agenda unless there is a request for a case to be taken out of turn. These hearings are quasi-judicial, which means they require due process, and the decisions are to be based on competent, substantial evidence presented during the hearings. County staff will present the county's review and recommendation on the case first, and then the applicant will present any additional information they would like. After the applicant has concluded their presentation, I will open the hearing up for public comment. This is the public's opportunity to provide information about the application and to provide their opinions. If you have any questions that come up during the presentation, you can ask them during your time to speak. Please do not ask questions or make comments from the audience while others are speaking at the podium. The county, the applicant, and I will note your questions that you raise and try to have them answered following the close of public comment. When it is your turn to speak, either for your case or during public comment, please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record 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 reply to comments that may have come up during public comment. They will also be able to make any concluding statements they have. The hearing will close for each case following the concluding statements of the parties. My decision will not be given today, but will be provided in a written final order within 14 days 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 our 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 today's hearing. If anyone should need an interpreter, please let our clerk know, and the county 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 are going to address the land use hearing officer on any case today, please stand, raise your right hand, and answer out loud to the following question. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you provide today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Okay. The first item on our agenda is approval of the minutes from the May 23rd, 2024 land use hearing officer meeting. We can show those minutes as accepted, and then we'll move to old business, and the one item we have under there is LDLVAR 2024-6. Good afternoon. Eric Peterson for the Land Development Division. LDLVAR 2024-6. Inez Maria Escobar Dominguez is seeking a reduction in the side property. primary structure setback from 15 feet to 7 feet for the expansion of a single-family home. The property is located at 4453 Buggy Road, west of Roundup Drive, east of Hereford Lane, north of Dean Still Road, west and north of Pult City. In section 3525, range 24. The property is 5.4 acres, and in the Agricultural Residential Rural District, Aaliyah Inglema is the case planner. Good afternoon, Aaliyah Inglema with Land Development, presenting LDLVAR 2024-6, the Buggy Road variants. The applicant is seeking a reduction to the side primary structure setback from 15 feet to 7 feet for an expansion of a single-family home. The subject site is located at 4453 Buggy Road, west of Roundup Drive, east of Hereford Lane, north of Dean Still Road, west, Polk City, and section 35, township 25, range 24. The property is approximately 5.41 acres located in the Agricultural Residential Rural Future Land Use and in the Rural Development Area. The property is Lot 18 and is part of the Paradise Country Estates Platte that was recorded on November 6, 1996. The mobile home has been on the lot since 2002. The applicant purchased the property June of 2019 and constructed a two-story addition, a front porch, and storage to the existing mobile home. The placement of the mobile home was from the previous owner, which significantly limits additions to the mobile home without some relief from the setbacks. The applicant was cited by code enforcement for a building without a permit for the additions and seeks to come into compliance. The code enforcement special magistrate has found it to be in violation in the cases pending as the owner is seeking approval for the additions to be located 7 feet off the side property line. The applicant has also applied for a building permit. While reviewing the documents, Lane Development found that the mobile home was placed on top of a public drainage easement per the survey provided. The applicant will need to vacate the easement prior to receiving building permits for the additions to the mobile home. This may take a significant amount of time. Therefore, staff is recommending an extended time for approval if granted. The request will not be interest to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, assuming the easement is vacated. The mobile home has been on the lot since 2002. The current owners renovated the house with additions to the front and rear to meet in line with the house. Special conditions and circumstances present in the request that do not result from the actions of the applicant is the home was placed on the lot by the previous owner, it does not meet current setbacks, and is located on top of a drainage easement. And I'll stand for questions. So with the comments you just made, that those are the special circumstances that weigh in favor of granting the variance is what I understood that section of your report usually means. And the fact that it's on a drainage easement weighs in favor of granting the variance? We're just assuming as if the drainage easement is vacated that... What we're asking is that you hear the case as if the drainage easement didn't exist. There is a process for vacating the easement. It's not really known if that easement is even needed any longer. The subdivision is pretty much developed. And the easement is not in use at this time. But that's a separate process. Our, you know, that would be the, through vacation of the plat easement process through our right-of-way and drainage division. And it's a much longer process. So we're assuming that, I mean, they have to get that removed in order to do any building. But for now, this is just one step among many in the process of getting this property in compliance. They also have the building permit that they'd have to seek after vacating the easement as well. So I'm curious why the easement vacation wasn't sought first. Because you're asking me to presuppose that the easement is not there. If I do that, then when you go to the easement vacation process, someone is going to say, well, the variance has already been granted. As though that now weighs in favor of vacating the drainage easement. I don't think I can discount the fact that the easement is there. A standard condition that you almost always have in your variance approvals is that the approval should not be considered to allow encroachments into easements. And yet that is exactly what I'm being asked to do. That is a condition of approval. That still is there. That the, the, the, it doesn't excuse the vacation of the easement and it doesn't condone it. It's just, this is a, on a separate plane is what we're supposing here. That the variance stands alone as, as a consideration under the variance criteria, assuming the, if the easement's not vacated, then, then they're going to have to move the home anyway. So, and the variance isn't going to be necessary. Who is the easement in favor of? It's, it's, it would be the residents within the subdivision. It's, it's drainage for the subdivision as a whole. It's a, as it was originally designed. Who's going to be asked to vacate the easement? I mean, who is going to be the authority that will vacate the easement? The Board of County Commissioners. It would be a Platt amendment. So it would go through that process by removing it from the Platt. But that is actually a much longer process than ours, which is why. And ours is, is, I guess, the most, requires the least amount of time and the least amount of investment. The, the next step will be the engineering review that the easement is not needed to, to factually establish that. Then go before the Board of County Commissioners and then go through the process of notifying everybody in the Platt and any utility provider and things of that nature that the easement, you know, is being vacated. That's like, it takes at least six months to accomplish that. So this is kind of the, the, the low hanging fruit. Then, then after all of that, they're going to have to get the building permit because