April 23rd, 2026. Good afternoon. I am the land use hearing officer for this meeting. There are agendas on the back table for anyone that does not have an agenda. Also on the back table are forms you can fill out if you would like to speak or receive a copy of the final decision on any case on today's agenda. If you think you might want to speak during the hearing, you will need to complete a speaker form. Once the form is completed, please hand it to the clerk. The my introduction is I am Seth Claytor. I am an attorney with the law firm of Boswell and Dunlap located here in 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. I don't believe there are any conflicts during this meeting. Please put all cell phones and other communication devices on vibrate. I understand there might be extenuating circumstances. You need to have your phone on, but please make sure that they do not disrupt today's proceedings. Explanation of procedures. 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. After the applicant has concluded their presentation, I will open the hearing up for public from the comment from the public. Please note that each individual that is coming up during public comment will be provided three minutes to speak. Once that three minutes is told, you will be asked to step down from the podium unless I feel otherwise or we're having an ongoing dialect. Please note that everyone will only have one opportunity to speak. So once public, once the public hearing portion is over, there will be no further comment from the public. The applicant will have an opportunity to rebut any testimony or evidence presented. However, the general public will not have an opportunity to speak. So please do not come to the podium because you'll be asked to go back to your seat. 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 the county will be given the opportunity to answer any questions or reply to comments that may have come up during the public comment. They will also be able to make concluding statements. The hearing will close for each case following the concluding statements of the parties. My decision will not be given today, but will be provided in a written final order within 14 days of today. I will do my best to complete them sooner. Again, if you would like a copy of my decision, please fill out a form on the back table and provide it to the clerk. 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. If anyone needs an interpreter, please let the clerk know and county staff will try to arrange one for you. Is there anyone in the audience that needs an interpreter? Let the record reflect that no one has identified that they need an interpreter. All right. All testimony today must be given under oath. So I will now ask the clerk to swear in all speakers. If you are going to address the land use hearing officer on any case today, please stand and raise your right hand and answer out loud to the following question. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you provide today is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. First item on the agenda is the minutes for the February 26, 26, 2026 land use hearing officer meeting minutes. We can show those minutes as being accepted. Next is old business. LDL VAR dash 2025 dash 78, 2787 Rucker Highway. That has been withdrawn, but the record reflect that that case has been withdrawn. New business agenda item. LDL SE 2026 dash three country club road southeast. LDL SE 2026 dash three country club road southeast. Jonathan Gonzalez is requesting a special exception to park a commercial vehicle, a 2014 Freightliner at his residence on approximately 1.549 acres within the residential low future land use district. Properties located at 2840 North Country Club Road, east of Rankin Road, west of Kendall Lane, southwest of Winter Haven and section 14 township 28 range 26. On April 9th, 18 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on April 2nd. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on April 8th. We've received two letters in opposition. Aaliyah Inglema is the case planner. Good afternoon. Aaliyah Inglema with Land Development presenting LDL SE 2026 dash three, the country club road special exception. The applicant is requesting a special exception to park a commercial vehicle, which is a 2014 Freightliner at their residence on approximately 1.49 acres within a residential neighborhood. So the subject size located at 1284 North Country Road, east of Rankin Road, west of Kendall Lane, southwest of Winter Haven and section 14 township 28 range 26. The property is located within a residential low one future land use district and within the urban growth area. So the applicant was cited by code enforcement for parking a vehicle at this location. The owner is seeking approval for parking the commercial vehicle on their property. The vehicle will be parked on the south side of the principal residence screening from view from the north. The applicant's property is 1.49 acres with space for parking. The parking location utilizes an existing tree buffer along the southern property line is screening from the neighboring property. So the truck is a 2014 Freightliner and is approximately 19,000 pounds. And the commercial vehicle accesses north of the property through a gated fence and drives to the rear yard along the east fence line. Utilizing the existing access point minimizes any damage to the property elsewhere. So the property has direct access to Country Club Road and Urban Collector Roadway that ultimately leads to State Road 542. A commercial driveway apron is required to protect the road from the stretching caused by such heavy vehicles turning movements on and off the property. So staff recommends approval based on the site plan provided by the applicant and recent visits to the site. The proposed placement of the vehicle will be to the rear of the primary home and shall meet the screening and buffering requirements. And staff finds the request will not have a negative impact on adjacent properties if maintained and screened in accordance to the site plan. And I'll stand for any questions. Thank you. Is the applicant in