like to speak or receive a copy of the final decision on any case on today's agenda. If you think you might want to speak during the hearing, you will need to complete a speaker form. Once the form is completed, please hand it to the clerk. As an introduction, my name is Seth Claytor, an attorney with the law firm of Boswell and Dunlap in the city of Bartow. I have been appointed by the board of county commissioners to be a land use hearing officer to hear variants and special exception cases. If anyone has a pending case in which I or my firm is representing you, please bring that to our attention now as we want to avoid any potential conflicts of interest. I have reviewed each of the cases that will be heard here today and I don't believe there are any such conflicts. During this meeting, please put all cell phones and other communication devices on vibrate. As a brief explanation of procedures for today's hearings, the cases will be called in the order listed on the agenda unless there is a request for a case to be taken out of turn. These hearings are quasi-judicial, which means they require due process and the decisions are to be based on competent substantial evidence presented during the hearings. County staff will present the county's review and recommendation on the case first and then the applicant will present any additional information they would like to provide or for me to consider. After the applicant has concluded their presentation, I will open the hearing up to the general public. Just as a general note, once the public comes up and speaks once on a matter, there will not be subsequent trips to the podium in order to speak a subsequent time. No multiple, speaking multiple times on the same action item. This is the public's opportunity to provide information, express their opinions on the application. If you have any questions that come up during the presentation, you can ask them during your time to speak. Please do not ask questions or make comments from the audience while others are speaking at the podium. The county, the applicant, and I will note questions you raise during your comments and try to have them answered following the close of public comment. When it is your turn to speak, either for your case or during public comment, please state your name and address for the record into the microphone. These proceedings are recorded and it is very important that you speak into the microphone to ensure an accurate recording, so please speak slowly and clearly. After public comment closes, the applicant and county will be given the opportunity to answer any questions or reply to comments that may have come up during public comment. They will also be able to make concluding statements. I will close the hearing for each case following the concluding statements of the parties. My decision will not be given today, but I will be provided in a written final order within 14 days of today's hearings. I will do my best to complete them sooner. Again, if you like a copy of my decision, please fill out the form on the back table and provide it to the clerk. As for ex parte communications, for the record, I have received no ex parte communications. That means that nobody has contacted me about these cases outside of these hearings today. Is there anyone in the audience today to speak on or behalf that would require an interpreter? Seeing none. Swearing in. All testimony today will be given under oath, so I will now ask the clerk to swear in all speakers. If you're going to address the land use hearing officer today on any case, please stand, raise your right hand, and answer out loud to the following question. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you provide today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. First item on the agenda will be case number LDL-SE-2025-15, and I will turn that over to staff. LDL-SE-2025-15, Heatherwood Boulevard, SE. Armando Garza is requesting a special exception to park a commercial vehicle, 2008 Kenworth, at their residence on approximately 0.31 acres in the agricultural residential rural district. The subject property is located at 104 Heatherwood Boulevard, north of First Avenue, south of Alturas Babson Park Cutoff Road, east of Lake Buffum Road, west of U.S. 27, south of the city of Lake Wales, and section 26, township 30, range 27. On February 9th, 20 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on February 2nd. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on February 11th. So far, we've received no response from the public. Kyle Rogus is the case planner. Good afternoon. Kyle Rogus with Land Development presenting LDL-SE-2025-15, the Heatherwood Boulevard special exception. The applicant is requesting a special exception to park a commercial vehicle, a 2008 Kenworth dump truck, at their residence within a residential neighborhood. The subject site is located at 104 Heatherwood Boulevard, north of First Avenue, south of Alturas Babson Park Cutoff Road, east of Lake Buffum Road, west of U.S. 27, south of the city of Lake Wales, in section 26, township 30, range 27. The subject site is located in the agricultural residential rural land use district within the southeast Polk Selected Area Plan. The property is designated as lot 16 of the Heatherwood Unit 1 subdivision, recorded under Platte Book 94, page 13, on June 16, 1992. The lots within the Heatherwood Unit 1 subdivision are approximately 0.30 acres, below the five-acre minimum lot size allotted for the agricultural residential rural. The applicant's property is 0.31 acres with ample space for parking. U.S. 27 is a paved four-lane principal arterial state road with no curb or sidewalk and a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour. U.S. 27 experiences high volumes of traffic, providing connections to the immediate surrounding cities of Frostproof and Lake Wells, along with other city jurisdictions prior