The June 26th, 2025, Land Use Hearing Officer meeting. There are agendas for everyone on the back table. Also on the back table are forms you can fill out if you would like to speak or receive a copy of the final decision on any case on today's agenda. If you think you might want to speak during the hearing, you will need to complete a speaker form. Once the form is completed, please hand it to our clerk. I'm Barry Buenaventura, an attorney with Buenaventura Law in Tampa. I have been appointed by the Board of County Commissioners to hear special exception and variance cases. If anyone has a pending case in which I or my firm is representing you, please bring that to my attention now as we want to avoid any potential conflicts. I don't believe that to be the case. I've reviewed the cases that will be heard today, and I'm not aware of any conflicts. The cases will be called in the order listed on the agenda unless there is a request for a case to be taken out of term. 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 hearing. 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 to provide. 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 and express their opinions on the application. 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 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 during public comment, please 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 concluding statements if they choose. 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 the 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 today's hearing. If anyone should need an interpreter, 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, and that would include all applicants or their representative. If you are going to address the land use hearing officer of any case today, please stand and raise your right hand and answer out loud to the following question. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you provide today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Okay. The first item on their agenda today is approval of the minutes from the May 19, 2025, land use hearing officer meeting, and we can show those minutes as accepted. Next up, we have item LDLSE 2025-5. Good afternoon. Eric Peterson for the Land Development Division. LDLSE 2025-5. Maniel Delgado is requesting a special exception to park a commercial vehicle and trailer on a residential property on 4.18 acres in the agricultural residential rural area in the Green Swamp area of critical state concern. The property is located at 1-2-5-5-5-8, Country Place Road, north of Countryside Drive, west of Rockridge Road, east of Farmets Road, north of the city of Lakeland, in Section 14, Township 26, Range 23. On June 10th, 21 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on May 23rd, and a legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on June 11th. So far, we've had no response from the public. Andrew Grokowski is the case planner. Good afternoon. Andrew Grokowski with Land Development, presenting LDLSE 2025-5. The applicant's requesting to a special exception to park a 2004 Kenworth T600 semi-truck with an associated trailer at their residence on approximately 4.18 acres. Staff recommends approval. The subject property is located at 12-5-5-8, Country Place Road, north of Countryside Drive, west of Rockridge Road, east of Farmets Road, north of Lakeland, in Section 14, Township 26, and Range 23. The subject property is located in northwest Polk County in the Agricultural Residential Rural Land Use District in the Green Swamp area of critical state concern. The property is approximately 4.18 acres and is lot 6 within the Rockridge Farm Ed Subdivision recorded in a plat on July 17, 1984. At the time, the property met the minimum lot size of the RC2 zoning district at the time and is therefore considered a lot of record. The home was built in 1986 and was purchased by the current owner in 2023, according to the property appraiser. Two prior special exception cases, LDL SC 2024-11 and LDL SC 2021-1, are less than two miles from the subject property and have received approval for parking a commercial vehicle on 1.82 acres and 1.35 acres of residential property. While this property is considered a lot of record, if the applicant's property were just 0.82 acres larger, the applicant would not be required to go through the special exception process. This is a close-up of the property with the approximate location of the parking area. It would be parked to the rear adjacent to the shed behind the existing home. It's approximately 158 feet and 145 feet from the property boundary lines. The property has access to Country Place Road, which is a private paved roadway maintained by the HOA. The vehicle will travel a short distance before reaching Rockridge Road, which is owned by the county and is a rural minor collector roadway. The surrounding roads near the property have no wait restrictions. Here's the applicant's site plan submitted for the record. The tract is part of Rockridge Farmette Subdivision, which was recorded in 1984 and has an actively listed HOA. The restrictive covenants and conditions mention that, quote, the subdivision permits one semi-tractor on any tract at any time, unquote, when the HOA was created for the subdivision. However, the applicant will still have to adhere to the commercial vehicle parking requirements from the