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. And 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 our attention now to avoid any potential conflicts. I have reviewed each of the cases that will be heard today, and I don't believe there are 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 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 each 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 raised 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. The hearing will close for each case following the concluding statements of the parties. My decision will not be given today, but will be provided in a written final order within 14 days of today. Again, if you would like a copy of my decision, please fill out the form on the back table and provide it to 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 county staff will try to arrange one for you. All testimony today must be given under oath, so I will now ask our clerk to swear in all speakers. If you're going to address the land use hearing officer on any case today, please stand and raise your right hand and answer out loud to the following question. Again, if anyone is going to provide testimony to the land use hearing officer on any case today, please stand up 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 the agenda is the minutes from the August 26, 2025 land use hearing officer meeting. We can show those minutes as being accepted. And next up, we will move to old business, which is we have one case there, LDL VAR 2025-39. And it's my understanding that we do not have the applicant present for that case. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. But the code does not require for the applicant to be present, right? It can be considered, but it is not required for them to be here. Yes. Okay. Then we will proceed. LDL VAR 2025-39. Bobby Prestwood is requesting a variance to reduce the accessory structure right-of-way setback from 35 feet to 12 feet to accommodate an enclosed carport. The property is 1.71 acres in the Agricultural Residential Rural District. The property is located at 1001 Lake Lowry Road, west and south of County Road 17, Polk City Road, north of Haynes City, Lake Alfred Road, east of Oakdale Road, north of Haynes City, and Section 12, Township 27, and Range 26. On August 7th, 25 mailers were sent to area property owners. On August 5th, three boards were posted on the property. And a legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on August 13th. So far, we have no response from the public. Jonathan Sims is your case planner. Good afternoon. JP Sims, Land Development. So LDL VAR-2025-39, as Eric mentioned, is a reduction in the right-of-way setback from 35 to 12 feet to accommodate an already constructed carport. We're going up into the Haynes City area. So we're going to be south of I-4, west of Highway 27. So as you can see from the aerial, the site itself is actually a peculiar shape. It's triangular in nature. And it does have the two road frontages with Old Polk City Road and Lake Lowry. This is just a context shot to give you a better earth. I'm sorry, to give you a better shot from Google Earth of what it currently looks like. So you can see the carport is down here already constructed on the ground. So our aerial is a little bit behind Google Earth. So it's a newly constructed carport. That's why we use that image because we wanted you to see that the structure is currently there. But if you take a look at the site itself, I mean, you have the two different roads that, like I said, act as frontage for us. You have Lake Lowry Road to the south and Old Polk City Road to the east. Overlaying the Google Earth, you can see that there is the carport already constructed. And then we tried to transpose that onto our aerial so you can kind of see where it's at. Doing a measurement with our aerials, we do show that the distance between the shed, I'm sorry, the carport and the right-of-way is about 12 feet. And then there's about 25 feet between the edge of pavement and the carport itself. So it does still maintain sufficient space on all sides in order to be properly maintained. And it does not present any kind of danger to the roadways. Now, when you're looking at the shape of the parcel, as you saw, it's triangular in nature. So taking access off of Lake Lowry Road is actually the lesser-traveled road, even though both of them are considered urban collectors. So Lake Lowry has significantly less traffic that comes down the road. And I'll get to that in a second. But if you look at doing the site visit, you can see that when we were there, you can kind of eyeball it and see that the 12 feet is about spot on from what the distance is from the carport to the fence line, which is the fence is built almost exactly on the property line. So justification for approval, if approved, the request is not injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to public welfare because Lake Lowry Road is much less traveled with an estimated 800 AADT than the other side of the property that abuts County Road 17, Polk City Road at 10,800 AADT. So you can see there is a significant difference in the amount of cars that traverse the two roads. So taking access off of Lake Lowry Road and lowering the setback to that road is less cause for concern. And this information comes directly from our TPO roadway network. The special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar, such as the shape of the parcel, the structure, or the building involved. The unique triangular shape of the parcel with two road frontages makes placing structures difficult. So anywhere that they would have put the carport in the vicinity of the house probably would have ended up in a similar situation. And with that, I'll stand for question. Is there a pending code enforcement case for this? I believe so. I believe that they're waiting for the variance to be approved in order for the codes case to be settled. CMA 2024 389. What is the side setback requirement in this district? For agricultural residential rural, side setback requirement, and correct me if I'm wrong, Eric, I believe it's 15 feet for the side. Yeah, 15. I'm sorry, 10 for accessory structures. 