Also, on the back table are forms you can fill out if you would like to speak or receive a copy on 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 be a land use hearing officer to hear variants and special exception 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, but please let me know if you do. 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 turn. These hearings are quasi-judicial, which means that 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 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. 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 that may have come up during public comment. They will also be able to make concluding statements for their application. The hearing will close for each case following the concluding statements of the parties. My decision will not be given today, but will be given in a written 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 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 needs an interpreter, please let our clerk know, and the 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. That includes any applicant, as I always ask the applicant to come forward and make a few remarks. If you're going to address the land use hearing officer today on any case, 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 the minutes from the July 24th, 2025 land use hearing officer meeting, and we will show those as accepted. And then moving into new business, I understand we have one case we want to deal with up front that is to be continued? Yes, that is case number LDLVAR 2025-39. Prestwood? Prestwood, yes. Okay. It is a request for a variance to reduce the right-of-way distance from 35 to 12 feet. It's located at 1001 Lake Lowry Road, west and south of County Road 17, north of Haines City, Lake Alfred Road, east of Oakdale Road, north of the city of Haines City, in Section 12, Township 27, Range 26. The applicant is Bobby Prestwood. I understand the applicant cannot be here today. We are requesting a continuance to September 25th. Okay, very good. We will do that. We will continue it to the September 25th hearing. So if anyone is here for that case, if you came to hear it or speak about it, it will not be heard today, but it will be heard on September 25th. So then we will now move to LDL SE 2025-7. Eric Peterson for the record. LDL SE 2025-7. Carinia Hernandez is requesting a special exception to park a commercial vehicle on a residential property in an agricultural residential rural district on 1.15 acres. The property is located at 1452 Tiger Lake Road, north of State Road 60, south of Rawls Road, east of the city of Lake Wales, in Section 11, Township 30, Range 29. On August 7th, 20 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on August 1, 2025. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on August 13th. We have one letter in opposition, and Ian Nance is the case planner. Good afternoon, Ian Nance of Land Development. The applicant is requesting approval of a special exception to park a commercial vehicle on residential property at 1452 Tiger Lake Road. The subject site is in an agricultural residential rural future land use district southwest of Tiger Lake. Lots in ARR typically have to be five acres to be eligible for a building permit, but this is a lot of record created prior to the comprehensive plan. If the lot size met five acres, a commercial vehicle could be parked here without this application. This would also be true if the vehicle was kept in an enclosed structure. The subject property has direct access to Tiger Lake Road, a county rural minor collector. As an approval with this case, I'm sorry, an approval with this case will require commercial driveway to help protect the county pavement. The site is less than a mile and a half north of State Road 60, a major east-west thoroughfare in the area. It's a very rural area of the county where few other opportunities to park commercial vehicles exist. The applicant's site plan is to the lower left. The vehicle in question is a 2015 Kenworth Semi without a trailer. At 10 feet high and 22 feet long, this is on the smaller side of some of these commercial vehicle parking requests we get. At over an acre, the site has plenty of space to park this truck in an area that easily exceeds the 20-foot setbacks required by the Land Development Code from adjoining property lines. The only home abutting the property is at least 90 feet to the southeast. Before any approval can be valid, the parking area needs to be landscaped with either Type B landscaping buffer or have a 6-foot opaque fence placed along the eastern and southern property lines to block the parking area from off-site. Once this is accomplished, though, the criteria for parking commercial vehicle on-site will be complete. Staff finds parking this truck in the location provided by the applicant should not create a negative impact on the health and safety of surrounding residents and recommends approval. Without a thank you, we'll stand for questions. So there were some photo of the vehicle that was included in the staff report. There were also some photos of a vehicle that were submitted with the letter in opposition, and those appeared to be of a different vehicle. They do. They look to be some sort of septic or construction vehicle. I took a look at them. But the vehicle you see here on the screen is the one subject for this special exception. Okay. And no trailer, correct? No, ma'am. Okay. What is the posted speed limit on Tiger Creek Road? Fifty miles per hour. Fifty. Are there any concerns for traffic impacts with the vehicle pulling in and out in this location? No, ma'am. He has, and I didn't get a great picture of it, he has probably about the width for a commercial vehicle driveway as it is. He just needs to have it inspected. As far as impacts to the road, again, if this was a five-acre lot, he could park here. So, really, the impact of roads is pretty negligible. So, not only no concerns for the physical road once we have the commercial driveway there, but no concerns for traffic? No, ma'am. I'd hazard to guess there's 20 developed lots up and down the Tiger Lake Road, and most of them are well over 100 feet from the right-of-way. It's a setback. It's a collector roadway. I'd say 20, maybe 30 homes maximum as you read 60, but I don't think it's that much. Okay. Is the applicant present? Okay. Could you come forward, please? And if I could have you start by giving your name, please. Irene Acepero Hernandez. Okay. And do you have someone with you today? Si. Okay. If you could come to the microphone, please. Okay. Okay. Could you speak into the microphone, please? I'm her sister. I'm translating for her. Okay. Could you give us your name, please? Yenisol Cepero. And could you spell that for me, please? It would be first name Y-E-N-I-C-E-L, last name Cepero, C-E-E-E-R-O. Okay. And I'm going to have our clerk swear you in as an interpreter. Okay. So we'll do that now. Can you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm you will truthfully and correctly translate English into Spanish and Spanish into English here today? Yes, I do. Thank you. Okay. So you heard staff's presentation. Do you have anything you would like to add in support of your application? No. Can you tell me how the vehicle is used? I'm sorry? Commercial flatbed. Could you provide more information? Se mueve cargas de cebolla, lo que lo manden a hacer en la compañía. He can transport like onion or anything comestible and anything they send him to transport. Does the vehicle come and go every day or is it gone for a longer period of time? Bueno, eso depende. Hay veces que se va por un periodo largo y hay veces que no. That depends. Sometimes it's out for a long time and sometimes it's late every day. Is the vehicle your family's primary source of