county as outlined in Section 216D of the Land Development Code. Due to the parking area being within 200 feet of a residential property, the parking area will have to meet the screening and buffering requirements to minimize any visibility from the neighbors to the south and public right-of-way. You can see that there's a significant amount of vegetation that exists along the rear of the property line between the proposed parking area and the neighboring property. The southern property line will have to have at least a six-foot opaque fence and or a type-B buffer yard. It can be along the southern property line or it could be directly where the parking will be located. So staff visited the site back in May, on May 23rd. The applicant was cited by code enforcement in the past for parking multiple commercial vehicles at this location. As you can see, the buffering will be required facing the southern property line to the right. So staff is recommending approval. The request is consistent with the standards in Section 216 of the LDC, except for landscaping and fencing, which must be provided before any approval can become effective. The impacts to the surrounding neighbors and neighborhood are minimal. The request will be limited to parking one truck, a 2004 Kenworth T600 semi-truck, with its associated trailer. This special exception shall be for the operator, Mr. Delgado, as mentioned in the staff report, only and shall not run with the land. And with that, I'll stand for questions. You've provided the dimensions and the weight of the vehicle. Is that correct? There were some updates to the report that have the accurate dimensions? Okay. So it is the cab and the trailer, but the trailer would have to be empty when parked on the property. Is there a refrigerator unit on the vehicle? It doesn't have the capability. It's not permitted to be run. It's not on the vehicle. You mentioned the HOA. Do you know if the HOA has to approve this in any way? Very good. Exhibit 7 of the staff report mentions the restrictions for properties. And so just given that, making sure that it would have to be able to... Without any... sort of process through the HOA, it's just automatically allowed, as far as you know. Okay. In the photographs of the vehicle on the property, I assume those photographs are on the subject property, it does look like there are some items on the trailer bed, and I assume that that would not be permitted going forward, that that's right. Okay. Okay. Is it working? Okay. Thank you. I think that's all I have for now, for you. Is the applicant present? Okay. Could you come forward, please, to our podium over here? If you could start by giving us your name and address and confirm that you were sworn in at the beginning. I'm not sure if you stood. You were. Okay. Yes. Hi. Great. God bless. Good afternoon. My name is Manuel Delgado. The property address is 12558, Country Place Road, Leyland, Florida, 33809. I wanted to bring to your attention, at the time of the picture, they have some parts on top of the flatbed. They are no longer there. Okay, that's fine. I just wanted some clarification. I understand that that was one moment in time when the photo was taken. I was just looking for some clarification. Sure. Okay. So you've heard the presentation from staff. Before I ask you a few questions, do you have anything you would like to add in support of your application? I heard everything. I'm okay. I'm fine with it. Okay. Can you tell me how you use the vehicle? I'm a truck driver. I use it every week. I just go out of state. I use it one time to go in, one time to go out. If I don't get unloaded early during the day, I sleep in the truck, and I will not disturb my neighbors going through, you know, at nighttime. So you would sleep in the vehicle off-site, you mean? Outside, yes, at the customer. Sometimes I get unloaded at nighttime, and I got respect for my neighbors. I only go one time a week out. I run out of state. And when I return back to the state, after I drop off my load, if I get unloaded at night, I remain part of the night in the truck. Then after 7 o'clock, 8 o'clock in the morning, I drive right in for my days off. Okay. So I take it then when you're busy, the truck is away from the property for days at a time? That's correct. And is your business as a truck driver your primary source of income? Yes, I'm just, they call owner-operator. I got my own authority under my own rights, my insurance, everything. Do you know if you need any sort of approval from your homeowners association? I have no idea. I see some of the properties that have semis as well. So as I'm sure you know, staff has recommended approval of the application with a number of conditions, and I just want to make sure that you're aware of the conditions that they have recommended. First of all, the code would only allow one commercial vehicle, just this particular commercial vehicle, if it's approved, to be there. So it's not just that it's one at a time. It's that this would be the only one whenever it might be there. The approval is only for you, the current owner, and your vehicle. If you were to sell the property, the right to park a commercial vehicle there doesn't go to the next owner unless they get their own approval for that. No maintenance on the vehicle would be allowed on the property. If any maintenance needs to be done to repair