An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Providing For A Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment To The Future Land Use Map (Map 2-15 And Sheet 08) From AG/R (Agricultural/Rural) To RES-1 (Residential 1 - Du/Ga) On Approximately 19.69 Acres Of Real Property Located On The North Side Of Blanton Road Approximately 2,150 Feet East Of The Intersection Of Blanton Road And Trilby Road; A Text Amendment Creating Subarea Policy FLU 7.1.86 – Blanton Road MRS; And Map Amendment To The Future Land Use Map 2-9 Adding Subarea Map 2-9(86) Blanton Road MRS; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date.
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
DispositionAdopted
Approved to adopt by roll call vote with Commissioner Weightman and Commissioner Yeager voting nay.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Jan 6, 2026
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Board of County Commissioners, Jan 6, 2026
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDE-26-0031 in full →PDE-26-0031 was taken up 5 times between Oct 2, 2025 and May 19, 2026, continued 1 time — this is appearance 4.
What was said
Machine transcription of 1h 3m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 82% of 361 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
P61 we approve of publication in the Tampa Bay Times on July 23rd. 2025 supplemented by affidavits of certified mailings and site postings for the meeting of September 3rd. twenty twenty five where it was continued to November twelfth where it was continued to today.
Okay. Amy?
Good afternoon. Amy Toll, Planning Development and Economic Growth. Uh item P61, which is PDE 26-0031, is the adoption hearing for a ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan. Providing for a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map, map 2-15 and sheet eight from AGR Agricultural Rule to Res One, residential one-dwelling unit per gross acre, on approximately
19.69 acres of real property located on the north side of Blanton Road, approximately 2,150 feet east of the intersection of Blanton Road. Trophy Road. This is also coming with a text amendment creating sub-area policy flu 7.1.86 Blanton Road MRS, a map amendment to the future land use map 2-9 amending or adding sub-area map 2-986 Blanton Road MRS, providing for additional text amendments as necessary
for internal consistency, providing for appealer subrability and effective date, and this comes. With your recommendation of approval. We did receive opposition emails that were sent to the clerk's office. We would like to have those filed, received and filed as well, please.
Move to receive file.
Second. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Okay. And then I do have a presentation for you, if so desired.
The range.
So here's the proposed ordinance that was just read into record. This item was actually heard on November 6th at the Local Planning Agency. At that hearing, the local planning agency denied the proposed amendment 5 to 1. They denied it based on the proposed sub area policy and res one flu. It is not consistent within the Northeast Rural Protection Area, and they did not want to set a precedent by creating a sub-area policy that would allow. For a Res1 Flu amendment with regulations
that require the area to be developed as an MRS with limited lot sizes. So again, this is a comp plan amendment. It is a small-scale amendment from AGR, Agricultural Rule, to Res1, Residential One Dwelling Unit per Gross Acre. The applicant is requesting the future land use amendment to allow for the development of a minor rural subdivision with lot sizes of no less than two and a half acres, with the exception of one single parcel that has already been platted at 1.7 acres, so
it cannot be any smaller than that. There's a total of 19.69 acres. It is on the north side of Blanton Road, approximately 2,000. 150 feet east of the intersection of Blanken Road and Troby Road. And again, there is a companion sub-area policy with this, helping to limit and ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the rural area. So as you can see, the property is located in the North Market area and within Rural Area One.
Just some context of the area. So you have agricultural lands surrounding the area. There is medium density residential across the street, which is a res six. That res six, just for note, predates the con the establishment of the rural area. So it was in place before the rural area was created. Here's your transportation map. As you can see, it's on Blanton Road and Troby Road. There is a 12-foot multi-use path on the south side of Blanton Road, and it
is part of the Orangevelt Trail pending alignment.
Just a zoomed in version of the aerial view?
So uh just for note, um in this area there is a range of lot sizes between 0.84 acres uh and 23 acres in proximity to the site.
Give me if I could while you're on the slide. So when you say the the twenty four acres, that's the site like a right below it?
The air those areas below it, correct. Okay. Yep.
existing future land use is AGR.
Proposed future land use of Res 1. As you can see, there's agricultural in the area, Res 6 to the south, and existing Res 1 already within rural area.
Here's the sub-area policy that was negotiated and agreed upon between the property owner and the county. What is happening here is even though the comprehensive plan is proposing an amendment to Res 1 on 20 acres, the subject site is being limited to only six units. So only six lots. Currently they can get four lots as is. They're requesting to just get two more lots. With this, it's approximately 0.3 density,
so it's well under the res one density that would be permitted without the sub-area policy. Additionally, there are development restrictions that ensure the area is developed in accordance with the Northeast Rural Scenic Roadway Plans as well as the Northeast Rural Plans LDC Section 604.
With the sub-ary policy, the applicant also provided a conceptual plan. As you can see, most of these lots are above 2.5 acres. The lowest lot is going to be the 1.7 acre, which is the exemption. But the second lowest lot is 2.3 acres, with the remaining lots being above three acres. The proposed amendments consistent with the following comprehensive plan policies.
And with that, we would like to accept public comment and adopt the proposed amendment by roll call vote.
Okay.
Uh the applicant is also here, I'm sorry, with the presentation if necessary.
