Annotated Minutes - Planning Commission Meeting - January 8, 2026
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
No disposition in the minutes
The approved minutes do not say what became of this item. That is a gap in the record, not a decision. It is the normal state for 24% of items. Most of those are regular business and board reports that the minutes do not dispose of in writing. This archive never infers an outcome from the fact that someone called a vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, May 21, 2026
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDE-26-0748 in full →Heard once. PDE-26-0748 appears on no other agenda in the archive.
- May 21, 2026PlanningC2▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 43m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 68% of 270 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
You're the applicant?
I'm sorry.
Okay, go ahead.
Good afternoon Planning Commission. Kayla Yu with Planning Services.
PDE twenty six-seven nine zero nine is a rezoning request to change from the AR Agricultural District to the C Two General Commercial District in the name of R Property Investments L L C.
The future land use is ROR in the Comp Plan and the applicant is requesting to develop one acre consisting of a small portion of the entire parcel for the use of a contractor's office and storage in conformance with section 526 of the Land Development Code standards for development. The subject site is located on the east side of Shady Hills Road and approximately 784 feet north of the intersection of Shady Hills Road and Florenton
Drive.
It is located within the North Market area.
This is a context view of our map. As you can see, the subject property is the small portion highlighted in red.
This is an arrow view of the map. Um Right there you can see the small portion of the um of the entire parcel.
Right here once again you can see the entire parcel.
And the highlighted in red is the small portion.
The surrounding future land use to the north is ROR, to the east and the south is COM, To the west there is both Calm and Res One.
The surrounding zoning to the north is C two, to the east and to the south is A R. Uh and to the west there is both C two and A R.
The subject property is subject to a natural gas easement, however, staff has already met with a representative for a site visit and confirmed that the proposed zoning will not affect the transmission line. Access to the property is from Shady Hills Road. a county maintained collector road. There are currently no conceptual or planned trails for a Shady Hills Road, and the applicant has volunteered to record a deed restriction.
This is coming with recommendation for approval of the zoning request to the Board of County Commissioners and I'll stand by for any questions.
All right, do we have any questions for staff?
Is there any type of conceptual site plan that's been submitted?
There was a
survey that they had submitted with the application.
But nothing showing how they would intend to develop.
Uh no, not as far as I'm aware of.
And they're they would still be restricted from building excuse me on this gas easement.
Uh correct sir.
Land, do you have a question? Um I don't vote on this item unless there's a tie. But um I just was wondering if the applicant had some sort of I don't think we have pre-application meeting but a preliminary meeting for site plan discussion. I'm only asking this because It is an oddly shaped parcel, and once you start factoring in setbacks and stuff like that, it may make it more difficult to develop. So I was wondering if he was thinking of if would he be subdividing that one acre off and
having on its own or how those setbacks would be some. might be addressed. Not that it I mean that is a site development review kind of question. I don't know if he's thought of that far through. Okay.
That was the reason for my question.
Yeah, I just want to make sure the applicant is aware that um once he gets to site plan review that there might be constraints that might limit his potential.
Uh thank you. Amy Toll Planning Development and Economic Growth. So the applicant is available to answer that if necessary.
Very good. Any other questions for staff?
If not, is the applicant present?
Yes, the Avokan is present. Jim O'Brien representing the applicant.
Uh would you like to make a presentation or do you want to wait for comments?
Is
there?
He asked if you wanted to make a presentation.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Do you wanna make a presentation? That's what I'm asking.
No, the applicant is aware that there that there will be setbacks on that one acre parcel. And the building that they're going to propose to build there will fit within that one-acre parcel, including the setbacks.
Okay. Are sorry, I don't think you answer part of my question. Do you plan on subdividing that one acre section off?
I If if we need to if we need to um separate that one acre off, we will separate that off. Um It just depends on how that the building lays out on the parcel once the engineer gets uh engaged.
Okay,
thank you. Just real quickly, Mr. O'Brien, are you just acting as an a agent for the owner or are you an attorney?
Yes. I'm acting as the agent for the owner.
You're not an attorney.
Not an attorney.
Okay.
All right. Now so is there anybody here to speak?
Mr. Chair, the first individual I have signed up for this item is a Mr. Martin Dolobach.
Okay. Mr. Delavak.
Mr. Chairman I'm just going to open it up to the public if it's okay for this one because I think a few individuals may have accidentally signed up for the wrong item.
All right. So let me see a show of hands. Who who is here to speak on this item? Okay, and you've both been sworn? Okay, if you please come at one at a time up and uh give your name and ad and address.
Normally I'll let ladies do it first, but she said she wants me to
do it first. Then you gotta listen to her.
Uh Thomas Salato, [address removed]. This is it. I have some pictures. Am I allowed to give those to you? I have extra copies.