the vehicle or anything like that, that would need to be done elsewhere. We've already covered that there can't be any load or cargo or items on the bed of the truck when it's parked there. The vehicle would have to be parked in the location that is shown on the site plan. It's not that you can park it anywhere on the property, just in the place that's been designated on the plan. And the approval is valid for one year. Before the end of the year, you can request an extension of that if you want to without coming back in front of this process as long as you get your request to extend it in before your year has expired. If it expires, you have to start the process all over again. So you'll want to make note of that if this gets approved. How do I get the extension, the renewal? The staff can explain that to you if you ask them after the hearing. I'm sure they can explain the process. I don't participate in that process, so I don't know how it works. But it would be handled through the staff of the department. Would that be the second floor? Yes, it would be. Okay. I see heads nodding, so yes. Thank you. Is there anything else you would like to add or explain? I will honor all the restrictions that you are allowing me to. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. You have yourself a blessed day to all of you. God bless. This is a public hearing, so I would invite anyone who came here today to speak regarding the application to come forward, and anyone who has comments in support or an objection. Seeing no one, we will close the public hearing. Is there anything else from staff? No, ma'am. Thank you. And then next up, we'll move to LDL VAR 2025-24. LDL VAR 2025-24. Jonathan Manning is requesting a primary side setback reduction for a single-family home from 7 feet to 4 feet, and a right-of-way setback reduction from 15 feet to 6 feet for a home addition. The property is located in a residential low 3 district. The site is 2429 Lake Hartridge Drive, west of Lake Alfred, north of Havendale Boulevard, northwest east of the city of Winter Haven, in Section 17 Township 28, Range 26. On June 10th, 43 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property, May 23rd, and a legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on June 11th. So far, we've had no response in opposition. Aaliyah Inglema is the case planner. Good afternoon. Aaliyah Inglema with Land Development presenting LDL VAR 2025-24, the East Lake Hartridge Drive variance. The applicant is requesting a primary side setback reduction for a single-family home from 7 feet to 4 feet, and a right-of-way setback reduction from 15 feet to 6 feet for a home addition. The subject site is located at 2429 East Lake Hartridge Drive, west of Lake Alfred Road, north of Havendale Boulevard, northwest, and east of the city of Winter Haven, in Section 17 Township 28, Range 26. The site is approximately 0.65 acres, located within a residential low 3 future lane use district, and in the transit-supported development area. The owner purchased the property in July of 2023. According to the Polk County property appraiser, the lot was recorded prior to the Land Development Code comprehensive plan and the first zoning ordinance, so the home does not currently meet setbacks. The applicant applied for a building permit in March of 2025, and the applicant was told by the permitting staff that a variance is required based on the setbacks shown within the site plan. The building permit is pending as the owner is seeking approval for the home addition to be located 4 feet off the side property line and 6 feet from the right-of-way. The home addition will be located in the front yard of the property and will be located at a distance similar to adjacent neighboring homes. Approximately about 10 homes along this roadway are either not meeting setbacks or are located on the right-of-way. Here are a few shown in the photo on this slide. There's one up to the north, and then there's one down here to the south. This property also has a pipe that is maintained by the county just north of the home. The applicant can't place the addition to the rear of the home as there is a pool, so the only place to place the addition is at the front of the home. The request will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare as the addition will stay out of the county-maintained pipe and other homes within this community are closer to the right-of-way, and I'll stand for questions. The drawing that you have up, the carport that you showed in one of the earlier photos, where is that in relation to the proposed addition? Is this what you're talking about? I believe the addition is going over here. Okay, so the front door to the home is going to be moved closer to the right-of-way? I'll defer to the applicant, but they are adding on to the home, so it's probably going to change access and a bunch of other things. And the pipe that you mentioned, is that pipe in an easement? Is there an easement on the property? Yes, so there is an easement, and basically that pipe goes into the lake and is maintained by the county. How wide is the easement? I don't know. That's a good question. Was it on the plat? Is it 50? Okay. 50 feet. 50 feet wide? Well, we'll get to that when we have someone at the podium who can address that. But if you should find that on the plat, we'd appreciate knowing it. Yep. Do