will be given the opportunity to speak and then the hearing will be closed. I will not make a decision today. I will furnish anyone who wants it with a written copy of the decision that you can request in one of the forms on the on the back table. At this time I would ask that the clerk ask everyone to stand up raise their right hand and swear or affirm that they will tell the truth. Madam clerk. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you provide today is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Could you call the first case please? Yes ma'am. LDL VAR 2025-58 the Saturn Street variance. Kimberly Harris is requesting a variance to reduce the rear accessory structure setback from 10 feet to 2 feet for one shed and the right-of-way accessory structure setback from 20 feet to 2 feet for the second shed. The property is on 0.12 acres in the residential suburban district located at 1910 Saturn Street south of Skyview Drive north of Main Avenue east of the city of Lakeland in section 27 township 28 range 24. On October 1st 2025 33 mailers were sent to area property owners. Two boards were posted on the property on October 31st 2025 and a legal ad was published in the Lakeland or legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on November 5th 2025. So far we've had no response. Aaliyah Nglema is the case planner. Good afternoon Aaliyah Nglema with land development presenting LDL VAR 2025-58 the Saturn Street variance. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the rear accessory structure setback from 10 feet to 2 feet for one shed and the right-of-way accessory structure setback from 20 feet to 2 feet for a second shed. So the subject site is located at 1910 Saturn Street south of Skyview Drive north of Main Avenue east of the city of Lakeland in section 27 township 28 range 24. The site is approximately 0.12 acres located within a residential suburban future lane use district and in the suburban development area. So the sheds were placed sometime on the property in 2023 by the tenants and the applicant was cited by code enforcement for the sheds and seeks to come into compliance. So this parcel is part of the Skyview pre-existing PUD which began in 1964. Lot 723 is part of the unrecorded Skyview estate subdivision prior to the land development code and comprehensive plan. The residential suburban lane use district density is one dwelling unit per five acres. The size of this parcel significantly limits the amount of buildable buildable space without some relief from the setbacks. And here are some pictures from my site visit. And whether special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land structure building involved which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings is the property's small lot size. The parcel recorded in the late 60s contains only 0.12 acres significantly limiting the buildable area while meeting standard setbacks. The lots configuration and limited depth make it difficult to accommodate accessory structures in compliance with current setback requirements. And I'll stand for any questions. Does anyone have any questions? Could you state your name and address for the record please? Kimberly Harris 1207 Greenview Drive Lakeland Florida 33805. And you were the applicant and you would like this request to be granted. Am I correct? Yes please. Is there anyone who would like to speak? The public hearing is now open. Hearing no requests I will close the public hearing. And do you have anything else you want to tell me or anyone else in the audience? No ma'am. Okay. This time it will be about 10 days before I do a written order for everyone. Um they all come out at the same time. And um if you contact the clerk she will be able to furnish you a copy of the order. Okay. Yes ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Our next case is LDL VAR 2025-64 the Cordero ADU variance. Patricia Cordero is requesting a variance to construct a new 1500 square foot accessory dwelling unit which will exceed the thousand square foot cap on 2.13 acres in the residential suburban district. The property is located at 905 Haymarket Drive north of Interstate 4 and Walt Williams Road west of O'Donnell Loop West east of Old Polk City Road south of Meadowood Drive north of the city of Lakeland and section 17 township 27 range 24. On January 6th 2026 30 mailers were sent to area property owners. Two boards were posted on the property on on December 31st 2025. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on January 7th 2026. We've received four notices in opposition. Andrew Grohowski is the case planner. Okay. Could could could you speak louder please Mr. Peterson. There's a couple people in the audience who weren't able to hear. Okay. LDL VAR 2025-64 the Cordero ADU variance. Patricia Cordero is requesting a variance to construct a new 1500 square foot accessory dwelling unit which will exceed the 1000 square foot cap in the in the residential suburban district on 2.13 acres. The property is located at 905 Haymarket Drive north of Interstate 4 and Walt Williams Road west of O'Donnell Loop West east of Old Polk City Road south of Meadowood Drive north of the city of Lakeland in section 17 20 township 27 range 24. On January 6th 2026 30 mailers were sent. Two boards were posted on the property on December 31st 2025 and a legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on January 7th 2026. We've received four letters in opposition. Andrew Grohowski is the case planner. Good afternoon. Andrew Grohowski with land development presenting LDL VAR 2025-64 the Cordero ADU variance. The request is a variance to exceed the 1000 square foot cap for ADUs outlined in section 206 A of the land development code. The property owner seeks to construct a new 1500 square foot ADU on their residential property. Staff is recommending approval. The subject property is in the northwest portion of the county north of Interstate 4 and the city of Lakeland at 905 Haymarket Drive. The property is 2.13 acres and is within the residential suburban land use designation. It is also at the boundary which begins the Polk City special protection area of the Green Swamp. While the site is below the five acre minimum requirement today, it was the appropriate size at the time when it was created in the 1970s and is therefore considered a legal lot of record. The property is located on a corner lot of Old Polk City Road and Urban Collector Roadway and Haymarket Drive, a local residential roadway. A single family residence was constructed in 1977 and the applicant purchased the property in 2022 according to the property appraiser. Here is a closer view of the subject site from a 2025 aerial. The request proposed proposed proposes to construct a 1500 square foot ADU outlined in red to the south of their 93,000 square foot property. The surrounding neighborhoods consist of similar sized homes on lots about 77 or 71,000 square feet smaller in size compared to the subject site. Pursuant to LDC section 206 A 3. Since the proposed ADU will be greater than 1000 square feet of heated floor space, it will meet primary structure setbacks off of old Polk City Road, as well as side and rear yards. As part of the conditions incorporated in the staff report, the ADU is only allowed to access Haymarket Drive from the existing driveway. And incidental incidental and incidental in nature. The ADU will be about half the size when compared to the existing primary home on the subject property. So here are a few photos of staff site visit. So staff is recommending approval. The request meets the variance criteria section 934 of the land development code, as well as criteria for ADUs in section 206. The accessory structure will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare and will meet primary structure setbacks. The