to its Interstate 4 intersection. Within a half a mile radius of the subject site, there are three businesses whose primary use is commercial vehicles. The vehicle will access Heatherwood Boulevard from U.S. Highway 27, which is less than 500 feet to the east of the subject site. The truck will pass two homes on Heatherwood Boulevard, the neighboring property to the east, and one on the south side of Heatherwood Boulevard. The affected roadway, Heatherwood Boulevard, is a paved local residential road with no curb or sidewalk and a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour. That debt ends 0.09 miles west of the subject's property. Polk County's public school bus stop listing report shows a bus stop is located at U.S. Highway 27 and Heatherwood Boulevard under Point ID 1271498. The only existing access to the rear property is along the fence line on the east side of the single-family residence. A waiver to the number of driveways allowed for single-family residentials listed in Section 705G1 is a condition for the creation of a new driveway built to commercial standards. This condition is to protect Heatherwood Boulevard from the stretching caused by heavy trucks, turning movements on and off the property while ensuring the safety and integrity of the existing residential roadway and storm pipe. The site plan illustrates the truck will be parked approximately 20 feet from both the eastern and northernmost property lines outside the existing drainage easement and over 60 feet from the west property line. The distance from the proposed parking area to the southern property line exceeds 85 feet, with an additional 20 feet of right-of-way from the edge of Heatherwood Boulevard. The parking location falls within 200 feet from the neighboring residential properties designated, requiring a Type B landscape buffer consistent with the width and planting requirements under Section 720. To meet this requirement, the parking location utilizes the existing opaque fence in combination with the principal residence as screening from off-site view. This commercial vehicle parking approval shall be contingent upon the applicants constructing one entrance to commercial driveway standards for structural thickness and turning radius in accordance with Section 705I of the Land Development Code. Staff recommends approval. The request will be to limit the parking of one truck at 2008 Kenworth Dump Truck as described in the application and staff report. No other commercial vehicles may be parked on site. The special exception shall be for Armando Garza only and shall not run with the land. The commercial vehicle vehicles shall only be parked in the area designated on the site plan. No commercial vehicle maintenance shall be performed on the site and no outside storage of any commercial vehicle parts or equipment is allowed. And with that, I will stand for questions. Is there anyone representing the applicant or the applicant in attendance? Seeing none, I will now open this portion of the hearing for public comment. Anyone from the public that would like to speak on this item? Seeing none, closing public comment. Are there any additional comments or matters that you'd like to address on the record for this case? Yes, sir. All right. Closing the hearing on to the next case, which is LDLVAR-2025-73, and I turn that to staff. LDLVAR-2025-73, the Lakeview Drive variance. Andrew Pierce is requesting a variance to allow an accessory structure that is taller than the primary home on 0.42 acres in a rural cluster center residential district. The property is located at 139 Lakeview Drive, north of Hatchnahaw Road, east of Brim Street, east of the Haines City in section 19, township 28, range 29. On February 9th, 23 mailers were sent to area property owners. Two boards were posted on the property. On February 6th, a legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on February 11th. So far, we've received no response from the public. Ian Nance is the case planner. A good afternoon, Ian Nance, land development. Staff recommends approval of this variance to allow the increase in height to 17 feet for a proposed detached garage, an accessory to a single-family home that is 14 feet tall, an area known as Port Hatchnah, as shown on the right. The site is located within a rural cluster center, future land use district, where minimum lot sizes are 20,000 square feet. Side and rear setbacks for accessory structures are 10 feet, with right-of-way setbacks at 25. The maximum overall height in the RCC is 50 feet. Subject property is about 0.42 acres, larger than the surrounding lots. The home is approximately 2,094 square feet and was built in 1967. To the peak of the roof, it is 14 feet tall. This is a legal lot of record purchased by the owner in 2019. The owner wants to add a 2,000 square foot garage to the rear of the home that will reach 17 feet to the peak of the roof. The intent is to store boats and other equipment that require additional height. Port Hatchnah is similar structures throughout the area since it is on the water and rural, and boats and other recreational vehicles are common here. In this case, the neighboring home is two stories tall and taller than the proposed accessory structure. Staff recommends approval, as this request is not injurious to the neighboring properties or general area. The structure will meet or exceed all relevant accessory structure setbacks, and there are no easements on site that this will be placed upon. This is a minimal request compared to the height of the primary home. With that, I think you will stand for questions. Is the applicant in attendance or anyone representing the applicant who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? Please state your name and address for the record. Andrew Pierce, 139 Lakeview. And you're speaking on behalf of the applicant? I just want more storage in case something, a hurricane or