you know what kind of pipe it is? Is it drainage? Drainage, yes. Going into the lake. Okay. Seems like a very wide easement for a drainage pipe. What is the minimum lot size in RL3? The minimum lot size in RL3 is 10,000 square feet. I believe you said that some existing improvement on the property does not meet a setback. Can you tell me which one that is? Which setback line are we already up against? So the side of the house right here, just to the south, is not meeting the setback. But with this request, we're including the home and the addition to bring it up to code. So if the request is approved, it would meet the setback reduction request. But for the addition, that would not be an issue, correct? Because of the age of the structure and the lot and the date, the code, et cetera. I have the information on the plat whenever. Sure. That would be great. Interesting history. The street coming down to the lake is a 50-foot-wide right-of-way. When it reaches what is now Lake Hartridge Drive, it widens to 75 feet because it was a park dedicated to the public. And so we retained that right-of-way. So, yes, the 50 feet on the property became the drainage easement. Has that right-of-way been vacated? I don't have any record of it being vacated, but it could go back a lot longer. This is a very old subdivision that came prior to zoning and subdivision regulations. And a lot of the data in the property appraiser's website only goes back to, say, the 70s. But on the plat, it's a park. It's a 70-foot-wide park. And so that eventually became the drainage easement over time. Okay. Well, I don't want to get into the weeds unnecessarily, but the pipe is in that 50-foot easement. Okay. And so the easement goes all the way to the north property line. Yes. And it continues on. It's wider. It goes to the other property. The park was vacated, but the easement was retained. Okay. I don't have the OR book and page, but that's the history behind it. Thank you. It was planted in 1925, so. Anything else for the moment? No. Okay. All right. Is the applicant present? If you could come forward, please, and start by giving us your name and address. My name is Jonathan Manning. And address is 2429 East Lake Hartridge Drive in Winter Haven, Florida. Okay. So I believe you are the one who spoke up earlier from the audience. Yes, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to get some clarification. No, no, that's okay. But now we'll get that on the record since you're in front of a microphone. And I believe you said that you believed the easement to be 50 feet wide. Yeah, so this process started, we've been trying to build a mother-in-law for a couple years now. And when we bought that property, that was a platted park, but it was really run down. So I started maintaining it and doing everything to maintain it, to keep it nice. And then I started the path of trying to buy it. So we purchased the park, basically, from the county, trying to do an addition. And then when it came time to run for permitting, they said I can't build on it because they basically sold it to me, but now it's still an easement. So basically, we own the rights to it, but we can't do anything with it. So then I was back to square one with trying to build this addition. So we had the pool put on prior to this, so we can't build over a pool. It's for my parents who can't go upstairs, so I can't go up. So my only option is the front of the house. But unfortunately, they changed the setback laws at some point. So now, even though I want to run my existing footprint, it would still be outside of the parameters of the new setbacks. Okay. So the proposed addition would be in line with the existing side of your home? Yes, ma'am. Yeah, we're not trying to go any further. We just want to run the footprint of the house. Okay. And the size of the proposed addition? It's 1,100 square feet. Okay, 1,100. 1,100. What's the approximate size of your current residence? 1,649, I believe, with the addition of, like, we have a laundry room and the screen room attached to it. For your parents or your parents? Okay. And they, I guess, currently live elsewhere? Yeah. Their house burned down in Georgia. Then they moved down here. And then they're needing almost daily assistance from either myself or my wife. So it'd be nice to get them, you know, in the front yard. Neither one of them moved around very well. And my mom's got an onset dementia, so. Okay. Is there anything else you would like to add in support of the application? No, ma'am. I think that was it. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. I'll add just more information. He was correct. The county deeded it through quick claim on July 23rd, 2023, or July 11th, 2023. But, yes, he had two-thirds of the park. We retained the easement. Okay. 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? You may. Like they were stating, both of our neighbors, even with the proposed addition, would stick out four feet further than us, even with our addition on the front. So just to put that in perspective, so they could never do a wider street or do any kind of improvements in the neighborhood. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Again, I will invite anyone who may have come to offer their opinion on the application to come forward. Seeing no one, we'll close public comment. Anything else from staff? No, ma'am. Thank you. Okay. That takes us to our final item for today, which is LDLVAR 2025-25. LDLVAR 2025-25. Sarah Case, on behalf of the owners, Stephen and Caitlin Webb, requests an accessory structure to be 280% larger than the primary structure on a property of approximately 9.9 acres. It is located in the residential suburban future land use district, and the address is 3849 Old Dixie Highway, north of U.S. Highway 92, south of Cherry Drive, east of Shalimar Creek Drive, west of South Hampton Boulevard, east of Auburndale in Section 7, Township 28, Range 25. On June 10th, 27 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on May 23, 2025. And a legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on June 11th. We've received one letter in support and one letter in opposition. Andrew Grahowski is the case planner. Good afternoon, Madam Officer. Andrew Grahowski with Land Development, presenting LDLVAR 2025-25, the Webb Barn Variance. The applicant has requested a variance on behalf of the property owners to permit the construction of an accessory structure to be larger in square footage than the primary residence. Staff is recommending approval. As mentioned already, the subject property is located at 3849 Old Dixie Highway, north of U.S. Highway 92, south of Cherry Drive, east of Shalimar Creek Drive, west of South Hampton Boulevard, east of Auburndale in Section 7, Township 28, Range 25. The property is about 9.9 acres, located in the residential suburban land use district. It sits between two planned unit developments from the 1980s. The subject site has access off of Old Dixie Highway and backs up to open space owned by the Hamptons Mobile Home Park, one of the PUDs mentioned already. The immediate area generally consists of residential neighborhoods with Tenereck High School to the north. The red barn behind the residence was built in 1999, and the current owners purchased the property in 2022, according to the property appraiser. So according to the owners, the existing red barn as well as another structure were both damaged last fall due to Hurricane Milton. The new accessory structure will be situated in approximately the same building footprint as the red barn shown on your screen right here. So the requested size of the barn is meant to replace both damaged structures. Per the applicant's site plan, the pole barn will be about 9,180 square feet and meet all setbacks in the RS land use district. For the record, here is the site plan submitted in greater detail with sample elevation drawings. Based on these drawings, the new barn will be 23 feet at its highest point. Per the owner, the new barn is intended to shelter and protect all items in one centralized location. These include farm materials such as hay and feed, as well as recreational items including an RV and trailer, four-wheeler, and jet skis. The owner mentioned the new barn would not only provide shelter for these items but serve as sufficient space for hockey practice as well. Here is a street view of the subject property with the owner's residence in the foreground and the red barn in the background. The neighbor's shed is on the left. Here is a photo of the site visit taken from the owner's driveway looking east at the existing barn. The owner's house is directly to the left of your screen. And then just a closer up view of the existing red barn that is slated to be demolished. Here are additional angles of the red barn provided for the record from the applicant. And these are also additional photos of the structure that succumbed the most damage from the recent storms. That's the red barn or that's a different structure? That's a different structure. Okay. And you did use the phrase earlier, two structures, I think, and that confused me a bit. So there were previously or are currently existing in disrepair two structures, a red barn and this? That's correct. Okay. What is this that I'm looking at right now? I believe I can defer to the applicant, but I believe it's a pole barn, an open space pole barn. Okay. 24 by 14 pole barn was a 24. I understand. Right. No, I can tell that. But if you wouldn't mind just going back to an aerial and showing me where the structure was or where its remains are. So the red barn is located where the proposed structure is. However, I'm not sure where that structure photo was taken. We'll get to that when we get to the applicant. So with my cursor, it's right here from the applicant. That's the structure that you just showed photos of. That was demolished, the last structure. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt your... No, you're fine. So that structure. And so staff recommends approval for this request. The barn will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, as the new structure will be in relatively the same building footprint as the old red barn and has been existing since 1999. As previously mentioned, the current structures were damaged by recent storms and are now unable to house personal items and equipment. The building is located to the north side of the property while meeting all accessories setback requirements. And with that, I'll stand for questions. The posed structure will be enclosed or will be a pole barn? It will be fully enclosed. Does the county have any concerns, restrictions, regulations regarding the use of the structure as an ice hockey practice facility? So