large 2.13 acre lot size is sufficient to accommodate an ADU of this square footage with many surrounding residential properties only a quarter to a half an acre in size. Lastly, the ADU will be about 47% smaller than the existing residents. And with that, I thank you and stand for any questions. Any questions? Is Ms. Cordero or Mr. Rodriguez here? Patricia Cordero, 905 Haymarket Drive in Lakeland 33809. The only thing I wanted to add is that house is meant for my parents and my grandmother. So it's been very hard to build a space that's comfortable for her to get around with under a thousand square feet. Like it was stated previously, we're able to meet everything in the code and we're just asking for this one exception with the size. I will open the hearing for public comment. If there's anyone who wishes to speak, either in support of or against this variance. Hearing no one, I will close. Oh, okay. Okay. Then, okay. Okay. Then let's start one at a time. Whoever wants to go first. Good morning. Would you state your name and address for the record? Yes, ma'am. Jane Fortin, 1108 Haymarket Drive, Lakeland, Florida 33809. And what would you like to, as soon as I get your information here. Okay. Thank you. I've read this prior to today, but what would you like to tell the court? Well, first off, I understand that mailers were said to be sent out to the residents. We never received anything. The only thing we knew the notification was the sign placed by the property. Okay. I believe, I wrote down there were 30 mailers. The county literally takes a 250 foot radius from the property and sends out mailers in that 250 foot radius. I see. Okay. What I'd like to state today is we built our home on Haymarket Drive in 1986. At that time, our three children were 2, 10, and 12 years old. We have been looking for a nice piece of land to build our new home. The lot we found on Haymarket Drive was perfect. A dead-end street said there wouldn't be too much traffic, two acres, which would give our children lots of room to play, and lots of good neighbors with young children also. A lot of those neighbors are still living there, and their children like ours have grown and moved away. Not once did I ever consider having my children build a home behind us because we knew when we bought the property that there were certain restrictions in place to keep our wonderful neighborhood as it is. When we have salespeople come to our door, the one thing they always say is, this is really nice property on these two streets. You don't find places like this in Lakeland anymore. And that's the way we want to keep it. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Thank you. Sam Hurd, H-E-A-R-D, 1210 Haymarket Drive, Lakeland, Florida, 33809. Go ahead. I was born and raised in Polk County, Lakeland High College, brought back, came back, started my own company, met my wife. We found this property driving around, living out north of Lakeland in a subdivision with little half-acre, quarter-acre lots. We saw the two-acre lot, loved it because of the room. Speaking about the mailer, 250 feet, well, think about it. There's two-acre lots all the way down the road on both Haymarket and Meadowbrook. That's what we liked. That's why we purchased this based upon the bylaws and all the old documentation for these two roads. Two-acre lots, one dwelling per lot. We love that. I have a pole barn out back. That's the environment that we raised our kids in. I don't mind development in Lakeland, Polk County. Born and raised here, seen it, lived it, loved it, and all of the above. But our area, we like to protect it. Trick-or-treating doesn't happen in our neighborhood because of the houses, where we're at, and all that kind of stuff. We do not agree with subdividing this lot, which I believe will end up having a zoning issue to where you could just start subdividing anything on our roads. We disagree with that. If you want to have a mother-in-law's house, move to a place that allows that to occur. But totally, 100%, disagree with it. The roadways that we live on, we don't have a lot of traffic. That's why we bought there. There are kids that are in other neighborhoods that have to fight with the traffic. We don't. And again, I purchased this house back in 2000. That's why we bought it, because of the environment. We do have people coming, delivery people, looking at the yard and going like, man, this is awesome. Don't mess it up, please. Please consider the neighborhood, the people that live there. We're all in a disagreement with this. Everybody's kind of like, no. We didn't get a mailer. We saw the signs. And that's why we're all coming. Thank you very much. Thank you. Who else wants to speak, please? Hi, I'm Laquita Butts, L-A-Q-U-I-T-A-B-U-T-T-S, 1007 Haymarket Drive, Lakeland, 33809. The points I want to make are that I feel the 1,000 square feet ADU is there for a purpose, is to limit the amount of dwellings that we can have on our property. 1,500 square feet is an entire house. It's not an ADU. It's a livable house that can accommodate six people easily. If we all do that, we'll have 50 more houses on the two roads, 50 more entire houses on our road. If you allow one person, you will allow others. And we don't want this. Also, the people, imagine six extra people in each lot. That's 300 additional people. That's 200 additional school students. That's a lot of people on two roads. We're completely against this. You'll say to me, we won't allow them to split that off because that's against the code. But we're here today because we want to do something against the code. So, I don't believe that that will stop us from subdividing that off and allowing them to sell it. So, we're against it 100%. I also did not get a mailer. So, those are some of the points I want to make. Thank you very much for coming. Next person, please. I just want to, my name's Gary Blankenship. I didn't sign your paper back there. Okay. But my address is 1223 Haymarket Drive. When we bought that property back in the 70s, I think, and we built our house and we raised our children there. We built that property on, we chose that property because of the way it's set up. Okay. If we open this up today to change the variance, then there's nothing to stop future, like the lady, McQuida, just spoke of, to continue on where we want a variance on the next lot and the next lot. I stand firmly against that. And the people that have signed this petition that you should have in your possession. I do have this. Good. They, as well, do not want this variance to take place. So, I would ask you to consider if you lived in this area, in this neighborhood, and you purchased this property with the notion that this would never be changed and we would never have to go through this, that you would agree that we have something to stand on. And I'm quite sure that you would feel the same way if you bought this property years ago with that understanding that there was only to be one living facility on every lot, which is 2.23 acres. Thank you very much. Y'all have a great day. Thank you. The next person who would like to speak. This is Patricia Cordero, the owner again. Yes. I have a question for the planner. This variance is for allowing us to build larger than 1,000 square foot ADU on our property. Right now, as it stands, if this variance was denied, we could still build an ADU that's under 1,000 square feet. That's correct. Okay. I feel like a lot of the opposition is against building an ADU, which is irrelevant to this case. Anyone else who hasn't spoken, who has something new to say? If you want to come up and speak a second time, please do. But state your name for the record again and your address. Laquita Butts, 1007 Haymarket Drive. Yeah. I'm not against an ADU that is in the code. Any of us can do that. It's the building entire home is what I'm against. 