No. Let's hear from the applicant.
Hey, good afternoon, Commissioner appreciate your time today. Hope you all had a very Merry Christmas. Um And
didn't name the company when?
Yeah, Jaris Barby, um Symbiosis Planning Consulting. I'm an AI C P certified planner. So I'm just gonna run through some of the slides here and then I would be happy to take and answer any questions uh as they arise.
So as as Amy had mentioned, we're requesting this land use amendment from the AGR to Res1 and having the sub-area policy in place to restrict the development rights even further than what a minor rural subdivision would be. In in any other location, the minor rural subdivision would allow up to ten ten units to be developed underneath a minor rural subdivision. So we have proposed to further limit
that and propose the two and a half acre uh minimum. Um the smallest lot as shown on the concept plan which I'll put back up here was two point five three acres and uh The stormwater tract that is shown on the on the concept plan was put in a separate tract, but it it may be able to be done via easement, so those lots might even be larger than the 2.5 acres. It was just shown to be the maximum uh development
restriction.
What no I'm sorry. What do you mean by d by easement?
It within a minor rural subdivision, uh stormwater uh may be done in easements rather than specific separate tracks.
Does anyone else understand what you mean? Yeah. Y'all do? You mean on each lot they would
I'm kind of
correct.
It it is just shown for the absolute worst case scenario if any additional water quality and and treatment may be required uh along with that.
I I don't think those are necessary in a minor
little substitution.
Is
that right? That's why I'm comp
There there would be a road that would be going in there and it it was intended to capture any stormwater runoff that may be collected off of the paved roadway.
But are you required to have that?
Can any in does anyone in my staff?
Sorry.
Why don't we go through the presentation? We'll get to that.
Okay. Okay. You can just say yes or it depends on the engineer as well.
Yeah, yeah.
No worries.
Uh Patrick Dutter, Development Read Director, it depends on the engineering that goes behind it. Most minor rural subdivisions don't require any kind of engineering or infrastructure or stormwater ponds, but it's just depending on the scope and the may they may require stormwater ponds. It's probably unlikely with this site, and I think that's what Jaris is trying to say.
Correct. And I
am
not an engineer for the for the record. I've just drawn up a conceptual plan thinking of worst case scenarios.
Yeah.
Um so here you can see the the plan again. Um the lots range from 2.53 acres to three point four three acres. We've in uh shown the scenic roadway buffers and each um of the lots would also have to have some other buffering that would be accompanying that. So within the Northeast Rural Area they require a type A buffer between buildings and
any roadways and type B buffer between buildings and adjacent properties in a in addition to the the external property buffering.
Um we propose
I'm not sure why you're getting this detail.
Understood. Um And then we're we would plan to have just one single access to the project.
This is again just showing that the minor rules subdivision would typically allow up to ten lots and we're proposing six with this plan.
Um
Mr. Starkey.
Trying to understand your drawing. So um I don't think you're supposed you need that pond, but um what is what are the lines here? Is that the road that's in the dark frame?
Correct, yes. And
what's the Other lines.
The other lines would be setbacks.
Why? Wow, I don't know. Maybe I'm not well versed on minor rural subdivisions. I don't know. Okay. But that but the the total acreage does not include the subject or does include the subactors.
The the acreage would include all the way to the to the center of of the roadway. Um the roadway is in an easement in minor rural subdivisions.
I've never seen that we buffered residential. So you don't have buffering within the subdivision.
Well, i it there are specific buffering regulations called out within the Northeast Rural Land Development Code in the in the Rural Area Land Development Code.
Um I think there are along the front of the pro uh along the front, but not well I'm sorry, go ahead Mr. Go ahead.
Um and the method of utilities would be uh well and septic in compliance with with these two policies that were noted.
and we we demonstrated consistency with with several several references from the comprehensive plan. And I I just wanted to end with with a statement um that that shows uh the goal of the protection of rural areas in the Comp plan. It establishes Pasco County's framework for preserving the rural lifestyle, agricultural viability, environment environmental resources and low intensity
development pattern within the north northeast Pasco rural area. Um this goal emphasizing managing growth in a manner that protects rural character for existing residents and and remains available to future residents. I I would propose that this proposal meets the intent of Gold Flu II protection of rural areas by significantly limiting the density below the Res 1 category, maintaining rural lot size, avoiding
urban infrastructure expansion, and preserving compatibility with surrounding agricultural and residential uses. This six-lock configuration represents a conservative, context-sensitive rural subdivision that aligns with Pasco County's adopted comprehensive plan and long-term vision for the Northeast Pasco rural area.
Let me ask you a question. Um The 1.7 acre parcel that's platted, does that mean that was done before the comprehensive plan?
Yes, sir. Correct. And and the reason why it was treated separately in within this uh proposal in in the um sub-area policy is because For us to include it, we would have to come to you all to ask for a right-of-way vacation for it to be combined in into one larger project, which I believe uh my landowner, the landowner for this project does intend to file for that, but he wanted to go ahead
and and file this application. Um
you guys having the opportunity to decide upon that.
And if you take out that one point seven acres that's already approved for the density that it's got, the others would be that then if you take the average out, add the one point three acres to the smaller site, ever every site's well over three acres.