Move to receive and file. Second. I have a motion and then second. All in favor? Signify by saying aye. Aye, aye. Yeah.
Uh thank you, board, for allowing me to speak. I'm opposed to this uh parcel review.
I'm sorry, and your address.
I thought I did. I'm I apologize.
I just want to make sure she's
Tom Tom you want me to wait? No.
Go ahead.
All right. Thomas Salado, [address removed]
[address removed]
[address removed].
Okay.
Yes, sir. Once again, members of the board, thank you for the opportunity. I'm here and I'm opposed to this parcel being rezoned. Um before you I have my document which I'm not gonna I'm just gonna highlight some bullet points of number one, we have a two-lane road there, Shady Hills Road. Um much increased vehicle flow has already seen exponentially for the last five years. Lots of safety concerns. There's a school within 300 yards. There's four schools
on that road. Um the request is not consistent with Pasco County's comprehensive plan. There's policies governing the rural and agriculture agricultural future land use. Uh those areas are pretended to preserve low density residential and agricultural usage. We want to protect the rural character. Um C2 of offers a l um often will allow high density high intensity commercial operations, extended hours, significant traffic growth generation, sorry,
and outdoor commercial activity. Um I think this would undermine the expectation and negatively impact our affected properties, noise levels, traffic patterns, and community the community character. Um this parcel I've also I live there right on the backside as I told you by my address. It's been used commercially. There's some question marks there that I think the board should ask. Um uh there's which the photos I provided and
that's where the point I want to get to so I want to use li my last minute to talk about that. Picture two is the entrance of the parcel and then picture three is the left side of that entrance. And then picture five is the deep use of that parcel which right now has cinder blocks, pavers, um some pallets and then Picture seven is a zoomed in view. You'll see these portables being stored. And then a dumpster to
the left there, an old dumpster. So for the last couple of years, I don't know why, but that's been the means of egress for storing these portables on an I believe that's on this j adjacent property. So I'm not sure what's been going on there. Um it's not been it was supposed to be used for agricultural. It's not been used that way. Um I'm bring I'm presenting a lot of questions to the board here. I think we have some zoning violations already on this parcel, but it's up to you to decide. You guys are the experts. Thank
you, gentlemen.
All right. Thank you very much. Yes sir. Any questions? Well that excuse me. Excuse me, I just wanna let everybody know before we get deeper into this. We're not we don't allow any clapping or hurraying or anything like that. We just want to be respectful, give everybody a chance to speak so that we can be heard and we can carefully consider the decision. So thank you. Appreciate your enthusiasm, but we want to just keep moving along. Okay? So I think
you raise your hand. Yes. Thank you very much.
Good afternoon. Uh my name is Danielle Curl and I live at [address removed]. I live right across the street from Tom, so this property is is very close to to my property. Some members of the board. I'm here today to oppose the rezoning of one-eight four four-two Shady Hills Road from AR to commercial. This change would directly, negatively impact surrounding community, our safety, our environment, and the long term livability of this area.
The rezoning threatens the character and stability of our community. Residents in this area chose AR Zone neighborhoods for the character. the quiet environment, and the family oriented lifestyle. Allowing this high intensity commercial use in the middle of a residential and agricultural community would disrupt that stability. And erode the qualities that make this area livable. There will be significant safety risks for families and school children. Shady
Hills Road already is very heavily traveled with limited shoulders and frequent speeding. Adding C2 commercial activity would bring more traffic, including delivery trucks and commercial vehicles, increasing the risk of accidents. This is especially concerning for school children, cyclists and pedestrians that use this roadway. On a daily basis. Keep in mind the elementary school is barely a block over south of this parcel. The noise, lighting
and pollution will harm nearby homes. C2 zoning allows use that operates late into the evening, generates noise, requires bright lighting, and produces waste and runoff. These impacts would fall directly on nearby homes, reducing residents' quality of life. and property enjoyment as well as value. AR zoning protects residents from these intrusions. C2 does not.
The area lacks infrastructure to absorb commercial development. the roads drainage systems and utilities in the parts of in this part of Shady Hills were not designated. Or excuse me, were not designed for commercial intensity. Approving this rezoning would strain existing infrastructure and likely require future taxpayer funded upgrades. Burdens that should not be placed on residents for project that does not serve our community needs. the environmental impacts
would be significant and irreversible. The proposed C2 zoning poses serious environmental risks that would directly affect residents and the surrounding ecosystem. to include groundwater vulnerability, This area relies heavily on well water. Commercial uses permitted under C-2 zoning increase the risk of chemical runoff, fuel leaks, and contaminated stormwater entering the aquifer. Once groundwater is compromised, the danger is long lasting and costly to remedy. Stormwater
and flooding concerns. Commercial development typically replaces natural ground with surfaces such as asphalt and concrete. This increases stormwater runoff, overwhelms drainage systems, and raises the risk of localized flooding on neighboring properties. Wildlife Habitat Disruption. The AR zoned land supports birds, pollinators and other wildlife that rely on open spaces. Commercial activity, lighting and noise would fragment habitat and push wildlife further into the roadways and the residential
area. Loss of tree canopy and natural buffers. Clearing this land for commercial Use removes natural vegetation that currently provides shade, erosion control, and noise buffering. This loss would permanently alter the environmental balance of our area.