they've built a, a two story structure without any type of review. So there'll have to be some deconstructing of the home in some regards in order to validate the inspection. Okay. I do want to make sure I'm clear that the, um, reduced setback that is being requested is to seven feet. There's one, maybe more locations in the staff report where it says five feet. You said seven at the beginning. I just want to make sure that's. Oh, I see where in the staff report, um, yes, it is to seven feet per the site plan here. I'll bring up the site plan. It shows that it's approximately 7.2 feet from the side property line. Are there code violations other than, uh, that, well, I guess the code violations are setback and then also no building permit. Is there, or is there anything else? That was all that I found. Okay. And so the original mobile home did not have any building permit or any permit to be in its, or variants to setbacks? No, ma'am. We didn't find anything in our record that we had for the mobile home. Okay. Is the applicant present? If you could come on forward, please, to the podium and start with, by, uh, giving us your name and address, please. It's Inez Maria Escobar Dominguez. And my address is 4453 Boogie Road and Paul City. Uh, the state code is 33868. Thank you. Um, you've heard the county's presentation so far. Did you have anything you wanted to add before I get into a couple of questions I have for you? It's, it's correct, all the information. Okay. In the application materials that you submitted, um, there was, uh, a sheet that you provided that was called justification, where you had to answer a number of questions. And, um, one of the questions was what special conditions exist that are peculiar to the land, structure, or building, um, for your property. And you indicated, um, risks to sinkhole and flood zone requirements. Can you elaborate on that, please? Tell me more about that. A good repeatment of question? Or I need an interpreter? Uh, in your application materials that you submitted, you stated that there were sinkhole risks and flood zone requirements as part of your justification for, um, asking for the variance. I need more information about the risks of sinkholes and your flood zone requirements on this property. Oh, I did it, build it up in that size of the property because, oh, we don't have another area. All the areas, it looks like floating zone. So that's why we, we do the, build the, the addition in that place. Okay. Are there sinkhole risks that are present on your property? You cited that as a basis for, for your application. And I'm trying to understand what the sinkhole risks are at your location. It's, it's around the property, not exactly what the, build the home. It's, it's, it's not in the area that we have the home, the home. It's around of that. We can do around in other places of the property. Okay. And what information do you have to support that to, what evidence do you have of that other than you saying so? Uh, the survey. Okay. You have a survey that shows sinkholes? Oh, not exactly. They show us all the, the wet areas and the, what is the? The flood zone? The easement. The easement. All, all, everything show in the survey. Okay. Um, is the flood zone shown on the survey? Question for staff? Um, looks like it's showing the wetland boundary, um, sure with the dotted, um, I'm guessing the dotted is wetlands, but I don't know that for sure. I know to the north of the site is the wetland jurisdiction boundary, but the second line, I'm not sure if that's the flood line or if it's, um, stating something else. I'm trying to see. I can't tell since I, um, had cut off the survey just to show that area, um, there might've been more information, um, outside of that. Do you have any other information about sinkholes? No. One of the criteria that staff and I have to consider when reviewing a variance application is hardship. Yeah. Something that is unique to your circumstances, your property that justifies, um, relaxing the codes standards. Can you describe the hardship that exists, uh, in your circumstances? Um, and, uh, COVID, the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of family members, uh, didn't have place to live. They are homeless because they lost their homes, and that's why I try to help all that I can, and that's why I build it up, the addition in my home. And are those relatives still living with you? Yes. Yes. Has, um, staff explained to you the other processes you'll have to go through, even if this is approved, that? Yes. Code enforcement. They did. And vacating the easement. Okay. Anything else you would like to add in support of your application? Yes. I got, um, my mom in that time, you know, is a, is an older woman. She didn't pay any bills because it's, it's a older woman. So, and my, my three sons, two of them live with me, and my daughter that is studying full-time, she didn't work yet because we tried to, you know, I am a single woman. I am a single woman, and, you know, I need the help from them too. Okay. That's it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I think staff has, um, brought forward an interpreter to assist you if you would like, and you're welcome to take a moment and speak with her to see if there's something else that you want to add or that you didn't understand. Um, I'm happy to just pause for a moment so you can speak with her and, and determine that. Hi, my name is Crystal. I'm going to need you to speak into the microphone, please. Sorry. Hi, my name is Crystal. Um, so from what she's explained. I'm going to interrupt you before you get going. I'm going to need your last name, and then we're also going to need to swear you in for your, um, interpreting, and I'll let, uh, Lisa do that. But first, we'll start with your full name. Ms. Crystal, Lee Morales. Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm you will truly and correctly translate English into Spanish and Spanish into English here today? Thank you. From what she's briefly explained so far, she's basically said that, um, the addition was done because they had her mother needed assistance, and she wanted for her to live with her, but they didn't have the sufficient space within the current home, so they went ahead and they did the addition. She didn't know that they needed the permitting, and now that they are aware of the need for them, she's willing to do them. However, she is aware that she is close to the setbacks or impeding into the setbacks and would just like to know if it's possible to have that variance met so that way she can keep the addition but still comply. Okay. Um, I think I pretty much understood everything that she had said, so she did an excellent job. Um, but thank you for the confirmation. Um, anything else you wanted to add, ma'am? No. That's it. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you. Um, anything else from staff? Yes. Two more things. Um, the base flood elevation of the area is 119.8, and the entire subdivision is actually in a 100-year flood zone. Um, so just something to, um, note for the case. Thank you. Lastly, it looks like the lots out here are pretty large, um, not just this one, but others as well. Um, how many parcels were within the, um, notice distance, the radius with which a notice needs to be provided? Uh, 16 mailers were sent. Uh, one board was posted, uh, June 6th, uh, on the property. 16 mailers were sent June 11th. 16? 16, yes. Yeah, okay. Just making sure it wasn't 60. I didn't think so, given the size of the lots, but okay. Thanks. Okay. Uh, that, uh, concludes our discussion of that case, and we'll now, uh, move on to new business, and starting with, um, LDL VAR 2024-20. LDL VAR 2024-20. Dominique James Milano is requesting a reduction into the primary side structure setback from 5 feet to 2 feet for the construction of an open patio cover. The property is located at 97 Citrus Ridge Drive, east of Citrus Ridge Drive, south, uh, south of Valencia Drive, north, north of Valencia Circle, uh, north of the city of Davenport, in Section 20, Township 26, Range 20. The property is approximately .06 acres. On June 11th, 73 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on June 6th. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on June 14th. Aaliyah Inglima is the case planner. Good afternoon, Aaliyah Inglima with Land Development, presenting LDL VAR 2024-20, the Citrus Ridge Milano variants. The applicant is requesting a reduction to the primary side setback from 5 feet to 2 feet for the construction of an open patio cover. The subject site is located at 97 Citrus Ridge Drive, east of Citrus Ridge Drive, south of Valencia Drive, north, north of Valencia Circle, and Davenport, Section 20, Township 26, Range 20. The property is approximately 0.06 acres, located within a residential medium feature lane use, and in the transit supportive development area. The subject property is lot 97 within the phase 1 of Citrus Ridge. While the residential medium feature lane use requires a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, the development was established with significantly smaller lots through an approved plan unit development intended for recreational vehicles. A modification to the PUD was later approved to permit the placement of mobile homes and reduce side setbacks from 7 1⁄2 feet to 5 feet, but did not increase the lot sizes. Since the modification of the PUD, the development has seen an increase in mobile homes being placed on lots within the Citrus Ridge development. As a result, many property owners desiring to construct addition to their home within the PUD realize the need to request a variance because of the limited space, the setback requirements, and easements relative to the small lot sizes. The applicant's request for 2 feet off the neighboring property will leave enough room along the side property line to ensure adequate maintenance in the future and no encroachments into the neighbor's property. The applicant has provided a maintenance agreement between the neighboring property owner. Staff found 19 other variance approvals in this subdivision since 2020. The request will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare as the 2-foot side setback will leave adequate space for property maintenance and will also ensure no encroachments into the neighbor's property. Building and fire code separations will still be met as the proposed structure is not for habitable purposes. The special conditions and circumstances present in the request do not result in the actions of the applicant because the development was originally intended for RVs but later evolved into a mobile home subdivision. And I'll stand for questions. Is the maintenance agreement part of the file? I haven't seen the maintenance agreement. I can't get it up on here. Pull it up on here. It's not in the, it's not in Accela. Anyway, while we work on that, I will move on. There's a proposed condition that's included in the staff report that the structure shall not block access to any utility equipment on the easement. Is there any utility equipment on the easement that you're aware of? I believe there is a rear utility easement, but the proposed structure will not be on top or near the easement. And is the condition necessary if the encroachment into the setback is not anywhere near a utility easement? It was just a standard condition that we use for variances in this community. Okay. I also want to make sure I have my orientation correct. The site plan that is included in the staff report shows that the addition is to be on the south side, and yet the discussion in the staff report refers to things being on the northern property line. I also saw that, and I was referring to, since it's going to be close to the neighboring property, to the south there, I was referring to the neighboring property. To the southern neighbor's northern property line. Yes. The southern property line of this property. Which page is it, are you referring to in the staff report? Well, it may be in more than one location, but on page three, in paragraph one, it says, based on the submitted site plan, the proposed structure will remain two feet from the northern property line. But it's substantially more than two feet from the northern property line. Yeah, it's supposed to be southern property line. And again, I'm not trying to nitpick. I'm trying to make sure I understand the facts as I read these, and then that the orders make sense. I'm reading the maintenance document. So what's been described as a maintenance agreement is written permission, I would say. I don't know that it's legally binding, but I'll leave that to the parties to determine. Is the county requiring a maintenance agreement, or are you just noting that they had submitted something? We just note that just so that there's no issues with the structure being that close to the neighboring property line. When the structure is open, it's an open carport, it's easier to maintain it essentially from the inside, versus if it's an enclosed, it's usually when we want the maintenance agreement. Okay. So this is just more noting that you would. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. And in this case, the poles of the structure are what will be two feet off the southern property line. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am, to the poles. And then there will be an overhang of up to two feet? It looks like the overhang is possibly a foot, but I'll let the applicant answer that. Okay. But certainly you wouldn't allow an overhang of more than two feet? Correct. Okay. Is the applicant present? Great. If you could come forward, please, and start by stating your name and your address. Dominic James Milano, 97 Citrus Ridge Drive. Okay. Great. Deborah Ann Milano, 97 Citrus Ridge Drive, Davenport. Okay. You've heard the presentation from staff so far. Is there anything you would like to add? No. Okay. Everything's in the stuff that we sent to you for the variance. Okay. One of the conditions that staff has proposed, if this is approved, is that gutters be designed and constructed as part of the addition to channel stormwater away from your neighbor's property. Yes. You're aware of that and you're going to do that. Okay. Yes. That's in the contract. Okay. Excellent. And you already have approval from your property owner's association? From the who? Property owner's association? Yes. Yes. Okay. Is there anything else you would like to add? No. Okay. Thank you. I will now open this item up 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. Anything else from staff? No, ma'am. I do want to take a moment before we move on to the next one because it has just occurred to me that I did not offer the opportunity for public comment on the prior application. I don't think anyone has left the room except the applicant, but was there anyone who came here today to speak regarding LDLVAR 2024-6, the buggy road variance, which was the mobile home very close to the side property line, seeing no one, okay, then I didn't exclude that. Okay. We will now move on to LDLVAR 2024-21. LDLVAR 2024-21. Donald Buchanan requests to reduce the eastern side setback from 50 feet to 20 feet for a chicken coop in accordance with 222A of the Land Development Code. The property is located at 460 Adriel Avenue in the Ridge Acres Subdivision, east of Rifle Range Road, west of Logistics Parkway, north of State Road 60, west of the city of Winterhaven in Section 28, Township 29, Range 26. The parcel is 0.52 acres in a residential suburban district. Twenty-two mailers were sent to area property owners on June 11th. One board was posted on the property June 7th, and a legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on June 14th. We have had no response from the public so far. Ian Nance is the case planner. All right. Good afternoon. Ian Nance, Land Development. And staff recommends denial of this application to allow variance for a chicken coop from 50 feet to 20 feet on the eastern property line of the subject site. To get our bearings here, this property is a platted lot within the Ridge Acres Development just west of Winterhaven near the unincorporated community of Juanita. It is in a residential suburban land use district where minimum lot sizes are typically five acres, but this development was vested prior to the adoption of the comprehensive plan, and the subject lot is 0.52 acres. Being a residential area, though, Land Development Code Section 222A restricts the placement of chicken coops to a minimum of 50 feet from abutting residential property lines. Up until January of this year, there was no avenue to grant relief to this standard, but the board recently adopted an ordinance to allow this variance process. Here's the layout of the property. The applicant has a 10-by-6 chicken coop with an