something comes along where I need to put my stuff in there, and height is the matter. You'll be storing accessory items such as boats? Boats, yeah. I got boats with T-tops, a big pontoon boat, and several other things. I was told two and a half, three years ago that I could do it 50 foot high, whatever I wanted to, and then I went back, and now it's a, I'm going through this. So, and I sold my other property that I had storage for everything and moved out there thinking I could do it, and now I'm doing this, so. I won't see you back in here though. This is a residential living structure, will I? No, it's not. It's a garage. Okay. Thank you very much for your testimony. Appreciate it. I will now be opening the public comment portion of this hearing. Is there any member of the audience that would like to speak on behalf of the general public? Seeing none, I'm closing public hearing. Does staff have any additional information that they would like to present for the record? Yes, sir. All right. Closing the hearing, on to the next case, which is LDL VAR 2025-74. LDL VAR 2025-74. Quentin Joseph Doerr is requesting a variance to construct an accessory structure, greater in height than the primary residence, on 1.49 acres in a residential low-to-district. The subject property is located at 5908 Lund Road, south of Pipkin Road, west of Cherry Lane, west of South Florida Avenue, east of Yates Road, north of Ewell Road, south of the City of Lakeland, in Section 14, Township 29, Range 23. On February 9th, 19 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on February 2nd. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on February 11th. So far, staff has received no response from the public. Andrew Grahowski is the case planner. Good afternoon. Andrew Grahowski with Land Development, presenting LDL VAR 2025-74, the door variance. This is a variance request by the applicant to allow an accessory structure at 17 feet in height, which will exceed the height of the existing primary residence, which is at 12 feet in height, on residential property. Staff is recommending approval. Subject property is located at 5908 Lund Road, south of Pipkin Road, west and Cherry Lane, west of South Florida Avenue, east of Yates Road, north of Ewell Road, south of the City of Lakeland. The property is about 1.49 acres located in the residential low to land use district in the transit supportive development area. The subject site is to the south of City of Lakeland and to the west of South Florida Avenue. The majority of properties in the general area are single-family residential. Fire services and schools are located relatively nearby. The subject property is over four times larger than the typical district standard in RL2. Minimum lot sizes are 15,000 square feet, which this site exceeds by almost 50,000 square feet. Meanwhile, the primary residence on the property is a 2,560-square-foot single-family home constructed in 1963, according to the property appraiser. This is prior to the implementation of the county zoning or development regulations, so this law is considered a legal lot of record. The one-story ranch home is about 12 feet tall, and this is the applicant's site plan superimposed on the property. And as you can see, the accessory structure is outlined in yellow, which will be about 17 feet tall and 1,800 square feet. According to the applicant, the metal structure is the minimum height necessary to accommodate the large travel trailer, as well as shelter and store personal vehicles and items from outdoor elements. The height difference between the primary and accessory structure is 5 feet, which is relatively minimum given the size of the property. Additionally, the size of the structure will still remain smaller than the size of the existing home. In terms of total area, the metal building will be 760 square feet, or about 30 percent smaller than the primary home, adhering to the subordinate and incidental characteristics for accessory structures outlined in LDC Section 209. Lastly, the structure will meet the minimum accessory structure setbacks in the RL2 land district, which is about 5 feet from the side and rear. Here's the building renderings provided in the application incorporated as part of the record. Based on the renderings, the building will not have any doors or windows facing the northern or eastern neighboring properties, negating any privacy concerns. Here are some photos of staff site visit, and this is the front of the property looking off of Lund Road. And just a photo looking northeast. The primary residence is in the foreground, and the approximate location of the proposed structure is in the back. So staff is recommending approval. The proposed structure will not be injurious or detrimental to the public welfare, as the building is located to the rear of the property while meeting all accessory structure setback requirements. Per Section 209G of the Land Development Code, if the property was just 0.6 acres larger, or if the height of the primary home was 5 feet taller, a variance would not be necessary. As part of staff's conditions of approval, no home-based business or commercial uses are permitted within this structure. And with that, I thank you and stand for questions. You mentioned that this is a legal non-conforming? Correct. It's created before the Land Development Code was in place. So the primary structure is legal non-conforming? Correct. And the property itself was created. Okay. So the accessory structure will not create an expansion or it will not in otherwise be enlarging the non-conformity, which would be in any way prohibited by the Land Development Code? No. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone representing the applicant or the applicant in attendance that would like to speak on this matter? Please state your name and address for the record. Hello. My name is Quentin Doerr, the landowner, and I live on 5908 Lund Road in Lakeland. I just wanted to note that the structure is basically the minimum height that I could get that would actually fit my trailer into. I also have a property in Illinois since I just moved from Illinois about a year ago, and I have another eight vehicles that I need to move down here. So it's basically just a storage facility for my vehicles in my shed. I thought you were leaving the cold to come to the warm, right? Yeah. And then the cold followed me. So I'm going to go ahead. If there's no more testimony from you on the record, I'm going to ask if there's anyone from the general public, I'm going to open the public comment portion of the hearing. Is there anything from the public that would like to speak on this matter? Seeing none, I'm going to close public comment. Are there any additional facts that staff would like to add for the record? No, sir. I would like to just point out and ask for clarification on one more item, and that is the recommendation was approval with conditions as stated, correct? Correct. All right. Thank you. I'm going to close this hearing, and on to LDL VAR 2025-76. LDL VAR 2025-76, the Viamonte-Napoleone Drive variants. Donnie Daughtry, on behalf of Jan William Grip and Ulrika Sahlgren-Grip, are requesting a rear primary setback reduction from 10 feet to 5 feet for the construction of a new screen room with a solid roof. The property is located on a quarter or 0.25 acres in the Poinciana pre-development regional impact. It's also in plan development or plan unit development PUD 9812, known as Solovita Phase 5E, east and west. On February 20, the property is located at 3685 Viamonte-Napoleone Drive, north of Treviso Drive, south of Village Center Road, east of the city of Haines City, and section 14, township 27, range 28. On February 9, 21 mailers were sent to area property owner. One board was posted on the property on February 2. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on February 11. We've received two support letters. Aaliyah Ngleema is the case planner. Good afternoon. Aaliyah Ngleema with Land Development, presenting LDL VAR 2025-76, the Viamonte-Napoleone Drive variants. The applicant is requesting a rear primary setback reduction from 10 feet to 5 feet for the construction of a new screen room with a solid roof. So the subject site is located at 3685 Viamonte-Napoleone Drive, south of Village Center Road, east of the city of Haines City. So the site is approximately 0.25 acres, located within the Poinciana pre-development regional impact number 1, PUD 98-12, and within solar vita phase 5 EW. So the subject site is designated as lot 30 of the subdivision. PUD 98-12, which was approved for primary structure rear setbacks of 10 feet, and accessory structure rear setbacks of 5 feet. Because the solid aluminum roof will be attached or connected to the principal structure, the newly proposed aluminum roof requires a variance to reduce the primary structure rear setback. As you can see within this subdivision, there have been numerous variances to the rear of the property. This will not be the first covered screen enclosure within this development. In close proximity to the subject site, lots 25, 26, 27, and 33 have solid roof coverage over their screen enclosures. The table attached lists the variances processed and approved within solar vita since 2020. So here's a picture from my site visit. The rear of the property abuts tracked C3, designated as a stormwater retention pond. Seeking rear setback relief when abutting common areas has become common throughout this development. So whether the variance will be in accordance with the general intent and purpose of this code, and that the variance will not be interest to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public, is this is not the only property within the immediate surrounding neighborhood with a solid aluminum roof to extend full coverage over screen enclosure. It will not limit the neighbor's peripheral view of the open space, and the request to provide full roof coverage with a screened area will have little to no effect on the immediate neighbors. And I'll stand for any questions. Thank you. Is the applicant in attendance or anyone representing the applicant who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? Please. Please state your name and address for the record. My name is Donnie Daugherty, address 683 Tuscarora Drive, Winter Springs, Florida. Just here representing my potential customer due to the odd shape back portion of their lot on the curvature. You know, it just impedes them from getting what they were looking for for a back porch. They don't have any rare neighbors, so I don't think there's anything, like she said, peripheral that would affect anything here. And like I said, other projects in the neighborhood very similar. So I took some pictures of them, but it looks like they got it pretty much covered. And the nuance is the fact that it's tied to the structure, correct? Correct. Correct. Yes. And just to confirm with staff that we received the appropriate designated authority for? Yes. Yes, we did. Okay. I'm going to go ahead now and open this hearing for public comment or comment from the public. Is there anyone in the public that would like to comment as related to this particular matter? Seeing none, I'm going to close public comment. I'll ask staff if there's any further information or testimony they'd like to provide for the record. No, sir. I'm going to close this hearing and on to the final case, which is LDL VAR 2025-79. LDL VAR 2025-79 East Lake Drive. Leroy and Carol of Faber are requesting a rear yard setback reduction of 15 feet to five feet for a covered porch. The property is on 5,807 square feet in a residential suburban land use district. Their property is located at 530 East Lake Drive, west of Waterford Drive, north and south of Sweetwater Way, east of Watercrest Drive, north of Lake Henry, south and west of the city of Haines City, and Section 36 Township 27 Range 26. 