15 for principal structures, 10 for accessory. And this would be an accessory? Yes. I was just curious to know if we were to treat it as a side setback, if it meant that. I realize it's not a side setback, but in some ways it functions as a side setback, I suppose. Yeah, definitely with the two road frontages, I could see that. What is the speed limit on Lake Lowry Road? 45 miles per hour. I take it staff doesn't have any concerns about traffic safety or impeding visibility of drivers? Not off Lake Lowry Road, no. The amount of cars that traverse down that road at the 800 AADT would not cause significant concern of the amount of cars that go down the road, even with the speed limit of 45 miles an hour. And after having conducted a site visit, I mean, like I said, you can see past the structure with no issue. There's a comment in the staff report that the residence to the west of the site has a carport located on it. Does that carport meet the setback requirements? That one is a little bit further back. It's still within the 35 feet, I believe. I mean, it doesn't look as close as this one does. But the house to the west of it also does have a carport, but on the west side of the driveway. But I don't know exactly if it's 35 feet or not. Are you aware of any problems that that carport next door may have caused, given that it might not quite meet the setback? No, ma'am. And actually, unless you're at the house, you wouldn't really see it as much because there's a lot of heavy trees that are around the site. I take it this property is not part of an HOA? No. I don't think I have any other questions for staff. I will ask, just in case, is the applicant present? There's not. I will open this up for public comment. Is there anyone who came here today to speak regarding this application, either for or against? We'll close public comment. Anything else from staff? No, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. We can move on now to new business. And we will go to item LDLVAR 2025-42. LDLVAR 2025-42. David Spain, on behalf of the property owner, is requesting to construct a new single-family residence while allowing the existing dwelling to serve as an accessory dwelling unit that exceeds 1,000 square feet, or the 1,000 square foot maximum. The property is 0.69 acres. It's in the residential suburban district. It's located at 801 Old Winterhaven Road, south of U.S. Highway 92, north of Havendale Boulevard, west of Jersey Road, east of Charlotte Road, east of the city of Auburndale, in Section 25, Township 28, Range 12. On September 4th, 2025, 19 mailers were sent to area property owners. On August 29th, one board was posted on the property. On September 10th, an illegal ad was published in the Polk Sun News. We've had no response from the public. Andrew Gohowski is the case planner. And before you get started, I take it you are the applicant? David Spain. Okay. You're welcome to have a seat, and when staff is done, I will call you up, but I don't want you to stand unnecessarily. Okay. Andrew. So, good afternoon. Andrew Gohowski with Land Development, presenting LDLVAR 2025-42, the Old Winterhaven Road ADU. This is a variance request to allow an ADU to exceed the 1,000 square footage maximum under Section 206 of the LDC. The property owner seeks to construct a new home while allowing an existing dwelling to serve as an ADU. Staff is recommending approval. The subject property is located to the southeast of Auburndale City Center at 801 Old Winterhaven Road. Staff has reached out to the city, and they have provided no comments at this time. So, the property is about 0.69 acres, is within essentially an enclave of the residential suburban land use district surrounded by the city of Auburndale's jurisdiction. The subject site is not located in a subdivision and is between two major arterial roadways, U.S. Highway 92 and Havendale Boulevard. The current property owners purchased the 1,152-square-foot single-family residence in 2011, according to the property appraiser. The request entails constructing a new 2,988-square-foot home, outlined in red, while leaving the existing home on the property. This existing home would become designated as an accessory dwelling unit. The existing residence has a square footage of 1,152 square feet. If you eliminate the unheated floor space, which is the porch, the open porch area in this vicinity, the home has an actual heated floor space of 1,104 square feet, and that's an important distinction. Per Section 206, ADUs are permitted as accessory uses to single-family detached homes in all residential districts and lots of record, so long as they do not exceed that 1,000 square feet of heated floor space. However, an applicant may exceed this cap through the variance process. According to the submitted site plan, while the existing home exceeds the square footage cap by 104 square feet, this newly designated ADU will be located to the rear and eastern side of the property. The ADU also met principal setbacks of the prior R2 zoning district when it was constructed in 1971. R2 principal structure setbacks were 7 1⁄2 feet on the sides and 30 feet to the rear. The new single-family residence will meet all setbacks in the RS land use district, which requires 10 feet from the sides and 35 feet from Old Winter Haven Road and Urban Collector Roadway. Here are some photos from the site visit conducted by staff. This is looking off of Old Winter Haven Road. A 6-foot vinyl fence surrounds the front and sides of the property. Here's another