attached 13-by-9 chicken run. This sits within a fenced-in 45-by-45-foot pen and garden, which the chickens use when the applicant is home. As a note, it is the structure of this coop and the run that is subject to this variance, not the fenced-in area. So the reduction is on the east side of the yard from 50 feet to 20 feet. Even with these 30 feet of relief, the coop remains a significant distance from neighboring homes, as listed on the screen. And given that the lot is only 90 feet wide, there is nowhere on the property this coop can be placed without violating setback rules, which is a hardship on the property. The coop is in the rear yard, but there is no screening on the applicant's property to prevent outside view. Additionally, no building permits have been obtained, which are required for these structures with hard roofs per the building department. This site visit picture looking south from right about Adriel Avenue. This is looking north, zoomed in with my camera from the southern neighbor's point of view. And here's a close-up of the entire backyard setup with the coop and the pen. Though there is a hardship on this property due to its width, staff recommends denial based on potentially being injurious to the surrounding area. One, at least one rooster has been kept on site, which has led to this case going to code enforcement from the rooster making noise. I did not discover any other animal shelters or chicken coops in my review of the area, and there is little to screen the coop from off-site aside from the fences of a pair of neighbors and some light landscaping to the rear. Finally, no building permits were secured for any of this. If the hearing officer is desirous of approving this application, though, staff has offered potential conditions of approval on page two of the staff report that would add fencing, remove the rooster, and obtain building permits. And for the record, I would call out condition four, which states, the property owner is also responsible for compliance with any restrictions of record pertaining to lots and or land, and this approval should not be used to supersede authority over those restrictions. This is in an HOA, which has certain prohibitions related to this case that you're likely going to hear in a minute, but staff finds this request does not currently satisfy the requirements of LDC Section 931, which is the reason for this recommendation. With that, I thank you, and we'll stand for questions. Can you elaborate on your last statement that the application does not meet the requirements of Section 931? Yes, ma'am. It's the first standard there. The staff finds it can be injurious to the surrounding area with the rooster making noise and lack of screening. Okay. And early on in your presentation when you had a sketch up showing, I think it was not over in Ariel, but just the sketch showing the location of the coop and the pen. And then, yeah, I think you made a statement that the variance request is for the coop and not for the rest of the fencing, I mean, the garden, is that what you were saying? Correct. Okay. So it's just for the coop, not for the garden and pen. Yes, ma'am. That is fenced in. Okay. Would building permits normally be required for a chicken coop of this size? Yes, ma'am. I checked with building. I was told that anything over 25 square feet and has a hard roof would require a permit. The chicken run, especially, if they were to get rid of the, I believe it's a sheet metal roof of some kind, over top of it, it would be allowed. But with the hard roof, it would require a permit. Where is the run on this diagram? It's kind of averaged out right here. This is probably poorly labeled, but it'd still be, I guess it'd be back here a little bit more. And it's still, it's still, it's built in line with the chicken coop. So it's still 20 feet off the property line. And there's plenty of room into the rear of this site. So the rear setback's not an issue. So it'd be another, I think we said six feet deep, nine feet deep. And it's an outdoor covered area that the chickens can be in? Is that what is meant by a run? Yes, ma'am. So you mentioned that the property has been through code enforcement due to the existence of, or the presence of a rooster on site. Are there other code enforcement issues? I believe this is the only one. The 90 feet that's shown, that's the width of the property. Yes, ma'am. Okay. But there is substantial room behind the chicken coop. Is that correct? There's a drainage easement that goes well behind the house. I believe it's 50 feet wide, at least. Let's see. And the coop's not even to there yet. This captures it just down here. Like I said, this is 50 feet, I believe, on this guy's property. I'm sorry, the applicant's property. And then to the south, the neighbor has another 50 feet. Okay. Planted drainage easement. The applicant's property ends approximately at the yellow line that is the box around the garden pen? No, no, the dotted line. It kind of comes down here, and it faded out. You can't see it well on the screen. Well, south of it says the copyright information for Google. Okay. And in the staff report, there's a photo. It's on page 12 of the staff report, and the photo was titled Chicken Coop? Yes, ma'am. So just so I understand the various pieces and parts, the red structure is what? I believe that's the actual coop, and the taller structure right behind it would be the run. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Okay. Is the applicant present? If you could start off by stating your name and address into the microphone, please. Donald Buchanan, 460 Adriel Avenue, Winneaven 33880. Great. Thank you. So you have heard the presentation so far. Is there anything you would like to add at this time? Yes. I was told because I live on more than a half acre I'm allowed, but because of the restriction of the 90 feet, I can't get the coop to be, you know, 50 feet one over 50. So that's why I'm asking for the variance. As far as they're not recommending because of the rooster, I do live in unincorporated Winterhaven, and there's no law that I know of that you cannot keep a rooster outside of what the association that I do live in would say, which my chickens are also ESA animals, and I just wouldn't like the variance in order to be able to keep them. Now, I was not aware. I did read that if you make any structure that's less than six feet, you did not need a permit. I was not aware of the hard roof. If I originally had tarp to keep the rain off of them while they're in the run, and the wind kind of tore it up, and I had some shutters that I had, and I just put it on there, I could take those off. If that causes a violation, I was not aware of that violation, but I can correct that. That's all I would have to say about that. Okay. Question for staff. The rooster is allowed by county code or not allowed by county code? We don't have anything that I'm aware of in our land development code that cares about the gender of the animal, quite frankly, but we've had cases in the past, and Eric can elaborate a little bit more, of roosters being problematic and having conditions of approval saying no roosters would be allowed in residential areas. The variance or the standard is for all fowl roosters and everything. We did discover that pigeons weren't fowl, but that's a long story. Okay. But roosters are certainly fowl, and the section 222A applies to the roosters. In the same manner that it applies to chickens? Chickens, yes. How many chickens do you have? Seven. Including the rooster? Yeah, six ends. One of the criteria that staff and I have to consider when evaluating variance applications is hardship, something that is unique to your property, your circumstances, that justifies deviating from the requirements of the code. Can you elaborate on that requirement? Well, it's the shape of my property. If my property was a square, there would be no issues, because I could put it directly 50 feet. So because of the shape of it, that is a hardship. The only other hardship I would say is that I depend on these animals emotionally, and I do have medical records for that that can be subpoenaed if you need or presented. Is that information part of the county's review process? The Land Development Code doesn't make any distinction on emotional support animals or disabled animals, to my knowledge. Okay. And I don't, I have not seen that documentation