attendance? Please come to the podium. Is there any additional information you'd like to add to the record or evidence you'd like to present? It's nice meeting you. This is my first time. I'm very nervous. Learning a lot. I'm a truck driver. I'm an over-the-road truck driver. I'm out for about a month and a half or two months and I just like to drive straight home. And that's all the information. I meet all protocols, all regulations, and that's all I have to say today. So for all intents and purposes, when you, that's your primary source of transportation is your truck. That's my only income. That's my primary income. My first home. I had enough space. So I just thought I'd just drive straight home after a long, you know, long business hours and working over the road and stuff like that. Yes, sir. I certainly respect your profession. I know that you leave for long periods of time and you're, you're away. So you're saying that upon returning home after it could be weeks at a time, you just drive your truck without a trailer back to your house. Correct. Yeah. I just, I just bobtail home. Yeah. I'll park, I rent a trailer. So I, I, I, uh, I returned the trailer back to where it belongs in Groveland, Florida, and then I'll just drive straight home in my truck. I have no other transportation. Yeah. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. At this point in time, I'm going to open up the public hearing portion. You can go ahead and have a seat. Thank you, sir. I might have missed a clerk. Did we get name and address for the record? Now that the public hearing portion of the meeting is open, does anyone want to speak on behalf or in opposition of the application or this particular case? Seeing none, the public hearing portion is closed. Let the record reflect that I did receive two letters or emails in opposition. One from a Victoria E. Booth at 820 Hillside Court, North Winter Haven, Florida, 33881. The other from a Mr. Travis Hines, 814 Hillside Court, North Winter Haven, Florida, 33881. Those two correspondences will be entered into the record as evidence. Now that the public hearing portion is closed, does staff have any closing comments? No, sir. Okay. I will be calling now case number LDLVAR 2026-1. LDLVAR 2026-1, the Shinnebarker variants. Kevin Shinnebarker is requesting a side yard accessory setback reduction from five feet to two feet for the installation of a shed. The property is on 0.23 acres in the Imperial Lakes Development of Regional Impact and Plan Unit Development 73-05. The subject property is specifically located at 3A22 Marquise Lane, north of State Road 60, west of Imperial Lakes Boulevard, east of Laurel Crest Drive, south of Garnet Drive, northwest of the city of Mulberry and section 34, township 29, range 23. On April 9th, 36 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on April 2nd. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on April 8th. We've had no response from the public. Andrew Grahowski is the case planner. Good afternoon. Andrew Grahowski with Land Development presenting LDLVAR 2026-1. This is a request to reduce side yard setbacks for an accessory structure from 10 feet to 5 feet to allow the placement of a shed. Staff is recommending approval. The subject property is located at 3822 Marquise Lane in Imperial Lakes, north of State Road 60, and northwest of the city of Mulberry. The property is designated as Development of Regional Impact, DRI No. 4, also known as Imperial Lakes, which consists of primarily residential and commercial property that received approval in 1973. The DRI is associated with PUD 73-05, and the subject property was part of Phase 2. This PUD established setbacks as 5 feet on the side and 10 feet in the rear for accessory structures. This provides an overall context of the site. As you can see, the area consists primarily of residential subdivisions. Imperial Lakes spans approximately 1,700 acres. The subject site is considered Lot 128 of the Imperial Lakes Phase 2 Platt, which was recorded in February 1980. The site is approximately 0.23 acres and remained vacant for almost two decades prior to a single-family residence being constructed in 2000. The current owner purchased the property in June 2025, according to the property appraiser. As part of the recorded Platt, Platt book number 69, pages 21 through 26, there is a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the rear property boundaries in this subdivision. Additionally, a 5-foot by 10-foot TECO utility easement is on the northeasternmost portion of the site. Here is a close-up view of the subject's site with the proposed shed location. The easement to the northeast, as well as the rear drainage and utility easement, will not be encroached upon with this given request. According to the applicant, the shed will shelter and store personal vehicles from the elements. Here are photos during staff site visit conducted on April 2nd. The request is a result of a codes case where the neighbor claimed the shed was encroaching upon their property line. And here you can see the proposed shed in the foreground. The applicant has already submitted building permits for this request, permit number BR 2025-9614. According to the permits, the shed will be just over eight feet tall. So given this information, the fence surrounding the property line is about eight feet tall as well, which screens the shed from off-site view. So staff is recommending approval based on the site plan provided by the applicant and recent visits to the site. The site will not, or the request will not be injurious to the area and will not encroach upon the designated easements on the plat, thereby not circumventing any approvals by the Board of County Commissioners. The shed is a very benign accessory use commonly found throughout Imperial Lakes and other residential subdivisions. And with that, I thank you and stand for questions. Could you please put the site plan back up that was submitted, please? Actually. If you, can you zoom in on that? So this is the question that I have when I reviewed this file. So that must be the overhead easement. The, uh, I see the utility easement that's bulged in