer than the northern part of the concrete slab. And then you can see the pole, the northeast pole of the barn, of the pole barn, pretty much kind of in the middle of that distance. This is standing on the south part of the property looking to the north. This gives you a different perspective of the property and the pole barn in question, as well as the neighboring property under his fence, his back property line. So this is the northeast corner post. So what I did is I put a measurement of what one foot is and what two feet are in relationship of the pole to the fence. Just, again, more perspective. And then you can tell that you can't see the concrete slab. So there is some distance there between the pole and the concrete slab. Can you go back to that photo, please? Yes, ma'am. So it's a little hard to tell because I am looking down over, you know, angles being what they are. Does the two feet line, the yellow line that measures two feet from the pole, is that into the eastern neighbor's property or is that still on the subject property? That's a good question. I didn't survey it. But this was the angle. Sure, you're not a surveyor. Right. Right. I would say to consider any error of my photography skills, I would say maybe to give some benefit to the applicant to put that right on the property line. But I know in this case it looks like it's over onto the neighbor's property line. But then again, if the neighbor's property line starts on the inside of that fence versus the outside of the fence. Well, we'll figure that out another way. It's hard. Yeah. Okay. So the reason for the denial certainly wasn't arrived at quickly. Lots of considerations were made and lots of thought process into this. And we have cases where we do have accessory structures on property lines, especially when the neighboring property owner is willing to allow easements for maintenance, et cetera. And that's not the situation that we have with this case. Also, the threefold reason for the denial is that we do feel the request would be injurious to the area and otherwise detrimental. Certainly, the applicant's going to put up gutters and stated that he would do so at the last hearing. But you can't put gutters on that side of the structure. But certainly, you're not going to have a significant amount of water coming off of that structure onto the eastern property. However, there could be some. So, and then also it's hard to maintain a structure when you're under it versus trying to get on the side of it to maintain it. And conferring special privileges, staff felt that this kind of does confer a special privilege when the applicant is expected to have awareness of where their property lines are, what the setback requirements are, and where they're placing their structure. Certainly, people are busy, and we don't have any indication at all or believe that the applicant is trying to do anything wrong at all. It's a situation that's difficult, I'm sure, for him as well as the neighbor. But if he had asked for it before he built the structure, a variance would have been needed if you at least lined it up with the current concrete slab because that's less than five feet to the property line. I think that would have been probably a reasonable request to some extent. He still could have made it bigger than the previous pole barn, at least to the north and to the south. So there's probably some room there for a justification for a request. But as stated in the staff report, and I think it's probably better to read it than to restate it, which is the applicant cites their ignorance as justification for granting the variance. Granting the variance under this theory would have massive implications for the Land Development Code. If the reason for granting a variance is because the property owner did not know the location of a setback, then how can there be expectations by Polk County citizens that setback standards will be upheld? Where this is the case, it would create an incentive whereby a property owner would, in effect, be punished for researching whether the structure they constructed or plan to construct complies with the current land use policy. In other words, the property owner who researches their potential setback requirements would lose the potential defense of claiming ignorance. Otherwise, property owners would no longer be able to rely solely on the Land Development Code itself to measure their expectations on how their neighbors will use their property. Instead, a neighbor's knowledge of the LDC or lack thereof would be a controlling factor. It is expected that any homeowner will know where their property lines exist and the distance of any structures from those property lines. Setbacks are one of the basic tenets of property management, and any property owner should be able to rely on with confidence, especially with regards to how close a vertical structure will be located to their property boundary. So with that, I'll stand for questions. Okay. So my copy of the survey is quite small in here. I do know that it shows how far the roof overhang, I guess the eastern edge of the roof overhang is from the eastern property line. Does it show how far the pole is? Because am I correct that that's how you measure your variances, is how far the supporting poles are with an allowance for overhang? Correct, correct. And the survey did not have any information on it regarding the pole distance from the property line. So the yardstick technique was what I used in terms of trying to figure out the distance. So the front pole certainly would be farther away and over one foot, and the measurements of the overhang are provided in one of the documents submitted as part of the record digitally, which is the building plans. And it showed the roof overhang being 1.4 feet. So if the roof overhang is right on the line on the southeast corner, then that would be the post would be 1.4 feet back to the west, meaning if the one foot variance was granted, then it would capture the closest pole distance to the property and be sufficient for the existing pole barn location. Okay, because the request for the variance to reduce the setback to one foot is to determine the location of the pole. Yes, ma'am. Correct. Yes. And if the one foot variance is granted, what I'm hearing you say is both poles would be in compliance with the one foot reduced setback. Okay. Who owns the fence? I believe it's the neighboring property owner. Again, with my copy of the survey being perhaps not quite as easy to read as a larger or one that had been copied fewer times, is the fence on the property line? Is the fence on the eastern neighbor's property? The measurements to the overhang are apparently to the property line on the survey, correct? Yeah. Not to the fence. Correct. I can't answer that with 100% certainty. Okay. What is the minimum lot size in this land use district? The minimum lot size if you're building a subdivision is 40,000 square feet. However, the density is one house per acre. Okay. In either case? It's consistent with that, yes. Did we have the survey the last time? Yes, ma'am. We did. Okay. So the last variance application was denied, and the structure is still up? Correct. Is this a code enforcement case? I didn't check the status of a code enforcement case, but my memory is that if it was the original one, the code enforcement case would have gone away because the applicant just merely applied for the variance. But the follow-up to that would be potentially another code case, because if the variance was denied, then the applicant would have been required to remove the structure. And that, as far as I am guessing, didn't occur in terms of a code case. The removal of the structure? Yes. Well, no, it didn't. Right. Right. Okay. So you don't know if there's a current code enforcement case pending? Correct. Okay. But Eric's checking. Okay. Yes, there is a current code case, CMA 2022-545. So that would have been the same code case that was pending back from the original application? Yes, it's still in effect right now. Okay. It's in abeyance before the hearing. So it was in abeyance, I guess, initially because of the first variance application, and then it just is still in abeyance now or in abeyance again because of the second application? I would think so. Give chance. Give him a chance to read it, yeah, because obviously applicants are allowed to reapply after a certain amount of time. Yes. Yes. So he's obviously doing that. And part of his application does include some documentation from Brent Gohagan, an attorney that he hired. So maybe that's also part of the ability, abeyance, to give him time to confer with legal counsel. Okay. And that's different than from the first time. Okay. And so there is an additional submittal with the applicant's application that you just mentioned, you just referred to? Yes. Okay. So Mr. Gohagan has, I think he's the one that wrote the application originally that was submitted for this hearing. And then the, I had some comments to the applicant, and then he provided a response to those comments. The applicant, the property owner himself did. And that's digitally in the record. Okay. I think I have just been handed printouts. Okay. So wonderful. Much easier. So what do I have here? Yes, I have materials from attorney Gohagan. I have areas of photos and some other documents that I'm sure I'll hear more about from the applicant. Response to comments. And if I may provide you my copy as well, if you'd like, the, they're 11 by 17, the documents submitted for the building permit, the site plans. Okay. Yeah. This will do. Thank you. Okay. Let's, I am going to pause for a moment in a little bit just to look through the response to make sure I don't have any comments or questions for you on that. But let's go to the, the building permit. And I'm aware of the language that you cited, and I recall it from the hearing a year and a half, two years ago, whenever it was. Um, but let's just, uh, briefly discuss the, the process. So when a building inspector or an inspector from the building department goes to inspect a structure that has been built with the benefit of a permit, what are they there to inspect? The structure in compliance with the building, the building code only. Um, okay, in compliance, to, to confirm that the structure is in compliance with the building code and with the approved permit? The site, well, approved permit, yes. Okay. Um, to the extent that they're not looking at the site plan of the permit and checking it against the property line, et cetera. Um, and the, um, distance of the structures to property lines or distance of structures, um, to other structures, except in conformance with the building code. Because there certainly are separation of buildings as part of the building code requirements. So regulation of setbacks or overseeing setback requirements is the purview of what department? The overseeing of setbacks would be land developments, um, purview. However, we do not go out and verify that. I, I understand. Yeah. Um, or review building permits. We do not review building permits either. The, the permit tech reviews the building application for, uh, meeting the setbacks. And that's why they're, the applicant for the building permit provides a plot plan showing where the structure is and the distance to the property line. And then that's part of the, uh, affidavit for the application. So that's, that's the extent of our, the review of the setbacks when it comes to issuing a building permit. So does a permit tech ever alert the applicant or the land development department that the structure that's been, that a building permit has been applied for, um, does not meet setback requirements? Yes, if the plot plan they submit shows that it, it specifies the wrong distance, not meeting the setbacks, the building permit, a tech will, uh, will, uh, put it on hold for that. Right. Will not issue the permit. Okay. But the application had stated that it met the setbacks. So that's. And if you look at the site plan, it doesn't show a distance from the edge of the concrete slab or the pole barn to the property line, but it certainly makes it look like it's in, uh, alignment with that. And certainly a building permit technician couldn't tell the slight difference in distance of one side, one end of the slab or the other to the property line. It would probably look in general to be consistent with the setbacks. Okay, so in this instance, the permit tech didn't pick it up. Correct. It's not their job to pick it up is what I'm hearing you say. They, it's, it's not under their department's purview. If they, if it's obvious and they note it, they bring it to everyone's attention so that we don't have more of these situations than we need. And they'll hold the permit. Right. Right. Um, to give the applicant time ostensibly to pursue a variance, but it's not, um, part of the building. The building department's responsibility to do that. Correct. Okay. Hence the language in the, um, acknowledgement, the, the, the setback acknowledgement. So this case initially did not come about as a result of, of that, but rather came about as a code enforcement matter after the, after the structure was built. Correct. Okay. Um, before I call the applicant up, I don't think I have any other questions for you at the moment. I may, you know, um, as we proceed, but before I call the applicant up, I just want to take a moment and, um, look through a little bit of this. Is the applicant or the applicant's, uh, representative present? Okay. If you could, um, come forward, please. Is, um, I'll let you come up first and then I'll follow up with any questions. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Uh, this is my wife, Lindsay. She's a little bit more articulate than I am. I'll have her speak in my behalf. Okay. That'd be great if you could start though, um, before you pass off just by giving us your name and address, please. Oh, sorry. It's, uh, Lee Alley and I reside at six, seven, one, eight, broken arrow trail south. That's in Lake North Florida. Thank you. This is my wife, Lindsay. Good afternoon, your honor. Lindsay Alley, um, same address, six, seven, one, eight, broken arrow trail. Lindsay with an I or a Y or two Y. L I N D S E Y. Great. Thank you. Um, so I've prepared some speaking points. Um, I actually provided you a copy. Sometimes I speak a little too fast. So if you want to follow along, is this what you're referring to? Yes, ma'am. Okay. So, um, just, this was provided to me as I walked in today, so it's nothing I have reviewed. No worries. Um, but there are the exhibits that I'll be referencing for you within there. Okay. Um, before you, um, proceed with that. Um, so I, in the materials I was just looking over, there was, um, a response, um, or some information provided by attorney Gohagan is, um, is he also here today with you or no? No, he is no longer representing us. So that, uh, response could actually be voided. It can be voided. Okay. So when you say that response, uh, the packet that you received today is our new response. Okay. It's all part of the application. So it'll, but if he no longer represents you, so be it. And we will proceed with what you want to say today. All right. Thank you so much. Um, so first I'd like to address the comments on whether, uh, granting the variance would be injurious or detrimental to the public welfare. Um, we do not feel that the existing pole barn structure has been, is currently, or in the future will present any injurious impact to the area or detriment to the public welfare. Uh, in fact, there's been no evidence, uh, provided to support any claims that the structure has been injurious or detrimental to date. For example, no evidence to support rainwater runoff has resulted in sourcing or channeling or any negative impact to the surrounding property or adjacent property. Uh, you could actually see that information in exhibit four and five. What is meant by sourcing? Uh, sourcing has been defined by the complaint as an, as an impact to, uh, the land being, um, run away from with water runoff and the soil. It's been defined by the complaint. Yes. You mean by the objection from the neighbor? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Go ahead. Um, the roof on the structure is sloped North and South, allowing any rain to fall on our property and not the adjacent property. Uh, further, the topography maps, um, will show the natural flow of water through the area. It's primarily North and South, not East to West. That's going to be exhibit three. Furthermore, the county stated, uh, that the topography map shows, uh, the elevation of the adjacent property is 235 feet. That's actually the water level, not the ground level. So the ground level is going to be higher than that. And that's indicative on that same topography map. Okay. Um, do you plan to come back and walk through the exhibits or is this the extent that you're covering them now? Um, this is the extent that I plan on covering, but I'm welcome to address them further if you need. Okay. Um, well, I could, um, use a moment for you to explain the, um, topographic information that you've provided. You're going to have to orient me, you know, what you've provided to me as exhibit three is, um, an elevation contours and depression. It's like maybe a screenshot, um, from, um, FDEP site. But, um, the property is not, as far as I can tell, marked off on this. Um, correct. So you, you, you can use the, um, equipment so that we can all be looking at it. That also, it makes it, um, part of the visual record in the hearing. Does that work for you? Okay. I might have to step away. That's fine. Um, toward the bottom right corner of this, you'll notice that there is a cross street, red Fox run, uh, red Fox run is just, uh, barely west of our property. It's kind of right where the beginning of our property, um, essentially starts. So on this topography map, oops, this topography map, you will see that, um, the way that the water runs coming down from the area just north of us is a north to south slope. Okay. And, um, it's been a while since I've read a topo map. So you're going to have to, I mean, if you want me to really understand this, you're going to have to show me step-by-step how you get there. This is the natural water flow down through the area. Our home is located here at 242 foot. Therefore, this is running north to south versus east to west. On this topography map here, you'll see this was our, is, or is our property within the black property line. It was notated that this 235 degrees or 235 feet. This is the pond itself. So not a clear, uh, measurement of what the elevation is between our property, but you can see that it goes from 239 to 238 and 237. So it's running north to south again. Okay. And then this is just a satellite image of the same information. I see. Okay. So it's an aerial photograph with, I can't see it up on the screen really, but I see it here. It's, it's got the, uh, contour lines. Yes, ma'am. Okay. So, um, you've said the 235, which appears to be the lowest elevation on the, um, parcel to the east. You're saying that's the, the elevation of the water. Water level. Okay. Um, but then there's also the 236 line and the 237 line. I mean, so it's rising up from the water level. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Okay. Is it okay if I just stay over here? Sure. Yes. Yes. That's okay. Okay. I'd also like to mention that the closest structure on the neighboring property is well over a hundred feet away, resulting, um, in no encroachment or impact to the existing structures on the adjacent property. In fact, any injurious action in this matter falls to the complaint who has actually built a spite fence on our property. The complaint has failed to use their due diligence and the placement of the fence resulting in the unlawful taking of our property. You'll see this in exhibit eight a and a spite fence is also illegal in the state of Florida. Um, this has been defined in case law, McKinnon versus Norton in 2011. That's going to be exhibit seven. And you'll see within these exhibits that the entirety of the approximate 500, uh, foot fence is solely illegally on our property. The complaint did not does not, and will not have permission for the fence to be on our property. Is, is that the fence that is on the property line on the Eastern side of your parcel? Between your property and the neighbor, or is it on a Western? The fence, my side of the property, beginning on the West side. So there's like an inch to two inches in some places on the line. However, the entirety of the fence is on my property. Because what I did, I pulled a string from the survey marker from one end to the next, and I have in pictures here. It's on the property line approximately that, um, separates your property from the neighbor to the east. Okay. However, the fence is on the ground. Okay. I understand what you're saying. I have pictures here of pockets on the ground. They're just pictures of me taking all along the 500 feet. I'm going to skip through a couple of these pictures, because there's a lot of them. And, and just so you're aware, issues of takings are not going to be decided here today, or as part of this matter. Okay. Takings or encroachments. Yep. Okay. Um, still discussing if this is injurious or detrimental. Uh, we are willing to install gutters and have obtained a quote to do so. That's exhibit one. Um, in regard to any questions of maintenance, we will perform quarterly maintenance to clean the gutters and any as needed maintenance as well. And you would be able to do that without encroaching onto your neighbor's property? Yes, ma'am. We would actually be able to approach that by getting on the roof of the structure from the north and the south, even from our west side, and be able to go on top of the roof and properly clean out the gutter on the far east side. Okay. Um, the next point is if there are any special, uh, circumstances that are peculiar to the land structure or building, uh, this will all be seen in exhibit nine. Um, there are several, uh, special circumstances that are peculiar to our land, uh, the structure and the building. Uh, first, there was an existing concrete slab that, uh, prior and a prior structure of similar structure that was placed over that concrete slab. The pole barn in this matter replaced that structure that was heavily damaged, um, from the hurricanes. The pole barn is also aligned with an existing driveway. Uh, the back of our property is heavily wooded. We have a drain field in the rear east of the property that cannot be built on. Um, additionally, most of our property is low lying, resulting in heavy flooding from rain. And additionally, there is a protected wetland running on the western side adjacent property. Uh, due to the low lying area on the west, we would have had to spend thousands of dollars to build up the land, which would result in an unnatural change to the water flow, uh, causing a detrimental impact to the neighboring wetland. Furthermore, the southern portion of our property also borders a county park and county fire line that is further heavily wooded. Okay. Um, is the unbuildable part of your property, um, demarcated on your survey? Okay. Uh, the survey was just, uh, to notate the property itself, not the conditions of the property. Okay. So, it's not shown what's not. No, ma'am. Okay. Um, furthermore, the property line actually runs at an angle resulting in the impossibility of a perfectly parallel structure to the line, which has been mentioned by the county. Um, the garage and workshop, um, was existing and access to the garage is on the eastern side of the building. Uh, there was the existing concrete pad and existing alignment of the driveway. These were all built prior to the applicant's home purchase, resulting in no input from the applicant as to where future building could occur. Um, has the, um, concrete pad that existed when you purchased the property, has that been modified at all? Has it been expanded, um, with the structure that, um, you've built? No, ma'am. It has not. Okay. Is there a photo somewhere, um, either in your materials or maybe in the county's materials, um, that shows the poles and where they go into the ground? Uh, yes, I do believe so. Uh, here you can see the existing concrete pad, and then these are the northernmost poles on the structure. And, um, is that photo in the materials that you provided to me? Yes, ma'am. This is under exhibit four. So those poles, um, don't have concrete around them? Uh, under the base they do, but they're not, so when they're dug down, there is concrete and rebar that was used to meticulously place these. Uh, for additional support to prevent any impact from hurricane winds. Okay. So that's, um, under the ground level. Yes, ma'am. Okay, but, um, they sit outside the perimeter of the concrete pad that was existing. Correct. I'd also like to reference that another variance that was staff recommended for approval and was approved in which it was stated reasonable to place proposed structure in line with the existing driveway. And this will also allow the proposed structure to be in line with the existing enclosed bay garage. This was from LDL VAR 2023-57. There is no difference between that matter versus this matter. Um, regarding if special conditions and circumstances exist that do not result from the actions of the applicant first, there was no deliberate or wrongful action by the applicant. Uh, the county staff has stated the ignorance on our part and lack of adherence. And that was, um, via the setback acknowledgement form. This is exhibit 13. Uh, however, this setback acknowledgement form that from the county was signed in 2020, whereas our project was not contracted until March of 2021 and commenced in June of 2021. Uh, each project requires its own setback acknowledgement form to be submitted. Uh, therefore this form is not applicable to our project. Um, additionally, the builder has sent in the paperwork, um, respective to our project. project that was submitted into the county portal. Um, this is exhibit 14. So what was this setback acknowledgement for? Um, I can't speak to that as that was one that was provided by the county, but it's not part of our paperwork. It was submitted by your contractor. No, ma'am. We did not. Um, the builder, uh, the builder actually, uh, provided us with all of the documentation that they submitted through the county portal. The setback acknowledgement form was not a part of that. Furthermore, with that being said, uh, there's a, uh, Casey Hodge, your contractor. Uh, yes, ma'am. Okay. Go ahead. Um, furthermore, uh, there was the record summary report from the county. This is going to be exhibit 11 and I'll be referencing page two and page five specifically. Uh, you will see that on the record summary report from the county, there is an indication of a setback acknowledgement form that is blank indicating that a setback acknowledgement form was not received for our project. Okay. On page five, you'll see, um, uh, same exhibit, exhibit 11. You'll also see, um, that the form received, um, or that all of the forms, uh, were received and the mandatory inspections were completed and sign off, signed off on resulting in a properly obtained and approved permit for our structure. I'm sorry, say that again, are you trying to tell me that the, the permit was, um, a valid permit? Yes, ma'am. It was a valid permit. Okay. The county signed off on everything. Okay. Now the staff has also advised that setbacks are not required during inspections, yet the building permit card that's placed on our structure during the inspection process does clearly denote a section for setbacks to be listed and reviewed and signed off on during the inspection process. There are no setbacks listed on our permit card. Therefore, the inspector would be unaware that those needed to be inspected. Now, these circumstances have all led to the failure of due diligence on the- You're going to have to slow down just a minute, please, for me to catch up. No problem. I am looking at the building permit form that is part of exhibit 12. And okay. So now I see the setback section. And tell me again your point there. So it is clear that setbacks are part of the building permit inspection process. None were notated on ours for the inspector to review. Therefore, the inspector would not have reviewed those upon coming out. Had they been properly notated as they should have been, it would have been completed by the inspector. Okay. Go ahead. So these circumstances have all led to the failure of due diligence on the county's part, failing to complete a proper review of the project and reject or request corrections at any part during the properly adhered to process on the applicant's part for the permit. The county staff has also conducted improper measurements when reviewing this matter. The staff has assumed the property line was accurate solely based on the placement of the fence. However, evidence shows that the fence is on the western side of the property line, unlawfully on the applicant's property. The staff completed their measurements of the pole or of the pole barn posts and overhang based on the posts of the fence. Those fence posts are four by four and the top bar is approximately one inch and the property line is about one point one to one point five inches from the fence. And what are you using to make those measurements? We measured based on the survey that we had done, running a line from the north end to the south end to properly measure the property line. Okay. Are those a surveyor's measurements that you're providing me and you can show me a documentation of that? The survey that is within the packet does show the proper measurements. The line that we ran is based on those exact measurements. Okay, the survey that's in the packet shows what? Does it show, I mean, tell me based on the survey that's in the packet, what your point is here? So it's a boundary survey. So it denotes mainly the four corners of the property. So using the measurements of those four corners, you can gauge where the property line is by properly placing a survey marker, which has been done on all four corners of the property. So we took a line based on those survey measurements, just a string, and we ran it from the front to the back. Are you a licensed surveyor? No, ma'am, I am not. Okay. Are you Mr. Riley? Okay. I understand. And I'm not here today to, you know, to decide where the fence is. My questions earlier and now are solely based on trying to assess, you know, how far the poles are from the property line, not the fence. But, absolutely. Again, I'm not a licensed surveyor either, but that presumes that it is, in fact, a straight line from point to point, and not every property line is. But, okay. And the pertinent point here is the distance between the structure and the property line and not the fence. And I am going to have to ask you when you speak to speak into the microphone because we're not picking you up when you're not leaning into it. Okay. That's fine. Okay. So this picture that I put up here shows the measurements that we did once we ran that line to show the distance that the front post, this is the front post, is from the property line, not the fence itself. So you see here it's actually over two foot, which the county notated that it was less than one foot, or less than two feet, sorry. And then this is the back post indicating that it is about one foot nine inches, where it was indicated as less by the county. Okay. And those photos are in exhibit, what? 8B and 8C. Okay. All right. Lastly, the assertion that lack of adherence cannot serve as grounds for a variance warrant scrutiny. This imposes an untenable burden upon homeowners to possess expertise and property delineation measurements and precise setback standards, while absolving the county of their obligation to evaluate or signal concerns regarding noncompliance, this directly contravenes the review procedures that is enshrined in section 903, which mandates administrative scrutiny by the county staff. In regards to if this confers any special privilege upon us, it does not. Many property owners in the area have large structures. Exhibit 10 will show this. And this variance will allow for the structure to remain in place without impacting the surrounding properties. In Exhibit 10, I took a satellite image of the surrounding area, and I actually overlaid this with the property appraiser property lines as best as I could. You'll see that I would venture to say about 90% of the properties in our area have similar or the same exact structures. And the red lines show the structures? Yes, ma'am, the red circles. Okay, but are these showing me structures that are in close proximity to a property line, or are they showing me large structures in the vicinity? Just the large structures in the vicinity. Okay. And you'll see that there are many structures that are the same. In fact, this one is almost identical to ours, but on a much larger scale. The same goes for this structure, very similar, but on a much larger scale. And I won't go through all of these for the sake of time. Yes, I see them here. I've been flipping through them while you speak about them. So I've taken a look at all of them. Also, as previously stated, the staff has commented that the applicant's ignorance of the setback requirements is not a reason to grant the variance. Yet other variances have been granted based on the unknown knowledge of the setback requirements. I'll reference LDLVAR 2023-3. In fact, their only special privilege in this matter is a sensibly conferred upon the complainant whose son serves in a capacity within the land development division, specifically overseeing variance requests. This raises legitimate concerns regarding potential bias, undue reviews, and predisposed outcomes, presumably aligning with the complainant's interest, warranting scrutiny of the fairness, and impartiality of the adjudicatory process. If this variance was not granted, there would be unnecessary and undue hardship upon the applicant. The poll burn has been established since 2021 without any substantiated evidence indicating injurious impact or detrimental ramifications to public welfare. The structure does align judiciously with the existing features of the property. For example, again, the pre-existing driveway, pre-existing concrete pad, and the garage workshop. There are multiple peculiarities to the land, as previously mentioned, impacting the placement of the structure. We have adhered to the prescribed procedures, placing trust not only in the contracted builder, but also the county to fulfill their regulatory framework. Any lapse in deficiency in regulatory compliance attributable to the county's actions precipitates undue hardship upon the applicant who did not engage in deliberate or knowing conduct to precipitate the present predicament. Furthermore, the cost of moving or modifying the structure will be undue hardship, as we do not have funding to move or modify the structure. Doing so would cost thousands of additional dollars on top of the original construction cost. Regarding this making reasonable use of the land, building, or structure, granting the variance does allow for the minimum use possible for use of the land, building, structure, as the pole barn has already been constructed and in place since June of 2021, and again aligns judiciously with the driveway and garage workshop access. The current location also provides access to water and electricity for the structure. The property line is angular, therefore parallel to the slab, as stated by the staff, will never be 100% parallel to the property line. In fact, the structure aligns perfectly with the slab currently, and there is meticulous placement of the post required due to the existing concrete slab and the additional safety precautions taken to ensure a sturdy build to withstand hurricane winds. These precautions include the depth of the post, the rebar connections, and the crossings that were a part of the base of the post and in concrete, along with the extra layers of plywood under the roof. Can you elaborate on what you mean by the current location also provides access to water and electricity for the structure? Yes, our workshop that we have in the back already has electricity run to it, so we can pull the electricity from that existing structure, and then there is also a water line that goes back there from our septic and drain field and everything. And