either. If it had been provided to you, is it something that you would consider? Is there an avenue in your process for considering that or not? No, ma'am. It would be submitted to you, of course, as part of the record, but it wouldn't have much effect on this recommendation without these conditions. Is it possible to move the coop to be more centrally, side to side, on your property? I mean, what you've asked for is to set it 25 feet off the, I'm sorry, 20 feet off the side, which still has it very far over to one side. Is it possible to move the coop more towards the center of your property? Yes, I would do anything that would comply that would allow me to keep my chickens. I would need some time, definitely, to deconstruct and reconstruct it. It took me a while to build it. And another thing, it is close to the property line, but if you look at the, how the properties are shaped, I am well over 200 feet away from any house. It's, you know, it's all the way in the back of the property that the chicken coop is located. If you measure it anyway, it's well over 200 feet away from any, you know, any house. From the coop to any other resident? To any house, yep. Including my own. This is a question for staff. So the code requires that foul be kept in pens and fenced areas at least 50 feet from the property line. So that applies to the entire penned area or just to the coop? Because at the outset, I think you made the point that this is applying only to the coop. Correct. I think the section you're referencing is 222E. That applies to properties, residential properties that are under half an acre. And that's when he said earlier that he had previous application that that would not apply. Okay. So he removed or withdrew that application. And then, again, with the coop being 50 feet away, there was no variance process. And staff has since gone through and taken one to the board, which was adopted. And here we are. So the section of 222E that does apply pertains only to the coop and not to the fenced area around it. Okay. Okay. Anything else you'd like to add? Just a question, I guess. So worst case scenario, I would just have to remove my coop, but I could keep the run. That's basically what he just said. I'm just trying to clarify. How's it defined, Eric, on there? I think it's for the sheltering and feeding of animals. Yes. So it would be the run, too. Any structure for the sheltering and feeding of animals is required to be 50 feet from the property line. So if he removed the coop, that is the shelter. And any feeders, then he would be in compliance if the chickens were just free-ranging over the property with no form of shelter or feeder, then the rules would not apply. Does that answer your question? Anything else? Thank you. And I will now open up the public hearing for this application. Is there anyone who came today to speak regarding the application? I do have one individual who has signed up, so we will take that person first. If there are others, they can come forward after. We just tend to take those who have signed up first. And that is Richard Koson. Did I say that correctly? Yes, sir. Madam Hearing Officer, Richard Koson. My address, professional office is 330 Paul's P-A-U-L-S Drive in Brandon. I'm an attorney with Pilka, Adams, and Reed. We represent Ridge Acres Phase II Homeowners Association Incorporated. We have had, this is the third matter that we are dealing with these animals. Prior to the instant application, there was a application or a complaint filed with the Florida Fair Housing Act. The Florida, excuse me, the Florida Commission on Human Rights, Human Relations, which administers the Florida Fair Housing Act. There, and I have a copy of a notice of non, no determination, notice of determination, no cause to submit in this matter. And I'd like to point out a couple of things in that. In this particular complaint, Mr. Buchanan stated he had asked his neighbors if they received complaints about their chickens and other similar issues and was told they had not. That was his statement to the Florida Commission on Human Relations. That is not the case. There have been multiple complaints made in this case, both oral complaints to the Homeowners Association, as well as written complaints to the Homeowners Association, and at least one written complaint to Mr. Buchanan himself. And I have copies of those also for you, ma'am. Are these copies that I can keep that you're giving me, or? Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am, for the record. So, in addition, the application or the complaint under the Florida Fair Housing Act was based upon Mr. Buchanan claiming that the chickens were emotional support animals. That was determined to have no cause in this matter. Mr. Buchanan also attest that he did not know the HOA rules concerning the noise, nuisance, and coops until after the association had filed a civil suit against him in December of 2023, and that was for enforcement of deed restriction violations. He had previously received a letter from the association on September 20th of 2023, as well as on October 14th of 2023, advising of the violations. The violations were for noise violations. One of the witnesses, or excuse me, one of the complainants which I provided to you also made statements in the Fair Housing complaint to the investigator, and I'll read this to you. She communicated, and this was Mimi Michels, she communicated that she heard the complainants' chickens and roosters crowing between 3 a.m. to 5 a.m. every morning and throughout the day. She explained that she worked from home and that the noise from the chickens and roosters affected her sleep and eventually affected her performance at work. During her time as HOA board secretary, she had received numerous verbal complaints from residents about complainants' chickens and roosters making noise, which caused a nuisance. She personally emailed a written complaint about the noise from complainants' chickens and roosters to respondent property management on November 10th, 2023, and eventually that resulted in the litigation between the Ridge Acres Phase II Homeowners Association Incorporated and Mr. Buchanan. That matter is still pending as of today's date. Because the deed restrictions are in the public record, Mr. Buchanan is deemed to know what those restrictions are, so any allegations that he was not aware of them I think are immaterial to this. And the fact that the COOP is in violation of both the building codes as well as the deed restrictions should weigh heavily in favor of denial of this matter. Interestingly, Mr. Buchanan stated that he was unable to raise chickens for children's education and enjoyment in the application that is before the hearing officer today, which is a different basis for the application or the complaint of the Florida Fair Housing Act. I think the fact that Mr. Buchanan makes a different claim each time he makes an application is an indication that the claims are disingenuous at this point. Moving on to staff recommendations, on page 3 of the staff report, the staff states that such attributes include strong odors, insect attraction, and infectious diseases. Since many COOPs tend to be home projects, there can be negative visual impacts with chicken wire, sheet metal, plywood, and other material. For these reasons, LDC section 222.8 requires 50-foot setbacks from neighboring residential property lines for structures intended for the sheltering or feeding of animals such as barns, stables, coops, aviaries, troughs, or feeders. If you go back to the picture that was provided in the staff report, that picture is exactly what staff is trying to avoid. Negative visual impacts with chicken wire, sheet metal, plywood, and other material. So that is the exact construction mechanism used in this matter. In addition, neighbors have complained about the view. There's nothing to screen the view of the COOP and the pin from off-site. It is not an aesthetically or functionally comparable situation to a shed or other benign factory-built accessory structures. Notably, staff notes that roosters are notorious in residential neighborhoods for the noise they create often during early hours of the day. This is consistent with the complaints that were made to the homeowners association and the complaints that are the basis of the litigation that is currently pending. Notably, the staff finds that these matters are