I'm going to call to order the Polk County Land Use Hearing Officer hearings for this July 14th, 2026 at 1 30 p.m. Good afternoon. I am the Land Use Hearing Officer for today's hearings and or meeting. There are agendas for everyone on the back table. If anyone does not have an agenda for today's meeting, you'll be able to find that on the back table located in the back of the room underneath the clock. 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. My name is Seth Claytor, an attorney with the law firm of Boswell and Dunlap in Bartow, Florida. 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. I have reviewed each of the cases that will be heard here today and I do not believe there are any conflicts of interest. During the meeting, please put all cell phones, that includes mine, on silent so as not to disturb today's proceedings and or other communication devices on vibrate. An explanation of today's hearing 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. As of now, I have not received any requests for any of the cases to be taken out of turn. These hearings are quasi-judicial, which means they require due process of law 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 and or testimony they would like to provide. At that point, after the applicant has concluded their presentation, I will open the hearing up for public comment. Each member of the public will have three minutes to present any testimony or evidence for consideration. Following receiving public comment, I will close public comment, reopen the public hearing. At that point in time, I will not permit any further public comment on the particular case. So if you have a comment or you have evidence or testimony to present, please make sure you do that during public comment and abide by the three-minute restriction. This is the public's opportunity to provide information and 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 raised 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 and a record. 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 public comment. They will also be able to make concluding statements. Their 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, that's calendar days, of today's date. I will do my best to complete them sooner. Again, if you would like a copy of my decision, please fill out the form on the back table and provide it to the clerk. 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. Does anyone need an interpreter? Anyone in the audience that intends to speak require the services of an interpreter. Seeing none, there's no need to let the clerk know then, but if someone does need an interpreter or those services, please let the clerk know and county staff will try to arrange an interpreter for you. Swearing in, all testimony today must 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 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 June 25th, 2026 land use hearing officer hearing date. We can show those minutes as being accepted subject to certain minor revisions. I have reviewed those with the clerk, and that would be a conditional approval of those minutes subject to those changes. Okay. All right. So the first case on our agenda is LDL VAR-2026-16 Lake Ready Boulevard variants. Eric Peterson for the Land Development Division. LDL VAR-2026-16 Gary Roberts is requesting a variance to reduce the rear surface water setback from 50 feet to 30 feet for an existing shed on 0.67 acres in an agricultural residential rural district. The property is located at 2235 North Lake Ready Boulevard, west of Blue Jordan Road, south of County Road 630, east of the City of Frostproof, in section 26, township 31, range 28. On July 30th, 22 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on June 23rd. That was June 30th, the 22 mailers. June 23rd, the one board posted, and a legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on June 26th. So far, we've had no response from the public. Aaliyah Englema is the case planner. Good afternoon. Aaliyah Englema with Land Development presenting LDL VAR-2026-16, the Lake Ready Boulevard variants. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the rear surface water setback from 50 feet to 30 feet for an existing shed. The subject site is at 2235 North Lake Ready Boulevard, west of Blue Jordan Road, south of County Road 630, and east of the City of Frostproof. The site is approximately 0.67 acres, located within an agricultural residential rural future land use district and in the rural development area. The applicant purchased the property in 2016 and shortly after constructed the shed in 2017 without obtaining a building permit. The shed serves as an extension to an existing garage structure and is used primarily for storage in the southwest portion of the property, all the properties within the 100-year flood zone. Because the property is less than five acres, section 208E of the Land Development Code allows non-conforming lots to utilize the setback requirements of the land use district with the equivalent minimum lot size. Based on the size of the subject property, the equivalent land use district is residential low 2, which requires a five-foot side setback for accessory structures. The existing shed complies with this requirement. However, the variance is to reduce that surface water setback from 50 feet to 30 feet. So the structure has existed since 2017 without any complaints from the neighbor. The applicant's shed does not obstruct the view of the lake because the neighbor's shed also occupies the view space. And the neighbor's shed was also built closer to the shoreline within the surface water setback prior to the applicant's shed. So 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. And the land use district is because the applicant's parcel is 0.67 acres, making it smaller than a typical five-acre lot