May 28, 2026, Land Use Officer Hearing Meeting. There's agendas in the back for everyone to look at. There's also forms for you to fill out if you want to speak during the meeting for your case. My name is Jan McDonald. I'm an attorney in Polk County. I've been practicing since 1979. I've been appointed by the Board of County Commissioners to be a Land Use Hearing Officer to hear variants and special exception cases. I've reviewed the cases prior to today, and I don't believe I have a conflict with any of the participants or any of the people listed in the cases. During this meeting, and I just did this myself a few minutes ago, please put all cell phones on mute or off or vibrate or whatever one does. The cases will be called in order of the agenda unless there's a request to be taken out of order. The hearings are quasi-judicial, which means they require due process, and the decisions that I make will be based on competent, substantial evidence presented during the hearings. The county staff will present county's review and recommendation on the case, and then the applicant will present any additional information they would like to provide. After the applicant has concluded their presentations, I will open up the hearing for public comment. This is the public's opportunity to provide information and express their opinions on the application. If any questions come up during the presentation, you can ask them during that time. 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 that you raised during your comments and try to have them answered at the conclusion of public comment. When it is your turn to speak, either for the case or against the case, please state your name and address for the record. These proceedings are recorded, and it is important that you speak into the microphone to ensure that we get an accurate reading. So please speak clearly and slowly. After public comment closes, the applicant and the county will be given an opportunity to answer questions or reply to comments that have been made during public comment. They will also be able to make closing remarks. The hearing will close for each case following the concluding statements of the parties. My decision will not be given today. It will be a written order within 14 days of today. I will do my best to get it done earlier, and if you would like a copy of my decision, please fill out the form on the back table and provide it to the clerk. For the record, I have received no ex parte communications. That means no one's contacted me about these cases. If you need an interpreter, please ask, and an interpreter will provide it with you. At this time, we'd like to ask anyone who thinks they may speak, could speak, might want to speak, to stand up and raise their right hand, and the clerk will swear you all in. If you're going to address the land use hearing officer on any case today, please stand and raise your right hand and answer out loud to the following question. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you provide today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Peterson, can we proceed with the first case? Oh, one thing. Sorry. Could we—I'd like to approve the meeting notes and agenda notes from the March hearing, land use hearing. I believe they're in order. I reviewed them. That's it. We have old business to announce, in case you didn't notice by the overhead. LDL SE 2025-14 has been withdrawn by the applicant, and LDL VAR 2026-2 has been continued to the June 25th hearing officer hearing. Thank you. For new business, LDL VAR 2026-14, Carol Thompson is requesting a variance to reduce the right-of-way setback from 65 feet to 19 feet for a new addition to a veterinary clinic on 2.2 acres in a commercial enclave district. The property is located at 3631 East Highway 60, east of Capps Road, west of Worth Road, east of the City of Lake Wales, and Section 4, Township 30, Range 28. On May 11th, 19 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on May 8th, and a legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on May 13th. So far, we've received no response from the public. Aaliyah Ngleema is the case planner. Good afternoon. Aaliyah Ngleema with Land Development, presenting LDL VAR 2026-14, the Thompson Veterinary Center variance. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the right-of-way setback from 65 feet to 19 feet for a new addition to a veterinary clinic. The subject site is located at 3631 East Highway 60, east of Capps Road, west of Worth Road, east of the City of Lake Wales, and Section 4, Township 30, Range 28. The site is approximately 2.2 acres, located within a residential suburban and commercial enclave future land use district and in the suburban development area. The property was established prior to the Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. The property appraiser shows that the veterinary clinic and single-family residents have been there since the 1950s, making it a grandfathered use. While the property is grandfathered, any new structures would have to meet the 50-foot compatibility buffer against the residential land use district to the west and the setbacks from State Road 60, creating a hardship on the