injurious to the area involved and detrimental to the public health. And I think for that basis alone, the matter should be denied. Going to specifically Section 931, I'd like to point out a couple of the factors that I think would lead towards denial of this matter. Factor one, the findings in the land development director or his or her destiny's staff report. They recommend denial. I think there's strong evidence that this matter should be denied. Number two, whether granting the variance will be in accordance with the general intent and purpose of this code and that the variance will be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. That is a factual finding determined by the staff that this matter is injurious to the area involved. And based upon that, it is not in accordance with the general intent and purpose of the code, which is to basically prevent structures like this from being constructed. The third condition is whether special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other land structure or buildings in the applicable land use description. There is nothing relating to Mr. Buchanan's property that is in any way peculiar to the land in that area, to the structure in that area, or the building of this particular coop. There are no other coops in this neighborhood. The lots are all of uniform size. The fact that they were grandfathered in before the land development code to their current size does not obviate for any variance in this case. Number four, whether the provided the special conditions and circumstances present do not result from the actions of the applicant. The code violation and the existence of the coop and the roosters in this case are exactly created by the results of the applicant. He built the coop without getting building permits. Had he done so, he would have known that they were, he was building inappropriately. And had he applied to the association, he would have known that the animals were not permitted as he installed them. And number six, whether the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land building or structure. Again, being a self-imposed hardship, he's asking for a 20-foot setback. This is not the minimum required. The minimum setback waiver would be five or ten feet from the center. I think the hearing officer pointed that out, that this was on one side and not the center. The staff indicated that if the madam hearing officer is going to recommend approval, that the certain factors be made conditions of approval. And one that recommendation or setback reduction from 50 feet to 20 feet. I don't want the hearing officer to take this as we are in favor of granting it, but we are not. But we would, at a minimum, want 40-foot setbacks. Condition number two would be no roosters shall be kept on site. We absolutely would request that the hearing officer impose a condition of no roosters being kept on site. A six-foot opaque fence made of wood or PVC. We'd like to point out this, even if that condition is provided, does not override the deed restrictions that are in place. Would not override any requirements for application of that. And if the fence is not permitted under deed restrictions, then the chicken coop would not be permitted as well. And finally, the number four says, or not finally, number four, the property owner is responsible for compliance with any restrictions of record pertaining to lots and or land. And this approval shall not be used to supersede authority over those restrictions. We would definitely want that in place. And number five, the applicant shall have one year from the final order to apply for necessary building permits. We would request, if this matter is granted, that any applications be made within 30 days and that any completion of any work be done within six months of the application being made. I'd like to point out one other matter. This is Winter Haven Code, Section 21-69, regarding animal limitations. And I have a copy for Madam Hearing Officer. And Section E of that provision states that chickens as an accessory use shall be permitted in all zoning districts, and the following standards shall apply to all zoning districts except the agricultural zoning district. One, chickens are limited to hens only, no roosters allowed. So there is definitely an ordinance applying to this property that does not permit roosters. Number two, one chicken per 1,000 square feet of parcel on area with a maximum of five permitted. Again, we are exceeding that based upon Mr. Buchanan's testimony. Number four, chicken coop shall adhere to the necessary structure of stickbacks for the zoning district, which is located in. Again, we would request that, because this matter is a hardship that was created by Mr. Buchanan and is not peculiar to other properties, that the 50-foot setback be maintained and the matter be denied. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to take any additional questions, ma'am. I do have several. First is probably a question for staff. Is this parcel in unincorporated Polk County? Is it in the city of Winterhaven? Which of the codes apply? It's in unincorporated Polk. Okay. It's adjacent to the, well, the whole subdivision's adjacent to Winterhaven, but the land development code applies. Okay. So the Winterhaven code does not apply? No, ma'am. Okay. The, as you know, I'm sure the Polk County does not enforce deed restrictions of, I'm aware of that. Yes, ma'am. But for my information, the coop violates deed restrictions or the presence of the chickens and rooster violates the deed restrictions or both? There are a couple of bases for the violations in this case. One is obnoxious or offensive activities. No activity or use shall be allowed upon the property, which is a source of annoyance, embarrassment, or discomfort to owners or their tenants or invitees, or which interferes with the peaceful possession and proper use and enjoyment of the property. The property shall be used, enjoyed, and occupied in such manner as not to cause or produce any of the following effects discernible outside any dwelling, noise, or sound that is objectionable. So in this instance, one of the issues with this matter is the roosters and the fact that they are causing noise issues with the neighbors. Okay. And you will see also that not only in the determination of no cost from the Fair Housing Act determination that I provided to you as well as the written complaints that I also provided a copy to you as well. The deed restrictions also say that birds, fish, dogs, cats, reptiles, insects, and all other non-human, non-plant living organisms, collectively animals, may be kept as pets only, not for sale, not bred for commercial use. Animals shall be sheltered inside dwellings. No separate or exterior shelter for animals shall be permitted. All animals must be kept in a fully fenced area or leashed when outside and shall not be permitted to run loose. No animals shall be permitted to remain on the property if it or they disturb the tranquility of the property or owners or tenants thereof, if it or they are unlawful, dangerous, annoying, or a nuisance to or destruction of wildlife, or if they are specifically excluded from the property by the board after notice and hearing. So specifically, the deed restrictions do not permit the type of coop that is subject here. So it's not only a code violation, but it's a deed restriction violation. And I understand Pope County is not involved in that, but what we don't want is this variance to be used as some sort of basis for saying that we are now allowed to have these things in violation of the restrictions. As I indicated, there is litigation that is ongoing right now, Madam Hearing Officer. That is Ridge Acres Phase II, Homeowners Association Incorporated versus Donald Barrington Buchanan and Janet Clare Buchanan. That case was filed December 8, 2023. I apologize. I don't have the case number on my copy here, but that case is currently pending in court here in Polk County in the Circuit Court. The matter before the Florida Commission on Human Relations, I see it's styled as, you know, with Buchanan's as the complainant. So they brought the initial complaint based on, it's a little wordy to look through sitting up here, but based on discrimination? Based on discrimination and claiming that they were emotional support animals. Okay, okay, just glance quickly at the written complaints you provided. Okay, so