income? Yes. If the application is approved, staff has recommended several conditions that would have to be met. I just want to make sure you're aware of them. See? You would have to install a commercial driveway that would have to be approved by the county. The vehicle, when parked on your property, would have to be empty. No maintenance of the vehicle can be performed on your property. And if approved, the approval is only for you and this vehicle. If you sell the property, the right to park the vehicle there doesn't transfer to the new owner. Lastly, the approval is valid for one year and you can request an extension of it before that one year is up. If you fail to do that, you've got to go through this process all over again. Is there anything else you would like to add? For ahora, no. Not for now. Thank you. As noted at the outset, there was one letter that was received in opposition to the application. I have reviewed that letter. It's also my understanding that we have someone who would like to speak regarding the application. So I'll open up the public comment for this application and ask Donald Tarn to come forward. If you could start with your name and address, please. My name is Donald Tarn. My address is 1442 Tiger Lake Road, Lake Wells, Florida. The floor is yours. The floor is mine. Okay. I'm not specifically opposing the parking of the one cab on their property. I don't think there'll be a problem with that. What I'm afraid of, it's going to turn into what it turned into before, a truck stop with multiple tractors and trailers. I have pictures of that. I didn't submit them earlier. This is from two years ago. After a while, I think the driver had relocated, so the trucks all disappeared. But I don't want to go back to that. And as recently as two weeks ago, there was a tractor and a trailer on the property. And I believe that having the tractor there is fine. But the trailers, I don't agree with it because I think it's going to cause a detrimental loss in value to my property. And I don't want to go through it again. I went through it enough. And, of course, I didn't call in or make complaints or anything because I'm an ex-truck driver. But it just got so out of hand. And I just don't want to go back to that. And I'm afraid that's what's going to happen. And my question to you is, I didn't hear you mention the fact that are trailers allowed on the property, any kind of trailers under this exception? That's a question for staff. And we'll get them to answer that. So far, I mean, the application does not include or... Yeah, I read it there. But I wanted to make it part of the record today. That's really my only concern. And besides mechanical work, you already addressed that. What is my recourse if these more cabs and more trailers start appearing again? Code enforcement. Code enforcement? Okay. As long as they understand that, we're good. But I just don't want to go back to what I showed you right there. That's it. Okay. We have your photos. You identified yourself on your speaker card as someone who was neutral regarding the application. Is that still accurate? It's neutral. I've thought about it and thought about it. And, you know, the guy needs to have his cab home so he can work. But I don't want a truck stop next door. And that's what it turned into before. And I'm afraid it's going to happen again if this exception is granted. Okay. Well, the application is for one vehicle only, this particular vehicle. Or it's equivalent. Okay. Okay. I have one other question. In the report, it had said that there was no code violations on that property. And I found that not to be true. Maybe I put it in here. Here it is. A code violation on February 18th. CEC 2025-560. Someone else made a complaint about an RV on the side of their house. But it's just in your report. It said no code enforcement cases are active on this site. And that's not accurate. I'm sure staff will make a note of that. Okay. When the staff wants to address it now. That's about all I have to say. Thank you for hearing me. Thank you, sir. It was filed after the report had been written. Okay. The February case, did you say it was February? Yeah. That one was closed out. It said owner corrected. We have a new one for August 17th, 2025. On your website, it doesn't show that. It shows it's still in violation by Patrick King as of February 18th. No update. That was CMA 2025-137. It was, it's showing closed. Owner corrected. That's not the number I have, sir. The number I have is CEC 2025-560. It's on the website. Sure, staff can take a look at that and update the case if, staff report if needed. Yes. Unless there's some other information that you. That was the, the complaint itself. The magistrate case was CMA 2025-348, and then it was owner corrected on February 20th, 2025. But a new case has been open on August 17th. That is CEC 2025-3086. Okay. Okay. We'll, we'll put that in the report. All righty. Thank you. Okay. Was there another question that he had asked that we did not address? He asked about the trailer. The trailer. Again, the trailer wasn't part of the request, and I verified this with the applicant well before. Okay. There is no trailer that's a part of this request. Okay. And if they come back in with the trailer, they're going to have to go back through this process and amend this. Okay. So they can't just park that trailer there without requesting additional. Correct. Or risk and code enforcement action. Right. Okay. Very good. All right. Does anyone else wish to speak regarding this application? Seeing no one, we will close public comment. And that concludes our discussion of this case. And next up, we will go to LDL VAR 2025-30. LDL VAR 2025-30. Scott Davis is requesting a variance to allow the height of a detached accessory dwelling unit to be greater than that of the primary structure. The property is 0.23 acres in a residential low-4 district. The property is located at 2216 Dilley Street, south of Memorial Boulevard, north of U.S. Highway 92, west of Wabash Avenue, east of Chestnut Road, west of Lakeland, or the city of Lakeland, in section 1528, or township 28, range 23. Thirty-four mailers were sent on August 7th, 2025. One board was posted on the property on August 1st. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on August 13th. We've had no response from the public. Andrew Gowowski is the case planner. Good afternoon. For the record, there's a misprint in the staff report. The ADU in height is 17 feet and 8 inches, not 17 feet and 3 inches in height. So I'll go ahead and update that staff report to reflect that. So from land development presenting LDL VAR 2025-30, the Dilley Street variance. This is a variance request by the applicant to allow an accessory dwelling unit to exceed the height of the primary structure on their property, up to 18 feet. Staff is recommending approval. The subject property is located at 2216 Dilley Street, south of Memorial Boulevard, north of U.S. Highway 92, west of Wabash Avenue, east of Chestnut Road, west of the city of Lakeland, in section 15, township 28, and range 23. The property is about 0.23 acres, located in the residential low 4 land use district in the transit supportive development area. The subject is to the west of the city of Lakeland and is between West Memorial Boulevard and U.S. Highway 92 in the north and south regions. These are two major arterial roadways. The predominant building types in the area are single-family residences with commercial properties stretching along the front edge of Wabash Avenue to the east. The properties along Dilley Street are almost two times larger than the typical RL4 district size, with lots approximately 4,000 square feet larger than the minimum standard. The ADU began construction in December 2021, according to the applicant, and is situated to the