property. The use on the RS to the west is a non-residential lodge. The Thompsons have owned the property since 2001, and the reason for the variance is to add a new waiting room for the veterinary office. They mention that the current waiting room is not large, as they have seen an increase in clients. There is no room to expand the waiting room within the current footprint without losing exam rooms. To accommodate the clients, they would like to create a new waiting room so clients do not have to sit outside in the Florida weather waiting for their appointment. And here are photos from my site visit. And whether special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land structure or building involved, which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the applicable land use district, is the position of the primary structure along with the 50-foot compatibility buffer next door to the non-residential use. Since the parcel was established prior to the comprehensive plan and land development code, the law's configuration and limited death make it difficult to accommodate additional structures in compliance with the current setback requirements. And I'll stand for any questions. Thank you. I have no questions. Are Carol Thompson and Richard Bryan Thompson here? And do they wish to speak? Could you come forward, please? Can you state your name and address for the record, please? Richard Bryan Thompson, 3631 State Road, 60 East Lake Wales, Florida, 33898. And Carol Thompson, the same address. Do you want to make any statements to me or the planners? Basically, we've just, like she said, we've run out of room. You guys are building so many houses around us, which is good on one hand, but not so great on the other. We have lost, we just, you show up with a kid and two dogs and we're out of room in our waiting room. Okay. So we don't want people walking along Route 60, which they are doing now, or walking down Worth Road with their animals while they wait for an appointment. So this is really our only option. So that was this, was this Dr. Yoder's? No, Dr. Haramey. John Haramey. Okay. We bought it in 2001. Okay. I have a gypsy banner, so that's my own, one of my flaws in life. I have, I collect horses. Beautiful though. Um, I have no further questions. Does the planner have any questions? No, ma'am. Okay. I'm going to, um, open this to the public. If the public has any comment, either for or against this. Seeing none, I'm going to close the hearing and you will be in the con. The planner will send you an order, um, probably by email, uh, before 14 days. Okay. Does that mean we get to do what we need to do? No, no, it means, no, it means you need to wait for the order. Okay. And then you get to do what you want to do. Okay. Well, I'm just curious where we stand at this point. It's okay. It's just, we took evidence. Um, so I'm going to basically go home, um, in a couple of days, sit down at my computer and write an order. I email it to them and they email it out. And once you get it, you can start. Okay. My, I guess my question is three months ago. What? No, I'm not going to take a whole lot of time. Okay. But I just, the people that are, want to build the building for us are on my back. Going. It's been three months. It's been three months. What do we, can I tell them that we need to wait 14 more days? Is that what? The latest would be 14 more days. I will do my very best to get it to everyone here as soon as possible. Okay. No, you know, just my family, my cat and my dog, two cats and one dog are the only thing that I'm responsible for at this point in my life. Someone cares for the horse and I will get it to you as soon as I can. Okay. Yeah. I'm not asking for you to rush. I'm just. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes the hearing. Are you ready for our next case? Yes. Our next case is LDL VAR 2026-15. Lori Hedges is requesting a primary structure rear setback reduction from 10 feet to five feet to construct a screen room enclosure with solid roof. The property is 0.11 acres in a utility enclave area of the Pointeana pre-development of regional impact, PUD 9812, known as Solavita. The subject property is located at 1843 Pelican Hill Way, north of Shady Canyon Way, south of Cypress Parkway, east of Harbor Ridge Drive, west of San Clemente Avenue, east of Hane City, and section 16, township 27, range 28. Twenty-five mailers were sent to area property owners on May 11th. One board was posted on the property on May 8th, and a legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on May 13th. We've received no response from the public. Kyle Rogus is the case planner. Good afternoon. Kyle Rogus with Land Development, presenting LDL VAR 2026-15, the Hedges Solavita Phase 7D variants. The applicant is requesting a primary structure rear setback reduction from 10 feet to 5 feet to construct an enclosure with a solid roof on approximately 0.11 acres within a residential neighborhood. The subject site is located at 1843 Pelican Hill Way, north of Shady Canyon Way. South of Cypress Parkway, east of Harbor Ridge Drive, west of San Clemente Avenue, east of Hane City, and section 16, township 27, range 28. Property is located in the Poinciana