line. So the 10 foot utility easement and drainage easement to the southern most portion of the property, but the line with the circles on it, I was best to explain it. Um, is that the TECO overhead easement or you see it runs north along the western portion there goes to the home, then it goes, follow it south and then it heads east. So this, um, sorry, are you referring to this line? Yes, yes. Northeastern. So I believe that's the property owner's fence. So they may have placed, um, the shed, um, over that fence boundary. So realistically speaking, the shed may be just, um, to the more west as you saw from the site photo. Okay. That would make sense. I did not have the, uh, I didn't have the, the cue there to tell me whether or not that was the overhead easement or what exactly that was. So you've answered my question. Thank you. Um, closing the, uh, opening for public hearing or sorry, is the applicant in attendance. Please come to the podium, state your name and address. Evan Shinnebarker 3822 Marquise Lane, Mulberry, Florida 33860. Do you have any evidence or testimony you'd like to present for the record today? No, sir. The, the line you're referring to though, is the old, the old chain link fence that was there. It's no longer there. Thank you. That was the only reservation that I had when I was reviewing the file. Um, I did not know exactly what I was looking at there. So thank you very much for that clarification. Whoever put that fence up, didn't use the actual property lines. They didn't have a survey down. We had a survey done before we put the new fence up. So he was able to, and what was the, when was the survey dated? Approximation two months ago. Okay. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf or in opposition of the case at issue? Seeing none, I'll close public hearing. Does staff have any closing remarks? No, sir. Thank you very much. Next, I will call case LDL VAR 2026-2. That's continued. Continued indefinitely or to a date certain? To May 28th, 2026. Case number LDL VAR 2026-2. Let the record reflect that that case will be continued to the May 28th, 2026 proceedings. Case LDL VAR 2026-5. LDL VAR 2026-5. Joel Byron is requesting a front yard setback reduction from 35 feet to three feet and an accessory structure interior side setback reduction from seven feet to three feet for the construction of a D a detached garage on 0.31 acres in a rural cluster center residential district in the southeast village selected area plan. The subject property is located at 22 Hillcrest Drive south and west of State Road 17 Scenic Highway north of Seminole Road east of Catherine Avenue east of Hillcrest Heights in section 33 township 30 range 28. On April 9th, 17 mailers were sent to area property owners. Two boards were posted on the property on April 2nd. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on April 8th. We've received no response from the public. Andrew Grahowski is the case planner. Good afternoon again. Andrew Grahowski with land development presenting LDL VAR 2026-5, the Byron variance. This is an applicant initiated request to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to three feet and a side setback from seven feet to three feet for a detached garage on approximately 0.31 acres of residential property. The subject property is located at 22 Hillcrest Drive south and west of State Road 17 also known as Scenic Highway and east of the city of Hillcrest Heights. It's also north of the city of Frostproof. The property has a land use designation of rural cluster center residential RCCRX in the southeast village selected area plan. The subject site is located at the corner of Scenic Highway, a principal rural major collector roadway, and Hillcrest Drive, a local residential roadway. The current owner purchased the property in June 2025 according to the property appraiser. The right-of-way width on Scenic Highway spans about 100 feet in width given this classification. The edge of pavement on the western property line is about 30 feet and the center line of Scenic Highway to the property line is about 50 feet. And just for reference, this is part of LDC chapter 10. Given that there are two roadway frontages on this property, it's a corner lot, the front yard is considered on both Scenic Highway and Hillcrest Drive. LDC section 209D allows detached garages in the front yard. Meanwhile, other accessory structures besides detached garages are not allowed in the front yard. LDC section 401.04, table 401.08.04, requires front yard setbacks on Scenic Highway to have at least 35 feet and 10 feet for the side for accessory structures in the RCCR. So according to the Polk County's utility viewer, the site is served by portable water with a meter on the southwestern portion of the site. Given this information, there's going to be a three-foot setback for this detached garage which will allow access to PCU or the applicant should the need arise. Another important note is that the property is surrounded in the rear by an opaque fence which will screen the detached garage from off-site view. Oh, you have that there. I don't mean to interrupt your flow. Pursuant to Polk County's utility index, are there any gravity sewer mains? I'm assuming with the meter there that this house is connected to county utility? It's connected to potable water, but not sewer. So it has a septic. Okay. Well, that would make sense why there's no gravity. Yeah. And you'll see on the site plan in the next slide that their septic tank is right here approximately. So again, that kind of limits their ability to place an accessory structure. So here's the applicant site plan submitted for the record. As previously mentioned, the PCU meter will not be encroached upon. And now you can also see there's a septic tank with its associated drain field in the southeastern portion of the site. Here are the photos during staff site visit conducted on April 2nd. The previous owner, it's important to note, converted the garage into a heated living space according to building records back in 2006. The permit number is number 78211. The applicant purchased the property in 2025 with these conditions already in place