I do have the three written complaints that you provided from, looks like, various owners in the HOA, and I've got the Notice of Determination of No Cause from the Florida Commission on Human Relations, as well as the Winter Haven Code, which might be of interest perhaps, but doesn't actually apply to this particular property, but applies nearby, perhaps? Nearby, and I believe I got that reference out of the determination of no cause, so that's how I came across that. Okay, so those will all be included as exhibits, so thank you. Is there anything else you wanted to add? All right, nothing, unless you have any questions for me. I don't think so. I don't think so, at least not at this time. Thank you. Thank you. I do know we have at least one other person who wanted to speak, so I'll ask you to come forward now and start by stating your name and address into the microphone. Hello, my name is Valerie Blake-Jones. I live at 464 Adriel Avenue, Winter Haven, Florida, 33880. You are a resident? I'm a resident, yes. I live next door to east of Mr. Buchanan. I'm also the HOA president. And are you here as the president, or are you here as a property owner? Property owner, yes. I just wanted, I have a letter, but I also want to address what Mr. Buchanan stated, that he had emotional support animals. In that report from the Florida Commission, you'll also see where it was proven that he did have a letter from a doctor, but when the commissioner, or Latavia Foy, the housing investigator, when they did more investigation, it found that the doctor stated that he did not have a disability that will warrant to have emotional support animals. So that is in the report as well. Okay, so the letter that I have, I've been a resident at Ridge Acres Phase 2 for 17 years. The Ridge Acres community has an established HOA with rules and regulations to protect the community's property. However, the applicant, Mr. Buchanan, continues to break the rules with his chickens, disturbing our community, and his unauthorized chicken coop. I live next door, east of Mr. Buchanan. In the past three years since Mr. Buchanan has been in the community, I have not had any peace inside or outside my home. The visual eyesore of the loud red-colored chicken coop and the nuisance of his hens and two roosters that crow every day as early as 2.30 a.m. and continue throughout the day until sunset. The loud crows are heard throughout our community, not just in my backyard. I cannot get proper sleep because the roosters awaken me, and I can't concentrate on my work due to the loud noises of the roosters heard inside and outside of my home. And I've also had decreased work performance as well. Also, I'm unable to utilize all of my property and enjoy my backyard. I want to extend my garden, but I do not want to keep my vegetables near his chickens. Last, I am concerned about my families and my health because the chickens are close to the property line. I'm worried about rodents, insects, and wild animals being attracted to the chickens and their eggs, chicken feces and odors, and bacterial, viral, and respiratory diseases that chickens carry. This situation is affecting not only me but also the entire community. In conclusion, I'm here today to plead with you to please deny Mr. Buchanan's variance application. Thank you. Is there anyone else who came here to speak regarding this application, either for or against? Seeing no one, I will close public comment. I will give the applicant a brief opportunity, if you would like, to respond to anything you have heard from either of the speakers. It's optional. It's not required. But if you have any response to any of it, you have a brief opportunity to do that. And is there anything else from staff? No, ma'am. And then next up, we have LDL VAR 2024-22. LDL VAR 2024-22. The Violet Court Rear Yard. Rebecca Trombley requests a reduction in the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet for a patio cover. The property is located in PUD 7110, the Poinciana Development of Regional Impact, at 114 Violet Court, north and south of Violet Court, west of Dogwood Road, south of Tulip Lane, north of Bayberry Street, east of Marigold Avenue, east of Haynes City, in Section 10, Township 28, Range 28. Thirty-six mailers were sent to area property owners on June 11th. One board was posted on the property on June 7th, and a legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on June 14th. I am the case planner. As you can see, the request is very typical of the Poinciana area. Poinciana is a large community of about 28,000 homes that straddles both Osceola and Polk County, and on the Polk County eastern boundary line. There is no future land use. It has a pre-DRI number one designation and goes by the plan unit development, 7110, Poinciana regulations. The setbacks from the rear property line are 20 feet. You've seen a lot of these. This is just an example of one of the many subdivisions. This is the one we're talking about, and this is one of the first ones in this subdivision. However, we've heard many others in some of the other phases of Poinciana. Why this is the first, you can see how it is in 2015 compared to 2023 in just eight years' time. This went from virtually no development to 100% built out. So we expect there will be more variances in the future in this area. The problem that exists is that the rear property line is much higher than typical residential developments we see today. The homes are very normal. The lots are shallow. They are not the typical depth of the standard house lots we see today. This was platted back in the early 70s, and residences were a different design back then. So any time someone wants to add an enclosed structure with a hard roof onto the back of their property, 99.9% of the time, the primary structure sits on that rear property line. The request is to reduce the setback from 20 feet to 10 to provide for actually an 11-foot patio cover. The home is just one foot off the rear property line, so they have a little bit of room. This is the site plan, as you can see here. This is the rear of the property line. You can see how small the backyard is. This is the area that will be covered. There's a mitigating factor that is different than most homes in the area, is that there's this six-foot opaque fence that borders the site. It will obscure most of this structure expansion. There is a 10-foot drainage easement, which the structure will not encroach upon. This is the approximate space it will occupy, looking to the east. Looking down the fence line, you see the homes with varied depths from the back. The neighboring property does have a hard roof structure. We did not find a building permit for that. This is the other neighboring property that's undeveloped. It's one of the only undeveloped properties in the subdivision. Staff recommends approval. As I mentioned before, there is a mitigating circumstance that offsets any potential detriment to the public. There's a six-foot opaque fence. We'll pretty much obscure this for most of the community and the immediate neighbors to the rear. Also, the stringent rear yard setback requirements of the PUD are our other justification that there are some extenuating circumstances, and this won't necessarily be a special privilege in the end for other properties in the subdivision. We anticipate coming in for this very same variance reduction. With that, I'll stand for questions. So the aerial comparison that you showed of 2015 and 2023, it wasn't that in 2015 there were no homes there, right? There were very few. Very few. Yeah. And most of what you see there in 2015 are just lots being cleared and graded. There's not actual structures except in a few select areas like this one right here. Okay. So there's a note in the staff report that this home was built in 2010. So I guess it's one of the few that was there. No, no, no, no. There must be an error. There must be a typo. It's actually in the applicant's justification. I take it back. It's not in the... No, this home was built since the 2020 aerial photos because if I showed you that, you wouldn't see any. It would be vacant. Okay. That's fine. I mean, I'm aware that this is a very, very old PUD, and I was just wondering since this phase didn't get started until decades after the PUD was established, the lot sizes for this phase were established back in the 1970s? Yes. It was platted. The roads were