Correct, yes sir.
Well I think that's I mean I'd I'd be phrasing it that way. Now rural subdivision, if you follow different rules you can get to ten by and that'd be th more
density.
Okay, but currently you don't have the rights to get ten acres. I mean ten units. Not unless we were proposing it without a sub-area policy, um, which we have proffered up that to further limit it below the ten units that would be allowed if it were adopted without any sub area policy. But but is
density is going
to
be limited by his zone. not not necessarily by the maximum under a minor subdivision, but I'm not sure why we're having this in-depth conversation about a minor moral subdivision. It's you're Putting a new future land use quest because you're raising the future land use quest to make sure REST one. And then whatever the zoning is currently on the property, unless they are coming in for a rezoning, it would would be your limiting factor.
But
rent's plan would zone. Yeah, so I
mean
it it is extra detail we d normally wouldn't get to, but I'm just trying to be trying to understand the one point seven acres with my primary understanding primary thought. Yeah any other questions?
Okay. Uh does staff want to comment anything? No? Okay. Alright, so now's the time to go to public comment.
Yes, we do. Uh Nancy Hazelwood.
And how many people know this do you know? Um five.
Right now one of four plus one on mine.
Good afternoon, Nancy Hazewood, [address removed]. Uh I don't know how we got here. I can't believe that i you're saying you're gonna protect the r rural area by putting res one right in the middle. What about the next guy that picked up? Where is res
one?
This is you're changing the comprehensive plan to res one if this goes through.
Okay, but there are three three agent three different one.
Can we have an open discussion please?
I lost five seconds.
Anyways, so Res one right in the middle of Northeast Rural. Res one should be used sparingly and if at all at the edges of Northeast Rural, not smack dab in the middle where the next person can come along and say, hey look. I should get this too. So how you turn down the next person. Um This is not gonna this p it's not gonna ensure any type of compatibility with Northeast
Rural. And the only thing around it that is not ag is an old HUD development. that was grandfathered in. Everything else around them's ad. And the other thing is the minor rural subdivision is coming up on the tree ordinance and it's gonna be exempt from Trees. So they can clear cut every tree in there. I understand they're putting a buffer on the outside, but that doesn't mean that we need every single tree cut inside. This
is the Northeast Rural, and Rural usually means trees. The Planning Board and and the SIC turned the project down and they said is not consistent with Northeast Protected Area. They did not want to set a precedent by creating a sub area policy that would require Res one FLU amendment with regulations that will require the or to be developed with an MRS and limit the
size a lot. So I suggest that We uh go with what Planning Board said. I just don't trust what this could create right in the middle. Let's think about what we're doing with our growth again. Thank y'all. Appreciate it.
Thank you. Julia Bartunik.
Julia Bartinick, [address removed]. And I concur with everything that Nancy Hazelwood stated. And uh this change uh will definitely uh be an unfortunate it will establish an unfortunate precedent for the rural area of Pasco County and and it will encourage developments to follow
suit. Thank you.
Kathleen Sch uh Schneider.
Do I need to be sworn in? No. No? Okay. Um, Kathleen Schneider, [address removed].
I took a little bit of time last night. And I'll show you what I've got. I went from James Road to the college on Blanton Road and I wrote down every parcel that was this size or larger. This size. There were There are 30 and and I am not going way out. I'm being conservative. This is direct access to Blanton
Road. There are 33 parcels. Guess how many acres there are? 1155.66 and that's being conservative. It's not even including this property.
This if you say yes to them Every single one of these property owners are gonna say, you did it for them, you can do it for us. And what are we going to be left with out here? A big major mess.
I'm concerned what you're gonna do. You've got a chance to stand firm with us and say, no, this does not belong in this area. This gentleman bought this property knowing how it was zoned. Now he wants to come along and change everything. We lived here for years and years and years and this is not what we need in our area. Mr. Oakley, you know it? Mr. Wakeman, you know it? Jack,
do you know it? Mr. Steinschneider, you know it. Katherine Starkey, you know it, and Lisa, you know it too. And it's about time that you stood up for the people that live out here and say no to this stuff. It's enough already. Thank you.
Cindy Gandalfi.
[address removed]. A tough act to follow. Um we have lived out here over 20 years and we've all bought the property knowing that we would not have to worry about subdivisions coming in because of the already created zoning in our area. Uh this is the ordinance ordinance that will kill Northeast Pascoal rural area. One acre is not considered rural. This development doesn't fit in in
here. Um It's hard enough to keep up with all the large buildings, subdivisions going in, let alone some small landowners. He knew again by what he was buying for and he wants to change it. Uh we have no guaranteed. He's still looking for Res One. We have no guarantee further down the road. He's already changed his mind several times. This is I don't know how many meetings we've been to with this gentleman.
The Planning Commissioner's recommended denial. We hope and pray that you will do the same thing. And one of the commissioners actually said that they did not want to stop this domino effect. And once you start, it's going to be hard to say no. Thank you.
What's that? Paul Gandalf.