size within the ARR district. The neighbor's property also has an accessory structure at the same distance from the property line. The variance will not confer the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the provisions of this code because the neighbor has a shed and the surface water setback as well. And I'll stand for any questions. Thank you. So there's still pending code enforcement proceedings? Correct. On this variance. Is the applicant in attendance? Would you like to come up, state your name and address for the record and provide any testimony or evidence for the record? My name's Gary Roberts. And your address, sir? 2235 North Lake Reedy Boulevard, Frostproof. And is there anything aside from what was presented by staff that you'd like to present for consideration? No, sir. I think they've got it down what I need. Thank you. All right. I'm going to open for public comment. Is there anyone that would like to speak on behalf of the applicant or in opposition of the request before me for consideration? Seeing none, I'm going to close public comment. Are there any closing statements from staff? No, sir. Thank you. Case number two, LDLVAR-2026-21, Sundeen Variants. LDLVAR-2026-21. Eric Langston, on behalf of David and Dawn Sundeen, is requesting a variance to construct a pole barn that has a square footage greater than 150% of the primary residents in the ARR Land Use District on 1.18 acres. The property is located at 5619 Highway 60 East, west of 80-foot Road, north of Wells Road, west of Hankin Road, south and east of the City of Bartow in Section 6, Township 30, Range 26. On June 30th, 20 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on June 25th. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on June 26th. Presenting for staff is Kyle Rogas, on behalf of our intern and our former planner, Andrew Krohowski. Good morning. Kyle Rogas with Land Development, presenting LDLVAR-2026-21, the Sundeen Pole Barn Variants. The applicant is requesting a 6,000-square-footage accessory structure to be 443% larger than the primary structure in the Agricultural Residential Rural Land Use District on approximately 1.18 acres. The subject site is located at 5619 Highway 60, west of 80-foot Road, north of Wells Road, west of Hankin Road, south and east of the City of Bartow in Section 6, Township 30, Range 26. The property is located in the Agricultural Residential Rural Land Use District in the rural development area and is approximately 1.18 acres. The owner purchased the property in June 2024, according to Polk County Property Appraisers' website. The home was built between 1990 and 1995 at 1,104 square feet. The proposed accessory garage structure will be 6,000 square feet, which is 543% larger than the primary structure. There are other accessory structures slightly below 1,000 square feet in the area and one 60,984-square-foot commercial building to the east of the subject property. The commercial building to the east is used for commercial purposes and outside storage. This shed will provide a smooth transition of intensity from the eastward commercial activity to the single-family residence to the west. The accessory structure will be located to the south of primary structure. The accessory structure will be approximately 189 feet from the north edge of the property line and will be 40 feet from the neighboring property line to the west. The closest residence to the proposed pole barn is 75 feet and separated by a thick line of trees. It will block some of the view of the heavy commercial property on the east side of the site. And here is the site plan submitted. Note the accessory structure will meet the setbacks for the Agricultural Residential Rural Land Use District. The accessory structure will be over 200 feet from Highway 60 east and 60 feet from the west property line. Staff recommends approval. The request will not block or limit the view of traffic off Highway 60, and the accessory structure will meet the setbacks in the Agricultural Residential Rural Land Use District. And with that, I will stand for questions. How do I spell your name? Kyle, K-Y-L-E, Rogus, R-O-G-U-S. What was the size of the accessory structure again? 6,000 square feet is what's being proposed. This is for residential storage? Yes, for personal storage. And I do want to just point out that within the staff report, there is a condition that limits the use of this pole barn for the storage for residential purposes. No commercial uses can be conducted as it will be outside. It's outside. It's an open pole barn. So the commercial use would be done outside, which is in violation of our home business occupations and state statutes. Thank you for that clarification. Is the applicant in attendance? Would you please come up and state your name and address for the record? Good afternoon. Eric Langston, 2304 Howell Road, Plant City, Florida. Is there any testimony or evidence that you'd like to present in addition to what was presented by staff? The only additional thing is it is a pole barn, but it is to be enclosed. The application is to be, the sides are to be, ends are enclosed. Is that consistent with the site plan as submitted? Yes, it's still not going to affect the site plan that's proposed in terms of setbacks, part of the request and the size. It just still kind of goes based off of that third condition that staff has, where it's still, regardless if it's open or enclosed, is limited to the storage for personal items, not for commercial business to be conducted on site or to be converted into an accessory dwelling unit or anything of that nature. And because the zoning for this particular property is? Agriculture, residential, rural. Agricultural, residential, rural. And you understand the recommendation and the conditions by staff? Yes, sir. And the property owners here also. Thank you very