view looking northeast within the property boundaries. Behind the fence is Mobile Home Park. So staff is recommending approval. The request meets the variance criteria in Section 931 of the LDC, as well as criteria for ADUs in Section 206 of the LDC. The accessory structure will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare because the new home will meet primary structure setbacks. And I mentioned before, the existing home met the primary structure setbacks established at the time it was constructed. It's important to note that if this request was denied, the owners would need to demolish the existing residence. By right, they could rebuild an ADU such as this, but just 104 square foot smaller. According to the applicant, this request is much more practical from an economic and feasibility standpoint. And with that, I thank you and stand for any questions. There are several statements in the staff report that the size, the current size of the ADU is only 1% larger than what is permissible by right. Isn't that actually 10%? So 1%, I see I wrote ISR is 10%. The ADU would be, yes, correct, 10%. You may want to correct that in the staff report. It's in several places. I don't think I have any questions at this time for staff. I think the questions I do, well, I take that back. The minimum lot size in this area, in this district is what? So the minimum lot size in the RS district is 5 acres, but this is a lot of records, so it met the minimum lot size when it was established. Then I am ready for the applicant if you want to come to the podium. The owner is also welcome if you desire. How are you doing? My name is David Spain, 16 Alabama Lane, Auburndale, Florida. Previous to this variance application, we had an approval for the ADU to be considered as an ADU, but in March, Board of County Commissioners changed the code to where you can only go up to 1,000 square foot. At that time, we did not have the funds available to build a new house, so that brought us into the session we're in now of us having to apply for a variance. But we did have a letter of approval prior to March stating that we could construct a house. So, you know, the house is going to be used, the existing house is going to be for the homeowner, and the previous house is going to be used, you know, for his, it says son in here. That's incorrect. It's actually his uncle. It's in a bad accident. So, that's why we're needing an ADU to take care of his uncle on the same property where he can live beside his mother, which is also on the property in that house also. Who will be living in the ADU? He's going to be his uncle and his mother. It says on here son. I don't know how my office drafted his son, but it's actually his uncle. His uncle and his mother. And his mother, correct. And if you look on property appraisers, the property is in his name and his mother's name also. So, okay, and sir, I take it you are Ricky Welch? I'm not sure I followed what you said about you already having approval to build a home. We called down in March, Board of County Commissioners met, and they changed the ADU square footage size because a lot of builders was building houses that used to be one foot less than the main structure. So, a lot of them was building 3,000 square foot house where they built ADU 3,000 or 2999, but right behind it. And then they were splitting the parcels, selling it off. To eliminate that, the Board of County Commissioners put a size limit on the size of an ADU. This was back in March, and they probably have the dates and things. So, that fell to where we couldn't apply for our permits, get our permits and everything in house plans prior to the code changing to the 1,000 square foot ADU. And his mother's house and his house is only, like I said, 152 square foot difference from what was allowed, you know, previously to what's allowed now. I understand better now. Thank you. Sure. Okay. I actually don't have any other questions for you at the moment. Is there anything else either one of you would like to add in support of the application? I think so. I have a question. You could come to the microphone, please. So, we weren't really 100% sure on the square footage. Thinking big, that square footage is more than we would need. So, if this was approved, can we get it lower square footage? Of the new residents you've built? Yes, correct. That is a question for staff because one of the proposed conditions that they have recommended if the application is to be approved is that the variance would be valid only as long as the primary residence, the new structure, is constructed at least 2,988 square feet. So, that is a question for staff. Staff? Who's staff? Yep. That's what we conditioned. I can look at it with the rest of staff. That was what they stated in their application. Yeah. If it's going to go lower, we need to quantify that number. Do you have a number? This is the first that Ricky's brought it up to me because of tariffs and everything else and financial things that the House had to ease wanting to come back down inside from the time we applied for the variance. So, I just heard that today. I was thinking between 2,300 and 2,500 square foot. I can't be exact, but can we say 2,500 and just write that in today? Yeah, I can condition that. Okay, great. Okay. Yeah, that works. Mr. Welch, did you stand at the beginning to be sworn in? I did. Okay, I thought so, but I just wanted to double check. We'd like to make sure. Okay, so if we were to change that condition then to that the primary residence would have to be and remain at least 2,500 square feet, that would satisfy staff's concerns? Okay. That's fine. And that's just to make sure that the ADU is always secondary to address the very issue that you described at the outset. It would be in the same place as what we have drawn on the site plan. We were just, you know, a new site