Good afternoon. My name's Paul Gandalfi, [address removed]. Excuse me, [address removed]. Um, I'm obviously opposed to this. I don't see the reason for res one. They're asking for two and a half acre lots covered perfectly by res two. So I'm suspicious about the reason they're going for res one. I've raised this uh argument twice
before. They have not answered it. I've suggested there's a developer waiting at the wings or they're looking for a quick way to sell this and make a profit for more money because of the increased concentration. So I'm asking to reject this, please. There's a 24-acre lot between our property and the subject property. We're about 1,000 feet north of his. And if this property goes to Res One, because
the owner of the 24 acres has told me that he plans to sell sometime in the future, the chances are this will go the same way. So we'll have a bunch of houses on our southern property line. forcing us to move and give up our plans for our retirement there. So please consider your residence on Blandon Road. It's important to us. We do not want the concentration of buildings and traffic. in our neighborhood. Thank you
very much.
That's all that have signed pre-signed for this item.
Okay, so I know there's a few other people that didn't get to sign up on time. So if anybody wants to speak to this item, if you would please come line up one by one and we'll give everyone a chance for the speaker for three minutes.
So no one else wants to speak other than this one gentleman? If you do, please line up. All right, so please line up behind him. And your name address sir for the record?
Uh uh good afternoon. Uh my name is James Navarro Sr. and live at [address removed]. Uh my input, I mean all of it's been said, we've been here uh This is the third time, and I guess it counts with you guys. My input is I live right next door to the subdivision. And right now the water is terrible. I've
had to have color good system, I have four tanks. And we're still getting uh rust
Add more to that particular property? It is crazy. Plus, right now it is a dangerous road. You're adding more entrances. Please please consider um rejecting this proposal. Thank you.
Who's no crap? Your name and address for the record, please.
Maggie West, [address removed]. And kind of going over what everybody else said also. I live right behind this property. My entrance to my property, which I own the road, That road right next to it is my road. So As I pull out a blanking every day I already take since all the development going on, it took me twenty minutes to get out of my property the other day because of all this traffic in our area. I thought we were a rural protection area. I thought we didn't have to worry about that. But They're
talking about putting a driveway on that hill and if any of you are familiar and know Mr. Oakley is that hill it's gonna get somebody killed. It's it's just there's no way to put a driveway really in that area. Um we moved here several years ago to retire also with uh Mr. Gandalfe and other folks in this area and we were under assumption when we bought in the area several years ago. Then we didn't have to worry about it because of rural protection and five acre minimums. And now they're talking about this guy just bought this property a couple of years ago. And
he wants to change everything. It's not fair to us people that have been paying and living in this area for many years to just change zoning. Because I'll tell you heads up right now, like Mr. Gandalfy said, the property behind him is thirty five acres. He's gonna sell that soon. So what you've done is you set a precedence. If you let these folks build, then he's going to open up his because he's waiting to hear what's going on here. He's already made that comment. And he said if you open that up, they're more likely going to open his 30-something acres. So now we're looking at 50 acres of homes that
we don't want to see. And it's just we just beg you guys that please buy by the Royal Protection Zone. and keep us the way we are. We love Dade City. But if this happens, you're gonna get nothing but homes and all those folks that bought all this property out this way years ago are gonna sell it and then you're gonna get more property. Because I don't wanna live here. You guys, you know, I mean I honor and respect every one of you. I worked my whole life in government, but This isn't the place for me and my family
anymore. We all got grown kids, but I I don't want to deal my property. Because they don't want to live in traffic either. So we just beg you guys to listen to us, you know, taxpayers and people that love this area. I'm sure everybody in here loves Dade City. That's why we moved here. But if it goes up like this, you're gonna see a lot of homes for sale. Because we can't live in this. Thank you for your time and I hope you guys please listen to everybody that's speaking. You know, not for the money, but people that love this area and continue to love it. Thank
you again.
Uh so I don't see anyone else, so we're gonna close public comment. Is there anyone online?
Not for this item.
Okay. Uh back to the board. Do the staff want to comment maybe on the res one, res two?
Yes, you read my mind. Uh Amy Toll Planning Development and Economic Growth. So there's three points that I would like to just have some clarity on. First is the one dwelling unit per gross acre. Yes, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment is changing to Res1 FLUM. the sub-area policy is limit limiting it to six units. Six units only. So when the zoning comes in, they cannot get any more than the six units. If they wanted to get more than the six units, they would have to come back in through the hearing process
and do a text amendment to change it, which is also three public hearing. It's treated as the large scale. So that one would go to the state if they needed to come in and ask for more units or more density. Excuse me. Res 2 currently, our future land use for rural areas is AG, AGR, and Res1. We do not have a Res2 flu. The next flu would be a Res 3. So the opportunity to cap it at a 2 would be the same tool or
using the same tool currently as a sub-area policy to go to a Res 3 and then cap it as a Res II. In this scenario, we're doing a res one, capping it at six units, which is 0.3 dwelling units per gross acre, so it's a third of an acre. Lastly, there was a comment that stated the Northeast Rule is a minimum of five acre lots. That is not an accurate statement. There's various areas within the Northeast Rule, that's a RES One. Our current comprehensive plan classifies Res One as
a rural land use classification in the comprehensive plan. So those are my my topics.
Mr. Chairman Mariano. One more one more thing if you would clarify, Amy. So Well there's been all this talk about What a minor rural subdivision allows in res one. The current zoning for this property is A C?