with no storage for their personal vehicles. So then here you could see the 50 feet of right of way measured from the center line from scenic highway to the applicant's property line, which starts at the opaque fence. And here's just the proposed garage location. And here's a photo looking at the southwestern most portion of the site with the water meters in this approximate location. So staff is recommending approval of this variance. It will not be interest to the area and will not encroach upon the designated PCU water meters. The tall eight foot foot opaque fence limits neighbor and public visibility. And the three foot setbacks from either property boundaries will allow maintenance should the need occur. And with that, I thank you and Stanford questions. You showed up. Can you show me where the I'm assuming this is State Road 17. So there was a taking or a quick take one or the other. I'm assuming FDOT took a portion of their property for purposes of additional right-of-way or right-of-way expansion. Correct. Can you show me where the property line used to be located and where it is located currently? Just so I have a point of reference. I was not able to find that in my staff report on page, let me see, on page four. The date when the right-of-way was acquired was unknown. So staff doesn't have where the boundary is used to lie on that. Do you know approximately how much they take? It's okay. I'm not sure, honestly. Didn't we have the old plat or? Well, I have the old plat, but it's not going to help you very much. No, yeah. Yeah, the road actually went straight back then. It did not bend. So yeah, it happened. The taking was a significant amount of time ago that we don't have record from it. Thank you. I will now open the public hearing portion. Is the applicant in attendance? Please come up and state your name and address for the record. Good afternoon. My name is Joelle Byron and I reside at 22 Hillcrest Drive in Babson Park, Florida. Is there any testimony or evidence you'd like to present for the record? All I'd like to tell you is I really would like that garage so I can clean up that. Well, all we've been doing since we bought the home is cleaning up the area in our home site and that will help us to continue to do that. And you purchased in 2025? Correct. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Is there anyone else in attendance today that would like to speak on behalf or in opposition of the subject case? Seeing that, I'm going to close public hearing. Staff, any closing comments or remarks? No, sir. I will now call case LDL VAR 2026-6. Yes. LDL VAR 2026-6. Timothy Slink is requesting a primary structure right-of-way setback reduction from 10 feet to 8 feet and a side setback reduction from 5 feet to 0 feet for the expansion of an existing carport on approximately 0.11 acres within a residential low 4 district. The subject property is located at 4093 Rolling Oaks Drive, north of Thornhill Road, south of Highway 540, east of Thornhill Estates road, west of Spirit Lake Road, west of the city of Eagle Lake in Section 2, Township 29, Range 25. On April 9th, 35 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on April 3rd. A legal ad was published on the Polk Sun News on April 8th. So far, no response from the public. Kyle Rogus is the case planner. Good afternoon. Kyle Rogus with Land Development presenting LDL VAR 2026-6 to Slink variance. The applicant is requesting a primary structure right-of-way setback reduction from 10 feet to 8 feet and side setback reduction from 5 feet to 0 feet for the expansion of an existing carport on approximately 0.11 acres within a residential neighborhood. The subject property is located at 4093 Rolling Oaks Drive, north of Thornhill Road, south of Highway 540, east of Thornhill Estates Road, west of Spirit Lake Road, west of the city of Eagle Lake in Section 2, Township 29, Range 25. The property is located in the residential low for land use district in the transit supportive development area and is approximately 0.11 acres. Oakwood Estates was originally a mobile home park that was converted into a mobile home subdivision in June 1976. During the transition, a variance to the setback standards was approved for the development under VAR 76-02. Under VAR 76-02, the approved setbacks for the Oakwood Estate subdivision are 10 feet right-of-way setback, 10 feet rear setback, and 5 feet side setback. The neighboring properties to the east of the subject site that gain access off Rolling Oaks Drive have similar homes or carports that extend further north to the property boundary. The request will not provide, will also provide full coverage for the front patio providing protection from weather conditions and in this site or this photo you can't see that patio but in later slides you'll be able to see that patio. The dimensions of the attached carport extension will be approximately 10 feet wide and extend the length of the existing residence. The extension will be 2 feet within the approved 10-foot right-of-way setback and 12 feet from the edge of pavement and here you can see that the existing coverage does not fully protect this patio so they will be extending it further to provide that protection. The carport extension will run flush with the existing attached carport structure on the east side creating a 13-inch overhanging encroachment onto the neighboring property. The neighbor to the east has acknowledged there is an encroachment onto their property and has provided notarized written approval for the applicant's request for a carport expansion. Dial right there I want to stop you for one second because there's the the crux of my issue and I wanted to see if you could provide me with some insight. In reviewing this so I noticed uh this is a a mobile home park correct? It was used to be a mobile home park and then was converted into a mobile home subdivision. Mobile home subdivision but when I looked at the the documents of record I see assignments of property leases so uh the underlying fee ownership of the real property is that vested in the uh the actual park itself because the the documents that I was looking at um did not convey