39 mailers were sent to area property owners on February 9th. One board was posted on the property on February 10th. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on February 11th. Eric Peterson is the case planner and that is me. This is our opening slide here. The request is for the rear of the property. This is actually in a PUD 8729 that was named Sweetwater Golf and Tennis Club, which carries a number of other areas too. This one later changed or broke from the Sweetwater Club and was changed to Lake Henry Estates, but the Platte is Sweetwater Golf and Tennis. This is the property site. It's in a residential suburban district. The rest of Sweetwater is up here to the north. This is looking at the contacts of the area and it's really important to notice all the covered back porches that line the golf course around this area. It has some significance in the request. Just to explain the request, the initial proposal was for a 24 by 12 covered porch on the back of their home. Staff in discussion with the applicant suggested including a future expansion because they have some golf carts and things of that nature that they'd like to to park back there and they wouldn't be covered. So it gives them the ability to expand that that covered area to protect their golf cart vehicles. This is the applicant's site plan. Looking at the property here you see the the slab is this is where the initial porch is and this is going to be the area where they'll they'll park their vehicles and and equipment. This is essentially what it would fill the space. I'm no architect but it's going to look sort of like that and then the cover would probably extend off the the edge here and you can see it would it it's very similar to the neighbor's property what they have already. This is looking in the other direction and how it would lay out. You can see down the row other similar porch structures just the same. And this is looking from the neighbor and showing you how it wouldn't really impede their view of the golf course. Golf course is more over here to the right. This is a drainage retention pond. The tee is just over here. So with that staff finds that it wouldn't be and will not be injurious to the area or detrimental to anyone of anyone's public welfare because it won't obscure the view from the neighboring residences. We'll point out as I've stated in the staff report 11 variance requests for rear rear lot relief have been granted in this this phase alone and we find that it's it's an ongoing tradition as you can see by the the aerial photos. So staff finds that it's consistent with the character of the area and recommends approval. If I were ever to go off there it would be necessary for safety. Yes. I wanted to ask staff if if granted would there be different timelines for purposes of site plan expiration or tolling for the additional add-on or is it all going to be under the same or similar site plan? It's going to probably because they haven't sketched out as far as I know they haven't sketched out the uh the building plans for that portion. It'll be the first initial uh section with um see with the uh kind of an open-ended time period to have the the rest of the cover. So we didn't put an expert uh we put an expiration date for the initial one but it would just carry on as would be a subsequent variance requests otherwise correct? It would be a subsequent variance otherwise and that's our our point of view is that it really wouldn't change anything so we might as well go ahead and approve the whole thing now and give them that option. So the uh the recommendation would be to grant a variance for that entire back area to provide for uh screened enclosure or covered uh or a covered area? That is correct. The reason why you you need the whole variance cover is because because of the hard roof so whether it's an open area or it's screened in it's still a hard roof and that makes it part of the principal structure. You know if it was screening it would be an accessory structure which could go closer to the rear property line. I just want to make sure so I'm not bifurcating the order um and I believe uh is the applicant in attendance or anyone representing the applicant that would like to provide any testimony or evidence for the record? 530 East Lake Drive in Winterhaven, I'm sorry Haines City. Um as he had clearly stated uh the reason we need to do this is to make sure that everything that we're doing on the property there is done correctly. Uh I'm a big stickler for that. If I'm going to proceed with doing something I want it done correctly and properly recorded and when I met the gentleman over here and the rest of the people here in the office they were more than helpful to get me to this point and I would like to construct the screen room and be able to enjoy it and enjoy the weather. There had never been a screen room on that home prior and the other structure we're in the process right now of trying to acquire bids to get the whole project done but I'm not sure how that timeline is going to work out yet. And you're going to have one solid roof over so like an elite paneling or an aluminum roof over the entire back area there? Yes. Eventually yes. Yes. Okay is there uh at this point in time I'm going to open the uh the hearing for public comment. Is there any from the public uh from the public that would like to comment or testify as related to this case? Seeing none I'm going to close public comment. I'm going to ask staff if there are additional if there's any additional testimony or evidence they'd like to present. No sir. All right I'm going to close that case and that concludes uh the hearings that we had agendized for today. Is there any additional comment from staff that they would like to submit prior to adjournment? No sir. We are adjourned at 204.