1,500 square feet is not an ADU. That is a home. I also have lived on the road for 36 years. They've been here three and a half years. All of us people who have lived here for 30, 40 years, we like it. We like what it is. We want it to stay that way. The new people that come in, they want to change it. Let's just leave what we have, the unique, rare, very desirable piece of property that we have, that we bought, and that we want to keep. Thank you. Thank you. Sir? Sam Hurd, again, 1210 Haymarket Drive. You're the expert, you guys. I think the concern here with the neighborhoods, both Haymarket and Meadowbrook, is the original bylaws that we all bought on. I think you should have a copy of that. With that being said, I don't have a problem. I don't think anybody has a problem with what you would call a small mother-in-law's home or an in-law's. You know that. What we're concerned about is a separate dwelling where you have more traffic, more families, whatever, subdividing the lot. But that's a no for everybody because that's what we bought it for, two acres. Well, this is our home, you know. And all of a sudden, we think about it. From our side, you have a developer coming in saying, look, there's two acres here. Let's put three homes up, three small homes, you know, like the neighborhoods around us have. That's not what we bought into, you know. So the problem is, okay, now you have a driveway, another home in the back, 1,000 foot, 1,500 square foot. You've taken that two-acre lot and you divided it. Once your president has been set, somebody could sell, retire, move, whatever, to Michigan. No, to California. You know what I mean. And somebody could come in and buy that lot and say, well, let's put up three condos in the back or townhouses. That's not the character of our road. So we're very much against having that lot divided, subdivided, zoned separately, you know, an address here, septic tank, an address back over here with the septic tank, water and power and all that. Once you've opened that door, it's open. The rest of us on the road, we're screwed. I've been there since 2000. Love it. Because of the character. Please consider that. I feel bad for them, but then again, we've all been here for 10, 20, 30, 40 years, built homes there like some of my neighbors, very close-knit group of neighbors. So consider the history and, again, the will of everybody, including the people who signed the petition. That should be, you know, the fact, if that makes sense. Thank you so much. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to speak? Seeing no one raising their hand or standing up, I'm going to close the public hearing. Does the planner have any comments in relation to the testimony we heard, both for and against? Yeah, I just wanted to add that the applicant's not allowed to subdivide the property because it wouldn't meet the minimum lot size requirements in that district. So that's why in the conditions of the staff report, they would need to take drive access from their existing primary driveway. They're not allowed to create a new driveway off of Old Polk City Road. Additionally, there are restrictive covenants in the Meadowood Subdivision, and it's Unrecorded Meadowood Subdivision OR Book, 1693, page 2213, where it says one single-family dwelling per lot is permitted. And just after staff looked at it, and there's no mention of any ADUs, accessory dwelling units, in that restrictive covenants, and it meets the definition in our LDC, as well as Florida statutes, to being accessory and incidental to the primary home. Does anyone have any other comments at this time? I will close the hearing, and we'll call the next. No, I believe you've talked twice, ma'am. And I have taken very many notes. Okay, for those of us who aren't planners, could you simplify it? Could you make it a little easier for the audience to understand? So essentially, the accessory dwelling unit, it has to be accessory to a primary structure on site. There is an existing home on site. And in our code, we have a definition of accessory dwelling unit, and I have it. It's a residential living unit on the same parcel as a single-family dwelling or a parcel on which a single-family dwelling is present or may be constructed. And we use the term incidental and subordinate in nature, which just means it has to be smaller in size, less intense. It can't be subdivided because it, again, can't be minimum lot size requirements of five acres. And that's why there's an existing driveway. There's a list of conditions outlined in the staff report on page two that detailing that they can't have a new driveway. They would have to use the existing. How large is the existing dwelling, existing residence? So on the screen, as you see, it says 2,838. I mentioned it's about 47% smaller than the existing residence. Anything else? Anyone else who hasn't spoken who has any more questions about the planner's statement? Okay. Seeing no one, I will close the hearing, and we'll go on to the next hearing. Our next case is LDL VAR 2025-66, the Neal Solovita Phase 5H variance. Marcus Davila is requesting a primary structure rear setback reduction from 10 feet to 7 feet for the installation of a new 22 by 20 solid aluminum roof. The property is on 0.2 acres in the Poinciana pre-development of regional impact, PUD 9812, that is the Solovita development in Phase H Unit 1. The subject property is located at 3799 via Mazzini Court, north of Solovita Boulevard, south of Village Center Road, east of San Clemente Avenue, west of Marigold Avenue, east of Haines City, in Section 15, Township 27, Range 28. On January 6th, 33 mailers were sent to area property owners. Sorry. On January 6th, 26 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on January 2nd, 2026. The legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on January 7th, 2026. We've had no response from the public. Kyle Rogas is the case planner. Good afternoon. Kyle Rogas with Land Development, presenting LDL VAR 2025-66, the Neal Solovita Phase 5 Unit 1 variance. The applicant is requesting a primary structure rear setback reduction from 10 feet to 7 feet for the installation of a new 22 by 20 solid aluminum roof. The subject site is located at 3799 via Mazzini Court, north of Solovita Boulevard, south of Village Center Road, east of San Clemente Avenue, west of Marigold Avenue, east of Haines City, in Section 15, Township 27, Range 28. The property is located in the Point Siena pre-development of regional impact, one planned unit development, PUD 9812, Solovita Phase 5 Unit 1 subdivision in the utility enclave area. This site will not be the first covered screen enclosure within the development. On a macro level since 2020, the county has processed and approved roughly 53 variances within the Point Siena and Solovita developments, equivalent to 10 cases per year. Of those 53 cases, 49 have been for primary structure setback reductions for installations of a solid roof to extend over an existing screen enclosure. Approximately 11 variances have been approved for solid roof coverage over screen enclosures in the surrounding area as shown here. However, this data does not equate for the cases that have been processed through the building department without the need for a variance request. As you can see, any of these structures that have a white rectangle outline attached to them, those are all going to be solid aluminum roofs. So while there may not be all going through variances, there are still cases within this development that have those solid aluminum roofs. The subject site is designated as lot 687 to the north and south of the subject site are similar-sized lots in single-family housing. The rear of the property abuts tract P3, designated as stormwater retention pond. Of the