fee simple marketable title to the real property so I want to make sure that when we're receiving a document from a neighboring property owner allowing some form of encroachment that one we have the actual property owner's consent not a lessee regardless of how long that term may or may not be and then I also noticed that the trust is the I guess the lessor and there's two co-trustees they signed in their individual capacity but this is not a deed so I'm I'm not overly worried about them signing as co-trustees and individually but I am concerned if we do not have the fee simple marketable title holder as the individual that has provided us with that document and it looks like if that is the case that the mobile home park is the owner would you disagree that I wouldn't mind that type of letter coming into the record and providing competent substantial evidence in support of it but if it's not the mobile home park then I would prefer something to be recorded because that wouldn't be binding on successors without notice if they purchased the property so I would not want there to be an issue with this order later on if there was a new fee simple owner and you had some form of encroachment and a notarized letter would not therefore be binding and now you have a boundary line dispute potentially an order that could be subject to scrutiny so can you provide some insight there or do we need to continue this so you can clarify that we did provide within the application the notarized authorization from the president of that HOA and we also have for the the improvements or the placement of the individual support structure beam of that carport extension to be within that property that is you know kind of governed and driven by them and then we also have that same notarized letter from the neighboring used to the east where it's they measure the HOA is aware of the encroachments of the development way back when before Polk County required surveys for development there may have been the first you know development within this mobile home park subdivision that did not abide by those setbacks and from there it kind of set oh I saw that oppressed a precedence moving forward so the HOA now currently measures that distance requirement or that setback I want to say quote-unquote between the the the middle center line between the existing and budding structures and so the HOA uh see with these types of developments I can't remember if it's a prospectus or if you actually have a CCRs but the HOA is responsible so for maintenance upkeep and ownership of the individual lots um so all I had was the letter from the adjoining property owner so I didn't see the the one from the HOA I could have overlooked it um but I I did look through my packet yeah I have it here it may have been an issue in terms of the format of the document being submitted where it may not have whether it needed to be pdf form that may have been the the issue I do have this copy and can provide a you know definitive copy of this as an officer of the court your testimony is that that is executed by the HOA yes thank you um okay well I saw that that that almost looks like uh you know you had one variance here and it's kind of just shifted it all the way down the line right and I think that was just because of we didn't require surveys so there was no when development came in there was no definitive this is your property boundary lines once that mobile heart was converted to that subdivision so that's where it kind of created that domino effect and off these past aerial photos you can kind of see there's it's just one after another so that's where the HOA has pretty much measured the distance for these requirements based off that center line in between structures sorry please no you're good so uh to leave back off where I was the carport extension will run flush with the existing attached carport structure on the east side creating a 13 inch overhanging encroachment onto the neighboring property the neighbor to the east has acknowledged there is an encroachment onto their property and has provided notarized written approval of the applicant's request for a carport expansion and staff recommends approval the request will not block or limit the view of traffic or encroach on any easements many if not all the homes within oakwood estate subdivision encroached upon neighboring properties this may this makes any future add-on structures such as carports impractical to construct without relief from setbacks and with that I will stand for questions I've already asked my questions I will open the public hearing portion of this hearing is the applicant I'm sorry I keep going cart before the horse is the applicant in attendance would you please come up state your name and address for the record my name is Tim Slank and the residence is 4093 rolling oaks drive winter haven florida 33880 is there any testimony or evidence you'd like to present for the record probably a little bit on the goofiness of that lease you know I do have the board's approval that I do this addition and like he said they basically because the lot lines are skewed in there they kind of encroached on me versus the other way around years back um and like I said Richard and Judy the neighbors are he he's ecstatic that we get extended because then his Tesla won't keep turning on the air conditioner um so in the rest of the park too most most things they designate the center line for like landscaping or any kind of updating and um you know it I also have a there was a letter also from the president that I could speak on behalf of the board um and about the only thing I could add is our porch keep this has been a two-year process we started out with a contractor who was supposed to pull permits and do all those things and showed up with no permits and no engineered drawings so we had to fire him so I went and got my engineered drawings and came back this year only to find out I had this slot line issue so my deck has repeatedly gone through summers with out in the exposure so that's probably all I really have to say thank you to the staff though they were good to work with unfortunately that does not put