how would that be different if the structure met the setback? If it met the setback? Yeah. How does the setback reduction that you're requesting have any bearing on that statement? That doesn't directly, but the indication that we could have placed the structure in a different location on the property does. Okay, elaborate on that. So there's been indication that we could have placed the structure differently on the property. Again, we have a decent-sized property, but nowhere else on the property would there be access to water or electricity. So therefore, where it's currently located is the best applicable place for access to that water and electricity. Could water and electricity be run to a different location on the property? It would cost thousands and thousands of dollars because you would have to dig trenches, you'd have to run wires, conduit, all kinds of stuff, whereas this access was already pre-existing. So in conclusion, our request is in accordance with the general intent and purpose of the code. It is not injurious to the area or detrimental to public welfare. There are special conditions that do exist that are peculiar to the land and structure. The special conditions and circumstances are not solely a result of the applicant actions. Granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege. The applicant has demonstrated that unnecessary and undue hardship would occur if the variance were denied. The variance requested is the minimum variance to make use of the property, and the variance does not change the use of the land, does not result in the creation of a residual lot or parcel, and does not circumvent a condition or the intent of condition per the Planning and Commission or the BOCC. Is that the end of your comments? Yes, ma'am. So your first variance application, LDL-VAR 2022-64, was denied, and I think that order was dated October 5th of 2022, but you didn't take the structure down. We were advised to reapply within that order. You were advised to reapply? On the front page of that order, it says denial. I don't have it in front of me, so I can't cite it word for word, but it does say denial, but it tells us to reapply for the variance. I don't believe it tells you you should reapply. It says that you may reapply. Our understanding was that we should reapply. So we have reapplied and followed the proper procedure again to do so. So you walked me very quickly through a number of exhibits. I've done my best to keep up with them and to ask questions where I have them, but there's this packet that you haven't gone through. So those are just additional supporting documents. Some of the other variance cases that I referenced that are similar or identical to what we have requested for our variance, all of those were staff recommended for approval and approved with the same or similar existing conditions as ours. So to us, that additional documentation can be supportive to show that there has been bias and unfair, I can't say the word at the moment. I'm talked out, process in this evaluation that we feel is relevant to the circumstances of the complaint and sign working directly for the land use hearing department. Land use development or land development department. Yes. Sorry. Okay. I think this was also part of your submittal, or maybe it came in otherwise. I'm not sure. But I believe we have 25 letters of support. Were those provided by you? Those are all of our neighbors that are residing within the area. They all fully support our request for granting this variance. Okay. So I am just from flipping through them, not having read all 25 of them, but it appears they are all the same. Yes. I just printed a standard form. I walked through it with them. If they had additional questions or wanted to come see the structure, go through the packet of information that I had, I provided that and welcomed them to come down to our property and ask any questions that they had. We do have some that are here in support. I don't know if they want to get up and speak, but they are here in support of us. Okay. Anything else you'd like to say? That's all, Your Honor. Okay. Any additional questions you have? Let me double check. I do apologize. I do have one more statement. During the county's opening, they stated that the site plan indicated the location of the structure being built directly upon the concrete pad. In speaking with the builder, we were advised that that site plan is not required to be 100% to scale, nor is it required to outline the position of the post precisely. And there was also stated that there was a feeling of injurious impact, but there's been no substantiated proof. So that is an opinion. That's all I had. Okay. I believe somewhere in your application materials, the applicant made the statement that there is not any material difference of impact on the adjacent property with either a five-foot setback or a one-foot setback. Can you elaborate on that statement? I'm sorry. There was a statement that was made in your application materials that there is not a material difference of any impact that the structure will have on the adjacent property with either a one-foot setback or a five-foot setback. I think that's your opinion that you've stated in here, and I'm just looking for the basis for that statement. What I was trying to get to was under the code, on the overhang, you could have up to three feet overhang, and so I'm in violation of a two. So two feet of overhang, water running for two feet. If I could have the other 27 feet without gutters and just have two feet, I mean, a reasonable person would think two feet of overhang would not cause detrimental damage to anything, as opposed to me putting 30 feet of gutters, which if the building was not two feet over, I didn't have to put gutters, and you still have water coming down, and that would be perfectly legal. So I'm willing to put 30 feet of gutters to move the water away from the eastern part of my property. And I'm only asking for 30 feet or whatever the length of the building is. I'm not planning to build anything else since I know about the setback, and not to make a mistake I made or a combination of mistakes, because on the drawing that was submitted to the county, it did not show the placement of the post, which was five feet, and yet the permit was approved. So that should have been a red flag. As a person who has never built a building before, you would think the people who give you the permit and who does this kind of work would assist a citizen trying to do something correctly. Okay. Anything else? No, Your Honor. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. Does the county want to respond to anything that was said in there, or do you want me to move to public comment and then respond at the end after public comment in case there are other issues that come up during public comment? I would like to make a couple of statements. Thank you. In terms of conflict of interest, certainly that's something that we talked a lot about, and I was particularly chosen for this, because I don't normally do any variances I don't normally present here. I am not Mr. Nance's supervisor, nor do I normally review his work in the office, so I'm more separated from him than other staff. I am an over-25-year member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, 29-year employee with Polk County, so I've been around a long time and do lots of documents that get submitted in terms of the record. But anyway, I just wanted to mention that, and there were no identified floodplain or wetlands on the subject property. Did you want to address any of the building permit issues, or are you going to save that for my questions later? Okay, very good. Okay, well, this is a public hearing, so I will open up this application for public comment. Is there anyone who came here today to speak in support of the application? They can fill out a form now if they would like to speak. If they don't have to speak, it's totally up to the individual. Okay, seeing no one come forward, then I'm going to assume there's no one here to speak in support of the application. Is there anyone here who came today to speak in opposition to the application? You may come forward. I'm the neighbor to the east. And if I could ask you to say your name again into the microphone, please. Fred Nance. Great, thank you. I just want to make sure our recording picks everything up. I've got a picture or two here that I'd like to get in. She can put it up. Yeah, for an angle, another photo. Very good, and before you get going, although you have said you are the neighbor to the east, if you could give us your address, please. 67-14 Broken Arrow Trail South Lakeland. Thank you. If you're going to speak to the photograph, I'm sorry, but you're going to need to speak into the microphone, or we can move you to the podium if that helps. I just, they need to be able to hear you on the recording. This photo that's shown, if you look at the lower right-hand corner, you'll see water, okay? If you look upstream of that to the west, you see the pole barn. So any activities that are going on in this pole barn end up with rainfall runoff coming into that pond. If you look, you can actually see the elevation difference in the corner of the pond where flow coming from that direction has scoured down, scoured, not sourced, to eat that out. The other thing that's going on is you're now bringing water over there, so vehicle traffic's going through a wet spot all the time and tearing up the ground. The damage done by the builders of the pole barn, I went out and fixed myself because they left it torn up from trucks and heavy equipment being in there. But the whole purpose of this photo is you can see the relationship between the pole barn, you can see the relationship with the deep well for my drinking water, which I don't appreciate people spraying oils and fertilizers and other stuff around. So if you now take that pole barn and let it capture, the roof of it capture the water, bring it down to the eave, you've got a very high flow rate of water along that eave where it runs down. The concrete pad that was there before did the same thing. It effectively stopped when it rained. It rained to the slab. That takes the energy out of the water, and it goes off gently. If you drop it from 20 feet up, the rain coming down has a very high velocity and scours the dirt out. You might could put gutters on it and catch it, but sitting underneath the pine trees that are there, it'll take more than average maintenance. The other thing that I heard repeatedly that flies into the face of what was done is on the permit application, if you look at page S3, you'll see that this concrete slab is not there. The design drawings call for soil, and it's written out that way on the document. In the drawing that was submitted with, in the staff report, is that what you mean? No, in the actual application, they had diagrams and information on how to construct the pole barn, and I think it's page S3. If you look at it, it says... I don't know that I have that. If I do have it, someone's going to have to tell me what exhibit it is. Earlier, I had held up this 11 by 17 document. Okay. There is a page S3 on there. You'll have to forgive me. Much of this information was handed to me as I walked in today, so I'm not as familiar with the materials as many of you are. Ah, S3. Okay. I'm now looking at S3. You'll have to stand next to the microphone, sir. I'm sorry. You'll know the document. In the middle, you see we're out. It says soil. Soil floor, no slab. Mm-hmm. How is that... You don't know what's under the slab. He says the slab was there when he got there, so he has no idea what's underneath that slab. It could be anything. And when you're saying now that you're tying that to a foundation, that doesn't make much sense. Most engineers that I know will not design something that they don't have control over. Okay. How does that tie into your concerns about how this structure and the setback reduction affects your property? The setback doesn't matter on this. What I'm concerned about is the structural strength of the structure when you see that it wasn't built as designed. The other problem that these things cause is encroachment. Because you've moved up into that property, you've now made it where I can't necessarily build a road to get to the back half of my property because the pole barn and such is there. So I have to do something in the future if I want to put a house on the back half of my property to improve a road down through there, which is probably going to mean filling in the corner of that pond because of the way the structure is built. You can't bring a large vehicle along the east side of the fence into the back half of the property. You can't build on your property because of the structure that is close to the property line on his property? This corner of the property that's up on the film, to get through there, you can see there's a power pole and some other stuff out there. To get through there with like a concrete mix truck, if you leave this thing coming up to the edge of the pond, the truck won't be able to get through there. Are you saying, and I'm just trying to follow along here, are you saying that in order to build on the edge of your property, you would need vehicles to go onto your neighbor's property? I'm saying I will have to fill the pond in or go on the neighbor's property. Based on what I heard today, I don't think that's likely. Okay. That's my only, it limits, it's encroaching on my property rights again. Okay, would you have had to go on your neighbor's property if the structure wasn't there? No. Then I don't understand, I don't understand why that is. To build road in there, you're going to have to come up some height and make sure that it doesn't flood. And so if that pole barn's back there, depending on how far out that road base spreads, you won't be able to get through there because you'll have shoulders where the shoulders drop off. All of that would need to be built on your property regardless, correct? But there's not room to fit it in if pole barn is there. Why do you need part of your neighbor's property to support the road? Because of the width of the road and the shoulders on the road. So part of the shoulder for the road that you might build there would need to be on your neighbor's property? Correct, or into the pond. Okay. So when I look at this thing and it says, are you causing impacts or affecting the environment and other stuff, you are, because you're moving up into those areas. Okay. Right? And that's really all I've got. Everybody else has covered the other things I was going to say. Okay, well you submitted a fairly lengthy letter to the county, which I have reviewed, that was provided to me in advance. You also provided your resume or CV with that. But was the intention of providing that to demonstrate that you have some special expertise in some of the, that support some of the comments that you've made? I'm not relying on a professional certification or anything to do that. I just, I was asked to turn in a resume, so I did. Okay, the county asked you to do that? Yes. Okay. I do have a few questions based on your letter, so I want to make sure I understand your comments. Okay. There's a statement in your letter under discussion of comment one that says the poles are not attached to the slab or otherwise connected to the posts. Correct. What is the difference between the poles and the posts for someone who is not a construction person here? Typically a pole is very large diameter, 15, 20 foot, whereas a post is four by four and eight foot long. So, are there both poles and posts in this construction? Yes. Well, the property fence or post. Okay. The power pole sitting back to the right is a pole. Yes. So, that's, there's the differentiation, just the size of them. Okay. Okay. What was the purpose in making the statement? The poles are not attached to the slab or otherwise connected to the posts? Well, it's, it's not providing the same support as if it was concreted in. If the post was set and concreted, it'd be one thing, but you don't know what's underneath that existing slab. Okay, thank you. You've made the statement that rainfall runoff has impacted your pond and your property due to the impervious surface and the roof elevation causing increased rainfall runoff. Can you describe the impacts and have you measured those? When you get rainfall onto a hard roof like that, it comes to the edge and however how far it is from that edge to the ground surface, when it comes, when rain comes off that edge, it accelerates, goes down and scours out soils. If it, if it comes together and makes a, a little creek or a rivulet, if you will, you can get erosion in that fashion too. And are you saying that has occurred on your property? Yes, it has. I was, you can see it a little bit on this photo that just to the right hand side of the water tank, the ground dips down deeper than the rest of the area out there. And that's from scour moving dirty out into the pond. And was it not like that before the structure was built? Yes, it was, but it's, it will be worse with the structure there. Okay. So it's increased since the structure was built. Okay. And you've also got the statement in your letter that, um, the runoff, um, volume and rate of flow has increased. Right. And the basis for that statement is that measurements, is that visual observation? What I just was saying that when you make the drop from the edge of the roof to the ground, whatever size raindrop it is accelerates. And so if you take that water and spread it out along an edge, it's one thing. If you bring it up into a smaller, it's a much higher flow velocity. The existing thing was the concrete slab. The concrete slab acts differently. It takes the energy out into the slab itself and then it flows off. Um, you've also stated that there are, um, that the structure and it's decreased setback has the potential to impact the well on your property and the water supply. Can you elaborate on that please? Well, if you get a heavy rainfall and you've increased the flow rate coming away from the edge of the roof, you can come over and submerse that well. It's a submersible well. And so you