pre-development of regional impact, planned unit development, PUD 9812, Solavita Phase 7D subdivision in the utility enclave area. Within the Solavita Phase 7D subdivision, there have been numerous permits for extended screen enclosures to the rear of the property. Many utilize the screen roof, not requiring a variance request for a setback reduction. However, others request to construct the solid roof, therefore requiring additional approval as seen in blue. The owner purchased the subject site in April of 2018. It is located on the exterior of the development with road frontage off Pelican Hill Way, a private roadway. To the north and south of the subject site are similar-sized lots and single-family housing. This will not be the first covered lanai near the neighboring properties. The abutting lot to the north, designated as Lot 40, underwent a similar request for a Category 3 sunroom to be placed over the existing concrete patio, variance VAR 15-90, and later in an extension under case file LDL VAR 2022-10. To the west of the property backs up to open space tract LD-7, landscape and signage, and a conservation tract, tract C2G, seeking rear yard setback relief when abutting common areas has become a commonplace throughout this development. Each lot within the Solovita subdivision has a 5-foot side and rear utility easement, along with a 10-foot utility easement along the front property lines. The proposed structure will stay outside of any noted easement except for a 1-foot overhang. The existing home on site was constructed in 2008 and met the primary structure setbacks of 10-feet front, 5-feet side, and 10-feet rear, under Building Permit No. 98823. Permit No. 98823 was approved within a lanai encompassing the southwest portion of the house. The applicant later filed for a Building Permit, BR-2026-1498, for the construction of a new Category 3 sunroom to expand off the lanai. Because the solid aluminum roof will be attached or connected to the principal structure, the newly proposed Category 3 sunroom under Building Permit 2026-1498 requires a variance to reduce the primary structure's rear setback from 10-feet to 5-feet. And this expansion is minimal relative to the structure. It will not limit the neighbor's peripheral view of the open space. A screen enclosure already exists. Therefore, the request to provide full roof coverage will have little to no effect on the two immediate neighbors to the north and south. And in these slides, you can just see this is the existing Category 3 sunroom. So while it may be slightly misleading with these existing screen here, this is what it will be resembling ultimately. And that's just the property to the north again, lot 40. Staff recommends approval. The existing home on the subject site was constructed in 2008 and met the primary structure setbacks. This expansion is minimal relative to the structure. Like I said again, a screen enclosure already exists in seeking the rear yard setback relief when abutting common areas has become a common place throughout this development. And with that, I will stand for questions. I have no questions. I would just like to thank you for putting in Table 1, the chart showing all the variances that have been granted in this subdivision. It makes it much easier. Quite extensive. Do we have Lori and Donald? Thank you. I didn't want to ruin your name. He did a very good job for us. Yeah. We have nothing else to add. He covered everything. I mean, it's already there. So we're just taking the screen down and putting the glass up. Can you state your name and address for the record? That's all. Donald Haggadis. 1843. 1843 Pelican Hillway. Lori Haggadis, 1843 Pelican Hillway. Do you have anything to say? No, he covered everything he had to say. I'd like to open up the hearing for public comment. If there's any public comment, seeing none, I will close the hearing. And I will try to get the orders to you as soon as, order to you as soon as possible. And that will come through Kyle. Yeah. And thank you, Kyle. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next case is LDL VAR 2026-17. Adam Smith is requesting a primary structure right-of-way setback from 25 feet to 15 feet for a single-family home. The property is 0.16 acres located in the Poinciana Pre-Development of Regional Impact, known as DRI No. 1. But this is in PUD 7110, Poinciana property proper, neighborhood 5, village 7. The property is located at 1946 Manatee Court, north of Pacific Road, south of Hemlock Avenue, east of Manitoba Court, west of Flounder Road, east of Haynes City, and Section 3, Township 28, Range 28. Thirty-three mailers were sent to area property owners on May 11th. One board was posted on the property on May 8th. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on May 13th. Kyle Rogus is the case planner. Good afternoon again. Kyle Rogus with Land Development, presenting LDL VAR 2026-17, the 1946 Manatee Court variance. The applicant is requesting a primary structure right-of-way setback from 25 feet to 15 feet for a single-family home. The subject property is located at 1946 Manatee Court, north of Pacific Road, south of Hemlock Avenue, east of Manitoba Court, west of Flounder Road, east of Haynes City, and Section 3, Township 28, Range 28. The property is located in the Poinciana Pre-Development of Regional Impact No. 1 Planned Unit Development, PUD 7110, neighborhood 5, village 7, in the utility enclave area. PUD 7110 was approved for 25-foot right-of-way, 7.5-foot side yard, and 20-foot rear yard setbacks. If this site was not located within the Poinciana PUD 7110, the site would be designated under the Residential Low 4 Land Use District. RL 4 requires 15-foot right-of-way, 7-foot side, and 10-foot rear yard setbacks. So, therefore, if the development were to come under the Residential Low 4 District regulations, this application would not be required. The proposed house will not be injurious to the area involved. To the north of the property, designated as Lot 8, Block 1138, is a similar-sized and shaped lot that has been developed with a single-family home. Access on the neighboring site to the north comes off Manatee Lane, requiring a 25-foot right-of-way and garage setback. Manatee Court is then considered a side road requiring a 15-foot right-of-way setback. The house met all required PUD setbacks, therefore no variance was required. This applicant is requesting a primary structure right-of-way setback reduction from 25 feet to 15 feet, staying consistent with the setback of the house to the north. And it's important to note that the majority of the home will meet the 25-foot setback. However, the curvilinear nature of the road creates a choke point requiring a setback reduction from 25 feet to 15 feet at the nearest point. The garage will meet the 25-foot setback as there is no variance to this requirement. The proposed structure will stay outside any noted easements, and staff recommends approval. The abutting property to the north, designated as Lot 8, was approved for a single-family home within 25 feet of Manatee Court right-of-way. The structure will remain outside all utility easements. With that, I will stand for questions. I have no questions at this time. Do we have either Adam Smith or the requesters, Mr. and Mrs. Meg Buena? I am Adam Smith, 10192 Dowden Road, Orlando. I have nothing to add. I'm just here to answer any questions. And what's your relationship? You're the builder? I work for D.R. Horton, yes. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone here who has public comment or questions for either Mr. Rogus or Mr. Smith concerning this parcel and the information that have been put on the record? Seeing no one, I will close the meeting and tell you that within 14 days or sooner, you'll get an order. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Our next case is LDLVAR 2026-20. Vicki Samus is requesting a side yard accessory setback reduction from 5 feet to 0 feet on approximately 0.71 acres on a residential low 3 property. The subject site is located at 1508 Lake Rochelle Drive, north and west of State Road 544, known as Lucerne Park Road, east of U.S. Highway 17, south of Lake Rochelle, north of the city of Winter Haven and Section 9, Township 28, Range 26. On May 11, 31 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on May 8th. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on May 13th. We've had no response from the public. Andrew Grahowski is the case planner. Good afternoon. Andrew Grahowski with Land Development presenting LDLVAR 2026-20, the Samus variance. The applicant requests an accessory structure side setback reduction from 5 feet to 0 feet on the western property boundary for the construction of an 80-square-foot accessory structure on their residential property. Staff is recommending approval. The subject property is located between Lake Rochelle and Lake Conine, surrounded by the city limits of Winter Haven and Lake Alfred. The property is an enclave of the Residential Low 3 Future Land Use District, surrounded by the city of Winter Haven. The site is considered Lot 8 of the Rochelle Gardens Residential Platte, recorded in 1955. According to Section 205, Table 2.2 of the LDC, accessory structure setbacks in the RL3 district are 5 feet on the side and rear. The neighborhood and surrounding area are between Lake Rochelle and Lake Conine. The site is about 0.71 acres and has waterfront access to Lake Rochelle, with the banks of Lake Conine about 580 feet to the southeast. The site was created in the 1950s, prior to the county's first zoning ordinance, and is considered a legal lot of record. It remained vacant for over six decades, up until 2013, when the applicant purchased the property through a warranty deed and constructed a single-family residence in 2016, according to the PA. According to Platte Book 38, page 49 of the Platte subdivision, a 25-foot drainage easement, outlined in pink, abuts the subject site's western property line. This easement is actively maintained by the county and has an 18-inch diameter stormwater pipe. This pipe provides drainage for the entire neighborhood, and water outfalls into Lake Rochelle to the north. Based on the submitted plans, the request asks for a 5-foot side setback reduction to 0 feet for an 8-foot by 10-foot shed. This shed will be located along the western property line, behind an existing 6-foot-tall vinyl fence. The structure will not be located