And for the record, we normally go over the last meeting's record and approve the minutes. But since the last hearing officer left, she approved them before she left. So we're going to start with the first case. Thank you. Our first case is LDL SC 2025-9, the Tiger Creek Roads Special Exception. Alberto Ruiz is requesting a special exception to park a commercial vehicle on residential property on approximately 0.94 acres in an agricultural residential rural area. The property is located at 1402 Tiger Lake Road, north of State Road 60, south of Rawls Road, east of Lake Wales in Section 11, Township 30, Range 29. On October 1st, 17 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on September 26th. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on October 8th. We've had no response from the public. Ian Nance is the case planner. All right. Good afternoon. Ian Nance, Land Development. The applicant is requesting approval for a special exception to park a commercial vehicle on residential property located at 1402 Tiger Lake Road, north of State Road 60, south of Rawls Road, east of Lake Wales, in Section 11, Township 30, Range 29. Subject site is in an agricultural residential rural future land use designation near 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 on the Tiger Lake Road, a county rural minor collector. An approval of this case will require a commercial driveway to protect the county pavement. The site is less than a mile and a quarter north of State Road 60, a major east-west thoroughfare. It's a very rural area of the county, and few other legal opportunities to park commercial vehicles exist out here. LDL SE 2025-7 was approved in August, less than a quarter mile up the road from this site. The applicant's site plan is to the lower left. The vehicle in question is a 2006 Ford Sterling dump truck. At 10 feet high and 34 feet long, this is on the smaller side of some of these commercial vehicle parking requests. At just under an acre, the site has plenty of space to park this truck and can easily meet 20-foot setbacks from adjoining property lines when placed at the rear of the existing home. The only home abutting the property is approximately 135 feet to the north. If any approval can be valid, the parking area will need to be screened with either a six-foot opaque fence or type B landscaping on the northern, eastern, and southern property lines. Once this is accomplished, the criteria for parking a commercial vehicle on site will be complete. Staff finds parking this truck in this location, provided by the applicant, should not create a negative impact on the health and safety of surrounding residences. With that, I thank you and will stand for questions. Are there any questions? Mr. and Mrs. Ruiz, do you wish to make any comment? He says that that's the only income in the house, and he is the one using it because, unfortunately, I'm under treatment, and that's our only income. We cannot have it outside of the house because of me, so that way he can be taking care of me. Are you willing to put in the requested driveway, the commercial driveway? Yes, we are. I have nothing further. We're going to approve this, and thank you very much for coming. Thank you. And there won't be an order ready today, but it will be within about a week. Okay. We come and pick it up? If you contact your land planner. I believe Eric will send it, or at least he'll send it. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Have a wonderful night. The next case, please. This case. Our next case is LDL SE 2025-10. Alberto Martinez is requesting a special exception to park a commercial vehicle 2005 Peterbilt 379, and associated trailer at their residence on approximately 0.38 acres in a residential low district. October 1st, 26 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on September 26th, and a legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on October 8th. Staff received no response from the public. Andrew Grahowski is the case planner. Good afternoon. Andrew Grahowski with Land Development, presenting LDL SE 2025-10. The applicant is requesting a special exception to park a 2005 Peterbilt 379 semi-truck with an associated trailer at their residence on approximately 0.38 acres. Staff is recommending approval. The subject property is located at 2507 Lake Lur Loop North, west of Cumbie Road South, south of Haywood Street, west of Mount Airy Avenue, north of Black Mountain Way, northeast of the city of Lakeland in Section 24, Township 28, and Range 21. The subject property is located in the RL1 land use district in the transit supportive development area. The property is approximately 0.38 acres and is considered lots 13 and 14 of the Howanoka Hills first edition plat, recorded in 1925. At the time, the property met the minimum lot size of residential 2 zoning and is therefore considered a lot of record. The home was built in 1976 on lot 14, and