can get in the electrical controls and stuff. If you cause the edge of flow along that edge to increase. And just for clarity, what happens if the well is submerged or the electric? Then I have no water because that's sole supply of water in there. Fine. And I just need you to make that statement so I don't draw that conclusion myself. Has that happened yet? No, it has not. Is there anything else you would like to add? No, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, before I close public comment, I will again ask if there's anyone else here today who would like to speak to this application, either for or against. Okay. Seeing no one, I'm going to go back to county staff, um, because I'd like some, um, um, response from the county on the issues raised. By the applicant regarding the building permit and other documents that were, you know, associated with the building permit, um, the acknowledgement form, et cetera. Uh, so, um, good. It's a good question. I stepped outside to talk to staff about those forms and are they required to be submitted every single, with every single building permit. So I was informed that when a con all the contractors are to be registered with the building division and there are certain forms and certain processes that happen at that time that don't have to happen with every building permit. I.e., so if they get registered, that means they can go through the permitting process faster. That form was signed by the contractor in 2020 and therefore the permitting staff don't require it every single time because once he signed it, he acknowledges that he knows it's his responsibility to pay attention to setbacks for any building permits that he then applies for after that. Okay, so is it correct to say then that that form is not submitted for each and every building permit application or even each and every client that the contractor works for? Correct. Okay, so that form is tied to the contractor, not to the property that the work is being done on? In terms of yes, well, yes, I guess it is. That, so that, it's an acknowledgement that that that's how he will perform his work with every building permit that he applies for. Okay. And it's on, in his file, if you will, digitally in the building division. So look up contractor so-and-so, has he, has that contractor, he or she have all the forms that would be required when we register a contractor. Check, check, check. Okay. Billing permit can be issued. At least that would not be an issue in terms of issuing a permit for a contractor. What does it mean for a contractor to be registered with Polk County? I don't know the full answer to that question, but based on my time when we had planner on call in the building division on the first floor and my conversations with staff members that registered contractors, it's the ideas that they check to make sure they've got all their licenses and bonding and that they can perform work in Polk County, you know, trying to do what we can to ensure that our citizens are getting work done by a proper contractor. Okay. Let's now move to the building permit that was shown by the applicant during their comments and the setback line. Do you have copies of these materials that were provided? I do not. You do not. By the applicant, no. Yeah, okay. Today, I do not. I imagine some of them are staying. I understand. Okay, right. Okay. So I'm looking at what was Exhibit 12 in their materials, which I realize you don't have, but it's called building permit. It looks very much like a building permit. And it appears to be for, well, it's permit number BR 2021-2693 for a 30 by 30 by 14 open pole barn on eight by eight posts. The setbacks, and again, this is a form, so the setbacks are a line on the form. There's space for a number to be written or typed in for the front, left side, right side, rear, and two other lines. But there are no numbers put in on this particular applicant or this particular permit. Do you know who would normally put those in? Is that the building department? Is it someone else? I don't know with 100% certainty. I know it's not a planner that would do it. I would assume it would be the building permit technician staff or somebody because then I'm familiar with that form having to be on site in those white boxes or some kind of plastic bag so that when there's some inspection, that that can be used by the building inspector as reference. That's my educated answer. Does the planning department have anything to do with this form? No, ma'am. Do you know if when a building inspector is on site inspecting a structure that they are there to verify the setbacks, to verify that the structure complies with the setbacks? It has been my understanding for as long as I've worked here that that is not what they are there to verify. In addition, it's never been the decision or policy of the Board of County Commissioners to require surveys for building permits. So it's voluntary that citizens submit those surveys if they choose. Do you have any other comments or response to the assertions that were made by the applicant regarding the procedures used by the county on this particular application and on the general assertions about the interplay between the building department and the development department? No. No, I do not. Anything else you would like to add in support of the county's position? Nothing that I've already said on the record. Okay. Fair enough. Okay. Well, I think that concludes our discussion of this application. We will move on to the next one. Thank you. Our next case is L. I'm going to ask you to pause just for one minute because this case went on for so long. I will allow you to come back up very briefly to say whatever it is you want to say, but it must be brief. Yes. My primary thing that I would like to note is that the complaint himself stated that he does not care about the setback. So in regards to this request, the complaint is actually invalid. Furthermore, he's basing this off of a theorized construction of future development on his property, which has no direct impact to our property nor the standing structure. There was also mention of scouring. There's been no proof of scouring provided. In fact, in the exhibits that I provided you, one of the exhibits will show that the pond has remained the same from 2019 to current. The structure that was there before was almost identical. The difference was that it was slightly shorter. So in the 20 years that that structure was previously there, the complaint had no concern of rainwater impact to his pond, the adjacent property, nor his well. And again, it was almost an identical structure. So how there is relevance to that impact for this structure versus a structure that was there for 20 years is an opinion-based. What it comes down to is, again, we followed the proper process. I'm also concerned about the county requesting a resume from him. My question would be, was he supposed to be an expert witness? Why exactly was a resume requested if he was not an expert witness? But I'd like to, again, reinforce, he clearly stated he does not care about the setback. He's more concerned that he wanted to use our property for future development. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. Okay. I do believe we are now done with LDLVAR 2023-65, and we'll move on to LDLVAR 2023-43. LDLVAR 2023-43, River Ranch Height Variance. This is a request for a variance of 14 feet 6 inches from the maximum 50-foot height limitation in the Leisure Recreational Land Use District. The subject property is located at 3200 River Ranch Boulevard, located south of State Road 60, west of the Kissimmee River, east of River Ranch Boulevard, and east of the cities of Lake Wales and Frost Proof, in Section 23, 31, 31. 323 mailers were sent April 10, 2024. 323? 323. Okay. It's a very compact development. Got it. Various properties. One board was posted on the property April 1, 2024. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on April 12, 2024. Staff has received no response from any members of the public. Mark Bennett is the case planner. Good afternoon. For the record, Mark Bennett, Land Development Division. Let me go ahead and go through a couple slides here to summarize the case. In addition to the request for a variance from the maximum 50-foot height limitation in the LR, Leisure Recreational Land Use District, the variance is also necessary to comply with the requirements of Chapter 6, Section 642, which is our military compatibility zones portion of the land development code. That provision also requires any structure taller than 50 feet in a military compatibility zone, and this is in Zone 1. It must also obtain a variance. Staff is recommending approval. This picture shows the general location of River Ranch on the east side of the county. Next couple slides will provide more detail as to the exact location of River Ranch generally and the site specifically. You can see State Road 60 on the area on the left. You can see State Road 60 on the left, River Ranch Road, to the site, and then within the 187-acre parcel, the site is on an area called the project area shown in yellow, excuse me, orange here. This is a more detailed view of the site as it exists today. Currently, the site does have a one-story structure, marina building located here, which is used for retail uses and a restaurant. The proposed site plan is to have two four-story mixed-use buildings generally located here and here. These buildings will be flex space, office space, food built, beverage on the first floor with residential units on the second through fourth floors. This is a drawing of what it would look like, and this is relevant because you can see the architectural features on the top of the structure, which is part of the reason for the request. And this slide here in particular shows, I put it in a red circle here, what the variance is for, and it relates to the maximum height of the roof on the building. And also, this drawing here shows the first floor and then the second, third, fourth floors where the residential units will be located. And to summarize, staff is recommending approval. We find it meets the criteria for a variance in Section 931. We do not foresee any impacts upon the joint properties. We did receive a message from representatives from the Avon Park Air Force Range. They have no objections to this request. We did that in part because of the fact that the property is in the military compatibility zone. Also, the applicant has obtained documentation from the FAA, Federal Aviation Administration. A determinant of no hazard to air navigation has been received. And I put that in the agenda. I think it was the last item. It's actually quite a few pages, but that document is in there also. An additional factor staff took into account is that, let me go back to this last slide here. So, it's our understanding that this will not be used for habitation and that the fourth floor, you can see the maximum height stops at 48 here. So, because this would not be used for habitation, there wouldn't be any potential adverse impacts as a result of the increased height. So, for these reasons, staff recommends approval. I'll stand for any questions, and then the applicant is here also. As I understand it, part of the support for the request or part of the basis for the request is a desire for the proposed structure to be consistent with the surrounding ranch resort. That's why the additional height is needed for the, in my words, decorative roof structure. Do you have photos of the structures that the proposed structure is consistent with? I didn't see anything like that in the packet that shows how this blends with the... I did not, but I, of course, did the site visit to post the sign, so I can attest that there are similar buildings. This building here is of a similar type with a sharp roof. Also, I've been out to River Ranch a couple times just there also. So, I understand the applicant's intent and concur with it. Okay. And, of course, the applicant may be able to answer that better, too. Sure. So, this is a sort of a basic question, I guess, but what is the Avon Park Air Force Range? Bear with me just a minute. I've got a slide here, and if I can figure out how to unhide it. It is. Okay. Yeah, the Avon Park Air Force Range is located in the extreme southeastern portion of the county. It's, although it has the name Air Force Range on it, it is used by all branches of the military for various training purposes. Runway, other training activities occur. I've actually participated some when I was in the military out there. The purpose and intent of the compatibility zone is the one recognized that the Air Force Range is there to ensure that any land use activities near the range do not somehow impact the operations and activities at the range. Okay. Yeah. There's a statement in the staff report that there are no permanent or full-time residents living in the resort. Right. The intent. And, you know, again, I'm not from Polk County, so I have never been on site. Okay. So if there aren't full-time residents there, what is there? I'll try and give you a brief summary of River Ranch Resort. Basically, it's a western-themed place to stay. They have a rodeo out there. I've been out there for retreats, corporate retreats, things like that. But I've actually also had the opportunity to go to the marina, get on an airboat, and go up and down the Kissimmee River, which is right next to it. So it's a typical leisure recreation use in that it's designed towards recreational activities. They have fancy tents that are called glamping that you can rent out there. So, yeah, the name describes it well, and it's a resort. Okay. Fair enough. Part of the reason why I asked is because of the 323 notices that were sent. So if they aren't residents on site, there must be a high density around that property. The properties are individually – some of the properties are individually owned, but they're recreational. Okay. They're not residential. So they get notices. The closest is there is a single-family subdivision that abuts the far end of the site opposite of – this is a 180-acre site, 180-plus. The request is on the far eastern side of the 188 acres. The single-family subdivision is on the far western side of that. And I'm not trying to make more out of that there is. I'm just trying to get a general sense of the context of the – The residents within the 500 feet of the property line were noticed. There is a – an ownership in the parcels within the RV parks that are to the south of the site. Okay. I think that's all I had for staff. Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant present? You can use either – if you have something to display, you can use that one. Otherwise, you could use the one in the middle. Yes, ma'am. I have a PowerPoint presentation. Okay. And I should be able to use that presentation and answer some of the questions that you raised. And I do have pictures. Wonderful. And if you could start off by giving us your name. Yes, my name is Andrew McCown. I'm with GAI Consultants in Orlando. Our address is 618 East South Street. And I am the applicant representing Westgate Resorts. And we also have a representative from the owner here as well. Okay. So a lot of the items were already discussed by Mr. Bennett. So I won't go through everything in detail. But I will discuss some of the questions, address some of the questions that you asked. So as he noted, we are in the very farthest southeast portion of the county you can practically get. And a little bit of history about River Ranch is that originated actually many decades ago in 1970s as a dude ranch resort and rodeo. It started as a DRI and still retains the DRI status today. There's almost 3,000 leisure residential units that are approved as part of that DRI. There's also a PD that dates from 1981, which was well before the adoption of the Polk County Comp Plan, which was in the year 2000. At the time of the PD adoption and the DRI, there was no height limitations established in the PD. I guess that wasn't part of how PDs were handled back then. And even the way PDs are handled today is significantly different than how they were back in the day. And also of note, River Ranch operates its own water wastewater utilities on site. So all of the units actually are part of an internal system. And they actually own and operate their own airstrip. Here's an aerial a little bit bigger than the one you saw before. This shows some of the features that are on site. You see the Kissimmee River, which kind of flows north-south there. The marina is right adjacent to the project site. The airstrip is to the northwest of the site, which comes into play also with some of the approvals that we have been seeking. The main gate is there located adjacent to the airstrip. And then there are other resort-related facilities surrounding the site, including RV parks and campsites. And as he noted, there are glamping sites. And there's campsites of all kinds as part of this overall development. I will note that the overall River Ranch property is thousands of acres. So that probably goes into why there were so many notices. There's a lot of perimeter associated with the acreage. Here's some photos that I pulled from some of their recent promotional material. But you can definitely see that there is an architectural aesthetic associated with this development. It is very western and very cowboy, very rodeo-themed. So you'll note that there are lots of metal roofs with steep pitches, a lot of rustic-type buildings. Some of them are open, some of them are closed, but there are a variety of facilities that use this exact same aesthetic adjacent to and around the entire development. A little bit closer in, you saw a very similar aerial before, but the current cafe and retail site is there adjacent to the marina today. You saw this one before. As Mr. Bennett noted, the architecture design of the site is mimicking the surrounding aesthetics to the greatest extent possible. Here's maybe a little bit better visual of the elevation. Shows a little bit more of the roof. You can see the steep pitch of the roof there with the max height of 64 feet, 6 inches. And I will note that the 50-foot height is not really conducive