Correct.
So it's minimum ten acre lots unless they come back for a rezoning.
Correct. They would have to come back for rezoning. Um however the sub-area policy would limit it to two point five acres and six units. So when they come in for rezoning to do the MRS, they would be limited to those provisions in the sub-area policy.
Sure. Um Mr. Waylors.
No.
You want me to ask my question? Doesn't matter. All right. If they d tell me why they wouldn't just have gone to the motor minor rural subdivision instead of going this way.
So, in their current AGR form, the minor rural subdivision wouldn't allow them to get the two and a half acres. So this was the next option. So the Res One with the Minor Rule Subdivision and the CAF.
If you take out the one point if you take out the 1.7 acres, it comes to an average of four acres lot. They couldn't get four acres a lot in the minor rural?
Um right now it's one point one to five currently. The current future land use is a minimum of five acres. Um if they ended up doing the minor rural subdivision, there were provisions that wouldn't get I mean they could they could do less through the minor rural subdivision, but
Mr. Chairman, as I've as I've tried to indicate, I think the minor rural subdivision question for this is a lost leader. The future land use classification for this property is AGR, which is
One to five.
One to five.
Correct.
So They can't They can't if they do a minor rural subdivision. It's five acre lots.
Correct.
As they currently sit. Except they're in AC, which means it's ten acre lots.
Correct.
So
the Okay, so but that argument was Not valid.
Yeah, unfortunately the tools that we have in our toolbox being the comprehensive plan and the land development code don't really give us the options to to do two and a half acre lot subdivisions like this. So these are the tools that we have in our toolbox to allow for them to do smaller lots, but still maintain the rural character.
Okay. Commissioner Weightman. Thank you, Chair. So
When it's all this and watch the Planning Commission Ordinarily, I think we'd all be like, yeah, this is a a really nice project to see in our county. Huge fan of minor rural subdivisions. the the precedent setting tone to this. Say this goes through and we have a set two and a half acres. So that means Future property owners come in And
it opens it opens the opportunity for them to come in and then do exactly the same same process because precedent's been set. I I guess when you Look down the road.
Oh we
Oh no, I I I'm concerned with the precedent setting nature o of this. The project I said it's a nice project, ordinarily it'd be great to see in our county. I guess the what I'm asking is Sh should we be taking a look at the properties within that one to five range? to have a mechanism that allows this scenario to happen. That way it's not one-off and it's clearly defined and property owners
know what they have and uh what they may or may not be able to do with their property in the future. Is that my am I making sense?
Yeah absolutely. So um a couple couple comments for that.
With respect to setting the precedent, they're always going to, they can, any, any applicant can apply for a comprehensive plan amendment. Doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be approved. It'll have to go through the board's review and the board's discretion to accept it or or not. Um so so yes, y in this scenario you could approve it, but something could change next week and no longer be applicable.
So follow f follow up to that. Thank you, Chair. Mm-hmm. Based on what the county attorney said. Where it's one five and this is kind of going taking a different road, different path to get here.
What what was the mechanism for staff then to bring this forward the way that it is? The meaning order. Right. So the sub area policy allows you all the flexibility.
to control it outside of the scope of our STEM standard process. Yeah. At least through the comprehensive plan. Additionally, just for the board's understanding, as you all are very much aware, we're going through the 2050 change. And within our PASCO 2050, we are not allowing or the proposal, once it goes through the review, it's got to go through the state and get approved. But our current trajectory is to not allow any additional res one flues after twenty fifty is
adopted.
So when are we voting on that? Spring. Of this year.
Correct.
Right now it's a twenty twenty five horizon. So it's right around the corner and this one could potentially skirt in before that change. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Oakley. Okay. Amy, correct me if you will, back uh I'm gonna say about a year ago. the property just on Blandon Road, just to the south and to the s and the west side of the road, or on the right side if you're going back toward Dade City. There was a property in there with the Phillman family and they zoned that two and a half acre lots. And it was approved by the Plan Commission and the Board. It came through it.
It is two and a half acre lots, which is not very far from where this is, probably a couple miles or so south of where this property is. And what confuses me is the rural group with Nancy Hazelwood and and some of her folks were all in favor and and agreeable to that being two and a half acre lots. So I don't know what changed from that being okay at two and a half acre lots. To this not being okay. And this is a good project. When they first came to me about it. I
looked at it, but they wanted 10 lots. And I thought that was too small for the rural area. But two and a half acre lots I mean a one acre lot is two ten by two ten, a very big nice lot. you've got two and a half times that. on these properties which make them a very nice lot. So and they have trees on there. Nobody's going on that land where they're gonna build a house. If there's a tree in the way of where they need to put their house, I'm sure they're gonna talk about take getting a permit, take
that out. But most of the trees I think they'll they'll wanna keep in this neighborhood. But it's it it's designed out. But I'm kinda confused where the real group is 'cause one minute they want it and it's okay and the next minute they don't want anything. But the fact of it is two and a half acre and larger lots. keeps the density down from from getting expanded to one acre lots.
Sure.
Yeah.