both lots were combined sometime around 2015. The applicant later purchased the property in 2022, according to the property appraiser. The property has access to Lake Lur Loop Road West, a county-maintained roadway with a pavement width of 20 feet. Crystal Lake Middle School and a religious institution are found to the south. The vehicle will most likely travel north approximately 800 feet in order to reach State Road 658 or Cumbie Road, which is a principal arterial roadway. This short distance is preferable since the vehicle can reach a major roadway and limit the number of homes it will pass. The surrounding roads near the property have no weight restrictions. This is a close-up of the subject property with the approximate location of the parking area. The closest home is approximately 80 feet from the parking area. Per LDC, per the Land Development Code, when the vehicle is parked less than 200 feet from a residentially designated property, it shall be buffered from the adjacent residential property with a type-B buffer yard or 6-foot-high minimum opaque fence. The parking location is located to the rear of the home and will be screened by an existing vinyl fence. Here's the applicant's site plan submitted for the record, which meets the minimum setback requirement of 20 feet. Given the proposed access is off of county-maintained roadway, a commercial driveway apron in accordance with Section 705I of the LDC is required to protect Lake Lure Loop Road West from the stretching caused by such heavy vehicles' turning movements on and off the property. Here are some photos of staff's site visit. As you can see, the property has an existing fence on the southern and eastern sides of the property, which greatly reduces the visibility from the public right-of-way. The applicant was cited by code enforcement in the past for parking a commercial vehicle at this location. The case number is CMA 2025-1684. Staff found no commercial vehicles during this visit. Here are some additional photos. The truck parking area is located in front of the shed. The interior of the site also has some landscaping, as you see on the right. So staff is recommending approval. The request is consistent with the standards in Section 216 of the LDC, and this vehicle shall continuously meet the screening and buffering requirements with an existing vinyl fence in place. The request will be limited to parking one commercial vehicle, a 2005 Peterbilt Model 379 semi-truck, with its associated trailer. This special exception shall be for the operator, Mr. Martinez, only and shall not run with the land. And with that, I'll stand for any questions. Just one question initially. Has the violation been cleared up, the CMA? No, the code case is pending, given this case before you today. And is there a fine associated with it? I would have to look that up. Does the applicant need to have any special driveway installed for the weight of this vehicle? Yes, it does. Since it's connecting to a county-maintained roadway, they would need a commercial driveway apron. And has he agreed to do that? They will have to, yes, as a condition. Is the applicant here? Yes? Okay. Do you agree to those conditions? Yes. Oh, this is our interpreter. Good afternoon, madam. He's asking just to make sure that if he, he already had a commercial entrance, but, of course, it did not seem to... For the sake of clarity, could the land planner please go over the conditions? So, the interpreter can tell Mr. Ruiz? Yeah. So, outlined in my staff report. So, you're only allowed to have one semi-truck parked on the property. It shall be for you, the operator, only. It can't be transferred to any other owner or occupant of the property. Just for me. Okay. And does there need to be a commercial driveway? Yes, as part of the condition. There has to be a commercial driveway installed. Do you agree to having a commercial driveway? You need to have a commercial entry, where it will enter and get out of the house. Yes, I can explain. I have it done, but it's about asphalt. A thousand. A thousand. So, he wanted to explain that he already created asphalt material. Asphalt material, yes. When did you do it? Some time ago. With permission. No, I came here and they told me that it was asphalt. Okay. A thousand. I didn't need permission. Okay. So, previously he came to the building division and asked questions about creating this asphalt entrance. And they explained to him just with this material that it would have been fine, but he did not make a building permit. He would need to get a building permit for the commercial driveway. Do you understand what's required? I don't want you leaving here and not doing something, and then we start all over again. So, I need to do a building permit so they can review and then permit it? Yes. The answer is yes. Okay. So, another thing he said earlier to me was he was not aware about code enforcement. ¿Verdad? ¿Usted