to having a four-story building just in general because you end up having, if you have a higher bottom floor like we are proposing this mixed-use building be, in case you don't know what mixed-use means, it generally means that there's a bottom floor that has something that's not residential. So, typically, you want a higher first floor to accommodate those uses, and then the three floors above, that gets you, just that gets you all the way up to the 50-foot height limit, and so that doesn't leave room for a roof or any kind of distinguishing architecture features above. This is the graphic of the military compatibility zone one in the kind of bright red with the river ranch site located. Just noting from the code where it actually highlights the variance requirement, any structure taller than 50 feet will require a variance compliance with section 930 of this LDC. The variance to the height requires an evaluation by the land-use hearing officer to determine if it will have negative impact on operations within the APAFR restricted airspace. That's just a close-up. So, we had an aviation specialist conduct an aeronautical study of the site to review if there would be any negative impacts, and this is actually part of the FAA's standard procedure for this kind of a construction project. Usually, it's not required at this stage of development or approval, but this was a requirement of other applications by the county, just to ensure that we didn't get too far down the road and then realize that, hey, you know, we're in trouble with the FAA already. So, part of the approval or the review by the FAA included a review of the temporary improvements during the construction and then also the permanent construction. And the result of that study was that the FAA found no hazard to air navigation either in the interim condition or in the final conditions. And there were a series of letters that came out as a result of that stating the no impacts. As part of that approval from the FAA, they did contact the range, and the range did not have any comments, as Mr. Bennett noted. And in addition to that, Mr. Bennett himself had correspondence with the range and, again, was reiterated that there were no negative impacts to the range. The other item was just related to the leisure recreation height limitation generally, which also is in the code section that I noted there. So, the justification, it's in your packet, but just to kind of go through the points, will the variance be injurious to the area involved or detrimental to public welfare? No, it will not have any negative effects to the surrounding area. The project itself is internal to the site. It's within a gated resort, and the resort itself has no permanent residence. It's surrounded by resort uses under common ownership for miles in any direction, literally, in some cases. And there was also determination of no hazard to air navigation by the FAA. Special conditions exist peculiar to the land structure or building involved. So, going back to the original PD, there was no height maximums established in the original PD. And so, it defaulted to a standard zoning height limitation when the comp plan was adopted. Today, I believe the standard practice of PDs is to adopt specific standards related to the PD. When did you buy the property and when was the structure built? So, the property was purchased by the current owner, Westgate Resorts, in 2001, but the resort and many of the structures existed prior to that. As I said, it goes back to the 1970s. The proposed structure is not yet built. What is the hardship if the variance is not approved? If the variance is not approved, the building design will have to be altered to either remove the roof detail, lower the number of stories, and thereby the number of units in the building, or remove the ground floor amenities and mixed use, in which case it would just become a residential building at that point. The architectural style at that point would not really be as cohesive with the surrounding buildings or the facilities or amenities. And, therefore, that is the hardship that we are claiming. Is this the minimum variance required for the reasonable use of the land? The minimum height variance requested is to accommodate just the roof detail as designed. And there is no homeowners association as part of this development. And with that, we're here to answer any other questions you have. I think you have addressed all of the questions either that I've already asked staff or that I had noted to ask of you. So, your presentation was very thorough, and I appreciate that. Have you submitted your presentation to the county staff? Has it made a part of the record? The presentation is on this computer. So, if that constitutes submitting it, then yes. Yes, yes. Okay, so I'm going to identify that as an exhibit. Okay, very good. Okay, anything else you wanted to add? No, ma'am, unless the owner has anything else. Nope. Okay. That'll be it. Great, thank you. So, I will now open up this application for public comment. Is there anyone who came here today to speak regarding this application, either for or against? Seeing no one, we will close public comment, and I believe that concludes the discussion of this case, and we will move to LDLVAR 2024-4. Our next case is LDLVAR 2024-4, Grand Canal Drive variants. The applicant is requesting a rear primary setback reduction from 15 feet to 11 feet to add a solid roof on an existing screen room enclosure. The subject property is located at 417 Grand Canal Drive, Lot 382 of the Sola Vida Subdivision, Phase 3A. It's south of Walnut Street, east of Marigold, north of Via Veneto Court, west of Grand Canal Drive, in the Ponciana area of Polk County, in Section 24, Township 27, Range 28. On April 10th, 35 mailers were sent to local property owners. One board was posted on the property on April 9th. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on April 12th. No response has been received. Melissa Celestine is the case planner. Good afternoon. For the record, Melissa Celestine with Land Development, presenting LDLVAR 2024-4. Sorry. The staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request to reduce the rear primary setback from 15 feet to 11 feet to add a solid roof and an existing screen room enclosure. The subject site is located south of Walnut Street and east of Marigold Avenue. The property is located in the pre-DRI of Ponciana, and the development is also associated with PUD 9812. The property is identified as Lot 382, located within Phase 3 of the Silavita subdivision. By replacing the screen roof with a solid roof, the structure is considered a part of the principal residence and is required to meet the principal structure rear yard setback of 15 feet. This slide identifies previously approved variances for rear setback reductions within this section, township, and range. It also depicts how the rear of the lot backs up to the stormwater pond. Here you can see homes with similar structures within the vicinity of the site, and there was an approved variance in 2019 to the northwest, to the northeast. I apologize. Here is the site plan. The footprint will not change, so the structure will remain outside of any noted easements. To the right is an example of what the applicant would like to achieve. Approval of the request will simply allow the homeowner to be protected from the elements while enjoying the outdoors. Here are just some site visit photos. Here you can see the stormwater pond identified as track PA911. Many variances have been approved throughout Silavita due to the established lot sizes and associated setbacks. The site also abuts the stormwater pond, and there is a five-foot utility easement to the rear of the property. Therefore, the rear setback reduction will still allow for maintenance between the structure and the rear yard, or the rear property line. With that, I thank you, and I'll stand for questions. Can you go back to a photo of the site of what's currently there? Like this? Not an aerial, a ground view. Okay, so is it going to be the exact same structure just with a hard roof? There's no change to what's on the ground now? Correct, yeah. So they're going to make it just like this one right here. So this is their neighbor. Okay, and so their neighbor has a hard roof. Yeah. Did the neighbor need a variance for that? No, I didn't find one for this one. Okay. We don't know whether the neighbor needed a variance. We know the neighbor doesn't have a variance, and we're going to leave it at that. Correct. All right. Very good. Okay. Let me take a look through and see if I had any questions that you didn't cover in your report. So I did have a question about whether there is an HOA. I assume there is because of the location. And I see in the digital file that there is a letter from the HOA approving, so I've noted that. Okay. I think you covered everything that I had, so thank you. Is the applicant present? Great. And if you could come forward to our podium in the middle, please, and start off by giving us your name. And also, if you could tell me if you were sworn in at the beginning of the hearing. Yes, I was. Okay, great. Okay, Marjorie Morant, 417 Grand Canal Drive, Kissimmee, Florida. Okay. So you've heard staff's presentation. Is there anything you would like to add in support of your application? No. I just, no, I have no questions. Well, not just questions, but is there anything you would like to add or say in addition that supports your application? Well, supports because everyone's got one there and done it. I don't know why. It's not taking up any land. It's just to cover over what's there. Okay. So one of the criteria that staff and I have to evaluate when considering an application for a variance is hardship, something, some hardship to the property owner, something that is unique to the property or the property owner, that supports deviating from the standard requirements and granting the variance. Can you elaborate on that and describe what hardship there is? Hardship for me, you mean? Yes. To do this? If this weren't granted. No, there's no hardship. Well, hardship is something that we need to evaluate, you know, a reason for reducing the setback. For not doing it? A hardship for not doing it? A hardship. If this isn't granted, what hardship will? None whatsoever, I guess. My daughter sits out there all the time. She's disabled. And so we want more coverage for her ability to spend the time out there. Does your daughter live with you? Yes. She's here today. Anything else you would like to add? No. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And I will now open up this application for public comment. Is there anyone who came here today to speak to this application, either for or against? And seeing no one, we'll close public comment. Anything else from staff? No, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. And we will now move on to LDL VAR 2024-9. LDL VAR 2024-9, Lake Millsite Drive. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the interior side setback from 5 feet to 2 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit, or a former garage that was converted to an accessory dwelling unit. The subject property is located south of Crystal Beach Road, north of Sheffield Road, east of Olbarto Eagle Lake Road, west of Highway 17, northwest of the city of Eagle Lake in Section 11, Township 29, Range 25. On April 10th, 14 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on April 5th. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on April 12th. Staff has received one letter in opposition. Melissa Celestine is the case planner. Good afternoon. For the record, Melissa Celestine with Land Development, presenting LDL VAR 2024-9. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the interior side setback from 5 feet to 2 feet for a detached garage that was converted into an accessory dwelling unit. Staff recommends approval. The subject site is located between Olbarto Eagle Lake Road and Highway 17 north. The site has a residential load 3 land use designation. According to Chapter 2, Table 2.2 of the Land Development Code, the accessory structure setbacks in the RL3 District are 5 feet for the interior size and rear property lines. The home was constructed in 1953. The detached garage was then built in 1979, and the applicant acquired the property in November 2021. The garage remains 2 feet from the southern property line. The applicant wishes to utilize the structure as an accessory dwelling unit. Although the garage is slightly ahead of the residence, it meets the intent of being in the side yard. While the garage is considered to be grandfathered in, changing it to an accessory dwelling unit requires the structure to comply with the current requirements of the Land Development Code. Therefore, the variance is required to bring the structure into compliance with the LDC. There is a shed on the southern property that is within close proximity to the ADU structure, but the applicant has obtained a 5-foot maintenance agreement with that property owner. At the time of permitting, the document will need to be recorded with the Clerk of Courts. As previously mentioned, the existing 758-square-foot detached garage was built in 1979, 2 feet from the southern property line. Over time, the structure evolved into a habitable residence. Although staff was unable to locate building permits, a pre-inspection was conducted by the building division on December 8, 2023, and confirmed that the structure was converted into a habitable space, but appeared to be well-constructed and maintained. During the permitting process, the as-built plans must either affirm that the structure meets all requirements for a single-family dwelling, or identified what must be done to bring the structure into compliance. Conversations with the homeowner suggest that the primary residence will be torn down and rebuilt in the future. While the home is being constructed, the hope is to reside in the ADU with the understanding that the primary residence will be built forward of the ADU. I have a couple of site visit photos that follow. So this one is showing, I tried to get a good direct picture of the SFR, I'm sorry, of the site-built residence and the accessory dwelling unit to kind of give you that, but even on the ground, it's pretty hard to see, okay, is it more in front or not, and that's why I included this picture to depict that for you. This is taking it from the rear, so this is the neighbor's carport, the neighbor's shed, and of course the ADU structure, and then the residence is the orange color to the back. Here's another one looking forward at the ADU structure and the neighbor's shed, and then this is just a close-up of the ADU structure and the neighbor's shed. So it is close, but it's not a habitable structure, so it didn't have to meet the 10-foot separation for that. And is there any separation requirement between a habitable structure and a non-habitable structure? There is a 10-foot separation when there's not a firewall. If it's an off-site property, on-site there's no requirements for separation. Okay, but this is off-site. This would be off-site, yes. So there's a 10-foot? 10-foot with this structure, because I don't see either one having a firewall with window openings. Right. And is there 10 feet between the structures? These two structures do not have 10 feet. That could require further changes to the building permit to increase the fire rating of the walls nearest the two structures, if they're both habitable structures. No, they're not. No, they're not. One is habitable. Sorry. The subject is habitable. The subject is habitable. It would be a six-foot setback or separation. Is there six feet? No, there's not. That property is very unique. Like, even when I went over there and I was looking at it, she even stated that the neighbor's flower bed that's there seems to be on her property, so there may be an issue of where those lines truly were at the time that this detached garage was built. But again, there were no permits that I found to say, okay, this is the actual distance that it was built from the property line, and there were no surveys. And again, as Shonda mentioned earlier, we don't necessarily require surveys at the time of permitting, if it happened anyway. This is just another picture from the inside of the ADU. So staff does recommend approval. The structure has remained in the same location since the 70s, and it meets the 10-foot separation requirement from habitable structures. The building division also conducted that inspection and determined that the structure appears to be well-constructed and maintained. The applicant was also able to acquire a five-foot maintenance agreement from the property-owned or to the south. So staff finds the request will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Now, today, right before coming down here, we did receive that objection letter. The objection letter is signed by the same homeowner that signed a maintenance agreement. I looked at the maintenance agreement. She hasn't recorded it yet. It was her intention to record it right after this hearing. But within that maintenance agreement, I personally feel that this one is going to uphold more than the objection letter because of that second-to-last sentence on that maintenance agreement, which reads, And this was signed and notarized, whereas the letter was just signed by the homeowner. So with that, I thank you, and I'll stand for questions. What is the distance between the ADU and the shed on the adjacent property? So I did not measure it, but this survey, I would say it's four feet because if you look at my dotted lines, the surveyor calls it a two-feet separation. But then if you look at the shed, it looks like it's pretty much the same distance on the neighboring property line. So I would be comfortable with saying it's about four feet just to be safe. I don't know if, Eric, you have another opinion on what you think. Yeah, I don't think we have enough information to tell. Yeah. Exactly. But that will be an issue with the building permit if that is the case. So is that something that if this were to be approved could be addressed in a condition of approval? Which part of it? The, the, any