much. Thank you. I'm going to open for public comment. Is there anyone that would like to speak on behalf of or in opposition to the request that's before me for consideration? Seeing none, I'm going to close public comment. Are there any closing remarks or any testimony, closing testimony by staff? No, sir. Thank you. You can see we will have some public comment on this particular matter. So, all right. Next, I'm going to call case number three, LDL VAR 2026-29, Limedale Accessory Variants. LDL VAR 2026-29. Andrew Pring is requesting a 2,400-square-foot accessory structure to be 280 or 208 percent larger than the primary structure in a residential suburban land use district on approximately 1.15 acres in a residential suburban district. The subject property is located at 2111 Limedale Road, north of Interstate 4, south of Old Polk City Road, east of Walt Williams Road, west of Tomcow Road, north of the City of Lakeland, and Section 9, Township 27, Range 24. On June 30th, 24 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on June 25th. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on June 26th. So far, we've had no written or emails in response to the case. Kyle Rogas is the case planner. Was the property posted as well? Yes. The property was posted on June 25th. Good morning. Kyle Rogas with Land Development, presenting LDL VAR 2026-29, the Limedale Accessory Variance. The applicant is requesting a 2,400-square-foot accessory structure to be 208 percent larger than the primary structure in a residential suburban land use district on approximately 1.15 acres. The property is located at 2111 Limedale Road, north of Interstate 4, south of Old Polk City Road, east of Walt Williams Road, west of Tomcow Road, northwest of the City of Lakeland, and Section 9, Township 27, Range 24. The property is located in the residential suburban land use district in the suburban development area and is approximately 1.15 acres. The applicant purchased the property in 2012 when the home was built in at 1,152 square feet. The proposed accessory garage structure will be 2,400 square feet, which is 208 percent larger than the primary structure. The site is located at the end of the roadway abutting large undeveloped tracts of land within the City of Lakeland jurisdiction and conservation easements. There are other accessory structures above 2,000 square feet in the area. The property in blue has an accessory structure measuring approximately 2,180 square feet. While this lot is below the residential suburban minimum lot size of 5 acres, 1.15 acres provides ample space for a structure of this size. The accessory structure is set back significantly from Lindendale Road, and the property is located at the end of the roadway. Therefore, no vehicle traffic will be passing the property. The property is fully screened from off-site view by a combination of opaque fencing along the northern property boundary and dense vegetation along the remaining property boundaries. According to the applicant's site plan, the structure will be set back 48 feet from the north and 48 feet from the south, and then approximately 160 feet from the west property line. The nearest home is over 170 feet to the neighboring property to the north. The staff recommends approval. The location of the structure meets and exceeds the land development code requirements, and existing site conditions help mitigate any incompatibilities. If the property was 2 acres, through Section 209G, it allows accessory structures administratively to be permitted up to 2,000 square feet of the principal structure footage, which is 400 square feet less than what is being requested. Garages, unlike other accessory structures, are permitted in front yards, and with that, I will stand for questions. On the site plan, it identifies a pole barn, so this will be open storage? Yes, that is correct. Is the applicant in attendance? Can you please come up and state your name and address for the record? Andrew Prang. Your address, sir? 40 Limedale Road and 21. I own three properties right there. 21, 11 Limedale Road. Is there any evidence or testimony you'd like to present in addition to staff's presentation? Yes, I got some pictures of the property that shows how everything is set up out there and where everything lies. If you do provide those copies to... They can stay here. They will become part of the record. I just want to make sure. Would staff, please let me know, review those, let me know if you have any objection to those coming into the record? Would you rather have 8 by 10 or is this too much? This should be sufficient. Okay. And this one also. This is the existing pole barn. Does the staff have any objection? No, sir. Okay. If the property owner would please explain to me exactly what these pictures show. Okay. The first picture showed basically my property and then this picture shows the entire road where everything sits and how everything looks. So your property would be? The bottom right is there. And I own the one to the left, that property there. Conjoined, I own over two acres, 2.38 I think together. Okay. And also, I used to own the one directly above where the pole barn sits, that two-and-a-half-acre plot, and my son owns the two-and-a-half-acre plot above that. Yes, sir. So let the record reflect that the exhibit that's being shown right now identifies the subject parcel and what road is that there? This is... So that's a private easement. That's not a public right-of-way? Yeah, it's main... At the beginning where the... At the top where the limedale makes a 90-degree turn, it turns into a dirt road, and there are signs that show that county no longer maintains that. I've maintained that dirt road for 14 years since I've owned the property out there. There was one other depiction that was provided. I want the applicant to please explain to me what this is