dijo eso? ¿Que no sabía del caso, del código por tener vehículo parqueado ahí? ¿Usted lo sabía? Yeah. So, he completely clues about the code enforcement case before. We can discuss after the hearing as well, just so I can provide you the case. Okay. Okay. There is a code enforcement case. And you are required to either pay a fine or do whatever they tell you to do to get it settled, so we don't have to ever come back here again. If there is a case, usted tendría que razonar con ello y pagar alguna fianza para cerrar ese caso, entonces, continuar con esta aprobación de permiso de parqueado. Okay. ¿Está bien? Yeah. Sí. Gracias. Thank you. I have nothing further. The status of the code enforcement case, there was an inspection on October 17th. It is continued. So, it hasn't been heard by the magistrate yet. So, they're not. Okay. If they, if he completes this, he will, it'll, it'll, and builds the driveway, according to the conditions, he'll, it'll be closed out. Okay. Do you understand that? Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. It's approved. Thank you. You're welcome. Our next case is LDL VAR 2025-33. Nicholas, Colorado, is requesting a right-of-way setback reduction from 65 feet to 20 feet for a retail plaza on approximately 1.02 acres in a rural cluster center commercial district. The property is located west of U.S. Highway 17, north of Dixie Boulevard, south of Hillcrest Drive, east of Minor Avenue, north of the city of Bowling Green, and Hardy County Line in Section 33, Township 32, Range 25. On October 1st, 13 mailers were sent out to area property owners. Three boards were posted on the property on September 30th. Legal ad was published in the Bulk Sun News on October 8th. So far, we've had no response from the public. Is Mr. Colorado here? Thank you. Here's the site. It is right on the edge of the county line on the very south of Fort Meade next to the city of Bowling Green. This is the site that gives you an approximate to the area. The land use was recently changed to RCC commercial on the property. This is the site plan just laid out over the silhouette of the property. This is the proposed site plan. So retail, retail building, associated parking. The request is to reduce the right-of-way setback, which is the right-of-way line is significantly separated from the roadway. You can see the placement of the building will be in line with other structures along the highway as well. It'll be actually further away than some of the properties on the other side of US-17. The posted speed is 45 miles per hour. And then when it gets to this street right here, it drops to 40. This is the site. This is the estimated right-of-way line. As you can see, there's a significant amount of space. This is a drainage structure that is maintained by the Department of Transportation. The building would be approximately this far from the right-of-way, as you can see, pretty much in line with other structures that line the right-of-way. This is the rear of the site. One of the purposes for reducing the right-of-way setback is so that there can be more separation from the neighboring residential properties. Here's the approximate layout here with the distance from the right-of-way. Just after the edge of the property, there's residences that will be separated further by the parking lot and required landscaping that the property would need. That gives a good separation between any business activity and the residences. I just want to mention that it will not be injurious to the area involved, otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. This portion of U.S. 17 is posted at much lower speeds, so you're slowing in as you get to the intersection with the county line. The property is a little peculiar. It's a V-shaped property, which makes it hard to lay out a commercial structure on it, so that's another reason for granting some relief to the 65-foot setback. And it essentially won't be providing a privilege. It's not appreciated by others because other structures are much closer to the right-of-way. This structure will not stand out amongst the other ones that line this portion of the road. With that, I'll stand for questions. What is anticipated to go in this building? Are there any noise problems or anything like that with the... No, this will be straight retail office, personal services, more than likely. Mr. Colorado, do you want to say anything? Are there any people here to speak either for or against the approval on the property? That being said, we'll close the hearing. And are you recommending approval for this? Yes, ma'am. We are recommending approval. It will be approved. And is there anything he has to do? No. This will be provided the final order. Okay. You raised your hand. Do you need to say anything, Mr. Colorado? Okay. Thank you. Our next case is the Wingate Lane variance, LDL VAR 2025-36. Orlando Gunn is requesting a side accessory setback reduction from 7 feet to 0 feet for the construction of an 18 by 25 open-air carport on approximately 0.32 acres. The district is a residential suburban district. The subject property is located at 1441 Wingate Lane, east of Kathleen Road, north of Interstate 4, east and south of Old Polk City Road, west of Sherwood Lakes Boulevard, north of the City of Lakeland, in Section 17, Township 27, Range 23. On October 1st, 44 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on September 26th. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on October 8th. Andrew Grahowski is the case planner. Good afternoon again. Andrew Grahowski with Land Development, presenting LDL VAR 2025-36, the Wingate Lane variance. The applicant requests an accessory structure side setback reduction from 7 feet to 0 feet for the construction of an 18 by 25, 450-square-foot open-air carport on approximately 0.32 acres. The subject property is located in the northeastern portion of the county at 1441 Wingate Lane, north of Interstate 4 and the City of Lakeland, and east of U.S. Highway 98. The property is located in the residential suburban future land use district in the suburban development area. The property is near the southern boundary of the Green Swamp area of critical state concern, which is lightly hatched in black. The surrounding area consists of single-family subdivisions and planned unit developments constructed in the late 80s and early 90s. Wendell H. Watson Elementary is a short distance away. The subject site directly backs up to a large vacant pasture land to the south. The site is considered lot 4 of the Wellington Green Subdivision, PUD 88-14, plotted in November of 1989. A 2,993-square-foot single-family residence was constructed in 1990, with the owner purchasing the property in 2021, according to the property appraiser. Pursuant to PUD 88-14, accessory structures have a 7-foot rear and side setback on all lots within the subdivision. In addition, it's worth noting on the recorded plat that a 10-foot utility and drainage easement spans the front portion of the property. Based on the submitted site plan, the request asks for a 7-foot side setback reduction for an open carport that will be located along the western property line. This structure will be located on the side and rear yard, as required in Section 209 of the LDC, and will not encroach upon the utility and drainage easement on the front portion of the property, nor the 7-foot rear setback. When the home was constructed in 1990, a septic system and associated drain field were installed on the southeastern portion of the property. In 1999, a 500-square-foot shed and a screen enclosure were later installed, according to building records. The applicant purchased the property with these conditions already in place. The physical limitations of the property, as well as the setback requirements from PUD 88-14, limit the placement of any additional improvements, including a carport, without encroaching on setbacks. So here's a better photo looking at the front portion of the site. The carport will access the western side of the residence. Again, another site photo on the western portion of the property. The property line is demarcated in the blue dashed line. The carport will be about 20 feet away from the nearest structure to the west. It's 450 square feet and will be open on both ends, allowing necessary maintenance should the need occur. You can also get a better view of the existing shed and the vacant pasture land to the south. So staff is recommending approval of this request. The site will not be injurious to the area and will not encroach upon the designated 10-foot easement at the front, thereby not circumventing any approvals by the BOCC. Furthermore, the site improvements such as the shed, screen room, and septic drain field limit the placement of the accessory structure, while still maintaining a functional rear yard. The applicant has received HOA approval for this request, pending county approval. And with that, I thank you and stand for any questions. Thank you. Is Mr. Gunn here? Hi, Mr. Gunn. Do you have any questions of us? No, ma'am. I just hope I get approved so I can put it up because I've been waiting since May. I apologize for the wait. It's okay. As soon as I get home and get some time to type, I will get it typed up for you, and it will go into the office with land use. So it won't be much longer. Yes, ma'am. I thank the court. I thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Andrew. Thank you, Lisa. No additional questions from the court. And the meeting is closed and the request is approved. Our next case is LDL VAR 2025-49. Daniel Miller requests a primary structure side setback reduction from 5 feet to 2 feet for the installation of a new double-wide mobile home in the outdoor resorts of Orlando subdivision on 0.07 acres in a leisure recreation future land use district. The subject property is located in the outdoor resorts subdivision. That is all one address at 9000 Highway 192, also known as the Orlo-Bronson Memorial Highway. It is north of I-4, east of U.S. 27, south of the Lake County line, west of Daniel Webster Western Beltway, and north of the city of Haines City in Section 1, Township 25, Range 26. October 1st, 15 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on October 3rd. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on October 8th. Kyle Rogus is the case planner. Good afternoon. Kyle Rogus with Land Development, presenting LDL VAR 2025-49, the outdoor resorts at Orlando variants. The applicant is requesting a primary structure side setback reduction from 5 feet to 2 feet for the installation of a new double-wide mobile home in the outdoor resorts at Orlando subdivision. The subject site is located at 9000 Highway 192, north of Interstate 4, south of Orlo-Bronson Memorial Highway, east of U.S. Highway 27, west of Daniel Webster Western Beltway, north of Haines City in Section 1, Township 25, Range 26. This property is located in the Leisure Recreation Land Use District on approximately 0.07 acres. According to Section 303, Table 3.4.1, the outdoor resorts at Orlando subdivision has a minimum setback of 5 feet from interior lot lines. The Leisure Recreation Land Use District does not have a minimum residential lot size, nor does it have a minimum residential gross density. The maximum residential gross density in the LR Land Use District is 10 dwelling units per acre. The request is for one dwelling unit on 0.07 acres. The outdoor resorts at Orlando subdivision was platted in 1971 and is identified in the Land Development Code in Section 303, Table 3.4.1, as a vested RV development with a minimum setback of 5 feet from interior lot lines with no habitable structures placed within 10 feet of another habitable structure or occupied vehicle on an adjacent space. Pursuant to Chapter 9, Section 930, setbacks from lot lines for vested RV developments with platted lots are eligible for a variance. Dimensions of the Skyline, Keaton, Double Wide mobile home will be approximately 22 feet across, 35 feet in length. The variance is a request to reduce the side setback from 5 feet to 2 feet. On October 22, 2009, VAR0941, a variance request to reduce rear setbacks from 5 feet to 0 feet on lots of budding common ground with ownership authorization was granted. The subject property is a budding common ground to the west property line where the applicant requests the side setback reduction. Since next to common ground, the request will not be a concern for a neighbor sharing the property line, nor will there be a problem with it meeting building separation for fire code. There are many similar placements of mobile homes within setbacks in this area, so it is not believed to be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. Here is the site plan submitted. Because of the shape of the lot within the outdoor resorts at Orlando Subdivision, the setbacks restrict further development without impeding on the side and rear setbacks. This request for relief follows suit with VAR0941, allowing owners to replace the existing mobile homes in their current locations or intended locations due to the small lots by reducing the rear setbacks from 5 feet to 0 feet on lots of budding common ground. This photo is taken at the front of the property looking south. In this picture, you can get an idea of the placement of the double-wide mobile home in relation to the common ground to the right-hand side. In this photo, it is taken to the side of the property looking west. Here, you can see the functionality of the common ground and how this side setback reduction will not concern for a neighbor sharing this property line. And then finally, this photo is taken at the rear of the property looking north. In this picture, you can get an idea of the placement of the double-wide mobile home in relation to the neighboring residents to the right-hand side. The mobile home will be a minimum 10 feet from the neighboring structure. Staff recommends approval. The double-wide mobile home will be located 10 to 15 feet from the closest neighboring structure to the east. The side property line from which the variance is needed abuts common ground, so this will not be a concern for neighbors sharing the property line, nor will there be a problem with it meeting building separation for fire code. According to VAR0941, lots of butting common ground to the rear have a reduced setback to zero feet. Because this subject property abuts common ground to the west, side property line, not the rear, a five-foot setback is required. And with that, I will stand for questions. Is Mr. Miller here? Hi, Mr. Miller. Do you have anything you want to say? Does anyone have anything in opposition or in favor of this variance? Hearing nothing, I will close the meeting and approve it