rear yard of the property and will be 17 feet and 8 inches tall. Meanwhile, the primary residence on the property is a 1,040 square foot mobile home constructed in 2010, according to the property appraiser, is 14 feet 8 inches tall, and this is a height difference of approximately 2 feet. According to the applicant, the ADU cannot horizontally expand due to an existing shed and septic system on the property. An existing opaque wooden fence flanks the western and southern portions of the site, further screening the ADU from adjacent residences. So here are a few photos from the staff's visit. So while taller than the primary residence, the ADU is not seen off Dilley Street in this photo. After going down the driveway, the ADU is now visible to the rear. Fencing and vegetation, as I mentioned, can be seen on the right. Another angle of the ADU is shown in greater detail. The measurement from the top of the pitch roof to the ground is approximately 17 feet and 8 inches. Another one with the angled roof. So staff recommends approval. This request is the result of a codes case where the structure was built without the necessary permits. The applicant is now taking steps to fix this problem. Staff finds no issues with this request. According to LDC Section 206A, an ADU up to 1,000 square feet is permitted by right. This request is less than half the maximum square footage permitted by right on a residential property. This request is simply a more effective use of livable loft space that would not be attainable otherwise. The variance will not be interest to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to public welfare as the building is located to the rear of the property while meeting all accessory structure setback requirements. And with that, I thank you and Stanford questions. Okay. So in addition to the primary residence, I see two sheds and a septic field. Is that what we have? As well as the ADU? And it's the shed towards the rear that is in the way of expanding the ADU horizontally? That's correct. To the northwest where it's labeled storage shed. Did you say the fence is on two sides of the property all the way around? Or tell me about the fence again, the opaque fence? So the fence, based on staff's visit, was on the western portion of the property where the ADU is located as well as the southern portion of the property. I'm pretty sure it surrounds the entire backyard. Okay. So we have some screening. Okay. Is the applicant present? Good afternoon. Hello. I'm Scott Davis. Joyce Webb. Thanks for hearing us. Of course. So you've heard the presentation from staff so far. I did. Is there anything you would like to add in support of the application? Well, he did a pretty good job. As far as the height goes, there is a neighbor two doors down that's at the same height at the rear of the property. That was kind of where I based my decision on the height. I also chose to not go wider because I was kind of going for tiny home, tiny house code where they allow you to have a loft that doesn't count against the square footage. And when you say the neighbor two doors down has a similar height structure, is that an ADU or is it a primary residence? I didn't know at the time during my conversation with land development. It appears to be two separate lots. But from visual, it looks like you have an old mobile home on the property in front of a much larger recently built building. But it turns out that those two buildings are on separate lots. Okay. So it's not actually an ADU? Correct. Yeah, it would be just a regular single. Regular residence. Okay. Can you tell me how you plan to use the structure? My primary residence. Okay. So the entire structure would be a residence. It's not partially a garage or partially storage or whatever the whole thing is a residence? Correct. All my residence. Yep. Okay. As I'm sure you are aware, staff has recommended approval of the application with several conditions. If the application is approved, they've recommended a condition that states that no home-based business or commercial use can be permitted or will be permitted within the accessory structure and also that the structure cannot be used for short-term rental or vacation rentals. Okay. Not an issue. Okay. Is there anything else you would like to add? Good. No, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. And I will now open up this application for public comment. Is there anyone who came here today to speak regarding this application? Either for or against. Seeing no one, we'll close public comment. And anything else from staff? No, ma'am. Thank you. Next, we will go to LDL VAR 2025-31. LDL VAR 2025-31. Vicki Gray is requesting a rear accessory setback reduction from 10 feet to 5 feet for the construction of a screen enclosure in conjunction with a pool and patio. The property is located in a residential low 1 district on .19 acres. The property is located at 6834 Mossy Oak Lane, west of Kathleen Road, north of I-4, south of Duff Road, east of Catherine Drive, north of the city of Lakeland, in Section 17, Township 27, Range 23. On August 7th, 28 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on August 1st. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on August 13th. We've had no response from the public. Andrew Grahowski is the case planner. Good afternoon again. Andrew Grahowski with Land Development presenting LDL VAR 2025-31, the Mossy Oak Lane variance. This is an applicant-initiated request to reduce the rear setbacks from 10 feet to 5 feet to allow the construction of a screen room with a pool. Staff is recommending approval. The subject property is located at 6834 Mossy Oak Lane, west of Kathleen Road, north of I-4, south of Duff Road, east of Catherine Drive, north of the city of Lakeland, in Section 17, Township 27, in Range 23. The property is located in the Residential Low 1, Future Land Use designation, in the Suburban Development Area. It is also part of the planned development, LDPD 2018-28, consisting of 115 single-family units and received approval in 2019. The subject site is located in the Kathleen area, north of Lakeland, off of Kathleen Road. The area consists of mostly single-family subdivisions. Kathleen Middle School is nearby, as well as the retail plaza, Kathleen Square, to the north. The subject site is considered lot 15 of the Willow Ridge subdivision and is approximately 0.19 acres. A 3,357-square-foot single-family residence was constructed in 2022, with the owner purchasing the property in December of 2022, according to the property appraiser. As a part of the approved PD, principal structure setbacks were reduced from 10 feet to 5 feet on the sides, while rear setbacks were reduced from 15 feet to 10 feet. Accessory structure setbacks remain consistent with the standard dimensional requirements of the Residential 1, Low 1 district, which are 5 feet on the sides and 10 feet to the rear. As part of the recorded plat, plat book 184, pages 20 and 21, there's a 15-foot utility easement at the front of the property, as well as track B to the rear portion of the property, which is about 4.5 feet in width and is considered open space. Here is a close-up view of the subject site with the proposed addition. Per Section 209F, the structure shall adhere to accessory structure setbacks requirements, which is 5 feet on the sides and 10 feet to the rear. The rear of the property backs up to a 4.5-foot open space, as I mentioned earlier. The open space, as well as the utility easement to the front, will not be encroached upon with this given request. Here are some photos during staff site visit. This is looking at the rear portion of the property facing east, where the proposed accessory structure will be located in the grass area. The fence to the rear marks the boundary of the open space, track B. Just