showing. Well, that shows the property in question with the pole barn. It shows my motor home and boat underneath it. There's no power, no water there. Like I said, it's just... It's open storage to protect my personal belongings. And that is your residential structure there? That's the livable structure, yes, sir. Is that gated access to the property? It's a double gate right there at the very end. And I have to... You have to... Excuse me. You know, time has not been kind to my vision. Is that a... Is that fencing there on your property? Is that opaque fencing, or is that... The gate is opaque. No, that's all brown extruded aluminum fencing. It's all privacy. It's owned by the property I used to own to the north. Okay. And is there any fencing between where that ends and I see... Because it looks like the drive leading in, you have a gate, and I see the fencing there. My property starts at the wood gate, the yellow gate, or the yellow fencing. The yellow fencing. Yes, sir. And that's consistent fencing from the gate all the way down the property line? Yes, sir. And along the... That would be northeast, south... The northwesterly portion of that property, is that fencing along the backside as well, behind the pole barn? No, that's a berm of wood on my property line. Okay. So, where my son lives, on the one picture that shows the whole road, and then the neighboring property that's right there that you can see the edge of it, I cleared both of those lots. They were fully wooded, and all that wood is sitting right back there as a berm to keep the cattle from coming in from the leasy that leases cattle beside us. And it also is a shooting range for us. Most everywhere in Florida now. Yes, sir. I've had officers out there shooting. Okay. Do you have any other testimony or evidence that you'd like to present? I'm going to admit both these depictions into the record as evidence. You can mark them as Exhibit A and B if you'd like, or however staff would like to label those exhibits. All right. The two people that are going to come up and talk to you in the audience are... One is an ex-employee of mine, very disgruntled. He lives on the road at the very beginning, and he's just... He's been after me. I run a... I do own a business. I have some business equipment, and we run up and down the road. We live down the road. We're allowed to operate. I've already checked into that. And he's just trying everything in his power since I laid him off in October last year. Let's not get into... A civil matter. Let's not get into those matters. I'll hear from anyone that submitted a card here or that would like to provide any testimony or evidence, and then I'll give you an opportunity to come back up and rebut any testimony. Okay. Thank you. All right. I am going to open the hearing for public comment. I do have cards here, so I'm going to go ahead and call these out in the order that I have them here. And then if there is any additional public comment from anyone in the audience or in attendance, they will have an opportunity to come up. Please remember that comment is limited to three minutes per person. First, I will ask Sarah. I do not want to mispronounce the last name, but at 8245 Cypress Trace Boulevard is Sarah. And will you please state your name and address for the record? Sarah Weichand, 8245 Cypress Trace Boulevard. Please start the timer. Oh, is there any way to timer? We don't have... We are going to spitball the best we can in three minutes. All right. Thank you, Sarah. I guess one question. I was under the impression from something I read or looked at recently, like a day or two ago, that this is going to be a commercial building for commercial storage. Is there a clarity for that? Or is it strictly private use? Private use. That's my first question, though, because maybe there will be some difference if there is. The application that I have in staff, correct me if I'm wrong, it shows that the accessory structure would be limited to storage of items associated with residential use of the property and no commercial use. Is that correct? Yes. It's part of the conditions of approval. It is condition number four at the very bottom of the page, where no home-based business or commercial uses shall be permitted to occur within the accessory structure. The structure shall not be used for an accessory dwelling unit as well as part of that condition of approval. And one of the key factors there is the fact that this is an open storage, correct? Correct. Because that would affect it to a certain degree. We live pretty close to the line of the Green Swamp, and I did prepare a statement. And I guess concern was that it's so close, a lot more activity will disturb the local environment. I'll read what I have, but at the time I was thinking it was going to be commercial for some reason, which was like, wow, no. We're here today to discuss a request for the first step in turning residents into a commercial zoned area. Okay? And now that's not going to happen. That's one thing. Okay? We just did not sign up for something that major in that area. But the current zoning was to protect the existing and future landowners from land uses that detract from the beauty and tranquility of the area that were there. So anything that would have stopped that would be not very acceptable to us or the neighborhood, probably. It said, currently, though, well, a significant feature of the current residential zoning in this area is for the protection of the adjacent Green Swamp Reserve from the congestion, noise, and pollution usage that would drive many of the natural residents, you know, the green that live there. You know, we do. We live there. We've been there since about 2012, and we've seen, like, sandhill cranes and the Florida wood storks and big great blues, arrogates, eagles, hawks, owls. All of them come, and they nest in