I think the confusion that's occurring is with the f the res one flu. And so at face value, yes, the color on the map is res1. But it's not your standard just flat res one approval, meaning you have 20 acres, go into res one, you can have 20 lots. That's not what's happening here. We are allowing or we are proposing to amend the flu to res one. only because we don't have any other
option to achieve that middle ground. And so that's where now we've added an additional regulatory document being the sub-area policy. Any zoning that occurs is required to be consistent with the comprehensive plan of that time. So by adopting this with a sub-area policy, if they wanted to change it and increase their density, they will have to come back in for a text amendment, which is like this is a small scale, so we only went two public hearings. It's administratively or courtesy
sent to the state. A text amendment changing That is actually going through a transmittal review, state has their review, provides their comments. It's a three-month versus a two-public hearing. It's a much more extensive process to make that change. So, from our tools that we have, and from the county's perspective, by establishing or adding a sub-area policy, they're only asking for two additional lots. It's restricted to two. two and a half acres, so they will not be able to get one acre lots
here. And any a change to that will have to come through the public hearing review again.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I study attorney if I may. Um
It appears based on the maps that you've been provided that east of Adelia Street, maybe pronouncing that wrong, um has been zoned ER2. So that's what I think the commissioner was referring to when it was you said it was two and a half acres. Right. All of that property Um shown on the map to the that sort of goes to on the west side of Blanton. after
you get to Adelia is ER two. everything to the west of Adelia, um
is sort of a hodgepodge of zoning categories, but it is all um A G R. Or A G.
So to answer you back on on the property I was talking about, it's right there next to the uh solar farm. It's actually just to the north in Platte Road. And the that's where that property got zoned. Uh it's a hayfield right now because they have not so many lots. But they're two and a half acre lots is what they're doing.
Well w can you be more specific, 'cause I'm on my maps. What what intersection? Blanton and Wolf?
Plant Road and Blaton. It's called on Google Maps it's called Mountain Mountain View.
I think what do you think?
Well Mountain
View solar farm
well. Flat.
Yeah, plant right.
Can we see where that is? Can somebody put that up? Flat road then urine.
And that's that came force probably a year, year and a half ago.
Which I was surprised at that they uh they were for that. I d I didn't Pick up on that. Most of that's five acre lots or bigger.
I see Mr. Plummel's house. Two point seven one acres.
Yeah. For the south
and west. Okay. Two point six four I'm just trying to
Oh
Hannon two point six four
And I think
Fillman family still owns that land.
Two point nine one.
I mean what were we so I'm looking at the land users and with that development is right below it is all red six?
Correct.
And then below its res one. Why would it be that way? I would think it would go the other way.
Um those were grandfathered ends. So there was a future land use change for the Res 6 that occurred prior to 2006.
Okay.
Uh the rural area created was created in 2006-ish, around that time frame. Um so that future land use predates the rural area.
That that property you're talking about there that That that project was done thirty or forty years ago. I don't know why they did it, but that's that's when that was it's kind of interesting though. Um Bingham Realty actually did it. So why don't it record my day?
Are we waiting to see any more up there? Yeah. So win for the road?
So um a question uh Commissioner Oakley. May I ask that question?
Yeah, but before we go, are we are we waiting to see where Platte Road is or is it shown?
Is it shown? Plat Road.
Where
are we going?
You did say in the spring we're like we're gonna be moving towards this if we when we vote on the new Comp Plan amendment. Correct.
Yeah, so um uh so actually I may retract that. When you say moving towards this So
meaning like this would just get this if this goes through it would be done right before we approve the new
attendant. Correct. But it would be So this would be essentially not going in that direction. I know that direction. I understand
So Commissioner
Starkey? Well okay, then now I have two questions. Originally the applicant came into your office and they were looking for ten acres. I mean ten
acres? They actually had started out wanting ten. They were talking about family units and their family was big or they wanted ten units but I I didn't I didn't agree to that and didn't want to agree to that and I was more set on two and a half acre lots because it's bigger and nicer lots and I thought that was better for the rural area.
But these are um these potentially are four acre lots.
They're a minimum of two. They cannot be smaller than two acre lots. So however they subdivide, they could have it bigger.
Wait, if they g if they don't have to do the pond there could be four acre lots, is that right?
Correct.
Um They
don't want to do a pod. Right?
They won't they won't have to do that.
They won't need a pod.
Yeah, so they're can you put up your numbers again? Um but my my other question while they're putting those up Did you put those up? Did you say So the issue here and the and the fear for everyone and I understand it is res one.
It's the color on the map, correct.
But you say right now res one is allowed? I mean I know res one as sprawl.
Correct. Yeah so res one, um pursuant to section flu A6, Res One is defined as a rural land use classification.
Yeah, and I I d I mean I don't want to see one acre out here. But I don't ha I don't object to further. There's not
gonna be there's gonna be two and a half acres of fact.
There
are
only gonna be four acres. That's what I think.
I kinda
see that
the bigger lots. Yeah. There's folks out there right now that have been planting that are on four acres rather than five. And yeah, very hold of a nice nice big piece of property.
I've been pulling up the um Property appraisers map and looking at all the land around it. Actually there's a lot of homes on Landon that are two acres.
Yeah. Alive. But that's from years and years ago that people moved there and they only had a certain amount of acreage and were able to do that back then. Yeah.