another angle of the subject property's backyard. According to the site plan, the screen pool area will measure 41 feet by 18 feet. So staff recommends approval based on the site plan provided by the applicant and recent visits to the site. The site will not be injurious to the area and will not encroach upon the designated 15-foot utility easement, nor the open space tract, thereby not circumventing any approvals by the BOCC. The applicant has received HOA approval for this request, pending county approval. According to the application, the new pool will also allow the owner to treat a medical condition through physical therapy and rehabilitation sessions in the comfort of their own home. And with that, I stand for questions. So there's a utility easement at the front property line, but there are none along the rear property line? No easements? No easements. Just an open tract, as mentioned, that blue portion. On the outside of the property? Correct. And I take it the screen enclosure will be connected to the home? It will be connected, but the roof will be open as well, so it's not considered a primary structure. Okay, so it has to meet the accessory? That's correct. Setbacks, okay. What is on the other side of the open space, the four-and-a-half-foot open space tract? I believe it's vacant land. I think it's a large tract of land with a single-family residence. Yeah, to the north, it's a four-and-a-half-acre plot of land with a single-family residence. And presumably they would have received notice of this application? That's correct. Is the pool required to have a screen enclosure? I believe so, just because. Florida Building Code requires pools to be secured with an enclosure gate fence. The screen enclosure keeps the mosquitoes out, whereas the fence wouldn't, I guess. Okay, so it's not the pool that requires the variance. It's the screen enclosure. It's the screen enclosure. The pool is meeting its setback because the pool is at grade, but the vertical screen enclosure is what requires it to meet the setback. Okay, so some sort of security is required, but this particular kind of security is not required. Not necessarily a screen enclosure, but an enclosure of some sort. I believe the minimum is four feet in height. The existing fence? No. Well, the existing fence only covers the rear of the yard. There doesn't appear to be fences between the unit. Oh, the fence doesn't go all the way around? No, but on the aerial photos. I'm showing a fence around it now. Around the entire property? Around the rear yard. Around the rear yard, okay. They did close it in. Okay, is the applicant present? Hello, I'm Vicki Gray. My address is 6834 Mossy Oak Lane, and with me I have my pool contractor, Robert Cigaro. Could you spell your last name, please, sir? Yes, it's Cicignano, S-I-C-I-G-N-A-N-O. S-I-C-I-G-N-A-N-O. Thank you. So you've heard staff's presentation so far. Did you have anything you would like to add in support of your application? Yes, I do. For me, this pool means a lot to me and my family. I am 100% disabled veteran, served in the military 20 years, and this pool would be for my disability. I require physical therapy weekly for my disability, and so that is why this means a lot to me, and that's why I'm here today, and that's why I fought so hard to get this pool for the last year or so. So that's my recourse to this. Okay, so as you may have heard the discussion before, it's not the pool that requires the variance. The pool apparently can go in without the variance. It's the screen enclosure. The setback, the problem is a setback. So if it didn't have a screen, there's that easement of four or five feet. Then where her fence is, we can come in five feet, and right now it's saying, no, that whole 10 feet, because there's, I think, five feet on this side of the fence and five feet on the other side. And the county's going, hey, that whole 10 feet is a variance. We're like, well, we don't need the other side of the fence. We only need five feet from this fence. So if you didn't have a screen, there's the state safety requirements, which is 48-inch fence, 54-inch handle, alarm. So whether it has a screen or not, we needed the variance for the line of that 10 feet, which I don't know why it's there, the buffer, because it's, the problem is on the other side of the fence. We're not using that. We want to be five foot from the fence, which is half that 10 feet, if I confused you. Well, you have. I'm not sure why we're talking about the four-and-a-half-foot strip outside the property, other than just explaining that it's there. Yeah, it's not measured from the four-and-a-half strip, so it's measured from the fence line. From the fence line end? Correct, to the proposal, proposed structure. But with the variance, it would be five feet? Correct. Are we on the same page? I'm going to go with it. Okay. And it's just too hot to not have a pool. And so if I understand correctly, ma'am, you, among other things, would be using the pool for physical therapy? Yes, VA-approved physical therapy weekly. Okay, anything else you'd like to add? No, that's going to be everything. Thank you, guys. Thank you. I will now open up public comment on this application. Is there anyone who came here today to speak regarding this application, either for or against? Seeing no one, we will pose public comment. Anything else from staff? No, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. And next, we will go to LDLVAR 2025-35. LDLVAR 2025-35. Raymond Desir is requesting a variance to allow a separation reduction for beer and wine consumption on-premises, a 2COP license, within 1,000 feet of religious institutions. The property is in a linear commercial corridor on .08 acres. It is located at 2610 Avenue G, northwest, north of Wrecker Highway, south of Havendale Boulevard, east of the Polk Parkway, west of U.S. Highway 17, west of the city of Winterhaven, in Section 19, Township 28, Range 26. 17 mailers were sent to area property owners on August 7, 2025. One board was posted on the property on August 1. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on August 13th. There is one letter in opposition. Kyle Rogus is the case planner. Good afternoon. Kyle Rogus with Land Development, presenting LDLVAR 2025-35, the Desir alcohol variance. The applicant was requesting a variance to allow separation reduction for beer and wine consumption on-premise, a 2COP license, within 1,000 feet of a religious institution. The subject property is located at 2610 Avenue G, northwest, north of Wrecker Highway, south of Havendale Boulevard, east of Polk Parkway, west of U.S. Highway 17, west of the city of Winterhaven, in Section 19, Township 28, Range 26. The property is located in the Linear Commercial Corridor Land Use District in the urban growth area and is approximately 0.08 acres. The applicant is looking to obtain a 2COP liquor license for their existing ice cream business, Cabana Boy Ice Cream. However, there are four religious institutions within 1,000 feet of the property. The proposed stores require a variance to the separation distance requirement from the following. House of Prayer Worship and Praise Center, about 88 feet from the subject property line. Abundant Believers Church, about 620 feet from the subject property line. Monte Oliver's Baptist Church, about 684 feet from the subject property line. And Philadelphia Haitian Baptist Church, about 853 feet from the subject property line. There are numerous examples throughout the county that demonstrate beverage sales and religious institutions can coexist without any adverse effects. In this case, at the corner of 25th Street and Avenue G, approximately 540 feet from the subject site, is a Sitco gas station and sells packaged beer and wine. Abundant the gas station on the east property line is the Abundant