all the trees in the area. So extra disruption closer to where the green swamp is can cause, we think, problems for the peaceful, for all the turtles and the deer and all the things that live there, ducks. But anyway, it could disrupt more than just our house because we're close. A couple other neighbors are very close. And I don't read the locals. I don't read the zoning or the things going on, and very few people do anymore, probably. We feel like that too much disruption in that area, if it's going to cause any extra ecological problems for the – it should not affect the green swamp is what I'm saying. Nothing should be built that will affect the green swamp, period. See here. Anyway. And it said, lacking a compelling reason to degrade the current protocol in that area, it should be denied. And I don't know that I have enough information on – it's not commercial – exactly where it's going to be. What are they going to be doing in that area? And are they – is there going to be a lot more disruptive things going on for what we call the – you know, the green swamp residents who are the animals and stuff? I appreciate your testimony, and you've raised some issues that I've noted here, and I will be following up with staff when it's time for rebuttal. So thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much. Next, I have Travis Hicks of 2220 Limedale Road. Mr. Hicks, if you'd still – if you would please state your name and address for the record. And upon doing that, I'm going to start the timer, okay? Travis Hicks, 2220 Limedale Road. Yes, we're here for both of the things that they're trying to do. On the big building, it says in the paper that it's going to be built, but it's already been built, built without a permit. All the wood that you see piled up in the back is wood that's came from different areas of what they do, the tree business. I have pictures of all the stuff of when they were clearing the lands. They burnt all the timber. So all that wood that's back there, that's all from different areas. But the main thing is the building that's already built, it's been built, so we don't want it there. They've had several parties out of it already, and that was his plan from the beginning, to have different parties to make more money for his retirement. It's caused – a lot of that stuff has caused the difference in the way the water flows. And, I mean, it's backing people's water up, the different stuff that they've done because of all the stuff they've done. So you're saying that the structure, the open-source structure, the way it was constructed has caused – No, that's not all the lumber. A superficial water flow? All the lumber that they put back there from different jobs that they've done, that's what's causing the difference in the water flow. And the lumber's been pushed back on – what do you call it? Waste – I can't remember what you call it right offhand. Soft – you're not supposed to touch it. It's land you're not supposed to touch. The only thing before today is the accessory structure for – there's a request for variance. So if there's any issues there, you can certainly file a complaint appropriately with code enforcement. They'll be able to look into that. But for purposes of today, it's primarily and only dealing with the variance requests for the accessory structure. Yeah, they're saying – well, that's what I was saying. They're saying it's being used for storage. It's being used for other people's storage. They bring trucks there and store them for however long or maybe their piece of equipment that needs to be worked on on top of having parties underneath there. Like I said, my wife has pictures of the parties they've had and stuff like that, and it's causing more traffic than everything else. That's the main thing. Is there anything else you'd like to add? That's it. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I apologize to everyone in advance if I don't pronounce your last name. It's because I only don't want to risk completely ruining it on the record. Next is Sabrina at 2303 Limedale Road. Sabrina, if you'd please state your name and address for the record, and then once you have done that, I'm going to start the timer here, okay? Sabrina Cruz, 2303 Limedale Road. Would you like to present any evidence or testimony for the record? Okay, so I received two notices in the mail, and the one I'm here about is the one for his commercial vehicle parking. That is not being heard today. That has been continued to our August Land Use Hearing Officer hearing. That will be heard in August. So if there's no testimony relevant to the variance request for the accessory structure. I might have something to say. The wood that he has piled up against the back fence line is blocking the flow of water to the swamp, and he says it's to keep the cows out. Mr. Rainey has replaced that fence, so there's no cows getting onto his property, and why would he be using that as a shooting range when there's animals there? Is there anything else you'd like to add? Yes, and the traffic that comes in and out, there's a posted speed limit sign of 25. When people leave his road, they are doing 70, 80 miles an hour when they hit the curve, and there's animals and children out there on that road. That's it. Next, I have Mary Ann, 2241 Limedale Road. I think that is correct, Mary Ann. Hi, it's Mary Ann Costanzo, 2241 Limedale Road. Really, the accessory building, I don't care about. We were here for the Dash 4, which was the commercial use. So if you can provide me with that August, if you have a date on that, that would be great. Absolutely. If it's not already posted online, I'm sure staff will be able to provide you with that information immediately following. Thank you. Carmine Costanzo. Oh, never mind. I believe it's the same situation where, yes, testimony was going to be provided for a