at this time. Thank you. Our next request is LDL VAR 2025-51. Catherine Finley is requesting a variance to allow an accessory structure to be larger than the primary structure on three-and-a-half acres in an agricultural residential rural district. The property is located at 74 James Husted Drive, south of Crooked Lake, south of Seminole Road, south of the town of Hillcrest Heights in Section 31, Township 30, Range 28. On October 1st, 14 mailers were sent to area property owners. Two boards were posted on the property on September 26th, and a legal ad was published in the Pulp Sun News on October 8th. Aaliyah Nglema is the case planner. Good afternoon. Aaliyah Nglema with Land Development, presenting LDL VAR 2025-51, the James Husted Drive 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 74 James Husted Drive, south of Crooked Lake, north of Seminole Road, and south of the town of Hillcrest Heights in Section 31, Township 30, Range 28. The site is approximately 3.5 acres, located within an agriculture residential rural future land use district, and in the rural development area. So the subject parcel is in an area with a cluster of lots, ranging in size from an acre to five acres, and in some cases larger. The subject site is smaller than five acres, but was created prior to the adoption of the Land Development Code documented by a 1985 deed. So the accessory structure is 3,000 square feet and will be used for storage. The primary home is approximately 1,360 square feet, and the accessory structure in question is larger by 1,640 square feet. It will be located to the front yard of the property, which is permitted with a concrete foundation. Since the primary home abuts Crooked Lake, the only space to place the structure is at the front. The accessory structure will be surrounded by large trees, which will screen it from surrounding properties. So whether the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure, as the home was built in 1968 and does not have a garage, and the applicant will use the structure for storage of vehicles and other household items. And I'll stand for questions. I have one question. If you go back to the map, it shows a home in between the two pieces of property that jut out into the lake. Was that homeowner contacted? They would have received a notice, yes, ma'am. Did you speak with them personally? No, ma'am. Was there any objection that you know of? No, ma'am. We didn't receive any. Is Ms. Finley here? Hi, Ms. Finley. How are you? Does, want to come on up? I'm just curious. Did you talk with your neighbor that sits in between your two properties, two areas that jut out into the lake? Yes, ma'am. Okay. What did they say about this new auxiliary structure? No one has any problem. Great. Okay. That's what we want to hear. I don't want any neighborhood problems. We're all getting along really good in that little neighborhood. Great. Do you have anything else you want to say? No, ma'am. I don't. Is there anyone else here who wants to speak? With no one speaking, I will close the meeting and approve the variance. Thank you very much. Thank you. Sure. Are we allowed to go across the hall and get our permit, or does it take a while to do that now? I am not the expert on that. One week. One week. You won't have an order today because I'm slow on the typewriter, or on the computer. No worries. Okay. Thank you. Have a great day. Our next case is LDL VAR 2025-52. Joseph Hudson is requesting a variance to allow a 1,510 square foot structure accessory dwelling unit to exceed the 1,000 square foot cap on approximately 15.03 acres in an agricultural residential rural district. The subject property is located at 6850 AVT Ranch Road, north of Interstate 4, south of Dean Still Road, east of Moore Road, west of Commonwealth Avenue, north of Polk City in Section 5, Township 26, Range 25. On October 1st, 22 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on October 3rd. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on October 8th. We've heard no response from the public. Kyle Rogues is the case planner. Good afternoon. Again, Kyle Rogues with Land Development, presenting LDL VAR 2025-52, the Hudson ADU variance. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 1,510 square foot accessory dwelling unit to exceed the 1,000 square foot cap on approximately 15.03 acres in the agricultural residential rural land use district. The subject site is located at 6850 AVT Ranch Road, north of Interstate 4, south of Dean Still Road, east of Moore Road, west of Commonwealth Avenue, north of Polk City, in Section 5, Township 26, Range 25. The property is located in an agricultural residential rural land use district in the rural special protection area of the Green Swamp area of critical state concern in the rural development district on approximately 15 acres. The property is surrounded by development and vacant land similar in size. The property is approximately 15.03 acres, which met the 40,000-acre minimum lot area in the rural conservation zoning district when the property was recorded and the current 10-acre minimum lot area in the ARRX. The lot is unplatted and gains access off an unpaved county-maintained local residential roadway directly to the south AVT Ranch Road. The existing home on the subject site was constructed in 1958 and met the principal side and rear setbacks of 15 feet and 40 feet under the prior zoning district. According to the request, rather than demolishing the home altogether, the owner instead would like to use the home as an accessory dwelling unit to comfortably house their elder parents and provide caretaking services. Under Ordinance 25018, enacted by the Board of County Commissioners on March 18, 2025, accessory dwelling unit sizes on residential properties are permitted up to 1,000 square feet of heated floor space. This standard is to ensure accessory uses remain subordinate in size to the principal structure on the same property. The Board understood that there would be exceptional situations, so the variance option was added to the duties of the land use hearing officer to review. The size of the dwelling unit is 35% larger than the county's ADU standard permit by right. And then here is the site plan submitted. Note the accessory structure will be 3 feet from the property lines. Sorry, that is correction. The applicant and property owner is seeking to build a new 2,000 to 2,500 square foot single-family residence while retaining the old home as an ADU. The existing home is 35% or 350 square feet of heated floor space, larger than the maximum size permitted under Section 206A2 of the Land Development Code. Under roof, the ADU is also subordinate in size to the proposed primary dwelling unit at about 34%. This photo is taken to the front of the property looking west. In this picture, you can see the existing dwelling and accessory structures with an approximation of where the new dwelling unit is proposed. And the staff recommends approval. The location of the new home will meet primary structure setbacks. The existing home met the primary structure setbacks when it was constructed at the time. Also, the impervious surface of the site will not exceed 60% threshold established in Section 206A3B of the Land Development Code. The accessory structure will be in the side and rear yard, still falls under the confines of the definition of accessory, incidental and subordinate. And with that, I will stand for questions. My initial question is, Mr. Hudson, are you here? Okay. Do you have anything you want to tell us? On the record, everything's in the form that I've sent in. Good. Okay. And you have two ponds on your site, and from the map, the new house is not near either of those two ponds. Okay. I have no more questions. Is anyone here in favor of or care to speak against this granting of the variance? Okay. Okay. That's it. Thank you. Meeting is closed. It's approved. Our next case is LDL VAR 2523. This is on Coleman Road. Norris is requesting on behalf of Jean Quatley a right-of-way setback reduction of 35 feet to 32 feet, and a side yard setback reduction from 15 feet to 10 feet on both sides. For a four-dwelling unit building, also known as a quadruplex, the property is 0.22 acres, 9,699 square feet. It's located in a community activity center. The site is located at the northeast corner of an intersection of Coleman Road and Carla Court, east of Deanna Way, west of King Road, west of Wrecker Highway, east of Spirit Lake Road, west of the city of Winter Haven, in Section 25, Township 28, Range 25. On October 1st, 17 mailers were sent to area property owners. Two boards were posted on the property. On September 30th, the legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on October 8th. Staff has received no response from the public. I am the case planner, Eric Peterson. The site is located just outside of Winter Haven. It is unusual that we get a request for residence in a commercial district, but multifamily is a permittable use in a commercial, in a CAC district. It also was approved long before the comprehensive plan. The subdivision itself was approved back in the 1980s. So this is just one of three residual lots of the development. The setbacks at the time were a little different. This lot is also a little bit unusual. It's not your typical shape, so there has to be some adjustment. It can't fit on the property the same way other units have fit on the parcels that front Coleman Road. This is the site plan. This is the approximate location of a standard unit, and this is how close it would be relative to the 15 or the 10-foot setback. There is a 10-foot utility easement that the property will be abutting but not encroaching upon. This is the 35-foot setback, and it's just a little bit forward of that setback line. You can see the angle of the road on Coleman