in the front yard, per LDC Section 209, and will not encroach upon the drainage easement, nor the 5-foot rear accessory structure setback. According to the applicant, this 80-square-foot shed will be used for personal storage, and has stated that the side yard is the best location that suits their needs. Here are some photos from staff's site visits submitted into the record. The proposed shed location is outlined in red, and is the approximate location. The existing shed, I was told, will be removed. And here's just an outline of the drainage easement to the west, in pink. Staff recommends approval of this request. The site will not be injurious to the area, and not encroach upon the 25-foot wide easement. Furthermore, the shed size is rather benign in nature, and will be screened by an existing 6-foot-tall fence, negating any off-site visibility concerns. And with that, I thank you and stand for questions. I have no questions. Are Mr. and Mrs. Samus here? Mrs. Samus, thank you. I'm Vicki Samus, 1508 South Lake Rochelle Drive, Winter Haven. My little shed is, at the point, is 8-foot tall, so a peak of it would show over the fence, of the 6-foot-high fence. So it's little. I just need it to get my garage back. Okay. But that's all. Is there anyone who wants to speak at the public hearing, or has any additional information, either for or against, granting of this variance? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the hearing. And, Ms. Samus, you'll be getting an order from me through Land Development Department within 14 days. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you for coming. Our next case is LDLVAR 2026-23. Ricardo Jimenez is requesting a variance to reduce the right-of-way setback from 35 feet to 15 feet for a new dental office on 1.7 acres in a residential low 1 district. The property is located north of Shepard Road, east of Shepard Oaks Drive, west of Old 37, northwest of the city of Mulberry, and Section 23, Township 29, Range 23. Twenty-nine mailers were sent to area property owners on May 11th. One board was posted on the property on May 8th. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on May 13th. On May 13th, we received no response from the public. Aaliyah Englema is the case planner. Good afternoon. Aaliyah Englema with Land Development, presenting LDLVAR 2026-23, the Shepard Road variance. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the right-of-way setback from 35 feet to 15 feet for a new dental office. The subject site is located north of Shepard Road, east of Shepard Oaks Drive, west of Old Highway 37, and northwest of the city of Mulberry in Section 23, Township 29, Range 23. The site is partially in 1.7 acres within a residential low 1 feature land use district and in the transit supportive development area. The property was established prior to the Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. It is part of PUD 8317, which allows the property to have commercial C-1 uses. The property has always been vacant and never developed. There is limited space to add a new office within the current footprint without a variance due to the private roadway going through the parcel, wetlands, a curb inlet, and a new lift station being placed by Polk County Utilities. The variance will allow the new office to stay out of those wetlands and allow Polk County Utilities to provide that new lift station. So whether special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land structure or building involved, which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings, is that the property has physical limitations such as wetlands and the building needs to stay out of, and there is a curb inlet to the west, and Polk County Utilities has a new lift station easement taking up a portion of the property. And I'll stand for any questions. I have no questions. The applicant is Ricardo Jimenez. Mr. Jimenez? Good afternoon. I'm Ricardo Jimenez with Downtown Engineering, 502 East Main Street, Lakeland, Florida, 33801. Do you have anything you'd like to say? So, yeah, to be very brief, basically, as mentioned, this mainly came because of the coordination with Polk County Utilities and facilitating them being able to relocate and add the new lift station. So, yeah, hope that this satisfies all your requirements. Thank you. And what engineering firm are you with? Downtown Engineering in Lakeland. Is there anyone present who wants to speak in favor of or against this variance? Could you come up and state your name, please, and address? Good afternoon. My name is Richard Myers. I live at 6834 Palomino Drive, which is behind that. The subdivision behind it. My biggest question is, two years ago, during the hurricanes, that whole area was flooded. A river basically runs behind all of our houses in the enclave I live in, stretching back down Old County 37 to Yule Road. And the water flowed through that area and across the street to the lake or pond right across the street. Has any of that been addressed? Would the planner like to speak to that first, and then we'll have Mr. Jimenez speak? That is a level two. That will be addressed in level two, but that is why there's a curb inlet to the west of the property, as