Um Okay, so let's look here. So if you got rid of one point three acres of stormwater and I don't understand what what's going on with that corn that parcel in the in the front?
Mr. Chairman Mariano. I would highly advise you not to use this document for anything.
It's conceptual.
You just use the Staff has provided you with a sub-area policy. That is what you're limiting the and if the sub-area policy can be put up for the commissioner. That's what Which was part of the the PowerPoint. Um that's what you're limiting there it is. That's what you're limiting that if you make this decision that's what the res one will be limited to.
Okay, so s so set the uh I d I'm still trying to understand that piece in the front because when I did the math 1.78 acres is that piece in the front. Correct. The piece in the back is 17.96. I got to stop the property print. That comes out to 19.74 acres. Correct. So if you divide that by six, you're getting, yeah, over three. Well, you gotta do the road too. But they would own the road to the middle. So every time.
Okay, so and and that was the gentleman kind of was meaning. So basically it's twenty acres.
It is a twenty acre. The flu change is approximately twenty acres.
So six. So six lots in there is a over three acres per house.
And um for math purposes, uh the 17 acre lot would be five units because the 1.7 acre would be part of those six. And the one point seven acre is controlled because it's platted, so it can't be we're it's basically an exemption to the m two point five minimum. So out of the 17 acres you're gonna have two and a half minimum lots and you can only have five. And then they
get one on the one point seven.
Correct.
And now I'm going to do it.
This comment for county attorney.
Yeah. My short three years doing this I've never really heard apprehension in your statements. We've seen
Your tone's different on this one. You seem a bit apprehensive in the decision that we're gonna need to be make is uh is there some kind of legal precedent.
I don't know. It's just normally. What are you worried about cotton votes for? Let's go. So I'm trying I'm trying to stay not done this before. I try and do it every meeting. Well. But it but usually I usually I know where the board wants to go. and I can I can sort of guide you that it's okay or it's not okay. In this case I'm trying to remain neutral And y I think th this is a
legislative act of the Board of County Commissioners. You can vote it up or vote it down. And legally, I think you can you we can defend your actions. What I was trying to point out earlier is. You can you can take the presidential view that north of Blan uh north of Blanton. is AGR and it should stay AGR. You can also zoom out
and say, Well A little bit further east you're at two and a half dwelling units an acre. So
Did I just trying to
I'm not saying you're doing good or bad. Just picked up on something. We're gonna have fun with you at least once a Tuesday a month.
I I just have one comment. So if if we're gonna be moving away from this and I don't know about you guys but currently we've received thirty three emails plus public comment. Like the the public the people around it they don't they don't want it rezoning. Right?
Please do not. Please. But I'm s I understand that. But what I'm saying is to set the precedents for other landowners. And if we're moving away like if if When we redo the uh uh Complant amendment, this won't be allowed.
Uh
I guess my question is then why would we Why would we do it now? Is that a correct statement?
Um we are proposing to restrict any new res ones within the northeast rural area. Okay, but that's
Please, please I'm not gonna ask you again, but please do not. We're trying to have a discussion.
And I understand that the only reason you're using you're using Res One here is because you have no other tool. Will we not allow any three acre lots going forward?
Nothing under five.
Great question.
Well that's we will have to explore that.
cannot base my vote on how many people show up to take a voice on one way or the other. I have to base my vote on facts and and law and those things. So that that's that's where I am. So um I'm just trying to base my vote where we're heading as a county. Well I just
one at a time
one excuse me, one at a
time please.
So the res one really is irrelevant here because it it it's not gonna be used as res one which I'm a hundred percent against one acre lots. Correct. Uh unless it's in a conservation subdivision.
Right. And we did offer that as an option when this first came in but they didn't qualify for a conservation subdivision.
So I I would say in looking at this one here, I didn't think it was a huge issue. I was surprised with all the emails that were coming in, et cetera. Looking at it, I looked at it closer, I go I don't have a heartache with it for what we're gonna get to what it was. But listening to the people, I understand their s their fear of the president's gonna set. But what you just said actually gave me a little more comfort because if we're gonna put this in our new comp plan that a res one is not gonna be allowed in the area. This is gonna be a one and done anyway. And where and
where it's it can't happen again anyway. So it's it's it's gonna limit It's not a lot of density and to me I I think the way we should do this is that one point seven acres should be separate from all the other calculations and equally divided with with the the square f uh the s uh acreage between the other four units does that be precise but they should be at least over three.
Is it
five or six expenses?
Uh the sub-area policy is six, but that also that includes the one point seven acre parcel.
Yeah, so it's one plus that what stays at one, it'll be one point seven. And then the seventeen, whatever, gets divided into five.
Correct. And the applicant has also proposed that they are willing or they're they've coordinated with real property to vacate the roadway that's in the middle of them that bisects it. Roadway would be absorbed. We've also re already received confirmation from real property that the, you know, when they apply for that, they bring it with a level of support. So they would vacate that right-of-way, that would be absorbed into the abutting property, and that would actually bring the 1.7 closer to 2.
Uh and what was the gentleman referring to about I understand the buffering out of blame. If that You know, when we did the scenic overlay there was you can't take away the long views, okay. Very important type of thing. Is that what he was referring to? Because he didn't have to buffer in between the lots, right?