Road. At the time this subdivision was created, Coleman Road was a local road, so the setbacks were different. These are other quadruplexes. All but one would not meet our setback requirements. This unit here is the only one that is in compliance with setback requirements of today in the CAC district. So, essentially, this is the first of the next two more than likely quadruplex units that will come in on the other properties. There is one vacant lot to the west of this one. The right-of-way request is just a 7% reduction. The posted speed is 35 miles per hour, so we don't feel it will be otherwise detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the area. The standards of the setbacks that the development was originally constructed in were much less at the time today. And it will not offer a special privilege because other structures are now enjoying that variance even though they are grandfathered in. With that, I'll stand for questions. Is Mr. Norris here? I'm David Norris, the project engineer. With me is Mr. Gene, the owner, ready to answer any questions that you have. So, this originally was kind of a business site, CAC? No, ma'am. It was in a district that allowed multifamily. It was a mixed-use district. It's always been a mixed-use district as it is today. Just the setback standards are different. And it seems that it fits in as residential much better than anything else. I have no further questions. Is there anyone else here to speak in favor of or in opposition to this variance? Hearing no one, we'll close the meeting and approve this variance. Last case is LDL VAR 2025-59, the Old Medulla Road right-of-way. Mark McDonald, on behalf of Tower Homes, LLC, requests a right-of-way setback reduction from 35 feet to 29 feet for a single-family dwelling on 0.25 acres in a residential low for district. The property is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Old Medulla Road and Windy Avenue, east of the airport perimeter road, west of Clements Road, west of Waring Road, east of Lakeland Lender International Airport, northeast and south of the city of Lakeland, in Section 3, Township 29, Range 23. On October 1st, 14 mailers were sent to area property owners. Two boards were posted on the property on September 30th. And a legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on October 8th. We've had no response from the public. I'll present this last case. As you can see, it's virtually surrounded by the city of Lakeland as they annex further to the south. It's in an RL4 district, and you can see in the silhouette the proximity of the airport. And you see that it's practically near the runway here. The road, although it's a collector, really comes to an end here before going to Airside Center Drive, which is a local. So the road actually bends here. In the past, it's been actually gated. So as far as functioning like a, you know, well-traveled collector road, it more resembles the local road at this point. There will be times when, you know, the business is let out, and they might go Old Medulla out to Waring Road. But for the most part, this roadway performs at a local style. It is a 35-mile-per-hour posted speed. This is one of the things that was kind of a confusion was the setback or the right-of-way distance is not consistent throughout the corridor. As you can see on the neighbor's property, it has a bit of a jog here. And when you lay, when you put the property on here, it just goes over the right-of-way setback. It meets the center line setback. And that's where the placement would be approximately. As you can see, it's just about in line with the neighboring residents on the opposite side of Windy Lane. This is the site plan. And here's the construction was underway before we realized that it was into the right-of-way setback and had to stop for this variance to be reviewed. See approximately, you know, how it would look based on the foundation. It's a modest home, like the one being built next door. There's the entrance to the airport. And as you can see from sight lines, it's really not much different than other structures that line the roadway. So it would not be injurious to the public or otherwise detrimental. However, it would be a significant hardship to the applicant to have to tear out the entire slab and move it back a smidge. Is there a code enforcement case going along with this? No, there's no code enforcement case. It was just spotted during the building permit process. Mr. McDonald? Yes. No relation? Not that I know of. Okay. Thank you. Anything you'd wish to say concerning this? No, just that we really do appreciate all the help from staff. Staff is great. Hearing no one else wanting to speak, I would close the meeting to the public and approve the variance. Good. Thank you very much. Thank you. You're welcome. That concludes our cases for today. Thank you. Okay. Good day to everybody. Thank you. All right. Thank you.