planned on, but it would still be 10 foot on the rear, 35 feet from the front of the road setback. Anything else you'd like to say in support? No, thank you. All right. Thank you both. I will now open up the application for... I'm sorry. We'll hear something. You'll notify him and me in a week, you say? Within two weeks. Two weeks. Okay, thank you. Okay. I'll now open up the application for public comment. Is there anyone who came here today to speak to this application, either for or against? Being no one, we'll close public comment. Anything else from staff? No, ma'am. Thank you. And that will take us now to LDLVAR 2025-44. LDLVAR 2025-44. Marcus Ruggiero is requesting an accessory structure setback in the rear for reduction from 7 feet to 3 feet and an accessory structure side setback reduction from 7 feet to 5 feet for the construction of an 8-by-14 shed for their residents on approximately 35 acres in the residential suburban district. The subject property is located at 1404 Wingate Lane, north of Interstate 4, south of Polk City Road, old Polk City Road, east of U.S. Highway 98, west of the Polk Parkway, north of the City of Lakeland, in Section 17, Township 27, Range 24. On September 4th, 26 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on September 2nd, and the legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on September 10th. We've had no response from the public. Kyle Rogus is the case planner. Good afternoon, Kyle Rogus with Land Development, presenting LDLVAR 2025-44, the 1404 Wingate Lane variance. The applicant is requesting an accessory structure rear setback reduction from 7 feet to 3 feet, an accessory structure side setback reduction from 7 feet to 5 feet construction for an 8-by-14, 112-square-foot shed. The subject site is located at 1404 Wingate Lane, north of Interstate 4, south of Old Polk City Road, east of U.S. Highway 98, west of Polk Parkway, north of the City of Lakeland, in Section 17, Township 27, Range 24. The subject site is located in the residential suburban land use district in the suburban development area on approximately 0.34 acres. The Wellington Green Subdivision, PUD 8814, was planted in 1989. The owner purchased the property in April 2014, according to the Polk County property appraiser. The home was built in 1991, meeting all setback requirements. However, the subject site is located at the end of a cul-de-sac, creating an irregular shape. Because of the irregular shape, this limits the development of the primary residence to be oriented non-uniform to the side and rear setbacks. The improvements to the site, adding an additional 1,390 square feet to the rear yard, further strickens the placement of accessory structures without impeding on the setbacks. The Wellington Green Subdivision had a minimum lot size of 12,960 square feet. When the county transitioned to a one-map system with a future land use map in 2000, the property was designated the Residential Suburban Land Use District. The minimum residential lot area in the RS is 5 acres. The configuration of the lot, although smaller than the minimum lot size in the RS at approximately 0.35 acres, or 15,246 square feet, is larger than the typical lot size of 96 by 135, or 12,960 square feet per PUD 8814. Pursuant to PUD 8814, accessory structures have a 7-foot rear and side setback. This request is asking for a 4-foot reduction to the rear and a 2-foot reduction to the side. This is a very minimal and discreet request. The owner may not have been aware of the accessory structure setbacks. The shape improvements to the site and septic drain field limit the development of the property, restricting any accessory structures to be placed on or within close proximity to the setback boundaries, while still maintaining a functional rear yard. In these photos, you can see the shed as it currently sits. The closest neighboring structure to the shed is approximately 48 feet to the north, well above fire separation requirements and screened from an existing opaque fence. Staff recommends approval. The shed is located 48 feet from the closest neighboring structure, 3 feet within the 7-foot accessory structure setback, and 5 feet within the 7-foot accessory structure rear setback. The art is screened by an opaque fence. Furthermore, the shape improvements to the site and septic drain field limit the development of the property, while still maintaining a functional rear yard. And with that, I will stand for questions. A few places in the staff report, you note that there were improvements made that add 1,390 square feet to the rear yard. What improvements resulted in that? It would be this structure outlined here. This was not originally part of the original home. This was constructed later at that 1,390 square feet. So it's not that the rear yard was enlarged by that amount, which is how it reads. It's that the improvements were enlarged by that amount. Yes, correct. The drain field is to the west, southwest of the shed. Is that what limits the shed from being further off of the property lines? Correct, yes. The shed is going to be located here in this kind of corner section, and the drain field extends along that east side of the primary structure. Is this also a code enforcement case? There is no code enforcement, but there is a building permit currently in shop BR 2025-688, which I would assume is what they came in for the building permit and was required to have that variance before getting approval. Do you know if there is an HOA that might require an additional layer of approval? The applicant with the application said that they do have the Homeowners Association approval with this request. Are there any other accessory structures or storage structures on site? On this particular site, no. Is the applicant present? If you could come forward, please, to the podium and start off by giving us your name and