in place. The county accepted the roads many, many years ago, back in the 80s, actually. We accepted the roads. Wasn't working here then. Can't justify it. But we have them now, and, you know, we're trying to make do with what comes in. And like I said, normally today a standard house depth is, or a standard lot depth is at least 110, if not 120 feet. These are all 100. And most housing design... It also comes with a 25-foot setback, so there's not a lot of development window for most standard-sized structures. Okay. I don't think I have any other questions for staff, but is the applicant present? Good afternoon. My name's Rebecca Tremblay. I live at 114 Violet Court, Kissimmee, Florida, 34759. Okay. And when did you purchase the property? We purchased the home February 2021. I think it was a typo. We have a company, a construction company, that we hired to build the porch, and it was upon their investigation that they found that there was a variance. We're from Osso County, so we never knew, and this is our first time buying a home. We didn't know once you buy a home that they still have, you know, I guess, different criteria for what you can build on. So they did assist us with some of the application. The 2010, I think, is when maybe the previous land was developed, but not when our house was built. It's a new construction. So you're the first occupant, first owner of that? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Very good. And you're looking to build a screen room with a solid roof, or is it going to have a screen around it? Yes. Yes, again, with a solid roof. Okay. Do you see that you provided some information in the applicant's justification regarding exposure to heat and outdoor conditions and insects, et cetera, for your son? Yeah, she has eczema, so when she's in the sun too long, her skin gets, she gets a rash on her body. So being able to be, you know, covered when we go outside, it helps. Same with when it's cold or when it rains a lot, we can still enjoy being with the family. My husband's family also has a large family. Our house isn't maybe the biggest, so versus having them outside, it would be nice to be able to have them come and then have an area for them to be in. Okay. Anything else you would like to add? No, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. And I will now open this up for public comment. Is there anyone who came here today to speak regarding this application, either for or against? Seeing no one, we'll close the public hearing. Anything else from staff? The property information states that it was constructed in 2021. Thank you. Appreciate the follow-up. Okay. And that concludes our discussion of that application, and we'll move on to the last one for the day, which is LDLVAR 2024-24. LDLVAR 2024-24, Jacob Lane Rowe is seeking a reduction in the accessory structure side setback from 10 feet to 6 feet for a 20 by 30 building. The property is located at 5142 Meadow Grove Trail, east of Glen Meadow Drive, east of Meadow Grove Trail, west of Dove Meadow Trail, north of the City of Lakeland, in Section 18, Township 27, range 23. The property is approximately 1.27 acres and located in an agricultural residential rural district. 19 mailers were sent to area property owners on June 11th. One board was posted on the property on June 6th. A legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on June 14th. Aaliyah Inglema is the case planner. Aaliyah Inglema with Land Development presenting LDLVAR 2024-24, the Meadow Grove Trail variants. The applicant is seeking a reduction in the accessory structure side setback from 10 feet to 6 feet for a 20 by 30 metal building. The subject site is located at 5142 Meadow Grove Trail, east of Glen Meadow Drive, south of Meadow Grove Trail, west of Dove Meadow Trail, in Lakeland, Section 18, Township 27, range 23. The property is approximately 1.27 acres and is located in agriculture residential rural future land use and in the rural development area. The property is lot 149 and is part of the Country View Estates Phase 3 Platt, which was recorded on June 29th, 1992. The owner purchased the property in September of 2022, according to the Polk County Property Appraiser. The lot is uniquely shaped, which limits where accessory structures can be placed, and the home also does not have an attached garage. The applicant was cited by code enforcement for a building without a permit and seeks to come into compliance. The code enforcement is found to be in violation and the case is pending as the owner is seeking approval for the building to be located 6 feet off the side property line. The applicant has also applied for a building permit. The applicant uses the metal building as a garage for storage, and the applicant mentioned that the garage has no water hookup, no sewage hookup, and no electric. The previous accessory structure was put in place by the last owners and was approximately 415 square feet, and the current owners decided to replace the accessory structure with a newer 600 square foot garage in the same location. The request will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare as the current owners replaced their previous accessory structure with a new structure in the same location. Many homes in this community have accessory structures. Special conditions and circumstances present in the request that do not result from the actions of the applicant is the lot is uniquely shaped, which limits space for adding accessory structures to meet setbacks. And I'll stand for questions. So you've stated that the new structure is in the same location as the previous structure, but the new one is larger by a little bit. Did it get closer to the property line, or was that position held? Which direction or directions did it get expanded in? Do you know how close the prior structure was to the property line? Might be a better way of putting the question. Put it in the staff report, I guess. It may be in there, and I just didn't catch it. I guess I had forgot to put it. I do not know how far the previous structure was to the property line. Aerial photos showed being very, very close. It's approximate. Approximately the same. Okay. So the lot is substantially smaller than the minimum lot size, but it is a lot of record, I take it. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Site plan that's included, not only in this view of it here, but also the view of it in the application materials. It's pretty difficult to read. It's kind of blurry. But am I correct in assuming that the structure that we're talking about is the rectangular structure that all the lines are pointing to, all the distances are pointing to? That's the one? Yes, ma'am. Okay. It's nearly impossible to read the wording on the site plan. Okay. And is the applicant present? As you've seen everyone else come before you, I'll ask you to start with giving us your name and address, please. My name is Jacob Rowe. I live at 5142 Meadow Grove Trail, Lakeland, Florida. Okay. So, you purchased the property in 2022, and the prior structure was on the property at the time, so you had it removed? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Was it on a concrete pad or some other kind of? No, it was just like a horse stable, but the new structure is on concrete. It is in approximately the same location? No. It's just bigger. Same setback as the old structure, just longer and deeper. What is the closest home to the structure other than yours? It is budded against the backyard of, I don't know what lot that is, but it's on the back side of that yard right there. Okay. So, that's the closest residence right there to the structure? Yes, ma'am. Okay. They just have, they have a chicken coop right there in conjunction with mine and a garden along their whole back side. Okay. Anything else you would like to add? Not really, no. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there something you wanted to add? No. Oh, okay. Well, then, thank you very much. All done? Yeah. All right, cool. This is a public hearing, so I will open this up for any member of the public who might have come to speak for or against. Seeing no one, we'll close public comment. Anything else from staff? No, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Are we adjourned? We are. I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were waiting. I thought I had said it. We're done. Okay. We're done.