matter that's going to be heard in August, so thank you very much. Janice Hicks at 2220 Limedale Road. Ms. Hicks, if you don't mind, say your name and address for the record, and as soon as you do that, I will start the timer on my end. Good afternoon. My name is Janice Hicks. I live at 2220 Limedale Road in Lakeland. I respectfully ask the board to deny this request for approval of a 2,400-square-foot accessory structure that is approximately 208% larger than the primary residence. Accessory structures are intended to be clearly subordinate to the principal dwelling in both size and function. In this case, the scale of the structure means it is no longer incidental to the home but instead dominates the property. This is inconsistent with the intent of residential suburban zoning, which is designed to maintain neighborhood character, scale, and compatibility. I also want to note that this structure has already been built prior to receiving approval. That raises a significant concern about process and compliance. Land use regulations exist so that impacts can be reviewed in advance, not after construction is completed. Approving an already built structure of this magnitude after the fact undermines the integrity of the permitting process and weakens the standards that are meant to apply equally to all property owners. If after-the-fact approvals are granted for structures that substantially exceed what zoning allows, it creates a precedence that may encourage others to bypass the approval process, assuming they can seek forgiveness rather than permission. This was the potential to erode consistency, fairness, and public trust in how zoning regulations are enforced. There are also concerns about precedence and cumulative impact. If a structure of this size is approved as an accessory use in a residential subdivision, it becomes more difficult to deny similar requests in the future, gradually altering the residential character that the zoning designation is meant to protect. This is not about preventing property improvements. It is about ensuring that development occurs in a way that is consistent with zoning standards and that all property owners are held to the same expectations. Again, we do have another one that we'll be attending in August. This is a property that a commercial business is being ran off of. Therefore, the building is not being used just for residential. It is being used to store commercial vehicles that, again, will be addressed at that hearing. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the board deny this application or require substantial modification to bring the structure into compliance with accessory use standards. Thank you for your time and consideration. The August hearing is August 27th at 1.30. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on behalf or in opposition of the request that's performing for consideration? Seeing none, I am going to close. Sorry? Yes. I'm going to close public comment. Are there any additional comments from the applicant? Address one more time. Andrew Pring, 2111 Limedale Road. So there was an issue with commercial vehicles, and they were code violated and moved off the property. So I do understand that part. Yes, the building was built. The persons that were talking about the parties out there, it was my children's wedding and a Christmas party that he attended. We used to be friends for over 14 years, and due to a firing because of, well, it was a layoff. It's caused all this. But, like I said, the only thing that we're waiting on now is the August one for the one truck that I would like to try to keep out there. Please understand that my order will be based on the facts, testimony, and evidence presented today, so I can't speak to the August hearings. Okay. I understand, and we'll be here in August for that. As far as I'd like to address where the pole barn sits, it doesn't hurt the nature or the green swamp area. It's just open land. It's right in the center of my property that, you know, I cleared when I bought it. On that issue, I'd ask staff, is this property specifically any part of the property located in the green swamp area, critical state concern? This property is located within the green swamp area, critical. So this order being a development order, will it not have to be sent to the Florida Department of Commerce for review? I believe Eric will do. Yes, yes. The building permit will be sent to the Florida Department of Commerce. The permit itself? Yes. The variance order would not need to be sent? No. No, it will not be. Not need to be, I believe. I just, I would defer to staff in my, in any order that I may or may not enter after I review the file again, would be subject to applicable Florida law in the event that it is a development order or development permit pursuant to Florida law. It would be subject to state level review, and I believe 45 days would need to be provided before any additional hearing, if that is the case. But I will defer to staff on that matter. I do want to point out that staff recognizes the code violation, CMA 2026-326, as part of the application referenced on page three of the staff report, as well as the existing permit that is in place currently, building permit BR 2026-2604, in response to that violation. So this is him coming into compliance with that request while needing the variance because it exceeds that 152,000 square foot limit. I'd like to add one more thing. So I do own two acres out there. If they were conjoined, I would be within the regulations of this. We wouldn't even have an ordinance meeting, to my knowledge. Also, the other thing is I can take this building and rip one section of metal out of the center, and it's 40 by 60 is the size. If I turned it into a 40 by 30 and a 40 by 30, I would be in compliance of the structure rule. Two accessory structures be permitted