you in a unique class anymore and I my apologies for having to deal with a contractor like that I um as a contractor from Michigan he came in and he said well we'll pull the permit after the fact I said there's nowhere that I've ever worked as a licensed contractor that they allow that that I've ever heard of yeah and it certainly isn't here either so um thank you very much thank you now I will open the public hearing portion of today's hearing and is there anyone here I'd like like to speak on behalf or in opposition of the pending case seeing that I'll close public hearing does staff have any closing remarks no sir ldl var 2026-7 ldl var 2026-7 the chamber street variants variants uh lisa wilson on behalf of kyle mocha b is requesting a variance to ldc section 209 g to allow a detached accessory structure to be larger than the primary the property sits on on 0.78 acres in the agricultural residential rural district located at 3943 chambers street south of lake point boulevard east of walk in the water north of dixie street east of frost proof in section 32 township 30 range 29 on april 9th 20 mailers were sent to area property owners one board was posted on the property on april 3rd a legal ad was published in the polk sun news on april 8th and aliyah and gleeman is presenting for e and s the case planner good afternoon aliyah and gleeman with land development presenting ldl var 2026-7 the chamber street variants the applicant is requesting a variance to ldc section 209 g to allow a detached accessory structure to be larger than the primary the subject size located at 3943 chamber south of lake point boulevard east of walk and water north of dixie street east of frost proof in section 32 township 30 range 29 the site is approximately 0.78 acres and located within an agriculture residential rural future lane use district and in the rural development area so accessory garages and storage structures are common in this neighborhood the home which was built in 1969 has no attached garage if this was a five acre lot a variance would not be required as ldc section 209 g allows accessory structures up to 2 000 square feet or 150 of the principal structure square footage with whichever is greater with a minimum lot size of two acres so the primary home is 1 679 square feet and the accessory building is expected to be 1 800 square feet with a height of 14 feet the request is minimal as the structure is just seven percent larger than the home it will be placed in the front yard on a concrete foundation near the existing driveway and will meet all setbacks the enclosed structure will be used to house vehicles and equipment given the site location along lake walk and water storage structures and garages such as these are popular in the area this is the site plan correct sorry site plan yes can you zoom in on that and show me the so there's an existing accessory structure on the property there's the primary structure and where is the proposed structure going to be constructed or in relation to the primary structure and the existing accessory structure so this is this is the home right here and then the accessory structure proposed accessory structure is going to be right here so staff recommends approval the structure meets the variance criteria in section 931 it's not interest to surrounding area meets all setbacks and there are similar structures within that area and i'll stand for any questions there'll be no encroachment on any type of public utility or is this well and septic this is well and septic again why i probably didn't see anything about that thank you um is the applicant in attendance would you please come up and say your name and address for the record i want to be at 3943 chamber street do you have any evidence or testimony you'd like to present for the record uh yes the current property appraisers website shows our current heated square feet there is also an attached carport in the front as well as a screen and patio in the rear which increases that total square feet from the uh 1679 that's shown here i do have evidence of that both in a satellite view as well as photos in addition to measurements that we have that we have made on site have you provided that information to staff prior to today not that i am aware of if you submit that to staff i'm based on staff's approval i'll allow the record to be supplemented um but i would prefer that to go through staff uh before it becomes part of the record so that can be a condition of any order that i enter absolutely um all right thank you very much thank you is there anyone in attendance that would i will now open the public hearing and is there anyone here to speak on behalf or in opposition of pending case see none i'll close public hearing um and just to clarify staff before any closing remarks that you might have i noticed that this is a lot of record created prior to any county zoning ordinances so okay so would this be a non-conforming lot pursuant to current zoning standards in one way shape or form yes correct okay um and the home on site was built in 1969 and the county obviously was a charter county what 1996 94 well we began with county 165 years ago but we didn't have zoning until 1970 how about that just missed it okay so i come here for hearings as well as history lessons i did not know that next case will be ldl var 2026-8 ldl var 2026-8 samuel salmeron is requesting an accessory side struct accessory structure side setback reduction from five feet to three feet and a rear setback reduction from 10 feet to three feet for a shed and a primary structure rear setback reduction from 15 feet to five feet for an attached screened room on approximately 0.1 acres within a residential sub uh residential suburban district the subject property is located at 34 sunset circle north of highway 92 south of lake alfred road east of dairy road west of lynchburg road west of the city of lake alfred in section 6 township 28 range 26 on april 9th 28 mailers were sent to area property owners one board was posted on the property on april 3rd a legal ad was published in the bulk sun news on april 8th we've had no response from the public kyle roguis is