Believers Church religious institution. And you can see those in this cluster of triangles here. According to the property appraiser, House of Prayer Worship and Praise Center institution, which is the closest to the applicant's business, has been there since 2016, the church is located across the street, approximately 88 feet away from the property line to property line. A letter of approval for a beer and wine license was provided. This applicant marks the third establishment providing either the sale and or consumption of beer and wine in the 1,000-foot distance separation requirements within the last seven years. And here's the site plan that was submitted. This photo is taken in the parking lot of the property looking northwest. In this picture, you can see the House of Prayer Worship and Praise Center about 88 feet from the subject property across from Avenue G northwest. This photo is taken in the same location looking northeast. In the background is the approximate location of both the Beverage Depot purchased in 2018 and the Sitco gas station purchased in 2021. It is important to realize that the separation requirements of Section 224 apply to a wide variety of uses that have different intensities and effects upon surrounding area. Furthermore, this case illustrates the uneven nature of alcohol policies in Polk County. The Sitco gas station and Beverage Depot only require an APS license, beer and wine package sales, which does not require a distance requirement from religious institutions or public and private schools K-12. Staff recommends approval. The linear commercial quarter offers a wide range of commercial office, institutional, and industrial uses along roadways. This application marks the third establishment providing either the sale and or consumption of beer and wine in the 1,000-foot distance separation requirements within the last seven years. The existing churches and alcohol sale businesses have been functioning near one another since 1998, and with that, I will stand for questions. You say this is the third application in the last seven years in this 1,000-foot strip? From the location of the subject site, the 1,000-foot radius, there are two other locations that have the sale and package of beer and wine. That was the Sitco gas station and the Beverage Depot. Those are within, from the starting point of this subject site, that 1,000-foot radius. Okay. So within the 1,000-foot radius, this is the third application in seven years. Okay. Does the license, the two COP license, is that only for consumption on-premises, or is that also allowed for package sales? That is only for the consumption on-premise. Okay. And what is the seating capacity of the establishment? I would defer to the applicant for that information. Were the four religious institutions that we are within the 1,000 feet of here, were they all notified of this application and hearing? They would have had the mailer sent out, correct. The other two that you identified, the Sitco and the other one? The Beverage Depot. The Beverage Depot, those are package sales only, correct? Correct. Those only required an APS liquor license, which has no distance requirement. Are you aware of any negative impacts or issues of concern as a result of those two establishments? No, I do not. Like I said, these have been existing and been in close proximity to other religious institutions since 1998, and I have not had any code violations or negative effects with those in close proximity. In the staff report, you include a chart of other, I guess, similar applications that have been approved. Are those countywide or...? Yes, those are countywide. A lot of those you see are the Publix that are coming in with their liquor stores. All right, is the applicant present? If you could start by giving us your name and address, please. My name is Raymond Desir, and that's my wife, Marie Desir. Mr. Desir, you have heard the presentation so far. Is there anything in general that you would like to add in support of your application? No, not really. Okay. I hope we can get a license. Okay. Well, I don't grant the license, but perhaps the variance, we will see. Can you tell me what the seating capacity is of your establishment? I would say it would take probably about 15, maybe 20. 15 to 20 people? Okay. Are you, I believe you are aware that someone submitted a letter in opposition to your application, correct? Yes. Okay. So I have reviewed that letter, and I see you also submitted a response to the letter in opposition, and I have read your responsive letter. Is there anything you wanted to say to address the concerns presented in the letter in opposition to put it on the record or anything else you'd like to say? Okay. And, ma'am, you're also able to speak if you choose to and the applicant permits it. The only thing we just want to address is that the opposition stated that they were concerned with the children around. The walkway is on the other side of the business, it's on the right side of it. So we would want to make sure we're not having any customers that's blocking the walkway on the other side, preventing the kids from walking instead of getting on the road to get around. So that's the only thing we wanted to make sure we address, that we won't be having anything. We'll have signs that no one's blocking the walkway. Okay. Would you put up the aerial photograph with the red and green triangles, please, and diamonds? Are there any schools? I believe the four red diamonds all to the right of the location, well, the three, are churches, and then the one just to the north is also a church. Are there any schools? The nearest school is going to be the Winter Haven Inwood Elementary School, approximately 1,164 feet. However, these two diamonds on the left-hand side are going to be the daycare centers or preschools. Okay. But they are within that 1,000 feet. I do not have any specific information on them, both individually at this time, in terms of their operations or functions. They are within 1,000 feet? Yes. Childcare is not counted in the, it's K through 12 schools. Oh, okay. Okay, so that's why they weren't mentioned in the staff report. And presumably daycare attendees are not walking down the street by themselves? I would assume so, correct. So one of the criteria that staff and I have to consider when reviewing variance applications is hardship, something that is, you know, unique to the property or circumstances that justifies deviating from the code's requirements. Can you address that criterion with regard to your application? What hardship would you endure if the variance application were to be denied? So as it's staying the way the property is from previous businesses that occupied it, selling just the ice cream is not really sustained to be able to keep the business as is. It was for sale for quite a few years before it was, before we were able to purchase it because of the limitation of the property. And its size as well, there's not much you can put in it to sell to be able to make a profit. So we wanted to be able to utilize it more for other items to be able to make a profit eventually. Anything else? Thank you. Thank you. And I will now open up public comment on this application. Is there anyone who came here today to speak regarding this application, either for or against? I take it that the individual who submitted the letter in opposition is not here. Okay. Well, seeing no one, we will oppose public comment. That concludes our discussion of this case. Next, we will go to LDLVAR 2025-37. LDLVAR 2025-37. Alex Noonan is requesting a variance to allow an accessory structure to be larger than the primary structure. The property is in a residential low one district on 1.69 acres, located at 6235 Lund Road, south of Yule Road, north of Shepherd Road, south of the city of Lakeland, in section 22, township 29, range 23. On August 7th, 30 mailers were sent to area property owners. Two boards were posted on the property on August 5th. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on August 13th, 2025. There is no, has been no letters or emails or phone calls in opposition. Aaliyah Ngleema is the case planner. Good afternoon. Aaliyah Ngleema with Land Development, presenting LDLVAR 2025-37, the Lund Road variance. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an accessory structure to be larger than the primary structure. The subject site is located at 6235 Lund Road, south of Yule Road, north of Shepherd Road, south of the city of Lakeland, in section 22, township 29, range 23. The site is approximately 1.69 acres within a residential low one future lane use district and the transit supported development area. The owner purchased the property in April of 2016, according to the Polk County property appraiser, and the home was constructed in 2002 at about 2,500 square feet. So the owner actually has an accessory structure on the property. Instead of having two separate structures, the owner would like to add a bigger garage. The accessory structure would be 4,000 square feet and be used for storage. So here is a picture from my site visit. And the request will not be interest to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, as the building will be at the rear near the primary home, will exceed all setbacks, and be screened by the surrounding trees. And I'll stand for questions. And you said there is already an accessory structure on site? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thoughts on that? Okay. Is the existing structure going to be removed or we're going to keep it and add the, we don't know? I will defer to the applicant to answer that. Okay. So the, if I'm looking at this correctly, the aerial shows a structure already in the location of where the proposed structure is going to be? Yes. It looks like they're going to put it in this general area. So they may be removing that one and replacing it with a bigger one. Okay. All right. Well, is the applicant present? Great. Good afternoon, Your Honor. I'm Alexis with Dunn-Rite Construction. I'm also here with the homeowner, Jonathan Kelly. Great. And, okay, Mr. Kelly, you are the property owner, I take it? Yes. Okay. Great. And, Ms. Noonan, where is your business located? We are located at 136 Kittle Lane, Dundee, Florida, 33838. Okay. So you have heard a couple of questions, I believe. Maybe you could start by addressing those. Yes, Your Honor. The existing accessory structure is an open carport that was there when Mr. Kelly purchased the home, and we are going to remove that once, hopefully, this variance is accepted. So the proposed structure will replace the carport that we see in that photo, and then some, I take it? Yes, that's correct. Okay. And how will the proposed structure be used? I'm building a baseball facility for my son to train, and half of it, because he has a batting cage pitching machine outside. I want to have that indoors and a gym, and then I'm just going to store everything out of my garage and my yard inside of it. And then the front portion is going to be open towards the pool, so it'll be like a patio. So not the whole structure is going to be enclosed. So some of the 4,000 square feet will be an open patio? Correct. 800 square feet is going to be open. And you said a batting cage and other training components? Yeah, I'm going to build a little gym inside. I'm sure you're aware that staff is recommending approval, but they have included a number of recommended conditions of approval if the application is ultimately approved. One of those conditions is that the structure would be limited, as far as its use goes, to storage of items and other uses associated with the residential use of the property. Not that it's limited 100% to storage, but, you know, things associated with the primary purpose of the property, which is residential. And that no home-based business or commercial use can be made of the structure, and I wanted to make sure you're aware of that. Yes, we are. Okay. Is there anything else you would like to add in support of your application? We have approval to do two buildings the size of my house, but I was just trying to consolidate into one. So it's less of an eyesore. Instead of having two separate structures the size of my house, just do one big one and just make it easier. That's all I'm trying to do. Yeah, and under Section 209G, newly passed, maybe two years ago, the ordinance that if you have two acres, you can build up to 150% of the home. We fall shy of that just by, I think it's .30. So instead of making an eyesore and less aesthetically pleasing, we just wanted to put it in the back. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And I will now open up this application for public comment. Is there anyone who came here today to speak regarding this application, either for or against? Seeing no one, we will close public comment. Anything else from staff? No, ma'am. Thank you. And next, we will go to LDLVAR 2025-38. LDLVAR 2025-38. Donald Robert requests an accessory dwelling unit larger than the 1,000-square-foot maximum on approximately 4.82 acres in a residential medium district. The property is located at 2240 East Palm Street, accessed through easement north of East Palm Street, south of Goose Road, north of Horseshoe Creek, east of U.S. Highway 1792, west of Osceola County, east of the town of Davenport in Section 2, Township 27, Range 27. On August 7th, 2025, 24 mailers were sent to area property owners. Two boards were posted on the property on August 7th, 2025. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on August 13th. I'm the case planner, Eric Peterson, for the record. This is a very justifiable request. I'll first show you where it is. It's beginning to get surrounded by the town of Davenport, which is growing and sprawling in many different directions. It is in a residential medium district. This is a district that would allow up to 10 units per acre by right. The property is 4.2, so they could have a good number of units on this property if they wanted to. It could be subdivided today through approval of access via easement and administrative level. However, the applicant is seeking to keep the property intact as one piece of property with a primary structure and an accessory structure. It just so happens the accessory structure is just 25% more than the maximum for an accessory structure. As you can see, the site here is very close to area development. And actually, when you look at, you know, just a year later, a new development has sprung up near them and is surrounded by very intense development in the ever-growing city of Davenport. This is the approximate location of the primary residence, and the accessory residence will be to the rear. Access is via easement. It's not a road. It comes in off of Palm Street. This is the public road and is accessed via a 20-foot-wide easement. This is the applicant's site plan, just upside down. This is the property. Looking, this is the primary dwelling. The approximate location of the accessory dwelling is very hard to see. There's a lot of trees on this property. It's well-wooded. It will be well-screened from any neighboring properties. As you can see, the neighbor here to the west is very hard to see through all the trees and scrub oaks. This is the access via easement off of Palm Street. And this is another neighboring property line. As you can see, it's well-vegetated. Staff recommends approval because we feel it will not be injurious to the area, otherwise detrimental. They could achieve the same thing through subdividing the property. Of course, you would have two separate lots, and