development that abuts tract P3 to the rear, 24 homes, including the subject site, have extended screen enclosures. This equates to approximately 71% of the 34 total single-family homes. Now under building permit BR 2025-6929, the applicant is looking to add a new solid roof to extend off the existing screen enclosure. On a micro level, a cross-tracked P3, lots 662, 664, and 666 have solid roof coverage over portions of their respective screen enclosures. This expansion is minimal relative to the structure. It will not limit the neighbor's peripheral view of the open space. The screen enclosure is already existing under building permit BR 2022-7041. Therefore, the request to provide full roof coverage of the screen enclosure will have little to no effect on the two immediate neighbors to the north and south. Lot 686, abutting the subject site to the north, has an extended lanai to the rear. Under building permit BR 2021-3658, lot 686 was approved for an 8x18 lanai with an extended patio. The patio was later screened under building permit 2021-13-990. Lot 688, abutting the subject site to the south, is one of the few single-family homes where the rear yard abuts tract P3 without an extended screen enclosure. This photo is taken from lot 662, looking west across tract P3 at the subject site, to give a visual reference of the distance and proximity this request is to similar cases. And staff recommends approval. This will not be the first covered screen enclosure within the Point Siena and Solavita developments. Ninety-three percent of variances within these developments come in for similar requests. Across tract P3, three lots have solid aluminum roofs over screen enclosures, all within 300 feet of the subject site. The request is believed to be the minimal variance necessary to optimize the use of the neighbor's land. The screen enclosure is already existing, therefore, will have little to no effect on the two immediate neighbors to the north and south. And with that, I will stand for questions. Is Mr. Davila here? Mr. Neal? Christine Neal? Or Tracy Evans? Does anyone in the audience wish to speak concerning this variance in Solavita? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Do you have any more information that you want to share with the court? No, ma'am. Okay. Hearing no one wanting to speak, I will close the public hearing and start the next hearing. Our next case is LDLVAR 2025-67. Paolo Carniero is requesting a primary structure rear setback reduction from 15 feet to 5 feet for the installation of a new insulated solid aluminum roof enclosure. The property is 3.31 acres. It's located in a residential low 4X district in the Ronald Reagan Selected Area Plan and the Greens of Providence Phase 1, which is part of PUD 89-10. The property is located at 2410 Heritage Green Court, north of Shearbrook Avenue, south of Ronald Reagan Parkway, east of Providence Boulevard, west of Willingham Drive, northeast of the city of Davenport, and Section 18 Township 26, Range 28. On January 6th, 33 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on January 2nd, 2026. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on January 7th, 2026. We've received one letter in opposition. Kyle Rogas is the case planner. Good afternoon again. Kyle Rogas with Land Development, presenting LDLVAR 2025-67, the Greens at Providence Variance. The applicant is requesting a primary structure rear setback reduction from 15 feet to 5 feet for the installation of a new insulated solid aluminum roof patio enclosure. The subject property is located at 2401 Heritage Green Court, north of Shearbrook Avenue, south of Ronald Reagan Parkway, east of Providence Boulevard, west of Willingham Drive, northeast of the city of Davenport, and Section 18 Township 26, Range 28. The property is located in the Oak Hill Estates Plan Unit Development, PUD 89-10, Greens at Providence Subdivision in the Residential Low 4 Land Use District in the Ronald Reagan Selected Area Plan. This will not be the first covered screen patio within the Greens at Providence Phase 1 Subdivision or PUD 89-10. Since 2020, the county has processed and approved roughly 11 variance cases within the Oak Hill Estates Planned Unit Development, equivalent to two cases per year. Of those 11 cases, seven are within the Greens at Providence Phase 1 Subdivision alone. These variants were approved for both pool enclosures within the 5-foot setback and solid roof patio extensions within 15-foot setback. However, this data does not quantify the cases that have been processed through the building department without the need for a variance request. To reiterate, this would not be the only property within the surrounding area that would have a solid roof providing full coverage over an existing patio. Case LBL-VAR 2020-71 was approved for a solid aluminum roof to provide full coverage over an existing screened patio on January 28, 2021. The existing home on the subject site was constructed in 2007 and met the primary structure setbacks of 20-feet front, 5-feet side, and 15-feet rear. The 6,760-square-foot single-family home was built with a patio and pool enclosure with a screened enclosure at the time of completion. Because the screened enclosure built in conjunction with the single-family home in 2007 did not have a solid roof, no variance was needed. The request is for a rear setback reduction only, therefore the structure will still meet the 7-foot side primary structure setback. Provided as a site photo looking south along the side property, depicted in this photo is a rough outline of where the proposed solid roof patio will be in relation to the 7-foot primary structure side setback. No side setback reduction is proposed and you can see the dense vegetation that occupies the open space to the rear of the site as R5. Here is another view of the proposed solid roof location looking north, again noting the 7-foot side setback not part of the request and the proposed 5-foot rear setback reduction. This is a view of the neighboring property to the east depicting their similar enclosed pool patio and on-site vegetation. Vegetation further to the right of the image located outside the neighbor's fence is tracked R5 retention pond as seen here. Staff recommends approval. This will not be the first covered screened enclosure within this development. The setback reduction is to the rear of the site that abuts tracked R5 retention pond, not planned for residential development. Dense vegetation lines the retention pond, therefore the request to provide roof coverage and screened enclosure will have little to no effect on the immediate neighbor to the east. And with that, I will stand for questions. Have you had the occasion to review the written objection? Yes, I have. And could you comment upon that? Yes, I spoke with further staff in surveying about the condition of the patio slab being within the property. Based off of all our resources that staff has available to them, there does not seem to be any encroachment onto their property within the property line. With the survey that was provided within this application, it also was depicted to not be encroaching within their property to the east. If they wanted to clarify that information, they would need to provide a professional survey done on-site to clarify that information. Regarding the patio itself, upon the engineer basically will depend on whether or not that patio structure or slab is, that foundation is strong enough to support the screened patio roof. It is upon that time where the engineer will either make the decision whether or not that patio can support that structure, or they will have to provide some sort of footings within that patio to support and provide strength enough to support that solid aluminum roof. Is there anyone present to speak either