adjustments to the ADU that might be required for a building permit to address the separate, not, not moving the building, but additional fire protection or something like that? Yes. So at the time of building permits, those as-built plans, like I previously stated, it's going to either affirm that everything is okay or it's going to identify what's not okay. And whatever they find that is not okay, she would have to bring up to code in order to get that building permit issued for that structure. Okay. So that's going to be handled during the building permit process. And I don't need to include a condition of approval here that that be addressed because it's a separate process. Correct. I would be comfortable saying that. Okay. You understand, given earlier issues today, my concern about making sure the two departments work together? I do. And if you want to include a condition, I'm also okay with that. Either way, I'm comfortable with it. Well, I, I don't know if I, first of all, I don't know if I'm going to approve the, you know, but I also don't know if I need to include that. Nor do I know what it should say because I certainly am not a contractor or, you know, in the building department. The condition number four gives them one year to, to obtain all necessary building permits. I think that should. We would just rely on the building department to address that. Yes. There's, there's other ways in which to address building separations in the building code. So I don't know all of them at all the top of my head right now. Does approving this variance restrict the location of structures on the adjacent property? I would say no, because the shed is already there. And then if they, if either of those, if the shed were to be torn down, um, at the time of permitting, if they wanted to put it back, we would require that it meets the setbacks today. So any additional structure on either property would still have to meet the setback requirements of the LDC today. Okay. Which would be five feet. Correct. Okay. Um, and so if, if a habitable structure were to be built on the adjacent property, it would have to be five feet from the property line. Well, in this case, it depends on where it is, right? Um, because if it's a detached accessory structure, yes, it's going to be five feet because it's an accessory dwelling. Now, depending on the location, like if they were to try to put it where the shed is, then we may say no, or like Eric just stated, um, additional firewall or something like that. We would have to look into it. Okay. There are other ways to get around the 10 feet. Um, if I, I'm just trying to, you know, consider any impacts that may be felt by the adjacent property. So let me clarify if they're going to put another residential up against the ADU, then I would say, yes, we would say the setbacks is five feet, but because this existing ADU is there, it's a habitable structure. We would prefer if they met the 10 foot separation because of that. Oh, that verifies it. So it would have to be eight feet off the property line. And yes. To meet that only if it were in that direct location. Exactly. Right. The, just to point out the conversion from a, uh, just a garage to a, uh, residence does change those separations, uh, significantly. So it does further encumber the neighboring property to convert the structure where it is now to, uh, an accessory dwelling unit. Because it makes it a habitable structure, which changes the separation requirements. Yes. And it would, if the neighbor had intended to, uh, build a, uh, you know, a, uh, accessory dwelling unit with, within the setbacks, they would have to set back further than the minimum setback requirements because of the separation. So you've talked a bit about, um, the, uh, relationship between the primary structure and the ADU, uh, regarding, you know, which one is further forward and that, um, the, uh, desire is that the ADU be behind, that the front of the ADU be behind the front of the residence. And in this case, it is not. Well, the code calls it out to be at the side or to the rear of the primary residence. And because of the location of the shed and the location of the primary residence, um, I understand that it's very close and that's why we had a judgment call made by management for their determination of the intent of the structure. And so that's how we came to the determination that it meets the intent of being in the side yard. Okay. So there's already been an administrative determination that this is in, that this is to the side, that the ADU is to the side of the residence. That's correct. So, um, on page five of that staff report, you see the, the same site plan on there, but you see a line drawn. That's essentially what helped them to determine that it's so that it meets the intent of being to the side. And if, in fact, the owner does, uh, proceed with, um, demolishing the, uh, residential structure and building a new one, um, they would be required to put it on the property in such a way that the ADU is fully to the side. Exactly. Gotcha. And the same thing, if the ADU were to completely be torn down, then we would say, hey, you need to meet this setback of the current land development code. Understood. Okay. Um, I don't think I have any other questions at the moment. Thank you. Is the applicant present? My name is Nancy Oliva. My address is one three one zero Lake mill site drive West in winter Haven. I'm asking that the existing ADU be permitted correctly as it was not when it was, um, put in, I bought the property with it intact. I plan on, um, demolishing the primary residence. I bought the property with the, the knowledge that that would have to happen. And I was going to live in the ADU unit while that was happening. The ADU unit is connected to the electric in the house. So when the house is demolished, I would have no electric in the ADU. So this all started when I wanted to put a, a separate electric meter on the ADU. They came back. I started the building permit as built plans. They are made up and are in the building, um, permit office. We're waiting for this to be approved before we continue with the building permit. As you notice on the, um, the neighbor shed, there's an overhang where she park, parks a wheel barrel and is just for planting and stuff. The actual structure, the solid part of the, the building is much further away than my, to my building. So to say that a firewall needs to be built, um, if that's necessary, it will be done. But the shed is made of, um, it's, it's lined in tin. So there's no roof sides. It's all tin. So there's not any flammable stuff. Where that, um, my horse fences, that tarp on my back, that is what used to be a carport. So it's not technically part of the, um, the actual structure. It's, it's just a roof with a sidewall. So if that needed to happen, that could be torn down. I would hope not to because that's where I store my hay. So, um, but I just wanted to point out that there, there is actually more room between the structures than what it actually looks like. Um, I did run out and I did record the letter, um, with the clerk while we were here. So it is recorded. Um, I do want to say that my neighbor, we were, we always sit by the lake in the evening. My neighbor came over to me, um, on Sunday with a bear in hand and she said to me, um, are you going to rent that out? Now, now this is something we've discussed from the day I bought the property, what the intent was. So that's 2021. And I've been living in the ADU unit because the house is not habitable. So I've been living in there since 2021. So I don't understand the, um, the sudden, and it is sudden, change of heart. I told her, no, I have no intention of renting it out. I intend to live in it. It's going to take probably the rest of this year and all of next year to get the plans drawn up, the approvals for the demo, the approvals for the permit for the main residence. So I have no intention of renting it. I'm living in it. So I don't know where that came from because I never told her I was going to rent it, ever. So I don't understand the change of heart. We're, we're, we're neighbors. We're close. I'm actually attending a memorial service for her husband on Saturday with just 10 people in her house. So I'm not understanding what happened. I've kind of was blindsided today when I got the email, when I walked in here. So I don't know why she wrote the letter in objection to it's there. It's been there. I've been living in it. So any questions? Let me just take a look through and see if I do have any questions for you. Um, that shed also sits back behind the ADU by, oh, I'm going to say 10 feet. So the ADU is, is here and the shed sits here. So it's not parallel. It's behind. So if the ADU unit ever caught fire, it wouldn't affect the shed unless an ember flew and landed on the tin roof. Okay. Um, you've probably, you may have heard me ask other applicants or perhaps you were not in the room, but, um, one of the criteria that staff and I have to consider when evaluating variance applications is hardship, some hardship that the applicant would bear if the variance is not approved. And I would ask you to elaborate on that, please. Almost $100,000 went into the construction of this ADU unit. Um, to have to tear it out, to put it back to a garage would be a huge hardship. I'm trying to save the money to build the primary residence. And I, I would have nowhere to live. It's not legal to live in an RV in Polk County. So if I did not have this and I could not tear down the property, the, um, main housing, I would, I would be homeless. And it was already built out as, um, a habitable structure when you purchased the property in 2021? It was built out and then the people who had owned the property had passed away and the niece who lives in Canada, um, inherited it. She came down and she was going to do the same thing I am, tear down the main and, um, live in the ADU. She started to rehab the ADU. She put in new electric, new plumbing and framed it out, um, because she wanted to change the, the floor plan. She went as far as, um, buying all the, the toilets and the tubs and everything. And she decided that it was too much work for her and she didn't know that she was going to come down in the winters often enough to justify the cost of this. So she sold the property and I bought it. So basically I finished her remodel, but at one time it was converted into an ADU. So, okay. So your remodel remodeled an existing ADU, you didn't remodel it from a garage to an ADU that had already occurred. Yes. Okay. Okay. Anything else you would like to add? I don't believe so. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I do want to just take a moment and read the letter, uh, in opposition. I also do want to ask if the individual who wrote the letter is here, if there, or if there's anyone else here to speak to this application, we'll open the public comment. Okay. So Barbara Sellit or Sellay is not here. Okay. Okay. I do have her letter, um, in opposition. Um, but other than saying she is not in favor of the variant, she does not give a reason or a basis, um, for that. I know that the letter is dated April 22nd. Um, again, anyone else here to speak to this application? Okay. Seeing no one, we will close, uh, public comment. Um, anything else from staff? Yes. Um, I do want to mention that to help with her neighbor's concern of the rental property, um, we do regulate short-term rental. So if that were the case, then she would have to come back through for another public hearing if she were to try to introduce that to the property. And at that point, the neighbor would get another, um, another letter and then she could come out and oppose to that as well. And that's all. And what do you mean by short-term rentals? It's still less than 30 days. And there was a public hearing for that approval? It would be. It's a level of- Right. If, if, if there was, okay. Thank you. That's helpful information to have. Is that it? Okay. And that, um, concludes our discussion of that application and we will move on to LDLVAR 2024-10. LDLVAR 2024-10 ABC Fine Wine and Spirits Variants. This is a request for a 3PS alcohol beverage license. That's liquor, beer, wine, and, uh, in package sales, not consumption on premises. Uh, within a separation distance of 2,500 feet of four churches are religious institutions. The subject site is located off South Florida Avenue, north of Shepherd Road, west of South Florida Avenue, east of Old Highway 37, in Section 23, Township 29, Range 23, south of the City of Lakeland, north of Mulberry, the City of Mulberry. 20 mailers were sent to area property owners on April 10th, 2024. One board was posted on the property on April 5th, 2024. Legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on April 12th, 2024. Staff has received no response. Aaliyah Inglema is the case planner. Good afternoon. Aaliyah Inglema with Land Development presenting LDLVAR 2024-10, the ABC Fine Wine and Spirits Variants. This is a request for a 3PS alcohol beverage license within the separation distance of 2,500 feet of four churches. The subject site is located off South Florida Avenue, north of Shepherd Road, west of South Florida Avenue, east of Old Highway 37, Lakeland, and Section 23, Township 29, Range 23. The site is approximately 3.09 acres, located within a linear commercial corridor lane use, and in the transit supportive development area. The applicant is opening an ABC Fine Wine and Spirits shown on the site plan in yellow. The Land Development Code requires the separation distance of 2,500 feet for establishments of a 3PS license from schools and religious institutions. According to Property Appraiser, the Christ Community Presbyterian Church was established in 2012 and is located within a linear commercial corridor lane use. The subject site is approximately 2,069 feet from this church. Trinity Baptist Church was established in the 90s and is in a residential low one lane use. The subject site is 1,211 feet to this church. The Lakes Church South Lakeland campus was established around 2021 and is located within a community activity center lane use. And the subject site is located 888 feet from this church. Shepherd Road Presbyterian Church was established around 1993 and is located within a residential low one lane use. The subject site is 879 feet to this church. If this request was for a restaurant at this location that served a beer and liquor, but could see 150 people, it would be granted a 4 COP-SRX special retail license and be exempt from any distance requirements. When Dixie Wine and Spirits was established in the late 80s and is located within a community activity center lane use, and the first stop liquor and tobacco opened up around 2003 and is located in a commercial enclave lane use. Both of these locations sell alcohol within 2,500 feet from these churches. The request will not be interest to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Approximately 700 feet away from the subject site is a Winn-Dixie Wine and Spirits and a first stop liquor and tobacco that sells alcohol within 2,500 feet from these churches. Given the nature of the proposed alcohol license relative to the hours of the church, staff finds that this request will not pose any lane use conflicts. And I'll stand for questions. The, is that table 2.4? Is that, it's hard for me to read from here. Yes, ma'am. And that's from the, the code? Yes, ma'am. And what is it you have marked off in red there? The 3PS, um, license that shows that it requires a 2,500 feet distance. Okay. The, um, Winn-Dixie Wine and Spirits and the first stop liquor and tobacco that sell alcohol within 2,500 feet of these, um, religious institutions, is that by virtue of a variance or was no variance needed for those or was it a timing issue? I believe that the first stop did receive a variance. Um, the Winn-Dixie, I do not know, um, if that did receive a variance. The, the Winn-Dixie's been permitted since before the land development code, the liquor store that was there. So it, it, our records don't go back that far. Okay. So it didn't need a variance? It, it would have needed a variance, but it, we, we don't have records to, to pull from it. Okay. It goes, it's pre-2000. Okay. It would have needed a variance. You don't know whether it has one or not. It's just. We, we can't research back that far. Okay. I understood. I'm just trying to. We don't have the, the information of the data from back then. Okay. And, um, I'm sorry, what did you say about the first stop liquor? That received a variance. I was the case planner many, many years ago. And, um, tell me again what you were saying about, uh, uh, here it is in your reports that if this was a location, if this was a restaurant at this location that served beer and liquor and could seat 150, it would be granted or could be granted what kind, what kind of license without a variance? The, uh, for COP-SRX. It's shown on the table up there. And does that allow for the, um, the same type of sales that is being requested here? It shows that liquor, wine, beer can be consumed at the restaurant. So not package sales, but consumption on site? Consumption, yes. These distances are measured, um, is it from closest point of one property line to closest point of the other property line? Is that how that works? Yes, ma'am. Okay. As the crow flies, as they say. I'm old. We say things like that. Okay. Um, um, if one were to drive from this site where the application is to each of the four religious institutions, do you have, uh, often that's presented, um, in these types of applications, do you have any indication of how, what the distance would be if one were to, you know, venture from an access point of this property to the access points of each of the religious institutions and judging from the expression on your face, I think you don't have the information. You're, you're asking what the distance is from property line to property line? No, I think you've provided that. But often what someone will describe to me, what the case planner will describe to me is while this is the distance from property line to property line, um, an individual moving from one to the other would, you know, cross a railroad track or go through, you know, go