Um
No.
No. Uh it's just that right, the scenic corridor is the the visual landscaping and buffering along Blankton.
It it it it does look like a beautiful heavenly wooded lot. So uh you know you know how I feel about trees, but I don't know how we can regulate what percentage of the lots they can clear. Because frankly but you can be ag and you can be You can clear the whole thing and you can have pigs or whatever and um
We do have a proposed sub area currently under review, so Sure. Yeah.
Mr. Ruffler. When you look at this in the three acre, two and a half, three acre, four acre lots are very nice lots. There's a lot of people that don't want to be in dense property. These folks especially they don't want to be any more dense than that would be. But there's a lot of people that are out there wanting large lots to build their home on and have some piece of the land to take care of. Not everybody's set
for taking care of two and a half, three, four acre lots, because it takes a little more work to take care of that than it does a yard and where you got the high density. But there's a lot of people and that will keep the rural area rural by having these
larger lots. Sure. And question M Commissioner Oakley you may know our staff, but as far as there was a danger as far as there was someone was worried about the connection to the to Blent Road, uh uh is there any concern about that?
Well, my road, I'm right before my road's my can that I go into Timber Hill Drive where I live. And I'm right before right the the road right before you get to the interstate, going to the west. Uh we've had a couple of accidents lately at Trilby, where Trilby connects to Blandon as been dangerous here lately for for some reason or other. I don't know why. Cars overturned right there and and some other ac accidents happened. And uh but everybody's being very careful about how they drive
out there on that road. And I to the point that I've actually um going further with the fire department out at Landon. They don't have your normal signal lights and all stopping traffic. And some of my neighbors out there mentioned to me one day that that the fire engines were trying to come out to go either to the interstate or to an accident and they couldn't hardly get out because at that certain time they had a lot of cars on Blatten right in that area. So I've
asked if we could get some kind of flashing lights or something of that nature in front of that fire station so when they do come out, those lights go on and make it safer for the public out there along with our emergency teams going out.
So let me ask this for safety, do you think it would work if we had I mean first of first of all I have to protect the T canopy, a tree canopy along Went Road so it stays next. natural. Right. But I would also think that at the entryway and then maybe a light before a late light after that we have this acreage share in the cost p to put like three street lights. One at and two before and after to kind of give it a little bit of light for nighttime. But do you mean
on
Blaton
Road? On Blaton Road. I don't know that's somebody else with the administration maybe.
I mean it probably uh I know it would lighten it up and I mean sometimes it's dark out that way 'cause you're out in the country. But most people don't want lights. I was I was
I can't get that information is what I'm asking you.
That's but I uh I think some lights were okay but there's quite a few homes right along that same area. I don't think they'd want lights shining their windows all the time. I wouldn't
want to do that. So I'll share my thoughts as far as f from what I see. I'm comfortable with the acreage. I'm not comfortable if that we don't have um un knowing that we got a clear precedent not to Allow this to keep on going. If you're telling me this spring we're gonna be have something coming in for res one's not gonna be even allowed, so this won't be able to happen again. I personally will be fighting not not to get any indensery on that. So and I think that's the biggest fear that everybody's got is that.
Oh, I understand
going forward. So if we can protect if we can protect the people from that and we know from staff that res one's not gonna be allowed in this rural area any longer and that won't happen with for anything the neighbor next door, anybody else coming in from here on through, I've got I've got comfort with it. Right. I think that's right. But Commissioner
Weightman. Chair Amy, so four homes could go over there currently.
Currently.
We're looking at adding two more.
Correct. Oh.
Yes I six total. Correct.
Six total.
And that includes the one point seven acres?
Includes a six total. Total, including the one point seven acres. Correct. It's
not seven, it's six.
So
same.
Stop it. Stop it right now. Well six
max. And you got you got seventeen point nine six acres and you got a zoning category that allows ten.
Oh correct.
So that would be a good thing.
four.
So they'd still need her they'd need a rezon to get to four.
Correct.
So from two to six.
Where are we at?
Motion.
Well I I and you know I'm with you, Commissioner Oakley. Um and and you I would never allow Res One. Um that Res One would just cost the county a lot of money and services and sprawls and I could. This is not Res One. I mean I shouldn't be This is not a place for Res It's not it's not Red One. It's not Res One. No. Um I'm looking at um I just texted my husband, you know, we did a subdivision that is tucked into some of our property uh called Aristida where I where I live and we
have we do have half acre, one acre and larger lots and we we allow horses in there. If you have an acre, you can have a horse.
Yeah.
Um But um t two to three acres, that that's fine for me on
this
lot on this road here, considering the conditions around it. Never never one one.
I move approval.
Yeah, I
second
you're moving approval of staff's recommendation, right? Yes, sir.
Okay. Any further discussion? Did I give a second? Roll call? Okay. Roll call vote?
District 1, Commissioner Oakley. Aye. District 2, Commissioner Weightman? Nay. District 3, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District 4, Commissioner Yeager.
Nay.
District five, Chairman Mariano.
I'm gonna go aye, knowing that the residents are gonna be protected.
Yeah.
Motion passes three two.
Next.