in favor of or opposed to this variance? My name is Ragbir Buller. I'm the owner of 2401 Heritage Green Avenue, Davenport. Okay. We had bought this house about 10 years ago, and we find that it doesn't have any sitting area which just has a roof on it. It has a very small area to put a small dining set outside. We have now have four grandkids. The family is growing. So we are looking for, we have this pad that is there which was already existence. It was a basketball net, and we had closed that because people were just, you know, demolishing it. So we decided to put an enclosure on, and we have approached HOA as well. As they have requested to make the enclosure and everything to match the house, the parents, the stucco, the walls, and everything, we have fulfilled that, and they have given us a written approval to go ahead with that as well. So we do have an HOA approval. We do have a contract in place, and as far as the construction goes, we will go by the bylaws, whatever is required. If new footing is required, we'll put new footings in, but we're not increasing. The pad already exists there, and on the back side, it's just a creek behind the property, and it's just, and if we were to just not have the hard top, we comply with the bylaws, but just because we're putting a hard top, we want to have an enclosed area so the kids can play, that's the only reason we don't comply with the setbacks. So that's what we request. Thank you very much for coming forward and speaking. Anyone else who wants to speak either in opposition to or in favor of this variance? Oh, come forward. Hi, Gary. Good afternoon. My name is Miguel Vasconcelos. I live at 40959 Software Street, Orlando, Florida. So I'm here as a rep for the company of which Mr. Boah had reached out to us, where he was mentioning that that was his concern where we're beginning. I need a place because when he bought the house, the pool is already existing. He has an amazing pool. I can't complain about that, but it takes all over the, it takes all the space, usable space on the screen patio. As seen from the pictures, and we brought, like, we have more pictures, this will not affect the neighbors. Like, it's far away. There is vegetation. We're not going past anything. And there is a creek in the back. So he's not, you know, going over anybody's view. And the HOA, all they required was for the side because to be matched the house, as he mentioned, the stocco and the painting of which that was great. And how the, I'm sorry, the staff mentioned it regarding the concrete pad. Obviously, when we do the application, we do the engineer, if they call for a footer, we have to remove part of the concrete to make it a footer. We'll do that. And that's it. I just wanted to confirm everything that he said. And hopefully, we're able to get this approved so we can, he can enjoy this time with his green kids. Thank you. Can you say your name again? Yes, Miguel Vasconcelos. Miguel, it's M-I-G-U-E-L. Vasconcelos, it's V-A-S-E-O-N-C-E-L-O-S. Thank you very much, Mr. Vasconcelos. Thank you very much. Have a good day. Anyone else who wishes to speak on the Greens at Providence variants? Hearing no one, we'll close this meeting. Close this variance and move on to number five. Our next case is LDL VAR 2025-68, the Peach Avenue variance. Stephen Williams, on behalf of Joan Vasquez, is requesting a variance to reduce the primary structure side setback from 10 feet to 4 feet for an addition to a single-family home. The property is .23 acres. It's in a residential suburban district. It's located at 2341 Peach Avenue, south of Peach Avenue, east of Thompson Street, west of Stanton Street, east of the city of Auburndale, in Section 21, Township 28, Range 25. There were 33 mailers sent to area property owners on January 6th. Two boards were posted on the property on December 31st, 2025, and a legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on January 7th, 2026. We've had no response from the public. Aaliyah Anglima is the case planner. Good afternoon, Aaliyah Anglima with Land Development, presenting LDL VAR 2025-68, the Peach Avenue variance. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the primary structure side setback from 10 feet to 4 feet for an addition to a single-family home. The subject site is located at 2341 Peach Avenue, south of Peach Avenue, east of Thompson Street, west of Stanton Street, east of the city of Auburndale, in Section 21, Township 28, Range 25. The site is approximately .23 acres, located within a residential suburban feature land use district and in the suburban development area. So the subject property was created prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code and is comprised of lots 184 through 187 of an unrecorded subdivision known as Mobile Home Village. The applicant was cited by code enforcement for a building without a permit for the addition and seeks to come into compliance. The code enforcement case is pending as the owner is seeking approval for the addition to be located 4 feet off the side property line. The applicant has also applied for a building permit. So here's a picture from my site visit. And whether granting the variance will be in accordance with the general intent and purpose of the code and that the variance will not be interest to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare will not only allow the property owner to bring the property into compliance, it will maintain the appropriate setbacks from the right-of-way and rear property lines while keeping the appropriate separations from surrounding structures for fire and safety code requirements. And I'll stand for any questions. Is there anyone here to speak either for or against this Peach Avenue variance? My name is Steve Williams, Williams Construction Company. We were hired by the landowner originally building without a permit. So we got a set of as-built plans done, got them turned into the building department, and then we were told it didn't meet setbacks. So we hired a surveyor to get a survey done, and now we're applying for a variance. The owners hired a contractor who told them they were a contractor. They permitted everything. They did not permit, and they weren't even contractors. So we have the as-built completed. They're the building department. So with the variance, they'll be able to live in their home. And is Ms. Vasquez or Ms. Benitez here, no? No, we gave the letter that authorized me to speak for them. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak concerning this variance? Hearing none, I will close the meeting and go forth with the next hearing. Our next case is LDL VAR 2025-69, Nathani Alcohol Variants. Amin Nathani is requesting a variance to allow separation and reduction for a proposed alcohol package store, with a 3PS license, within 750 feet of two religious institutions. The property is 3.27 acres, located in a regional activity center district in the North U.S. 27 Selected Area Plan. South of U.S. Highway 192, east of U.S. Highway 27, north of Polo Park East Boulevard, west of Rita B. Avenue, north of the city of Haines City in Section 1, Township 25, Range 26. This case is no longer necessary. The board passed an alcohol distance change, and it no longer is within the 750 feet from the two churches we mentioned. Okay, can you... So the applicant can withdraw this. It's not necessary. I can elaborate. Thank you. Yeah, so back in December, a planning commission recommended approval to send an ordinance for liquor, beer, and wine stores. It's Section 224 of our land development code for alcohol distances between religious institutions and schools. And in that proposal, package sales, so as the applicant is requesting 3PS license, was reduced from 2,500 feet to 750 feet. And it's no longer measured by the property lines. It's actually measured from legal route of pedestrian travel to churches or schools. And so, given those changes, the variance would no longer be required for this liquor package sales because it's meeting the distance requirements. It's not measured by the property lines anymore. It was just passed this past Tuesday by the board, so hence why it hasn't been withdrawn on the record. Mr. Nathani? Yes, ma'am. You're in luck. The board... And I apologize just for the change. It was the timing, so... The board changed before we got to this hearing, so... I appreciate it. Congratulations, and we won't need to hear this. Thank you. Thank you. However, if there's anyone here, we give them the opportunity to speak if they did come. Is anyone in opposition to this? Okay. Or in favor of it. Right now, it's a moot point. We don't have to hear this in a public hearing forum, so we will not. Thank you very much for coming, however. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to number seven. Our next case is LDL VAR 2025-70, the Jimmy Lee Road Accessory Dwelling Unit Variants. Carl Kelly is requesting an accessory dwelling unit larger than 1,000 square feet on 2.32 acres in a residential low 2 district. The property is located at 40 Jimmy Lee Road, south of County Road 542, Kayville Avenue, east of Lake Arrowhead Drive, west of Recker Highway, north of State Road 540, Winter Lake Road, south of Auburndale, west of Winter Haven, and in section 27, township 28, range 25. On January 6th, 17 mailers were sent to area property owner. One board was posted on the property on January 5th, 2026. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on January 7th, 2026. Eric Peterson is the case planner. Good afternoon, Eric Peterson for the land development. And this request here, this is Jimmy Lee Drive Variants. They are requesting a 1,736 square foot dwelling to build a much larger dwelling on the primary residence. It doesn't exist today. As I mentioned, the site is south of Kayville Avenue, north of Winter Lake Road, west of Thornhill, and east of Thornhill, west of Ricker Highway. Note, very important to this case, is this is in a residential low 2 district. The density is 2 units per acre. The property is over 2 acres. Jimmy Lee Road, this was an unrecorded subdivision that was developed somewhere in the late 70s. And the applicant proposes to build a much larger house and has this existing dwelling unit in the rear. It's a good dwelling unit. It's in good shape. They'd like to keep it. The code would allow them to subdivide today. They could split the lot. They could, you know, make a flag lot off of Jimmy Lee Road. It's a local road. All they need is 25 feet because it would be the first lot below 50 feet on the road. However, they'd like to keep it as one property. So, in essence, it's meeting the spirit of the laws that are there. It is unusual that the existing home is going to become the accessory and the new home is going to become the primary. And I understand from the application that the home is anywhere from 3,500 square feet to 4,000. This is how it looks from the road. The existing home is set very far back from the roadway. You can see where the neighboring property is. And this is the existing home. This is looking at the home at the neighboring properties across the street. Everyone is on large acreage lots. And this is looking from the right of way from one of the neighbor's properties. And this is how the home, the new home, approximately would look in that 3,500 to 4,000 square foot range. As you can see, it wouldn't be out of nature with the area. There's still an expansive amount, a lot of space. The request will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare because it will truly, with a home as large as proposed, this 1,700 square foot home will appear incidental. Plus, it's very far back off the road. Also, the special conditions and circumstances that exist from the request. Technically, they don't need this variance to have two homes on this property if they subdivide, but they want to keep it under one property. That all stands for questions. Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Peterson? Could you come up and would you like to speak? My name is Sherry Kelly. Okay. The applicant. The applicant is going to speak first and then we'll get to you. So, my husband and I own the property and what we're looking to do, because that home was built in the 70s, we would like a larger home to be put in front and that one would be kept and converted into possibly a pool home or something of that nature just to keep it on the property. Okay. Okay. Anything else you want to tell me? Okay. Now, ma'am, would you come up, please, and state your name and address? Good afternoon. Jennifer Williamson, 19 Jimmy Lee Road, Winterhaven, 33880. First question is the zoning for the property out there, everything is single family, 2.4 acre minimum. It's 2.49 acre or five acre parcels. This particular land variance on the 2025-70 was part of a larger parcel that was just recently split in half so that it's two parcels now owned by the same applicant. The existing home that is on the property would be dwarfed in size to the new structure. The house and the property has been listed for sale since September, so I'm not sure why there's a variance needed if they're selling the property. So, with that being said, they had five acres. They could have built as large of a home as they wanted. They subsequently split the acreage, subdivided it into two, and now are requesting a variance for half of the parcel. So, in layman's turn, want your cake and eat it, too. Now, with that being said, we know the family, very nice people. This is not personal. This is basically a concern of the neighbor. We are a dead-end road. There's only about 20-some-odd houses. Not anyone that I've spoken to received notification. There were no mailers that we received. I don't know how they're delivered, if it's by U.S. mail. The only thing that we were brought to our attention was one of our neighbors had a piece of paper stuffed in their mailbox without any mailing, no postage. It was just a photocopy of, and I'm not sure if it's even the actual flyer that it's mailed out. The biggest concern is we are having a very large problem on our roadway. We have permanent campers. We have people running septic on the ground. We have open violations, and nothing is being done out there. Just slow down one. Sure. Yes, ma'am. Start listing the problems again, please. Okay. So we have more than six current homes that have RVs that are being occupied as permanent residents. They are not leaving to pump. Where is the septic going? They've been there for a very long time. We've had code enforcement out because different neighbors have been questioned, so that's how we know. They just go into pending and dormant. Nothing is ever done. People are building structures out there. There's no permitting. So when you start doing something like this, you buy a parcel, you subdivide, then you want to divide it again, you're opening up the entire area to additional subdivision. We moved there in 2002. We were the first, second owner in the neighborhood with young children. And again, like the first case you heard, we moved there because of the parcels, because of the restrictions. We wanted our children to be able to have room to grow up somewhat country. And with all of the development in Polk County, it's like you can put a house and you can see your neighbor from window to window. That is not what we wanted in that area, not only to mention that there are three other parcels on the road owned by family. One of them is still vacant. So they have ample areas to build, ADUs or whatever they needed. They have an adjacent property that's an empty lot. We're just asking that it be denied because I think that this was a little bit of a got ahead of yourself. They purchased the property from a widow, widower, and now they've subdivided it for profit. And the parcel for the variance has been listed online for sale since September. Say the last sentence again, please. The LDL VAR 2570, that parcel has been listed for public purchase since September. In the application that Mr. Kelly put in, in his application, it says his hardship would be losing the sale of the property. So it's not for a personal use. It's for a sale. We have other people that want to... Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Mrs. Kelly, thank you, Mrs. Williamson. I can just clarify a couple of the questions. So the relevance... Could you say your name again? Sure. It's Sherry Kelly. And the relevance of the new dwelling is for purchase or future use. And I was told that the variance stays with the property. So if I keep it or if I sell it is irrelevant, the variance would, to allow the house to stay there and a new one be constructed, would stay with the property. So her concern about whether or not I'm selling it or whatever else... I mean, several of her concerns are really not even relevant to this hearing. What we're here today for is just to be able to keep that existing structure and build another one. Anyone else who wants to speak either for or against this variance? R.J. Williamson, 19 Jimmy Lee Road, Winter Haven, Florida. The reason we're here is we did. We bought 2.3 acres, my wife and I. The neighborhood is 2.3 acres. They're single-family homes. We would like to keep it that way. That's what our house is. As has been stated, there's people on the streets that are turning outside dwellings into tiny homes. There's people living in campers. We have three people, three campers in the yard next to us. So, obviously, we don't want a precedent. So they're single-family homes. It's single-family lots. For a while, it was zoned 2.3 acres. Then it went to 4.6. Then it came back to 2.3. So it's 2.3-acre homes, single-family neighborhood. So if we have multiple homes on these lots, we start doing this. We're setting a precedent. The precedent could be, yes, as he had mentioned, current code is one acre for homes. Well, when this neighborhood was set up, it wasn't that way. I mean, yes, we have subdivisions being built all around the county. Some of the ones we heard, 0.2 acres, 0.3 acres, 0.1 acres. So if we set a precedence, we could be turning our 2.3 acres into five houses. That would seriously affect the investment that I have in the county. It would seriously affect the investment I have in my property. They're taking the primary home and going to make that the ADU. That's all the other cases we heard. They have a primary home, and they're making an ADU. They want to make the primary home the ADU and then build another home. I don't have a problem with them building another home, but I do have a problem with two homes on a single piece of property. Thank you, sir. Mr. Peterson, I'm under the impression that this is residential suburban, and what is the amount of homes that can be on an acre in residential suburban? Actually, ma'am, it's residential low two, and it's two units to the acre. The entire subdivision was zoned rural estates to RE2, which was two units to the acre with a minimum 15,000-square-foot lot. That's in the staff report on page 5. As to the subdividing of the property, to subdivide again within three years requires platting, but that's just a matter of hiring a surveyor and drawing up a plat versus recording a legal description. And on page 1, it says land use designation. Oh, that is an error. Sorry. Okay. All right. Okay. I was just... It was a typo. Okay. Not a problem. It's residential low two. I'll bring the screen back up. It's up. If you can see the screen. Yes. It's residential low two. For whatever reason, the map on the south side of the road is residential low two. To the north is residential suburban. However, on the previous zoning map, the whole area was RE2. Okay. And so that allowed for two units to the acre and a minimum with a minimum 15,000-square-foot lot. And I believe you stated this was an unrecorded subdivision in the 70s? Yes. Does that have any bearing whatsoever on current land use? No. It was just how the lots were formed. The lots were laid out as 2.3 acres, roughly. They're all about the same size. Because the previous owner and the owner before that owned both, owned two lots. Okay. And they were under two, at one point they were under two deeds. Now they're under one. Okay. Or they were under one. They got changed to being under one. Then they got reverted back to two deeds. So. For the record, would you join me? I'm going to contact the code enforcement concerning the campers. Yes. And if land use would also do that, and if you would do that, I think that would get their attention. The campers are violations. It's not germane to this case. Right. Whatsoever. If somebody's living in an RV, it's not permitted unless you're in an RV park. We allow for the storage and connection to power for RVs on site, but not water or sewer. Okay. And the power is so that you can keep things like refrigerators and stuff running without having to empty out your refrigerator every time you go camping and come back. Okay. Does anyone else have anything to say on this matter? Sir? Good afternoon. My name's Bob Maddy. I live on 36 Jimmy Lee Road. Am I talking too loud? I'm pretty loud talking. The only question I have for you, sir, is when did they change from one to two? Because those lots, when they were purchased, most of them were five acres before the county came in, and then the residents at the time had the road put in there, which they took. They were all five-acre lots at one time. Then they went in there, and you can sell, like, to two and a half acres. Now, I know when I purchased the property back in 99, I did a lot of research on the property, and I've actually looked at that property over the years, probably 70 years prior to that, and came back to it, and I just felt like that was the place for me to build a home. It's a beautiful piece of area and a nice, quiet area. I have no rejections of them building a house for 3,500 or 4,500 square feet, and I do know when I purchased the property, I could have subdivised my property one acre per home. Now I'm being told it could be two homes per acre, 1,500 square feet. So when did that all go into effect? The zoning ordinance in this area, as you can see how that's mapped, has been that way since 1971 when the RE2 district or the RE districts were split off from the original Polk County ordinance in November 1970. There was only one category, and then they split them up into about six different categories. Oh, I understand the whole logic behind it, but when I bought my property, like I said, I did my homework, and then I was told one house per acre because I said, well, shit, because at the time, I just bought the property. If you see the map up above, the lighter color was RC zoning. That was one per acre. So if you were above that, the bright yellow, then it was one per acre, and then below the bright yellow portion is two per acre. And I really don't have an explanation. I was in elementary school at the time. Right, I got you. I don't know why the map was drawn that way, but it's... Yeah, what I'm saying is, and I understand, you know, everybody about property out there to be quiet. I mean, you know, we've had horses out there. I've raised horses. I just don't want that to go away. You follow me? You know, we have chickens in the back, and we've got a rooster. You know, just regular old folks, you know. I mean, that was... We built a house, and we love it. Like I said, I have no rejection of them building a bigger house on their