address, please. Marcus Ruggiero, 1404 Wingate. Okay, at the outset, is there anything you would like to say in addition to what staff has already said to further support your application? All sounds great. The additional was a pool cage added when we moved in. But, yeah, everything sounds as it should. Does the drain field take up the full area between the shed and the pool cage? Yes, and then extends further towards the roadway. You can see the septic tank is. Okay, and you purchased the property when? 2014. Anything else? No, that's it. Thank you. Thank you so much. And I will 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. Anything else from staff? No, ma'am. Okay, thank you. And next, we will go to LDLVAR 2025-47. LDLVAR 2025-47. Daniel Herbert is requesting a variance to reduce the rear and side principal structure setback from 5 feet to 0 feet for screen enclosure over existing pavers. The property is 0.11 acres. It's located in a leisure recreation district in a plan unit development, 8624. The site is located at 2403 St. George Drive within the Deer Creek Golf and Tennis RV Resort Phase 3. South of Ernie Caldwell Boulevard, east of U.S. Highway 27, north of Citrus Ridge Drive, south of I-4, north of Haines City, and Section 17, Township 26, Range 27. On September 4th, 31 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on August 29th. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on September 25th, and we've heard no response from the public. Aaliyah Nglema is the case planner. Good afternoon, Aaliyah Nglema with Land Development, presenting LDLVAR 2025-47, the Deer Creek St. George Drive variants. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the side and rear principal structure setback from 5 feet to 0 feet for a screen enclosure over existing pavers. So the subject site is located at 2403 St. George Drive within the Deer Creek Phase 3 subdivision, south of Ernie Caldwell Boulevard, east of U.S. Highway 27, north of Citrus Ridge Drive, south of I-4, north of Haines City, and Section 17, Township 26, Range 27. The site is approximately 0.11 acres, located within a leisure recreation future lane use district, and in the transit supportive development area. The applicant received approval two years ago for variance LDLVAR 2023-48 to reduce the rear and side principal structure setback for an existing home from 5 feet to 0 feet and reduce the western accessory side setback from 0 feet for an existing detached RV port. The new permit pulled as pending approval of this variance to allow the screen enclosure over the pavers. So here's a picture from my site visit. The requests will not be interest to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare as the lot is a unique shape. The primary home has been on site since 2012, and the pavers have been on the property since 2020. The property to the rear of the home is vacant and not within the plat but in a commercial lane use district. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land structure or building involved, as LDPD 2019-26 was approved on January 9, 2020. In brief, this PUD modification removed conditions within PUD, which prohibited permanent structures, thus allowing the placement of habitable living spaces on particular lots throughout this development. And I'll stand for questions. So the prior variances granted were for the existing residents, which allowed a 0-foot setback for the existing residents, and then for the RV port towards the front, which also has a 0-foot setback. And then this other structure that's proposed, what they're asking for, is a 0-foot setback. So every structure on site would have a 0-foot setback? Does staff have concerns about that? Deer Creek has some history with developing it. It began as an RV park, and it's kind of proliferated into a more long-term resident park. And the lots are very small, and the requests are often to provide carport space or cover over large portions of the property. And we have certainly seen those. Yes, I've certainly seen those. So if I've seen them, I know you've seen them. I don't believe I've seen one where every single structure on the parcel would be at a 0-foot setback. I don't think I've ever seen that request anywhere. That is pushing the limit, yes. But this actual case is more on the lines of infill than it is. It's towards the interior of the lot, except for the rear portion, as you can see in the site plan shown on the screen. There's a lot of information in the staff report about the history of Deer Creek, and I appreciate that, and that's been provided in other applications in this area. There's not a lot of information here about the proposed structure. It is a screened-in enclosure? That is correct. So based on the building permit, it showed that, yes, it will be a new screened-enclosure combo over the existing pavers, and then it will have aluminum roof over the screened-enclosure. And so the portion of this that will have a – the portion of the new structure, the new proposed structure, that will have a 0-foot setback is – so the rear and the side, yet from the graphic here with the highlighted area, I only see one place where this aligns with a property line, what I guess we're calling the side. I mean, this is in irregular shape, so where does the other 0-foot setback come in? It was probably a mistake on my part, and it's just supposed to be side just to 0 and not the rear because it's just on one side reducing that setback. But there isn't 5 feet from – I mean, again, this is not necessarily to scale. Right. There isn't 5 feet for that little stretch that is ostensibly the rear. But the request is still to allow it to be to 0 in all dimensions or those two dimensions. Yes, ma'am. Also, the property that is abutting to that side is inaccessible, so that lot is not – would not be a buildable lot because it is inaccessible