there's certain things that are entailed with that. So we feel that it could, you know, in the end, it would look no different. You don't see lot lines in reality. So this would, just because the accessory dwelling is a little bit larger, it's not going to stand out. Special conditions and circumstances exist because the applicant wants to keep the property intact in one for just under five-acre property. So with that, I'll stand for questions. Okay. So they could subdivide the property and put up a second residence on the other half, or however they chose to subdivide it. They could also subdivide it and put up 40-ish. Yes, they could put multifamily dwelling. Right. Okay. Okay. The intent of, you know, a maximum size of an ADU is to prevent from being, you know, creating two houses on a property that was really intended for one. This is the exact opposite of that. This property is actually intended for much more development, but the applicant intends to keep it as one. One of the conditions of approval that you've recommended is that the variance will be valid as long as the primary residence remains 2,050 square feet under roof or greater. How is that monitored? Oh, through building. If they were to remove the primary residence, well, things would change one way or another. It would be through building permit. Through building permit. And so if the primary structure size is reduced or if it's eliminated altogether, then the ADU has to be dealt with in some way or another. Yes. That is correct. Okay. Is the applicant present? Hello. Good afternoon. Donald and Cindy Robert. Okay. And could you state your address, please? 509 Koala Drive. Okay. So you've heard staff's presentation so far. Is there anything you would like to add in support of your application? We're trying to make this property our primary residence, and we would like to build a house on it with the purpose of the house that's on it is 35 to 40 years old, and we'd like to, you know, build something that is a little newer for, this is the rest of our lives. So that's about all we got. Okay. So you intend to demolish the primary residence that's on site? No. The primary residence we'll keep for storage. We will use it for, my folks are 90 and 87, and we're going to have to take care of them. So for a series of years, we'll use that for that purpose. And then I'll go in for, you know, storage and possibly a guest house. And so ultimately you intend to build another residence on site that, not the ADU, but some other residence down the road? Okay. In the meantime, it's your intent to live in the ADU, or? As the ADU is, what is, you're talking about the additional? Are you talking about the house that's already there? No. I'm talking about the one that is the subject of the application, the one that you want to. In the end, yes, we'll be living in the ADU. That's our forever. That's your forever home? Yeah. That's our forever. Okay. And when you're, the justification, the written justification that you submitted with your application is the one that's handwritten, you indicate that you'll be building a single family home in the middle of the five acres? Yes. Is that the ADU? Yes. Ah, okay. And I take it you are aware of the condition that staff has recommended be put on any approval here, which is that if the primary residence is changed to go below 2,050 square feet, that that would impact the size of the ADU, that would impact the approval for the ADU? Yes. And is there anything else you would like to add, either one of you? No, I'm good. Oh, okay. Thank you. We'll open up public comment on this application. Is there anyone who came here today to speak regarding this application, either for or against? Seeing no one, we will close public comment. And I take it there's nothing else from staff? No, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. And since we have continued LDL VAR 2025-39, we will go to LDL VAR 2025-40. LDL VAR 2025-40. Michael Fitzpatrick is requesting a variance to allow an accessory structure to be taller than the primary structure. The property is in an agricultural residential rural district on one acre. The site is located at 30 Blue Jordan Road, south of Highway 630 east, north of Blue Jack Trail, east of the city of Frostproof, in Section 30, Township 31, Range 29. On August 7th, 19 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on August 5th. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News. On August 13th, we've had no response from the public. Aaliyah Anglima is the case planner. Good afternoon. Aaliyah Anglima with Land Development, presenting LDL VAR 2025-40, the Blue Jordan Road variance. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an accessory structure to be taller than the primary structure. The subject site is located at 30 Blue Jordan Road, south of Highway 630 east, north of Blue Jack Trail, east of the city of Frostproof, in Section 30, Township 31, Range 29. The site is approximately in an acre located within an agriculture, residential, rural, future lane use district, and in the rural development area. So the subject parcel is surrounded by a cluster of lots ranging in size from an acre to five acres, and in some cases larger. This lot is smaller than the ARR minimum lot size of five acres. So the applicant was cited by code enforcement, and the case is pending as the owner is seeking the permit for the building. The current owners use the garage for storage for their RV. And here is a picture from my site visit. And the request will not be interest to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, as the building is at the rear near the primary home within a fenced boundary and will meet all setbacks. The structure is over 200 feet from neighboring structures. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved. is that the property is smaller than the ARR minimum lot size of five acres. And if the property had met the five acres within the ARR, the applicant would not need a variance. And this is due to Section 209G, allowing accessory structures administratively to be permitted up to 150% of the principal structure, square footage, or height. And I'll stand for your questions. I don't think I have any questions of staff at this time. I might have some as we continue. But is the applicant present? If you could come forward, please. And when you reach the podium, if you could give us your names and address, please. I am Deborah Fitzpatrick, 30 Blue Jordan Road, Frostproof, Florida. Mike Fitzpatrick, 30 Blue Jordan Road. Okay. So, as I understand it, the structure is intended to store your RV? Okay. Yes. How tall is your RV? It'd be 13 feet, 6 inches. Okay. And yet the structure is 21 feet tall? I need 14 feet for the door, and then there's 3 feet of door roll-up, and then the roof is a 412 pitch. Do you store anything in the structure other than the RV? No. As I'm sure you are aware, staff has recommended approval of the application with a number of conditions. One condition that I want to bring to your attention is that the use of the structure is limited to the storage of items generally associated with the residential use of the property. And that the structure cannot be used for a home-based business or a commercial use. I'm retired. You are retired, and I take it there will be no commercial enterprises on your property. Okay. Is there anything else you would like to add in support of your application? Either one of you? No? Okay. Got it. Thank you. And I will now open up this application for public comment. Is there anyone who came here today to speak regarding this application, either for or against? Seeing no one, we will close public comment and move on to our last application of the day, which is LDL VAR 2025-41. LDL VAR 2025-41, Roberto Cosme requests an accessory structure side setback reduction from 5 feet to 3 feet for the construction of a 6 by 12, 72 square foot shed for their residence on approximately 0.5 or 1 half acre in a residential low district. The property is located at 2034 Overlook Drive, north of Cypress Gardens Boulevard, south of Lucerne Park Road, east of U.S. Highway 17, west of U.S. Highway 27, west of the city of Dundee in Section 25, Township 28, Range 26. On August 7, 35 mailers were sent to area property owners. Two boards were posted on the property on August 1st. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on August 13th. Kyle Rogus is the case planner. There's been no letters or calls in opposition. Good afternoon. Kyle Rogus with Land Development presenting LDL VAR 2025-41, the Overlook Drive Variance. The applicant is requesting an accessory structure side setback reduction from 5 feet to 3 feet for the construction of a 6 by 12 foot shed at their residence on approximately 0.50 acres. The subject property is located at 2034 Overlook Drive, north of Cypress Gardens Boulevard, south of Lucerne Park Road, east of U.S. Highway 17, west of U.S. Highway 27, west of the city of Dundee in Section 25, Township 28, Range 26. The property is located in the residential Low 1 Land Use District in the urban growth area and is approximately 0.5 acres. The owner purchased the property in December 2020, according to the Polk County Property Appraisers website. The home was built in 2020, meeting all setback requirements. The site is located off the intersection of Overlook Drive and Lake Daisy Road, both classified as an urban collector roadway with a right-of-way setback of 35 feet, limiting the development to the southwest portion of the site. The residential structure utilizes the majority of the property that would be considered the side or rear yard. Unlike garages, accessory structures are only allowed in the side or rear yard, limiting the placement of the shed to the location depicted on the site plan. The subject site is below the 40,000-square-foot minimum residential lot size in the Residential Low 1 Land Use District. The property was originally part of Track 17 of Unrecorded Anderson Estates, which was zoned rural estates at the time of creation. The rural estates zoning district had a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet, meeting the minimum lot size at the time, causing the discrepancy with the minimum lot size requirements. Here's the site plan submitted. Note the accessory structure will be 3 feet from both sides of both property lines. The accessory structure will be 20 feet from the nearest neighboring structure to the west. The accessory structure will be 6 by 12 feet or 72 square feet. The site also details the septic drain field on the north side of the property. This photo is taken in the rear yard of the property upon our site visit, looking south. In this picture, you can see the accessory structure, BR 2025-4471. Staff recommends approval. The request will not block or limit the view of traffic or encroach on any easements. The accessory structure will be in the rear yard, approximately 20 feet from the closest neighboring structure, impeding only 2 feet within the 5-foot accessory structure side back. And with that, I will stand for questions. Can you go back to the photo that showed the structure? Okay. So there's an opaque fence. Is that around the entire property? That is until you have the front of the property that go along the Overlook Drive and Daisy. It is no longer an opaque fence. It is a black steel fence, I believe. This is what surrounds the front property lines along the urban collector roadways. Okay, so why can't the structure be compliant with the 5-foot setback? The property has two right-of-ways that are off urban collector roadways, which have a 35-foot setback. To meet those setbacks, it forces the primary structure to be within that southwest portion of the property, which would be considered the rear yard, which is where we would typically allow these accessory structures, unlike garages, which can be allowed in the front yard. The septic drain field to the north also forces the property of the primary structure to be setback further and closer to that south and west property lines, limiting the amount of developable land for the accessory structure, having to request for the setback reduction. And then with the extension of the porch on the primary structure also impeded that developable land. Can you go back to the site plan, please? Okay, so we have the septic drain field porch and then three sheds plus the one that is the subject of the application, so four sheds. Correct. I believe shed number three and number four are acting as carports. I will defer to the applicant in terms of the use. That's where, again, unlike garages, accessory structures are prohibited only to be in the rear yard. With these sheds three and four acting as carports, that would be allowed within the front yard. I am not sure what the use or functionality of shed one is. Like I said, I would defer to the applicant for the functions of those sheds. Okay. Okay. Is the applicant present? Thank you for your patience as you sat through all of the others. And if we could start by having you give your names and address, please. My name is Roberto Cosme. Address, 2034 Overlook Drive, Winter Haven, Florida, 33884. And ma'am? And my name is Diana Cosme. And same address. Okay. Okay. Okay. So if you could start by maybe telling me how all four of the sheds are used. Shed number one is used. I keep my tractor and the panels for Hurricane, for the windows and doors for Hurricane. Two and three, is it? The other ones I have vehicles in my store. I have a BMW in each one of them that I keep secure. And the six by 12 is called the she shed. It's my wife's shed. She has her equipment for her plants and yard. And that's why I have the four sheds. Okay. So numbers one, two, and three, among other things, have vehicles in them, a tractor and cars. That's correct. We've heard from staff, but if you can tell me why the fourth shed cannot meet the five-foot setback, I would like to hear that, please. Yes, shed number two is there is a small inclination across the shed for water drain. The builder, when he built the home, he made, it's like a small ditch, but if I were to move the shed any more forward, it would fall right on top of the inclines. Their inclines go from the home one way and then from the fence the other way, and they meet in the middle right in front of the shed. Moving it any further would make that shed right on top of that incline or that drain. A small ditch is what it is. So the shed wouldn't sit properly in the drain? It would not sit properly in it, no. Okay. Is there anything else you would like to add in support of your application, anything that hasn't come out yet during today's discussion or something that you feel needs more explanation? No, I read the Polk County Land Use Hearing Officer Staff report, and I agree with its content. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So I will now open up the application for public comment, and if there is anyone out there who came to speak regarding the application, perhaps they're in the hallway. Now is your opportunity. Seeing no one, we will close public comment, and thank you for coming. We are done, then. Thank you. I do want to make one correction to the staff report on page 4. The first sentence in paragraph 3 says the owner purchased the property in February 2022. I do want to correct that and have it say the owner purchased the property in December 2020. That was going off of the corrected warranty deed, not the original warranty deed from December. So I do want to make that correction and get that to you. Okay. Thank you. And I think now we are done, then. Thank you. Thank you.