through, uh, underneath an overpass or, you know, have all these other visual barriers or obstructions in the way, or it's actually, if you were to drive from one to the other, it's actually, you know, 2000 feet instead of 700 or 888. I'm just asking if you have that sort of similar information. I, I do not have that information. However, to the west of the property, there is a rail line that goes there. So that could also affect that. Okay. I don't think I have any other questions, um, for staff. Thank you. Um, is the applicant present? Hi, good afternoon. Allison Williams with KPM Franklin, 6300 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 118, Orlando, Florida, 32822. Just want to thank staff for their support and advice so far with the application. Just want to echo a few sentiments. One being that the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, considering the proposed development is harmonious with the area. Two, applying the provisions of the code would be, would create a hardship and would be unjust in the face of economic equity and competition, considering the character of the surrounding area to be compatible with the proposed use. And three, that this is the minimum adjustment that will make possible the reasonable and permitted use of the property. Okay. Um, I appreciate that information. The statements that you've made are sort of conclusory. Conclusory, can you give me any more depth to your statement that, um, for example, that the proposed development is, um, uh, going to be harmonious with the neighborhood? Yeah, absolutely. Go a little deeper, please. Sure. There, the character of the surrounding area is commercial in nature, uh, staff presented. There are numerous other commercial establishments that do sell, carry out, uh, package sales of beer, wine, and liquor. So, this would just be another opportunity for citizens in the area to purchase the same sort of commercial activities. There's also a Publix, uh, store in liquors to the east that's not, uh, available on this map. So, it would just include another opportunity for citizens to, to purchase the same sort of, um, consumption of carry out package liquor. Um, in the, uh, justification that was submitted with the application, there's a statement that planned measures ensure the project's harmonious integration into the community without increasing public safety risks or maintenance burdens. What are those planned measures? Well, during the level two review with staff, we would be required to do traffic impact analysis analysis and other numerous studies that would require, um, traffic engineers and, um, people beyond myself to review the proposed site plan and, um, proposed building that would make sure that it would be incompatible, compatibility with the land development code beyond just the proposed use. Um, did the applicant purchase the property? They're under contract. And if you could elaborate on the, um, hardship that would be born if the, um, application is not approved. If the application isn't approved, it would create a hardship in the, in the face that this site would not be applicable to the provision of sales of retail sales of alcohol and package carry out, um, um, alcohol sales, which is permitted on multiple properties in the surrounding area. Um, so it would be unjust in the face of economic opportunity and competition for the, the user, the potential user of the site. So the proposed, um, structure is an ABC fine wine and spirits. I'm assuming if you don't get the variance, the, they're not going to proceed. Correct. Anything else you want to add, um, in support in general or in particular regarding, um, hardship? Not at this time. Okay. I will now, um, open up the application for public comment. Um, I do have two, um, I have one, right? This is for a different case. So I just have one. Okay. I have one, um, individual who has indicated they would like to speak in opposition. Um, Michael Newburn, and if I could ask you to, you want to speak on the, oh, you know, that that's my fault. You put the right number there and my clerk kindly tried to tell me I was looking at the wrong number. Then I am looking at the right number. Okay. But you don't want to speak on this one. Very good. Thank you. Okay. Then, um, is there anyone who came here today to speak, uh, regarding this application, LDL VAR 2024 dash 10, either for or against. Okay. Seeing no one, we will close public comment. Um, anything else from staff on this one? No, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And now we will move to our last application of the day. LDL VAR 2024 dash 12. LDL VAR 2024 dash 12 Berkeley corner three PS alcohol package sales separation distance from religious institutions and schools. This is a request, uh, for a variance to allow a setback reduction, uh, for the three PS license within 2,500 feet of a school and religious institution, uh, several religious institutions. It is located at 1115 Berkeley road, northwest corner, uh, of state road 559 Berkeley road and county road 546 old Dixie highway, north of us 27 or us 92 east of the pulp parkway. Uh, it is surrounded by the city of Auburndale in section 22 township 27 range 25 37 mailers were sent to area property owners on April 10th, uh, two boards were posted on the property on April 9th, a legal ad was published in the Lakeland ledger on April 12th. Staff has received no response from the public as to, as of this date. Eric Peterson is the case planner. Eric Peterson for the land development division. Uh, this is the, uh, submitted in the staff report. Uh, we included the, uh, not only the application, but the articles, articles of incorporation for the applicant that, uh, the applicant and the, uh, business and the Auburndale zoning map. I also noticed that the Auburndale land development regulations, and I hope it wasn't the whole thing I'd put in there, but got put in where, uh, it's in the packet. I, I think the staff report, not in the staff report in the, uh, in our packet is, is an attachment. I'm sorry, on your website? On the, in Legistar. In here. Okay. The site, uh, located, uh, at the corner of Old Dixie Highway and Berkeley Road, very close to the, an interchange with the Polk Parkway, uh, in the, and as you can see how the city of Auburndale city limits surround this, this area, this is kind of an enclave within the city. Uh, the site actually abuts the city, uh, limits. Uh, it's in a neighborhood activity center district in the county, uh, surrounded by residential in various places. There's also light industrial to the South is institutional. That's, uh, only a portion of what's now Lena Vista elementary school. The school has been expanded outside of its institutional district. The site is just over a thousand feet from the elementary school and the closest, uh, religious institution. There are two, uh, or two other religious institutions to the North and one to the South. There is a liquor store within the city of Auburndale city limits, uh, in a, uh, within that same 2,500, uh, but distance, uh, to the West side missionary Baptist church. This is the, the intersection. There's a lot of non-residential uses of course surrounding it because of the commercial, uh, intersection. Uh, it's bordered by, uh, construction supply companies, uh, air conditioning repair. Uh, to the South is a, uh, um, a, uh, produce market and across the street is a marathon gas station with convenience store CVS pharmacy to the South a one discount beverage. Also like the applicant currently just sells beer and wine package. They do not sell liquor though. The, the, the name would sometimes confuse the site, uh, is bordered by a commercial district ACN district within the city, the liquor store, uh, that I mentioned earlier is in, in a light industrial district. This is the subject property with the notice. And you see the signalized intersection at Berkeley and old Dixie highway. These are the neighboring businesses that I mentioned. This is looking from the site to the South, and this is looking from the site immediately abutting to the North staff recommends approval. Um, we don't feel it'll be in various to the area, otherwise detrimental the city of, uh, Auburndale's distance setback for packages, 500 feet. Um, if, if someone wanted to put a package store on the neighboring property, it would meet the separation distance per the city's requirements. The county has a greater requirement than the city. Uh, county requires 2,500 feet. The city requires 500, uh, there's, there's, uh, special circumstances we feel that exists. Uh, it's within an enclave surrounded by the city. There's some debate on whether it should be really part of the city. Does it receive, uh, an, an amount of city services that would, would make it seem that it should be in the city? That's not for us to debate, but there, it does raise that issue that it's a lot different than your typical county area. This is little by little being annexed. Uh, the variance is the minimum, uh, uh, cause the, uh, right now the current business sells beer and wine and tobacco products. Adding liquor sales is just one more product. It's not going to require any modifications to the structure. Uh, unlike in the past, we've had convenience stores that have added liquor, uh, convenience stores because they sell other products besides alcohol, beverage, and tobacco have to have a physical separation from the other products in the liquor store. This is, this facility would require no, uh, changes to the structure because all they sell is liquor or, uh, tobacco, beer, and wine. That's just something about the state's alcohol beverage license procedure. A one discount beverage to the South is, is more of a convenience store. It sells a lot of grocery items. If that was to, uh, become a liquor store, they would have to actually put a wall in between the liquor portion and the other, uh, uh, products that are non alcohol or tobacco. Is that why, for example, Publix Liquors is always in a separate door into it than Publix grocery store? Yes. I didn't know that. Okay. Yeah. So that, that is our, our recommendation and, uh, staff will, uh, stand for questions. What is the notice distance for an application like this? 500, uh, believe it's 500 feet. So is notice provided to the religious institutions if they're more than 500 feet away, but less than 2,500? Uh, I have to defer to Lisa, I believe we, do we notice the, the religious institutions in the advertisement or the mailers? No, we don't. I, I don't believe it. Yeah. Yeah. So there was a time when we did it. The code does not require us to do that. Uh, it just requires the, uh, area, the property owner notice within the radius. Okay. I just didn't know if you ever saw it, um, input from the religious institutions. Not unless they're within the 500 feet. Okay. We do post the big orange signs that, that everybody notices, but. I understand. And, and I understand that, you know, these, these hearings are advertised, so I, I'm not expressing an opinion on whether that should be done or not. I'm just inquiring. Um, I note that in the proposed conditions of approval, um, where staff would normally say that the applicant must apply for and receive or apply for all permits within one year of the rendering of the land use hearing officer's approval, but in this case, you've said within five years. Yes. Uh, when they don't have a, a liquor license in escrow, uh, they have to compete, uh, for a license or purchase one, uh, alcohol beverage licenses as the three PS and the four COPs are, are granted in an auction form and it's based on the population in the county. Polk County is always growing. So there's always new licenses, uh, eligible each year, but that goes for auction and you have to compete. We give the, them, uh, typically, uh, a longer period of time if they haven't acquired the license. That way they can, um, at least have a good chance of getting a lottery license rather than having to purchase it from somebody else at a much higher rate. So it's because of the anticipated time to acquire the. Yes. Okay. It can, it can take up to a year just to get the license, even if they have it, if they have someone in escrow who has a license in escrow that can, uh, that they can purchase from. Okay. The religious institutions, um, at issue here, are they in the county or are they in the city? And does that matter to your analysis? No, it really doesn't matter, but I do have it on the, the future land use map. You see the, the nearest church is in a county, uh, residential district and I don't. The city is all in gray. And yes, the Lena Vista elementary school is in the county unincorporated area. Still, let's see, I think the city, you know, it's, the other ones are still off the, off the map. Uh, I, I, I don't know if they continue up, uh, I believe they're, they're north of this point here and those are in the city. Um, yeah, it appears though that at least one of them is in the city according to that map. Does it matter for your analysis? No, it does not matter. You know, we, we treat them if they were all in the city, it would still be required to, uh, in a variance. Okay. So you have provided me, um, just as we discussed in the prior, um, application, you've provided me the distance from, um, which I know is how you measure from closest property line to closest property line, do you have any comments you would want to add on, um, you know, functional distance or? These are, the church, the closest religious institution and the closest elementary school are directly south and, and, uh, east of the site. It's a straight shot. They're on the same street. So there, there's no justification there for having to go around Murphy's barn to get there. Where is the entrance to Lena Vista Elementary School? Uh, the closest interest, entrance to Lena Vista is probably this one right here, which is just over, uh, I'd say probably 1,100 feet to the south. It's, it's, uh, just like a thousand and inch in a, in a few feet to the, uh, the property line to property line. So that, that entrance is probably about another 100 feet to the south. So 1,100 is my guess. Okay. Anything else? No, ma'am. That's all I have. Okay. Um, is the applicant present? Good afternoon. My name is Asma Noor. Um, I live in 8933 Cretan Wood Court, Orlando, 32819. So, um, I am here to, um, um, to say that this variance, if, uh, it's not approved, it, I think it would be, uh, really hard for us. Um, we would be paying more tax because we would annex to the city, which is, um, the distance from our location to another school or church would be only 500 feet. And I think it wouldn't be fair that just across the street from us, they would have that opportunity to have a liquor, uh, store in just across the street. It wouldn't be fair to us, the city, because we're not within the city limits and, uh, yeah. And you're saying just across the street is within the city limits and. Yes. Some, some locations are within the city limits just across the street from us. Um, are you owner or part owner of Berkeley Corner, LLC? Yes. I'm going to ask you to stay there just for a moment. Um, so I know that, um, the staff report says that it includes, um, exhibits, including the, um, um, applicant's justification. I don't, you know, it was not attached to the staff report and I don't see where it is in your system. So someone's going to have to show me where it is. No, I'm sorry. It is included in your staff report. It is an exhibit. Yes. I thought you were telling me that it was included only digitally. It, it is. Oh, no, I was talking about the, uh, city of Auburndale's land development regulations. Oh, well, no, I don't expect. With the, to go with the zoning map. Very good. It's been a long afternoon. I don't think I intended to put all of them in there. Yeah. Okay. Um, the, uh, particular section. Okay. So you purchased the, um, the, the building and the business in, in 2021. Okay. Is there anything else you would like to add in support of your application? Yes. Uh, I think, um, like I said earlier, it wouldn't be fair to us if, uh, it's just like across the street. And another competitor would do that business instead of us, just because it's, they are within the city limits. And if we choose, if the variance is not, um, uh, accepted, so we would have to annex to the city that we would pay extra taxes for that. So that wouldn't help our business to grow. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. And I do have, um, two, uh, speaker cards. So I'm going to open up the public hearing for this application. And I have two individuals who have signed up to speak. Um, they've indicated they're speaking in opposition to the application. Um, I will start with, um, Michael Newburn. Good afternoon. My name is Michael Newburn. I live at 2140 Kirkland Lake Drive in Auburndale. I am the adjacent landowner that owns all the land surrounding this store. I own approximately seven acres, including the L and W warehouses, the air conditioning place, an ambulance service, and a rental house. Uh, I've been there since 1987. This location was my air conditioning business. In that time, I've seen, I think, six different owners of this particular store. Started out with Circle K, who originally built the store. And they went through bankruptcy proceedings and it has said vacant for a while. And then several different people have purchased it. And some, uh, uh, uh, most of the people are from Orlando or from Tampa that have owned this store. For years, it was a convenience store, just like it, like a Circle K or a, uh, racetrack or anything. They sold gas and they sold groceries, light groceries, snacks, beer, and cigarettes. Uh, it was that way for like probably 20 years, 25 years. Uh, a gentleman here mentioned the A1, a discount beverage right down the street that sells groceries and beer and cigarettes. He did own this store. He bought the store from a fellow out of Fort Myers. Uh, he tried to operate it and the store down the street, which is like 500 feet away. So what he did, he sold it to these folks from Orlando, which is, that's not a big deal. A lot of people who are absentee owners and run a business, have businesses all over the state. I've had some like that. That's not a problem. The problem that I've had over there is they're not running. They cannot sell, they cannot sell a beer over there and they cannot sell cigarettes over there because they signed a non-compete contract with the man they bought it from. All they sell over there is vape, the vape stuff. That's what they sell. To compensate for that, they moved in these, uh, portable restaurants. I call them taco wagons. They moved them in there. They had two of them to start with. And I tried to talk to the owner. I said, you can't put two here. One of them you put in between my building and your place. It's not enough room. You can't do it. He said, well, I do it in Orlando. I said, well, this isn't Orlando. You can't do it here. That's going to call the public. There's not enough parking. Basically, you're running a vape store, a taco wagon on one end, a taco wagon on the other end. There's not enough parking. There's no plumbing. There's no place for people to go to the bathroom. There's no place for people to wash their hands. So there was a kind of a scramble about that. And what happened was, eventually, the fire department got them to shut them down, shut both of the wagons down, shut them down, made them move. Too many, they wrote them, I don't have any citations. They gave them 30 days to fix it. And they told one of them they had point blank move. So as a result of three businesses being there instead of one, which was individually owned wagons and in a vape place, in one location, they eventually moved the one. The other one left. Now he's back. Another one's back. So today when I left, there's a wagon there and a vape store. They don't sell beer and wine. They sell vape. Okay? They can't sell it. So now they're trying to find a liquor license because they want to sell it. They can't get out of the non-compete laws. Okay? I've already talked to the guy that sold it to them. He and I are friends, and he told me what the story was. And I want somebody to have a good business here. A liquor store doesn't bother me as bad as the other stuff that's going with it. Three or four businesses, a lot of people, a lot of traffic, a lot of trash that I have to pick up that they leave from these little restaurants and just the traffic they have in there. It's been an ongoing problem. I don't say anything. I just clean it up. At one time, they were open there. They didn't even have a place to put the garbage, so they were dumping it next to the wall or in back of their store. And I did say something about that. They did get a dumpster. Of course, they put the dumpster in my front door, which I don't care. It gives me a place to put their trash when I pick it up. Okay? They just haven't been good neighbors. And basically, that's what I'm upset about. I don't mess with them. I keep my lawn mowed. I keep the – in the photo there, you'll see a fence in my building. I got all my stuff fenced like that with a white, nice fence. I got a lawn service that comes every week. Painters, pressure wash stuff, keep things up, even have a little garden next to my building. I'm growing corn in the moose. But the point is, they're not good neighbors. The liquor store is going to make it worse. I installed video cameras because I had people over there eating at the wagons prowling around. They don't have any place to go to the bathroom. So what do they do? They go between my other building that's to the west and their building and go to the bathroom. Okay? They won't let them use the bathroom inside the store to wash their hands, to buy stuff from these wagons. So they have to – they do something. So I put up video cameras. And while they're prowling around finding a place to use the bathroom, they're looking at my place trying to figure out something to steal. They're over there scoping my business out where my storage area is. They just haven't been good neighbors. They don't care they're in Orlando. They don't drive over here working their store every day. They hire somebody. And the person that's there doesn't care. So it's been a little bit of a sore subject with me. Okay? And that's just basically the crux of it. I want a successful business over there, somebody that's responsible, somebody that looks out for the place. And to be honest with you, that corner, to put it bluntly, is kind of an armpit of a corner. Okay? But I've done my best to clean it up. But the way they're doing it, it's not going to be an armpit anymore. It's going to be further down. They've got to take care of it. Okay? They've got to do their part to do what's right. They know that the stuff they have there is in violation. Okay? And the reason – my personal thought is the reason they won't go in the city, the city of Auburdale does not allow portable food carts like that. You cannot – you can set them up for one day, you've got to go. So this one's set up permanently, hooked to the septic tank and hooked to the plumbing. It's not supposed to be like that. That's not even what the county says. It's illegal. I haven't said a word. Those people are trying to make a living, and I understand that. But I've got to put up with it all the time. I think I've said enough, if not too much. Okay? Well, I do have a few questions before you take your seat. Okay? I think somewhere in your comments, you said that you don't actually object to liquor sales. If the liquor – if it was just a liquor store there, packaged liquor store, I would probably be okay with it. But there's liquor stores everywhere. I don't really want one there. I have to ask you to come closer to the microphone because we're losing – I'm sorry, I don't really want one there, but I own property, and I understand what you do sometimes to make things work. But I don't want the rest of the stuff that goes with it. Okay? Okay? And I'm trying to be a good neighbor. I know they make payments. I know how much they owe. I know how much they pay. I know how much they paid in the beginning. I know that they've struggled over there trying to sell just vape. But if you bite off the apple, you've got to eat it. You know what I mean? And the property that you own is in the city limits of Auburndale? But the building to the west of them is in the city of Auburndale. The building to the north of them, which is my air conditioning office, is in the county. The building to the north of me that attaches to the other property is in the city of Auburndale. All of that was annexed in the city of Auburndale in the 2000s sometimes. So all of your seven acres is in the county? Nope. Some is in the county. Some is. My office is in the county. The store there is in the county. So it's a combination of your seven acres. Is your seven acres a contiguous parcel, or is it broken? I've got five acres on the north side of Dixie Highway, and I've got two acres on the south side of Dixie Highway, south of them, south of this corner. They kind of corner each other. If the road wasn't there, my two acres would corner his property. The property is this one. This is his office. Okay. My office. That helps. Thank you. That's my office right next door, and the part behind it is my L&W Corporation leases that for me. There's three and a half acres there. And then the property just north of my office is in the city, and that's mine too. There's an AMR ambulance service in one of them, and the last one to the north, I'm using it as a single-family dwelling. Okay. The parcel to the south of it, where it says Auburndale City there, that two acres belongs to me, and that's part of the L&W lease. They park equipment over there, and they get deliveries over there, and they sell it from their location to their warehouses that are behind me. Okay. And they have a problem. I mean, they may have got a letter, but the manager or the changing manager, he doesn't know what's going on. People are using that taco wagon, coming over there to eat. There's no parking at the store. So where do they park? They park in L&W's parking lot, and they only got about six parking spaces. They've actually had, they've called the police so many times on people parking where their employees park because they want to eat at the little restaurant deal there, that they've had some real problems. And so I told John, the manager that was there for so long, I said, just call the police or call a wrecker or get them towed. So he has put up signs, you will be towed at owner's expense. So he hasn't had a bigger problem recently, but it is an ongoing problem. It comes and goes, depending on how many people are working in the area, transient workers. They want to eat there. They don't have any place to park. They just park anywhere, park on the side. I've seen semis park there, just pull in there and park because they wanted something to eat. It's not a restaurant. If it's going to be a liquor store, it needs to be a liquor store. If it's going to be a vape store, it needs to be a vape store. It doesn't need to be a combination restaurant, vape store, another restaurant. And now they want to sell liquor there too. So there's going to be four businesses there. They're going to sell liquor. They're going to sell vape. They're going to sell tacos. And they're going to sell whatever else they can around there. Okay. That's my concern. Gotcha. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. The other speaker card we have is from Dale Strickland. Wonderful. If you could start by speaking into the microphone with your name and address, please. My name is Dale Strickland, 116 Arietta Shores Drive, Auburndale, Florida, 33823. I am a deacon at Lena Vista Baptist Church. I also am a past owner of People's Barbecue just down the street. I am not representing either one of them, but I am representing myself. And I have some rental property, residential rental property, just to the west of this property that's trying to get this variance. And I am a concerned citizen. I worry about safety. I know people aren't supposed to drink at liquor stores, but I know they buy it, and they'll drive off-site or whatever and start consuming. And at that point, they're impaired. And I was looking at some of the pictures that you showed, and you saw all the cars. That is a very dangerous intersection right there. There's been multiple wrecks, cars flipped upside down and stuff like that. I mean, it's just a bad place. Also, the school is down the street, and the pedestrian traffic from the school, the kids walking up and down the road all the time, and I worry about that. That's a concern. That's the biggest thing with me is concern. I don't know these folks, and I'm like Mike. Mike and I went to school. I'm a lifelong resident of Auburndale, as Mike is also. So we went to school together, and I didn't know what was going on there. I saw the signs and asked Mike, and he told me. So that's why I'm here. I just don't think we need another liquor store. There's one right down the street, as you showed on the thing, down by our beach, what we call the beach down at Lake Ariana. So anybody that wants liquor can drive down there and get it and go wherever they want to go. That's away from us. But, again, that Berkeley Road is very, very, very busy, a lot of pedestrian traffic, and that's pretty much it for me. That's kind of what I was thinking. There's five churches within, I don't know what you said, I think it was 2,500 feet. We're one of them, and then there's one that's a lot closer than that, and then there's one to the north that's probably within that range. So then there's a big church to the south, and then a Methodist church across the street from that. So Auburndale is a small place. We don't need a bunch of trouble. And, again, my concern, and I'm not qualifying all people to go to the liquor stores, but it's just a bad clientele, and sometimes when you have them there, they wander out and get in the properties. And I've got, like I said, a rental property to the west that I've got about, see, five units in there that are rental properties, and it's about two and a half acres, and I don't want anybody going in there and trying to drink around them. So that's my concern. And I believe you said you are a member of one of the churches. Lena Vista Baptist Church, yes, ma'am. Lena Vista Baptist Church? Yes, ma'am. Okay, very good. He said also, just a point of clarification, that there was a CVS pharmacy. That's not a CVS pharmacy. That's a family dollar store that he had that on. So I don't know if that means anything or not. Okay. Just a point of clarification. I appreciate that. Did you receive notice of this hearing? So the property that you own is within 500 feet of this location? I would say so, yes. Okay. Within a quarter of a mile. I don't know how, is 500 feet a quarter of a mile? It's less than a quarter of a mile, but yeah. So you're within a quarter of a mile of, okay. And the property that you own is in the city of Auburndale? No, it is not. No, it's all county out there. That's a chopped up, just like the gentleman was saying, it's a chopped up place. It's certain pieces of property have been annexed and my property has not been yet. Okay. So I don't mean to split hairs here, but when you say you've been a lifelong resident of the city of Auburndale, do you live in the city of Auburndale? Just the property that you're referring to is not in? Where I live now is in the county. It's not in the city. That's a rental property that I own. That's not where I live. Okay, and that rental property is within a quarter mile? Is that what you're talking about? Okay, and is that in the city or the county? It's in the county. Okay. The People's Barbecue that my family still owns is also in the county, and that's adjacent to the property that I own. Anything else you would like to add? No, I don't think so. Again, I don't mind people owning a business because I know where they're coming from. I mean, that's what we're here for is to own a business and be successful, and that's a good thing. But, again, that type of business, when there's one right down the street, I just don't see where we need to flood the place with liquor stores. I mean, I would have been against the vape store, too. So, I mean, that's my morals, I guess. It seems like we're kind of losing our morals a little bit. So, I'm trying to hang on to them. Okay, thank you. Yes, ma'am. Is there anybody else who came here today to speak regarding this application, either for or against? Okay, seeing no one, we will close public comment. I will ask the applicant if she wants an opportunity to respond to anything that was said during public comment. Before you speak, public comment is over, unless there's something urgent you must add to your comments that's new. I'm not asking what it is. I'm sorry? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I'll give you the opportunity to respond to what you've heard. Yes. I honestly don't understand why this, the first gentleman who spoke, he was not against the liquor store, but he was against us. It was obvious. I don't understand. He was talking about our property that was dirty. That is not true. He was talking about the food truck that I own, and all the customers have access to a bathroom. We have bathrooms, we have, there are laws, there is code enforcements. We are following the rules, and we are doing what's legal. Whatever he was saying was nonsense. I was really astonished. I was, it was some kind of weirdness he was talking about. And I know that person, he has properties all around our business. He is bitter because he did not get the chance to purchase that property he wanted. And he said that we do not sell any beverages. We sell wine, we sell beer, we sell subdrinks, we sell water, and we sell e-cigarettes, tobacco. That's not what he said. That was wrong what he said. And he said that we were not allowed to sell alcohol. That is not true. The person who sold us the property is a friend of us, and we don't have any problem with him. So I just wanted to clarify that he has a problem with us, not with us having a liquor store in the neighborhood. Do you have a non-compete with the individual you purchased the business from that prohibits you from selling anything in your store? No, ma'am, we do not. Anything else you want to add? No, ma'am. Okay, thank you. I do have a few questions for the county. Some of the issues that were raised during public comment include having multiple businesses on the property, having food trucks, parking issues, trash pickup, those sorts of things. Are those germane to a variance hearing, or are they dealt with through code enforcement? Those would be code enforcement issues. While at the site, even in some of the photos, you see there's some violations of their sign ordinances, too, and things of that nature. But we're not here to evaluate other parts of it. We're here to evaluate whether this is an appropriate location for a liquor store. However, they do have an active permit for the food truck. It's a food stand. In Polk County, when you don't drive away at night, it's considered a food stand. We have a separate permit. The state preempts local governments from regulating moving food trucks. But once they're established in place and they stay overnight, then that becomes a food stand, and they have a permit to do that. And do you know if food stand permits address sanitation and access to restrooms and that sort of thing? They do not. In the county, it's solely from a zoning standpoint. They have to be on commercial property. There are limitations to what we can regulate. The Division of Business and Professional Regulation regulates the food sales aspect and any type of requirement for restrooms on site. I don't believe food trucks, obviously, because their vehicles don't provide restrooms. I don't know if it changes their hotel restaurant license when they establish more permanent existence on a site. Anything else that you heard during public comment that you would want to respond to? Yes, I did make a mistake in my slideshow. That is a family dollar, not a CVS. Okay. The colors are very similar. I was just thinking of that. Okay, but any other issues that were identified or concerns, anything else that the staff would want to address? No, ma'am. Okay. Then I think that concludes our discussion of the application today. Thank you very much. Thank you.