to this one right here. It's landlocked? Yes, ma'am. How large is that part? Should be about an acre and a little over a quarter, 1.3 acres. Currently landlocked. I mean – Currently. Someone could obtain access rights to it. Yes, ma'am. Yes, that's correct. Typically, when I've seen these types of requests, the proposed structure is abutting property that's owned by an HOA, the HOA that the parcel is a part of. And either it's an open space tract or a drainage tract or something like that. And the point has always been made that the HOA is giving them permission to go on that property to do whatever maintenance is required. In this instance, how is the homeowner going to maintain that structure if they ever need to get outside of it? I'll defer to the applicant, but with these types of requests, that property owner, whoever did own that piece, would have also gotten a notification for this request. So, that is something that whoever does own that landlocked property would have been notified that someone is going to that zero foot, abutting their property. Okay. Okay. I don't think I have any other questions for you at the moment, but thank you. So, are the applicants present? Come forward, please. I assume you are Mr. Herbert, Mr. and Mrs. Herbert. Very hard of hearing. Okay. Either one of you can speak, or both. You're both welcome to participate. Daniel and Cynthia Herbert. I'm sorry. We'll start with your names and addresses, please. Daniel and Cynthia Herbert, 2403 St. George Drive, Davenport. Okay. First, I'll just give you the opportunity to say whatever you might like to say in support of your application. You've heard, you know, some of the concerns that I have, but first, I'll just open it up for you to say whatever you'd like to say. Okay. We bought the property with all the structures that are there existing except for the paver patio in front of the front door. That rear patio, paver patio, was there. It's accessible from the house by a sliding glass door, which is behind where the hot tub sits. The new pavers are where the hot tub is, and that's all within boundaries. And that's the only thing other than a golf cart garage that we've constructed since we bought the house. And I just want to make that patio usable by screening it in. The field behind us there at that angle, they used to run cows on. There's not been anything back there. I don't know who owns it. The only thing that I know about it is that when we first moved there, there were pickup trucks coming in and dumping stuff there. We reported that, and the sheriff came out, and then the hazmat team came out and cleaned it up. So that's all we know. There's no fencing there. There used to be a barbed wire fence, I guess, to contain the cows, but it fell down, and that's all we know. Well, when we applied for the original variance... Can I ask you to speak into the microphone, please? When we applied for the original variance, we didn't realize it was only for a year. So with the economy the way it was, we backed off our plans. Now we're in a position to do what we had planned to do earlier, and that's why we came back for a second variance. And there's, during our little, our history, there's been two different surveys, and both of them have been wrong, different. There's no, you know, they're... The surveys don't agree with each other. So I think that's where... Well, most of the confusion comes into. It's because the original survey of the property was not... Does not agree with... It doesn't match with the current property survey. So I think that's why everything is built where it was built, because they were using a bad survey, maybe. I don't know. But we didn't know any of this at the time we bought it, or we would have looked elsewhere. Well, I'm not aware of confusion. What's been explained to me is that there are variances that allowed the structures that are already there at a zero-foot setback to be in that location. So I'm not sure what confusion... Well, I think the original builder of the people we bought it from, when they originally built it... Was working off of a different... They were working off of a different survey. Okay. I think it was discovered in the last variance. Okay. One of the criteria that staff and I have to consider when reviewing a variance application is hardship, something that is unique to your property or situation on the property that justifies deviating from the code. Can you address that criterion? Well, I mean, I just want to put a screen up over that patio to make it usable, because right now I can't be out there. I get bug bites, like, I mean, bugs just are attracted to me, and I spend zero time out there right now. And I just would like to have that space usable, because our home is very tiny. Anything else? I just would appreciate being able to use it. All right. Thank you. This is a public hearing, so if anyone is here to address this application and provide their comments, either for or against, now is your opportunity. Knowing we will close public comment. Anything else from staff? No, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. And then that will take us to our last case of the day, which is LDLVAR 2025-48. LDLVAR 2025-48. David Smith is requesting a variance to allow a separation reduction for a 3PS license, liquor, beer, wine package, within 2,500 feet of religious institutions, and public and private kindergarten through 12th grade schools. The subject property is located in the Employment Center District of the Northridge Selected Area Plan on 13.17 acres. It's on Minute Maid Ramp Road at 42660, north of Polk City Road, south of Ernie Collier Boulevard, east of Interstate 4, west of U.S. Highway 1792, north of the city of Haines City, in Section 19, Township 26, Range 27. On September 4th, 84 mailers were sent to area property owners. Two boards were posted on the property on September 2nd, and a legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on September 25th. We've had no response from the public, and Kyle Rogos is the case planner. Good afternoon again. Kyle Rogos with Land Development, presenting LDLVAR 2025-48, the public's alcohol variance. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow separation reduction for a 3PS license, liquor, beer, and wine package sales, within 2,500 feet of religious institutions, or public and private kindergarten through 12th grade schools. The subject property is located at 42660 Minute Maid Ramp Road, north of Polk City Road, south of Ernie Caldwell Boulevard, east of Interstate 4, west of U.S. Highway 1792, north of Haines City, in Section 19, Township 26, Range 27. The property is located in the Employment Center Land Use District in the North Ridge Selected Area Plan within the Ridge Special Protection Area of the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. The property is approximately 13.17 acres. The applicant is looking to obtain a 3PS liquor license for the liquor store adjacent to the public supermarket and the shops at Citrus Creek Shopping Center. The proposed liquor store will serve the local residents and travelers in the area, as there are no current liquor stores in the immediate vicinity. However, the Montessori School of Davenport is within 2,500 feet of the property. Employment centers in the North Ridge SAP allow alcohol sales administratively. However, since the school is established first, the applicant must go through the variance process. There are numerous examples throughout the county that demonstrate beverage sales and religious institutions and schools can coexist without any adverse effects. One example can be seen one mile to the south of the subject site. Case number LDLVAR 2025-1 was a request for two package sales licenses, 3PS, for a Sam's Club to be incorporated into two big-box retail centers. However, there were two religious institutions within 2,500 feet of the property. The standard method of measuring by property lines is not always the most accurate depiction of real-world phenomenon. Pedestrians and vehicles must travel much further than the property line measurements, including crossing US 27 and entering the buildings themselves. The property boundaries between the subject site and the school is 267 feet. Meanwhile, if measured between the liquor store entrance and school through vehicle and pedestrian travel, those distances increased to over 2,500 feet. Here is the site plan submitted. The development has already received conditional approval of a 59,416-square-foot Publix in a retail building with associated parking and infrastructure with two out parcels for future development. Again, if measured between the liquor store entrance and the school through vehicle and pedestrian travel, those distances would increase to over 2,500 feet. This photo is off of US 27 looking west at the subject site. In this photo, you can see current progress of the development with the liquor store identified. Note the depth and visibility of the site prior to the completion of any parking lot landscaping, buffering, and two out parcels. This photo is taken from the same spot as the previous photo, now looking east across US 27. The sheer width of US 27, which bifurcates the liquor store in the approximate location of the Montessori School of Davenport behind the retail plaza. Staff recommends approval. Staff has found the setback reductions from Table 2.4 in Section 224 of the Land Development Code that have been approved for five cases last year and three cases this year, one of those cases being LDL VAR 2025-1, located approximately one mile south of this proposal. The standard method of measuring by property lines is not always the most accurate depiction of real-world phenomenon as shown in the previous slides, and with that, I will stand for questions. Can you confirm that the Montessori School was sent a notice of the application and the hearing today? Yes, they would have been sent a notification. I take it they did not submit any written objection or contact the county in any way? No, they have not. The entrance to the school is on the back side of that parcel? Correct. The driveway to get into the school is on the back side here to the east of that house emblem. Do you know about how far it is to the closest liquor store to the proposed site here? The other closest liquor store to this proposed site would be that Sam's Big Box retail that was approved just one mile south off of US-27 as well. Hey, I think that's all I have for staff right now, so thank you. And is the applicant present? I have not been sworn. There was a traffic accident, so I was late. Okay, we'll take care of that at the top. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you provide today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Good evening, or good afternoon. Sorry, I used to doing these at night. David Smith, 401 East Jackson Street, 33601, with the law firm of Stern Tweaver Miller, Director of Development and Zoning. I'm not a lawyer. Staff, as usual, has done a very good job in their staff report identifying the use, the criteria, and the satisfaction. I think to provide some color, just generally, Publix, when they locate their stores and their liquor stores, they're always in the same place. Publix, Publix does not operate liquor stores outside of a main store shopping center. So that puts us in a locational criteria that is different from other purveyors and retailers that may have freestanding liquor stores. Generally, in nature, liquor store operations do not have any exterior effects on adjoining properties. I think the regulations currently in effect are trying to cover all situations when there may be noise, order, patron issues associated with these uses and uses that