as a matter of right on the property? There's no limitations as to the number of accessory structures. It's more trying to meet that size where it stays subordinate and secondary to the primary residence of that. We could literally litter the property with structures as long as they fell within that 150% guideline. But this structure was built over three years ago, man. And so do you have any objection to the recommendation made by staff with the conditions set forth by staff? What were the recommendations? The recommendation by staff would have been for approval with conditions. The conditions were numbered one through four, and one of those conditions was the use of the accessory structure grouped herein. It is limited to the storage of items associated with the residential use of the property only. No home-based business or commercial uses shall be permitted to occur within the accessory structure. This structure shall not be used for an accessory dwelling unit. Exactly. I don't put my commercial items underneath it. I got two motorhomes and a boat. And mind you, for the record, I'm just confirming that you are in agreement with staff's recommendation that in no way is indicative of how my order will read. But thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Case number four, LDL VAR 2026-33, Davis variants. LDL VAR 2026-33. Sean Harper, on behalf of Roderick Davis, is requesting a side yard setback variance for the placement of a detached two-story accessory structure containing a ground floor garage and an accessory dwelling unit above on the west side of the residential property of approximately 0.365 acres in a residential low three district. The subject property is located at 1370 Crescent Woods Loop, south of Crescent Woods Circle, north of Crescent Woods Circle, west of Carter Road, east of Crescent Lake Drive subdivision, north of the city of Mulberry in Section 19 Township 29, Range 24. On June 30th, 23 mailers were sent to area property owners. One board was posted on the property on June 22nd, and a legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on June 26th. We've heard no response from the public. Tyler Daniels is the case planner. Tyler Daniels, land development, LDL VAR 2026-33, requesting a side yard setback variance from 5 to 2 to place an accessory dwelling unit at 1370 Crescent Woods Loop in Lakeland. The location, the subject property, is in the south of the city of Lakeland, north of Mulberry in the Crescent Woods subdivision off South Carter Road. The property carries the future land use of residential low three surrounding properties are all residential low, a mix of RL1, RL2, and RL3. This is a 2025 aerial of the neighborhood. The site is on Crescent Woods Loop bounded by Crescent Woods Circle and South Carter Road to the east. It's an established single-family subdivision. Here, the subject is highlighted within the context of other accessory structures in the neighborhood. The proposed structure will not be intrusive to the single-family, single-story to the northwest. The lot is roughly 110 by 145 feet. The existing 4,000-square-foot, two-story home sits in the center. The proposed structure is 998 square feet, detached, two-story accessory building. A garage on the ground floor and the accessory dwelling unit above sit to the west side of the yard of the driveway. The request is to reduce the 5-foot side yard set back to 2 feet, a reduction of 3 feet. This is a closer aerial of the home and where the proposed structure will be on the west side of the property. This is a relationship between the proposed accessory dwelling and the primary home. The two structures maintain reasonable separation on the property, and this is in relation to the neighbor's dwelling. Staff recommends approval and finds the request consistent with the criteria in Section 931. The request will not be injurious to the area or detrimental to public welfare as ADU has permitted accessory use within the area, and there are other accessory structures that already exist in Crescent Woods. The request meets the minimum variance that will allow the reasonable use of the structure while maintaining reasonable separation from the existing home on the property. And I stand for questions. I see one of the conditions that is being recommended by staff is that the accessory dwelling unit shall not be approved or used for short-term rental or vacation rental. My question is, does the county have an applicable ordinance that was adopted prior in time to state legislation, which does permit that type of use? 1997 ordinance prohibits the short-term rental. That was enacted prior in time to the state legislation, which actually carves out if there was a pre-existing lawful ordinance that you may have that type of restriction. Is that correct? That is correct. The state legislation went into effect in 2011, and like Tyler mentioned, our short-term rental ordinance has been in existence since 1997. I didn't go to math school, but I think that qualifies as prior in time. Yes. Okay. Is the applicant in attendance? Please state your name and address for the record. Hello. Sean Harper, 1420 South Florida Avenue, Lakeland, Florida, 33803. And do you have any evidence or testimony that you'd like to present in addition to what staff has presented? No. Me and the homeowner, we agree totally with the staff. They did a good job presenting. Just a couple of keynotes that on the side to the west of the adjoining property, we're going to be 32 feet away from any closer structure, and that back, that side's to a garage. So, to where we are there, to the left of us is their garage. We're like 32 feet away from that. There we go. Yeah. That kind of gives you a good representation of what we're looking at. And towards the back of the truck is where it will start at the end of the driveway, and then we're 32 feet