Braddock and Berkley Road Growth Sparks Debate Over Noise, Light Pollution, and Local Control
by James Coulter
Nearly eight acres are slated for development to support local urban growth and commercial needs, but residents have raised concerns about increased traffic, noise, and light pollution.
At their meeting on Tues. Dec. 16, Polk County commissioners voted 4–1 to approve two ordinances affecting 7.95 acres at the intersection of Braddock and Berkley roads near Auburndale. Commissioner Bill Braswell voted against both ordinances.
One ordinance redesignates the site as a Neighborhood Activity Center (NAC); the other amends the land development code to add a development block and strengthen buffering requirements for the property.
Bart Allen, an attorney for the applicant, said the project would meet growing local retail needs as the area expands following recent infrastructure investments.
He noted that Braddock Road was rebuilt and realigned in 2024 into a four‑lane divided urban collector road, and that businesses are showing interest in relocating to the intersection.
“I know there are businesses that want to relocate to the intersection, so you will see more folks moving here,” Allen said. “There is a lot of interest in this area, which is why you see the request before you.”
Commissioner Bill Braswell questioned whether the proposed buffering would be adequate for nearby homes, saying Polk County’s standards lag behind those in other states.
“When you leave this state and look at other states with more restrictive buffering, where you put a development next to Walmart and do not know the Walmart is there, we feel we fall short,” he said.
The applicant’s attorney countered that the plan exceeds minimum requirements by specifying tree plantings intended to grow tall enough to screen the development.
However, many Auburndale residents spoke during public comments to raise concerns about the proposed development, specifically with traffic, noise, light pollution, and city autonomy.
Dorothea Taylor Bogert, former Auburndale mayor, claimed the development was unnecessary, as the residents “do not want more gas stations.” She implored the commission to leave this type of decision-making to the City of Auburndale.
“Our citizens want to be able to make our decisions locally,” she said. “I respectfully ask you to decline this request and allow it to go to Auburndale for them to determine what will be done with the property. I respectfully request that the city make that decision.”
Another resident, Mark Harris, warned about potential light pollution from 24/7 businesses and called the proposal redundant given existing convenience stores and fast-food outlets nearby.
“I have no need for gas stations or drive-thrus,” he said. “There are options for me down the road. I know there will be change, but it should match the aesthetic of the area so that it flows more evenly and smoothly.”
The applicant’s attorney noted that many nearby businesses carry Auburndale addresses but sit on county‑jurisdiction land. He also said an opaque six‑foot fence would provide effective buffering; however, the applicants would agree to a brick wall if required.