the case planner good afternoon again kyle roguis with land development presenting ldl var 2026-8 the salmeron variance the applicant is requesting an accessory structure side setback reduction from five feet to three feet a rear setback reduction from 10 feet to three feet for a shed a primary structure rear setback reduction from 15 feet to five feet for an attached screen room on approximately 0.1 acres within a residential neighborhood the subject property is located at 34 sunset circle north of highway 92 south of lake alfred road east of dairy road west of lynchburg road west of the city of lake alfred in section 6 township 28 range 26 the property is located in the residential suburban land use district in the suburban development area and is approximately 0.1 acres the owner purchased the property in july 2023 according to poll county property appraiser the home was built in 2025 meeting all setback requirements property is located between two roadways sunset circle and sunset drive according to chapter 2 section 209 d4 when a lot is determined to be a reverse frontage lot the orientation of the primary structure with regards to primary front access along with applicable setback requirements for the land use district shall be used to determine the allowable placement location of any accessory structure the primary front axis is off sunset circle therefore the rear yard of the property abuts sunset drive allowing four accessory structures according to plat book 56 page 2 the county right-of-way for a sunset drive ended prior to this subject site leaving the rest of sunset drive to the rear of the property to act as an extended drive aisle rather than a roadway thus requiring the 20-foot rear setback under current regulations the right-of-way setback is 20 feet and rear setback is 15 feet reversing the original 15-foot yard front yard setback and 20-foot rear yard setback of our four zoning setbacks in essence the placement of the mobile home is where the development was planned when the mobile home subdivision was planted in 1972 the 10 by 20-foot screen room will be five feet from the southern property boundary within the 15-foot primary structure rear setback the shed is eight by 12 feet and is asking for a two-foot reduction to the west and a seven-foot reduction to the south staff recommends approval both structures are located within the rear and side yard of the existing opaque with the existing opaque fence surrounding the property on three sides because of the size and setbacks within the residential suburban development on site is limited to what exists today any further development or expansion on site will require relief from the rs setbacks and with that i will stand for questions the rs zoning or land use district this lot is would not meet the requirements standalone correct correct can you pull up uh the aerial that shows the adjoining lots was it was that mobile home subdivision actually built out or were partially built out because i'm not seeing neighboring structures on you're referring to these yes i'd imagine those were lots that were within the plat correct i mean if they wouldn't have had two or three it just would be antiquated and you'd vacate the plat yeah so it's supposed to be a five acre lot in rs district or land use designated district and you have a lot that's 0.10 acres correct correct which makes it almost impossible to do anything on the lot without some form of variance that is correct yes okay thank you i'm going to see if the applicant is in attendance please come and state your name and address for the record samuel salmeron 34 sanse circle do you have any evidence or testimony you'd like to present for the record no okay thank you very much i'll be opening the public hearing is there anyone here to speak on behalf or in opposition of the case at issue seeing none close public hearing the staff have any closing remarks or any further comments no sir thank you eric i've noticed you always get the last case is that by design i only have to get up once ldl var 2026-11 ldl var 2026-11 the willow drive adu maximo castizo castizo hernandez is requesting an accessory dwelling unit adu larger than 1 000 square feet and a rear setback variance for an accessory structure the property sits on approximately 15 045 square feet or 0.35 acres in the residential suburban district the property is located at 48 4082 willow drive north east of willow drive west north of willow drive south east of willow oak road north of state road 60 east of the town of mulberry in section 33 township 29 range 23 on april 9th 30 mailers were sent to area property owners uh one board was posted on the property on april 7th a legal ad was published in the bulk sun news on april 8th we've had no response from the public below oak is a nice community out on west of mulberry near the county line this is in a residential suburban district it's served by water but not waste water the surrounding land uses this is kind of the context this subdivision here is mostly single family however there are duplexes and a few actual triplexes along the periphery here of the plat on these lots and some of these lots through here the applicant uh constructed a detached garage several years ago it's shown here on the 2023 aerial photo and has recently desired to turn it into a dwelling unit however the detached garage is above the thousand square feet uh it's not likely that he's using the entire structure for the residents however from a building permit standpoint we can't you know once we've permitted it it's it's all one structure so it falls above the thousand square foot it's 1200 square feet falls above the thousand square foot limit uh it'll be it'll be required to pay full impact fees as if it was a another unit in the subdivision but based under testimony uh a portion of that more likely than not will be used for a purpose that is not an adu it could be for storage or it could be for something else yes yes i believe he said his his washroom is in one portion and there's some storage and for purposes of those percentages or those proportions uh in our land development code it would be an accessory