lot, but I do concern me a little bit about the two houses per acre because if the war gets out, we're going to have problems on that road. You know what I'm saying? Mm-hmm. Thank you. Anyone else want to speak? Hello. Bobby Walter, 20, Jimmy Lee Road, 33880, Winter Haven. We, meaning me and my husband, bought this property in June of 19, knowing that it was a 2.3-acre lot with a single-family home, and that's what we bought in thinking this was. This is all new to me as well. Again, setting precedence. I just think, why can't you add on to the existing home that's there instead of building another one? As you say, 1,000 square foot for ADU. This is larger. That's my opposed thing there, and I'm just opposed to it. That's it. And could you state your address again, ma'am? 2-0, Jimmy Lee Road. Okay. Thank you so much. Anyone else? Good afternoon. My name is Carlos Arroyo. I lived at 17 Jimmy Lee Road. I bought my property in 2021 because the same reasons that the people that stood over here before me stated is a single-family home in a large property, and that's what I liked about the area. The reason behind my complaint is having two dwellings in a single property lends the property to become more of a commercial property. You have the opportunity to lease it out, and that's not the nature of this area. We want to keep it as a family-oriented community, and that's my concern. I oppose that zoning change. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else speaking for or against this variant? Jennifer Williamson, 19 Jimmy Lee Road. I just wanted to add one notation on there that Mrs. Kelly did verify that the home is for sale for a future for use, but for whose future use? So that's our big concern is because it seems as though that the property was purchased, it was subdivided, and then it was listed for sale. And on the application, Mr. Kelly put in there that his hardship would be, if this variance was denied, he would lose a sale. It's right in his application. So I just wanted to make a secondary note of that, that the whole reason for the variance request is so that they can sell the property for profit. Thank you, ma'am. Ma'am, if you will come up once again, just so we get everything clear on the record, to state your name and address. Yes, my name is Sherry Kelly, and I live at 2549 Thornhill Road. And I'm probably not required to answer that, but just for their clarification, the reason the property was subdivided is because I have two sons, and my mom lives directly across the street. My brother lives next door to my mom. And we wanted to be able to possibly offer the lots to our boys, and that's the reason that we divided it. One will build on one side, and the other will build on the other side. So we're not trying to sell this into subdivided lots for multifamily dwelling. The house that's there was built in the 70s. The pipes are in the 70s. The plumbing is the 70s. Everything is from the 70s. It's not feasible to have that as a primary residence, even to expand upon. But again, that's really not of their concern. I understand their concern. They don't want it turned into a rental or into a multifamily lot, and that's not the intention of this. But the variance, if our sons don't want it, the variance would go with it because that's the appeal. It's a very nice piece of property, but being pigeonholed with a tiny little house is not what is appealing. If somebody is able to keep that house, to use it for an ancillary pool home or for your kids to play in or whatever else, then that's what it's going to be used for, and then the other house will become the primary residence that's in the front. So if that eases any of their concerns, it's not that we're trying to turn a profit or turn it into something else, and that is the reason. There are two lots, and that's why we divided it back in half. Thank you. Bobby Walter, 20 Jimmy Lee Road. My question is, why is the property listed for sale if that's not your intention? Ma'am, we're not going to get into a neighborhood dispute here. If Mr. Peterson has anything else he'd like to add or anyone else in the audience, I'm going to close the meeting at this time and go on to the next case. Our next case is LDL VAR 2025-71, the Crystal Beach Road variance. Wesley Holley is requesting a variance to reduce the accessory structure side setback from 5 feet to 2 feet for a carport. The property is on .55 acres in the residential low 2 district. The property is located at 5726 Crystal Beach Road, south of Crystal Beach Road, east of Spirit Lake Road, north of Old Bartow Eagle Lake Road, west of the city of Eagle Lake, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 25. On January 6, 2026, 17 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on January 5, 2026. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on January 7, 2026. We've received no response in... Oops, I'm reading the wrong one, sorry. 20 mailers were sent on January 6. One board was posted on the property on December 31st, and a legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on January 7th. We've had no response from the public. Aaliyah Ngleema is the case planner. Good afternoon. Aaliyah Ngleema with Land Development presenting LDL VAR 2025-71, the Crystal Beach Road variance. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the accessory structure side setback from 5 feet to 2 feet for a carport. The subject site is located at 5726 Crystal Beach Road, south of Crystal Beach Road, east of Spirit Lake Road, north of Old Bartow Eagle Lake Road, west of the city of Eagle Lake, and Section 11, Township 29, Range 25. The site is approximately 0.55 acres, located within a residential low-2 future lane use district and in the urban growth area. So the lot is narrow in width, which significantly limits the buildable area and constrains the placement of accessory structures. As a result, the property has a physical limitation that makes strict compliance with the setback requirements difficult. The applicant purchased the subject property September of 2025 and wishes to add the carport. The proposed structure will be at the front of the residence. And here's pictures from my site visit. The request will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, as the adjacent neighbor is in favor of the reduction in setback and has signed an affidavit acknowledging such. The request is not anticipated to negatively affect the surrounding property owners or the neighborhood as adequate space remains for maintenance purposes. And I'll stand for any questions. Is there anyone else here who wants to speak about this property except the owners? No, ma'am. Could you state your name for the record, please? Holly Sue Hawley, 5726 Crystal Beach Road, and that's Winter Haven, 33880. And Mr. Hawley? Crystal Beach, Wesley Hawley, Crystal Beach, 5726 Crystal Beach Road, Winter Haven. And you live on the lake? Yes, ma'am. That's wonderful. It is. We're enjoying it. Good. Anything else other than your report that I should know about? No, ma'am. With seeing no one to speak either for or against and the applicant and owners being here, I'm going to close this meeting and we'll go forward and I will make a ruling in about, get it to you in about 10 days. Okay? Thank you for being patient and thank you for waiting. Interesting. It is. Thank you. Have a good day. Thank you. With that, we need to approve the meeting notes from last meeting. I don't think we've done that yet. No, we haven't. I have reviewed the meeting notes from last meeting and I found that they accurately reflect the last meeting, so I would approve them. Anything else? We have your counterpart, your other hearing officer, will be starting in February, on February 26th, so your next meeting will be March 26th. I know. So I'll see you then. Thank you.