you can see down here on the south. And this is where all the water flows and that there are wetlands, which they are staying completely out of. When you say level two for the people in the audience, can you tell us, although I know, what a level two is, please? It's an engineered site plan review. So it's reviewed by engineering, fire, planning, and we all make sure that it meets the requirements of the code. Okay. Do you have any thing to say, Mr. Jimenez, about Mr. Myers' statements? So I can add to that that there were definitely concerns with water management. We have been going back and forth since we started this process with the, since we proposed the development. We are very close to obtaining the approval from the water management district. They have very minor concerns at this point. So basically, everything should be addressed on that portion. We have looked at the flooding, wetland levels, and all that will be addressed. And we are already in that level two process. So the county does have a good portion of that information already, and we will be providing all the permits and everything from the water management district as soon as we have them. And so you don't have permission yet from SwiftMUD? Or you do? We had to, with this new setback change, we resubmitted the set with these new plans. So we don't have the full approval yet, but we do have very, very high level of confidence that we're, we're getting that approval. Mr. Myers, do you have anything else to say? Yes. And yes, on any of those pictures, it does not show the two most recent buildings directly next to it, next to Apelousa Road, that have taken away some of the drainage. Okay. Can you say that again? Yes. As you're looking at this on the Shepherd Road frontage, to the right, there were two salons built recently in the last two years that took away some drainage. So this, this lot is below level for any of the houses that it's going to block for the drainage. There's an easement that's been running through there since forever for the utilities, which they did address. Do you have any response to that? Which structures are you referring to? There's two salons directly to the right of that property. When you say salons. They're large buildings for hairdressers. Oh, the Poshmark. Yes. Okay. Are you talking about to the west here? Yes. Again, that's, that's on a separate parcel. Um, and this, this, this curb inlet on their parcel is there to allow that flow of water and they will be completely staying out of that, that wetland and flood. So they will be on the high and dry side of their property. And they have a, how big is the curb outlet? Uh, I'll have to defer to the applicant. I, I, I don't, I don't have that answer. Okay. Cause that, again, that we had water almost up to our houses two years ago in that area behind us. That's a, it's a wetland and they are higher than where this building's being put. That is basically all of our concerns. And I apologize that I don't have any paperwork, but the lady that handled it passed away two days ago. So, Mr. Jimenez, would you like to address, um, any of his concerns? So, yeah, somebody wants to mention that I do completely understand. And at one point, because we, we have been in several hearings and different parts of the process before, um, our, our development at first was much bigger and was, uh, potentially covering up part of that wetland. But now, you know, we have really reduced our footprint. We are outside of the wetland. And so all the existing drainage areas should really be maintained as is today. And we are also, of course, uh, constructing, uh, a new retention system for our development. So that should offset. So your retention system will be on the parcel. Yes, we are, uh, have, uh, constructing an additional retention system in addition to what's already there today. Correct. Thank you. Um, I have, uh, the information that they asked for. The, the, uh, subject sites, uh, drainage inlet is 30 inches in diameter. The posh salon, uh, has its own drainage inlet that it's stormwater pond feeds, uh, outfalls too. And that's an 18 inch diameter pipe. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Anything else you'd like to say, Mr. Myers? We definitely need more medical staff in the area. So again, I have no qualms about this as long as it doesn't affect the other. I've, I've, I've dealt with FEMA and flooding too many times. Okay. So thank you for your time. Thank you for your patience. Thank you for coming. And good luck. Thank you. At this point, I'd close the hearing and we can progress to the last hearing. Thank you. Our next case is LDL VAR 2025-27. Julie Garigas is requesting an increase in the impervious surface ratio from the maximum permitted 0.60 in a suburban development area to 0.70 on about 2.74 acres of non-residential property. The subject site is 2.74 acres, uh, as, as mentioned in a business park center district. Uh, it is located off of industrial Boulevard, south and west of state road, 655 known as record highway, north of County road, 542 known as Kayville Avenue, uh, east of Taylor road, southeast of the city of Auburndale and section 23 township, 28 range 25 on May 11th, 20 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on May 8th. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun news on May 13th. So far we've received no, no response from the public. Andrew Gohowski is the case planner. Good afternoon. Um, just for the record, um, I did have one update to the staff report from the applicant. Um, the acreage does say 2.74 on the first page. Um, that's supposed to be corrected to, um, 1.07 acres. So I will get you an updated staff report to reflect that change. So Andrew Gohowski, uh, again, for the, from land development presenting LDL VAR 2026 dash 26. Um, this is a variance request to increase the impervious surface ratio from 0.6 ISR to 0.7 ISR, um, on an existing 10.73 acres of, um, non-residential property. Staff is recommending approval. So the property is, um, south of the city of Auburndale, off of Commercial Boulevard, and west of Rucker Highway. The site is located in the Business Park Center 2 land use designation in the suburban development area, also known as the SDA. So according to LDC Chapter 2, Table 2.2, the SDA and Business Park Center 2 allows up to 0.6 ISR. Um, the urban growth area, um, highlighted in pink to the east, um, is about 1,500 feet, um, to the northeast of the site. Um, development areas indicate where public investment should be allocated. Um, the public investment has come to this area, including water provided by the city of Auburndale. So, if the site was located in the UGA, um, or just 1,500 feet to the northeast, um, they can reach 0.7 ISR without the need of a variance. Um, so as you can see, this portion of warehousing in the SDA, um, is not dissimilar to the uses, um, east of Rucker Highway. Um, and, um, however, this area of commercial was left out when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1991. And, um, was, um, given SDA. As you can see, as I mentioned, warehousing and distribution facilities are located throughout the site since the early 1990s. Um, according to the property appraiser, the owners constructed a warehouse and distribution facility after the property was purchased in 2022. Uh, the lumber facility expanded, um, the existing 63,935 square foot warehouse with two additional 6,000 square foot buildings under LDNON 2022-81. Um, this increased the ISR to about 0.6. Um, any further impervious surface additions, um, would require variance approval. Um, so here's the site plan submitted for the record. And as you can see on the screen, um, the impervious surface that is proposed is hatched right here. Um, this is the entire site itself. It's about 10 acres. Um, as I previously mentioned, the site, um, is increasing the impervious surface by about 1.07 acres. Um, and that impervious surface, um, is gravel, um, for circulation, parking, and inventory storage. Um, according to LDC chapter 10, um, areas of stored materials in storage yards is considered impervious surface. Um, therefore, this expansion will increase the impervious surface ratio to, from 0.6 to 0.7. So here's just a 2025 satellite image. Um, the hatched area in blue is the approximate area of where this impervious surface will be expanded on the subject site. Um, the applicant has already submitted level two plans, um, for the proposal and has received, uh, Southwest Florida Water Management District approval for 0.7 ISR. Um, um, according to the applicant, this expansion to include more outdoor storage will not induce the need for additional drainage or stormwater updates. Um, stormwater runoff is currently discharged to an existing pond, which will still be maintained. Here's some site photos from staff site visit. This is the entrance of the property off of industrial boulevard. Here's just looking at, um, where the storage area and circulation area is for the site. As you can see, they're storing, um, lumber product on site. And the proposed expansion area, um, is shown on your screen, um, which is the grass area as it exists today. So staff is recommending approval. The request will not be interest to the area or detrimental to the public welfare. Um, the plants have already received swift mud approval for a higher, higher ISR and no offsite impacts to drainage or stormwater is anticipated. Um, this type of development is similar or less intense than most of the nearby warehousing developments nearby. And with that, I thank you and stand for questions. Thank you. Is there a, um, Ms. Gerguis, please? I hope I didn't mispronounce your name. Uh, Julia Gerguis. I'm here on behalf of the owner, property owner, and I'm from Atwell Engineering. We're taking care of this application. I have nothing else to say. He did great. Great. Is there any, anyone in the audience who wants to give information either in favor of or against granting of this variance? If so, could you come forward? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the, uh, public hearing and, uh, do you want anything to say? Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to close the public hearing and, uh, tell you that within 14 days you'll have an order. Thank you. Mr. Peterson, do you have anything else? No, that is all we have. At this time, I'll close the, uh, land use hearing for, um, May 28th, 2026. Thank you very much. Thank you.