dwelling unit that would be the livable space when you're looking at the thousand feet or no we have for building permit when when you do permit an adu you have to assume the whole thing is being used just just because they're not using a portion of it now it doesn't mean they can't use it later after the permits have been issued so we have to because it's a 1200 square foot structure and it's an accessory dwelling unit we assess the full impact fees and it goes above our thousand foot threshold which is the same line that we determined the residential structure as you'll see in the staff report is one of the largest in in the surrounding area it's it's purely subordinate in size to the main structure but it is above a thousand square feet but only by 20 percent uh when the survey was conducted for the the accessory structure it was just actually a half a foot off and normally we wouldn't we would just assume that to be within the tolerance but um it's shown here so just to clean it up we threw in the reference to the setback variants as well that could be done administratively if it were yes yeah i guess typically we would but just to clear it up so it's all clean on the on the variant or on the uh record uh we we uh put it in there uh this is the primary dwelling here this is the neighbor's house neighbor's shed looking from the front yard looking from the backyard as you see the the the uh the what once was a garage has been uh converted to more of a living style uh dwelling and this is looking from the neighbor to the north back from their property as you can see both neighbors have have accessory structures close to the property line that's not uncommon in this neighborhood and then here's looking from the north side within the the fence originally in 2018 there was some construction done without a permit but in 2024 when they were looking to actually perform the construction on this uh conversion located in the rear portion of the yard they came in with the permit and all the required documentation that's when they realized hey we have a small issue here yes so staff finds that because of the the minimal amount it's just just 20 percent over the threshold uh and and even the the setback variance is not something we would commonly mention other than to recognize since it's it states there on the survey uh 9.6 inches uh we we recommend uh approval because it's not going to be detrimental to the public welfare or area involved uh you know if the residence is or if the variance is not granted the the owner homeowner is going to have to reduce the size of the structure and that could be rather difficult so we think the the public benefit versus the the uh um the hardship upon the applicant is it doesn't doesn't balance out so you know from since it's such a minimal uh request we recommend approval because the the hardship to the applicant of tearing it down and starting all over again would be a little bit more and for what uh public benefit was there a permit pulled and approved for the construction of the adu uh well yes uh they they have pulled that permit and that's how it came to us yeah okay there was some debate on whether they could only use a portion but that that uh from our from both our threshold and our impact fee standpoint we have to go with the full full uh size of the the structure i understand thank you very much is the applicant in attendance would you please come up and state your name and address for the record good afternoon my name is erica castizo 4882 north willow drive mulberry florida do you have any evidence or testimony you'd like to present for the record no thank you very much i will open the public hearing portion of for this case um is there anyone here to speak on behalf or in opposition of the case at issue i see i have one request to speak i think that is sean jones please state your name and address for the record on jones 4072 north willow drive mulberry florida 33860 uh i ain't got nothing against the family but they built the family but they built the house they added on the back of the main house and according if you've seen the pictures 80 of the backyard is all in concrete this was done without permits possibly two two and a half years ago when they finished i left to go play golf one saturday morning they were dropping the house blocks off when i left i come home that afternoon and the whole block house was built minus the roof it was not built for a garage it was built as you've seen it in the pictures as a dwelling i have nothing against the family i mean our kids have played with our kids as when they moved in but this is an issue speaking for myself and two other neighbors that are working right now and couldn't be here so your opposition is that it was built without a permit and so they everything back there if you zoom in on the property the existing dwelling attachment it was not built for a garage you can see that the truck sitting there would not fit through that opening that is like a double house door so a vehicle would not fit in there i was saying that when it was a slab it was not built for a dwelling i mean for a garage it was built for dwelling from the get go you have any further testimony pardon anything else you'd like to add to the record thank you very much is there anyone else i'd like to speak on behalf or an opposition seeing none i'll close public hearing uh does staff have any closing remarks or comments no sir i just want to clarify in 2024 a permit was requested and then what i would imagine is based on whatever conversion was being requested for the use of the structure not for the construction but for the use of the structure you realize that there was an issue with the overall square footage of what had been constructed so i guess this was originally based on the testimony i've received today originally planned for a garage then it was converted and it was expanded yes that is our understanding well it was yes it was originally permitted for a garage and the expanded to to turn it into living space i have no other matters for today's proceedings therefore at 2 36 p.m unless anyone has something to say otherwise we are adjourned