from that structure. And how far back from the property line? What is the setback? We're not going to exceed back. We're actually going to be less distanced in the existing home from the back of the property line. And regarding the short-term rental, we're totally in agreement with that, plus the HOA restricts that as well. I did have communication with the Homeowners Association, and they were waiting on this meeting before they had addressed it, and they gave me quite confidence that if this is approved, they will approve it. Just for the record, any order that would be entered, the CCR is the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. That's a private contractual relationship between the homeowner and the association, and the municipality would not be operating to in any way impinge or interfere with that contract. Nor would we, so whatever approvals or whatever would need to be done on that end, this order in no way is going to operate to relieve you of that responsibility, and nor are we speaking to what those responsibilities are. Understood. Point was, we've met with the neighbors. Yes. Just let them know. I just have to make sure it's clear on the record. Thank you so much. I'll stand for any questions. Thank you. I'm going to open for public comment. Is there anyone that would like to speak on behalf of the applicant or in opposition of the request before me? Seeing none, I'm going to close public comment. Does staff have any closing remarks? Thank you. Next is case or item number five, LDL VAR 2026-35, accessory variants. LDL VAR 2026-35, Kyle R. Chackie, applicant, is requesting a 3,456-square-foot accessory structure that is larger than the primary structure in an agricultural residential rural district on 1.11 acres. The subject property is located at 4221 Sam King Road, north of Kissimmee Shores Road, south of Lake Costa Drive, east of Tiger Lake Road, west of Sam King Road, east of the city of Lake Wales, in Section 8, Township 30, range 30. Twenty-five mailers were sent to area property owners on June 30th. One board was posted on the property on June 25th. A legal ad was published in the Polk Sun News on June 26th. We've had no response from the public. Kyle Rogus is the case planner. Good afternoon. Again, Kyle Rogus with Land Development, presenting LDL VAR 2026-35, the R. Chackie, accessory variants. The applicant is requesting a 3,456-square-foot accessory structure that is larger than the primary structure in an agricultural residential rural land use district on approximately 1.11 acres. The subject property is located at 4221 Sam King Road, north of Kissimmee Shores Road, south of Lake Costa Drive, east of Tiger Lake Road, west of Sam King, east of Lake Wales, in Section 8, Township 30, range 30. The property is located in the Agricultural Residential Rural Land Use District in the rural development area and has approximately 1.11 acres. The applicant purchased the property back in 2022, later replacing the existing home with a 2,509-square-foot single-family home. The certificate of occupancy was issued in March of this year. The proposed accessory structure will be 3,456 square feet, which is 138% larger than the primary structure. According to Accela, Building Permit BR 2026-2707 is the active building permit for this proposed accessory structure requiring the variance approval. The subject site is below the 5-acre minimum lot size in the Agricultural Residential Rural Land Use District and is slightly below the 2-acre lot size allowance in Chapter 2, Section 209-G. If the subject site was 0.89 acres larger, it would have met the 2-acre minimum lot size. Therefore, no variance would be required. The applicant would be allowed to construct an accessory structure up to 150% larger than the primary structure, which is 304 feet more than what is being proposed. There are other accessory structures above 2,000 square feet in the area. The neighboring property in blue has an existing 60 by 40 or 2,400 square foot accessory structure according to Bull County Property Appraiser. The accessory structure will be set back 50 feet from the right-of-way located in the front yard. Unlike other accessory structures, garages are allowed in the front yard. The accessory structure will be approximately 65 feet from the edge of pavement and is at the nearest point and will be 15 feet from the neighboring property to the east. The nearest home is 85 feet on the neighboring property to the east. There are no platted easements. The open structure will provide an organized storage of vehicles and equipment while being less of an eyesore to the surrounding neighborhood. And staff recommends approval. The request will not block or limit the view of traffic off of Samkeen Road. Accessory structures will meet the setbacks in the Agricultural Residential Rural Land Use District. If the property was that 2-acre minimum lot size in 209G, an accessory structure administratively would be permitted up to 2,000 square feet or 150% the size of the principal structure. Which is more than what is being requested today. Garages, unlike other accessory structures, are permitted in front yards. And with that, I will stand for questions. Is the structure enclosed or is it open storage? It is open storage. Is the applicant in attendance? Please state your name and address. Kyle Archegi, 4221 Samkeen Road, Lake Wills, Florida. Do you have any testimony or evidence you'd like to add to the record? I do not. I support the staff's recommendation. I will open public comment. Is there anyone that would like to speak on behalf of or in opposition to the request that's performed for consideration? Seeing none, I'm going to close public comment. Does staff have any closing remarks? No, sir. Thank you. Now that we have no further agenda items for consideration, at 2.33 p.m., I'm going to adjourn. Thank you.