it wouldn't be ice hockey. The applicant just liked to mention that they would use the space for hockey practice as a concrete floor just to provide them extra space, I guess, for practice. So there's nothing concerned from a county perspective, especially if the enclosure is fully or the building is fully enclosed. There's no noise concerns from that, especially if it's personal use as well. And is it? Yes. I did see the letter in support and the letter in opposition that have been provided. And is there anyone here, and we'll get to public comment in a moment, but is there anyone here other than the applicant or the applicant's representative who intends to speak regarding this application? I'm curious if either of the authors of the letters are here because I did have some questions, but I don't see any hands being raised. So I'm going to ask you, see what you know, and then we'll also ask the applicant's representative as well. But the letter in opposition to the application is written in a curious manner in that it is authored by people who I'm assuming are neighbors, although I don't know. But they reference that not they themselves, not I am worried about this, or I am concerned about that. But the letter says, quote, they are worried about this, or they, not the authors of the letter, but some unknown they. And I'm wondering if you know who they are referring to. I actually do not know. Okay. Have you seen the letter in opposition? I have seen the letter, yes, and it was referring to a commercial business that would be placed on site. However, this is a personal use. Well, that leads to my next question. Are you aware if there's going to be a commercial business put there, and you're shaking your head, so I assume no? No, that wouldn't be allowed. Okay. And how does the county monitor that? How would the county know? I know typically when these structures do get approved by a variance, there's always a condition put in there that they can't be a home-based business. But how would the county know? I believe that would be through building. Code enforcement would get, if there were complaints, they would go to code enforcement, and they monitor both the activity at the business or websites that the business might have. So if it was becoming an actual business, they would be able to gain evidence that way. If someone were to contact the county? If it was complaint, yeah. If code enforcement today works like if the tree falls in the woods and there's nobody to hear it, it doesn't really make a noise. I understand. Code enforcement is responsive. Yes. It's not necessarily proactive. I mean, there's different approaches that can be taken, but that's my understanding of how the county approaches code enforcement here. Okay. I think that answers my questions of you for the moment. I may have others. But I think we're now ready for the applicant's representative, or the owner's representative, I should say. Good afternoon. My name is Sarah Case. I'm with Next Level Planning and Permitting. Our address is 3825 South Florida Avenue, and that is in Lakeland. And I'm here as the applicant, as an authorized agent for the owners. There are a few things that I want to touch upon. And number one, the letter of opposition. I think this was similar to possibly, I could equate it to like the game of telephone, where just some buzz word got out or whatever, and it turned into something like this. So my client, the owner of the property, his last name is Webb. There is a prominent business in Lakeland, Webb's Towing. They're not even family members related, and this has nothing to do with Webb's Towing. My client actually owns another property on Cumbie for his graphic design business, and he owns the property and operates out of there. So that should address a lot of the concerns that were in the letter of opposition, because it is what we're asking for is strictly for their home and personal use recreationally and for the maintenance of the property. The property is 9.9 acres in size. It does look alarming when it says 280% of, but I will encourage you to please look at the elevations that we submitted, because the foundation of the new barn is 50 by 100, the actual building itself. And then there are 12-foot overhangs on each side. So we take everything that's under roof, which is the 9,180-square-foot new enclosed barn that we're requesting. We are requesting that the barn go in the spot where the red barn is. The barn that you saw pictures of that's not the red barn was a pole barn. You could see the damage that was done and that it was, there's a mobile home there, there was a possibly four-wheeler, jet skis, and that'll be completely demolished along with the red barn upon your consideration and your verdict, if you will. So, also, I wanted to bring attention to the fact that we're 35 feet from our nearest neighbor, the proposed barn from the neighbor's property line, and the actual setback required in this land use designation is 10 feet. So, we're more than observing and following that set restriction. There are four, let's see, four conditions of approval, and we are in agreement with all of them. As a matter of fact, specifically, the one year, because pending your decision, they will be ordering the structure, basically. It's a 26-gauge metal building. I think that was everything that I wanted to touch upon, but I