are protected. When you look at a liquor store operation, no odor, no noise, it is a very quiet operation. And typically, the buffering and screening that you would normally have with a bar or some more intense alcoholic beverage use is not necessary. Evidenced by the fact that you don't have that distance separation from them from residential uses, which can be quite proximate, and it's just due to the nature. The use is also very similar to almost every other retailer that is in operation in the zoning district that we are located in, and also in the zoning district that the Montessori school is located in. Just to note, we're only asking for a variance from the separation from Montessori school, even though the cited section in the staff report talks about churches and schools, that's just the section noted. So essentially, a liquor store is an accessory used to a Publix grocery store. It is typically located immediately adjacent. It shares staff. It shares security. It shares distribution. So when deliveries are made to the main store, they coordinate those deliveries so that you only have, you know, one or more trucks going to the location, not separate deliveries occurring. And they also share security. Publix is drawn to this site basically for the unique characteristics of rapid growth in the area. It's at an intersection. It's one of the few sites of adequate size for a public-anchored shopping center. And when you look at the other sites that are similarly zoned, they're either undeveloped or they don't have the depth necessary for the public-anchored grocery stores. So we believe in seeking this variance, it should be taken into consideration the nature of the operation, the actual physical separation. As staff had mentioned, if you tried to drive to Montessori school from the liquor store, it's over 2,500 feet. If you tried to drive from the Montessori school to the liquor store, it would probably be closer to a mile and a half because there's no cross street. There's no break on U.S. 27. They would have to go north, then come back down south, and then come back into the shopping center. It should be noted that pedestrians on this corridor are very rare given the size of the right-of-way, and there are no sidewalks up and down 27 in this portion of the highway. So we believe that the location of the liquor store, its operational characteristics, and the physical barrier provided by 27 mitigate any perceived impacts that might be expressed relative to the Montessori school. Montessori school is also located on the extreme eastern side of the existing commercial center. But for the fact that Montessori provides kindergarten, daycares are not a protected use, so kindergarten through K-12, Montessori schools have VPK, and they also have the opportunity to do kindergarten. So an abundance of caution, it's assumed that they have kindergarten, and we're asking for the variance. Be glad to answer any other questions or questions you may have. But we believe, given the code provisions, the Chapter 3 provides the opportunity for determination of the characteristics of the use to not create a negative effect on the neighboring property owners and the public health, safety, and welfare-protected uses, and we believe that is the case here. We will not have adverse impacts on our neighbors or the Montessori school. How far is it to the closest Publix liquor store? The next one is on the north side of I-4, going north. I believe it is close to two miles to the north. There's one to the south in Davenport that is also about two miles or so. Again, that's kind of evidence of public-anchored shopping centers, the placement of the liquor stores within them to serve the community population. Again, we see this as an accessory use, not as a prime business. So you will see them close proximity, if not adjacent to the stores themselves. Can you address the hardship criterion, please? Well, the hardship criterion in this particular situation is looking at the total criteria of the code. There's a limitation on locations, adequate size to place, the publics themselves. When you look up and down, as evidenced by staff talking about other variances granted, it becomes very difficult to meet all the criteria associated with distance separation for these types of uses in commercial districts, which also allow daycares and other protected uses. Therefore, in selecting locations, the size of the parcels are very limited. Therefore, for publics purposes, their hardship is they're not going to put up just a liquor store in a space that meets the distance separation requirements. They look first to their client base, the parcel size, and that's where they locate their stores. The hardship would be that our customers would not have the availability of the services provided and the product provided that they would experience in other publicses or from other vendors in the area. And we would also have, you know, actually I guess we wouldn't have any of those extra costs associated with distribution because we would not locate a liquor store. So I think it's really just locational limitations under the code and the hardship would be not to be able to provide that product service to our patrons. Anything else you'd like to add in support of the application? No, ma'am. You know the regulations look better than I do as far as the standards review. I think the variance criteria allows for weighing of the various factors in order to determine compliance. And we believe that we meet the overall burden with respects to those criteria and appreciate your favorable consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I'll 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 pose public comment. And I believe that concludes our meeting for the day. Thank you. Off the record's fine. Are we on the record? We can conclude the meeting.