know it was very concerning to read a letter about a commercial business, because that is not our intent at all. So, what was decided, because both barns, Pole Barn and Red Barn, were destroyed, knowing that they would have to build back, they sat down and thought, what would we ever, if we're going to have to rebuild, let's just build one structure, and then what would we ever want that to be used for? And having a smooth concrete surface to practice hockey, the father and son are involved in that, and they have to go out of town to practice. It would just be a convenience for them, and it is absolutely not opened to the public. And I think I touched on every, maybe, every initial concern, so I'll stand for any questions that you have, and I appreciate your consideration. So, not open to the public, open to a team for practice? Not at all, not at all. It's personal use, personal use. And that was, so it's a private recreation space associated with the residential use. Is that from the code that you're? I'm reading one of the conditions. Okay. Sorry. It's all right. All right, and the existing barn, I'm guessing, or the old barn, I assume that's the red one, according to the staff report, was 1,404 square feet. Do you know the size of the pole barn? I do. I've got that written somewhere. It's smaller. It's also built in 1999. Both of the barns were built. They are still standing, if you will, but not standing soundly. So, it is 24 by 14, and that appears to be 336 square feet. So, the 39 by 36 red barn is 1,404 square feet, and then the 24 by 14 appears to be only 336. But combined, we're taking 1,740 feet that's there now and building what is proposed that you see from your staff report. And again, the proposed structure, you said, has a foundation of 50 by 100. Tell me again about the overhangs, because I don't, it doesn't jump out at me when I look at the. Well, and actually, it's not on the plan. Andrew, would you mind going to the elevation? So, it's 50 by 100, and at the very, very top of the tallest point of the proposed, and this would be the one, I guess, closest to me, to your left. So, the highest point would be 23 feet. The existing red barn is 20 feet right now. Just thought you might ask that. And at the very crest of that, there's a little note that talks about, it's a triangle, and it says 12 feet. So, we requested and received, yes, right there, it says 12 feet. So, there will be a 12-foot eave, the edge of the roof, on all four sides. Struggling to visualize that, but it extends out over the ground. Yes, correct. So, they can put chairs, rocking chairs, you know, anything. It's not for storage, but it offers some shade, but that is what they're proposing to build. And that overhang is in shaded area, is not going to be enclosed? No. Okay. But the enclosed square footage is? 5,000 square feet. Okay. But because of the size of the roof slash overhang, that's how we get to the 9,180. The 9,180, yes. Okay. And I believe you or Andrew said that the items that will be stored in there are some recreational vehicles, maybe a jet ski. Right, jet skis, four-wheeler, camper, any kind of mowing equipment for the 10 plus or minus acres, seed, and all for the maintenance of their property. And then they're hoping to have an area that is the smooth concrete to practice. But it's all personal use. Okay. I think that addresses all of my questions except hardship, which is one of the required factors. I'm sorry? Hardship, which is one of the required factors. How would you address that? Well, basically, they bought the property in 22, and there was a pole barn, and then there was the other barn. And while the pole barn suffered extreme damage from Milton, the red barn did as well. So, as mentioned, the family thought, if we have to build this back, what can we build? And knowing that it was going to be 150% or more than 150% more than would be allowed that we wouldn't need a permit for, they thought, well, let's just decide what we want to have in here. I know it sounds funny, but the hockey surface, because that is their hobby, and with the property being so large in size, it just seemed like it was worth it to them to go through this process to get that approval for a one-time, knowing that they have to rebuild anyway. They might as well condense and then size it to what they would need in the future and their dreams and goals kind of thing for this new structure. I don't know how eloquently I said that, but I was trying to make sense. Okay. Anything else? Thank you. No? Thank you. Thank you. I do, I'm sorry, I do have a map of the residence that was opposed, their distance from where we are, but I will give it to our case planner. Sure. If you're able, when you come back to the podium, if you could just tell me approximately how far that residence is from the subject property, either one of you. Okay. Okay. It's up. Okay. Is that a dimension that's called out on the dashed line? It's a little hard. Oh, there we go. Yes, it's over 900 feet as the crow flies. I'm a visual. Okay. Although I asked earlier, I will ask again, is there anyone who came here today to speak regarding this application, either for or against? If not, seeing no one, we will close the public hearing. Anything else from staff? That's all. No, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. We are done. Away. Away. Away. Away. Away. Away.