Is that my warning?
That is actually your time up. I think your warning light went off earlier, right?
Okay, sorry. I'm not familiar with this.
That's okay. No problem. I uh I wanted to try to give you as much time as possible. So uh do you have any final words you want to say?
Yes. Um for these reasons I strongly urge you um To deny this rezoning request, protecting the safety, character, and well being of our neighborhood is should be the utmost concern.
Okay, thank
you. That was
a very good presentation.
Thank you.
Uh-huh. All right. Um just s uh to ask the staff, the property just n north of uh this property, what is that? What's the zoning on that?
Yeah, we had rezoned that not long ago. To what, John? That's what I was trying to remember. It says C two on the property appraiser, but I'm pretty sure we did an MPUD on that property.
Amy Toll, Planning, Development and Economic Growth. I believe you're correct on that and the map is incorrect. It should be M P U D for Town Homes.
Yeah, I think Ms. Wilhite, was that your case?
Yeah, Nic Niclarus Petals Planning Development and Ec economic growth. The public hearing occurred at Planning Commission but the item is pending at the board level still. Uhhuh. So it's continued to a date uncertain. And the application It was for townhomes. It was for town homes. Townhomes.
All right.
Uh did we get everybody to speak? Amy, did you have more you wanted to say?
Um no, I'm just here if you have any additional questions. Okay.
Are there any more questions for Randy? Okay. Anybody else wanted to speak?
Good afternoon. For the record, Michael Razor, Razor Transportation Consulting. Um I have been sworn. Uh 19046, Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, number 308, Tampa. Um I noticed this item on the agenda as I was leaving the office, so I grabbed my report. I wasn't expecting to speak on this today, but I do have some transportation information to provide, as there was opposition testimony in that regard. We did a time and in phasing analysis which looked at the reasonable yield
for the C2 portion, which is approximately one acre. The reasonable yield was calculated based on the land development code formula, which assumes 75%.
Medium to medium high intensity uses and the resulting level of service on Shady Hills Road was level service D as compared to a level of service D standard. So with this development in place, it it would still meet the adopted level of service, and there were no issues with the study intersections. And also I'd like to point out, and don't have the year here yet, I didn't get to that page. But Shady Hills Road is in the long range transportation plan, is being widened to four lanes from Hernando County to State Road 52.
Mike. We realize that there may not be a design done yet. Do we know what the ultimate right of way width will be for Shady Hills Road?
John, if that's a question I I don't know. I did not get into right away for this. It was a Euclidean timing in phasing, so I was min minimal involvement.
I gotcha. Is there anybody on staff that knows that qu answer to that question?
I think it's in Finding Fact twelve.
Yeah.
How was it say, John?
Hundred and sixty feet.
And the current right away width is?
Sixty.
Sixty, so there would be fifty feet that would have to come off the frontage of that property to accommodate the widening of Shady Hills Road. Right.
Let the
Is that in the co is that currently in the corridor preservation cable? I mean would he be required to give that today if he came in with a development application?
Hi, good afternoon. Uh Commission uh Bennett Elbow here with transportation planning. Um yes, sir. So that that is from the uh table of the comprehensive uh plan. The uh right of ultimate right of way width is a hundred sixty. That is correct.
There's currently sixty.
Um and it is Currently um
Yeah, that I I need to check on that.
I think Miss Wellheit's trying to help you out. Yeah, maybe.
Oh sorry.
Barbara Will Hight, 6327, Grand Boulevard. Um so that is what the current table says, but from my experience based upon the project of the north that's still pending. The the if you look at the transportation tables that you've looked at for the twenty fifty update, you'll see that they've changed that cross-section or or the ultimate width. I wish uh Nick Ern was here 'cause he knew it off the top of his head but It's definitely being changed from that width. Yeah. I'll see if I can look it up and get you the answer.
Um if you want to kick this for a moment and I want you to have the right facts.
I
have it.
All right. He's got it.
There's a lot of people helping out with this one.
Sorry about that. Development, economic growth. Oh, we we this if if the Planning Commission remembers we had a number of projects on Shady Hills Road that brought the widening to the forefront in terms of its timeline and it was reduced to 124 feet ultimate as the four lane.
So we'd still be looking at thirty-two feet of right-of-way.
In terms of what's required to be given by this project? Yes. I can't speak to what should be given for this since I didn't work on that, but
That sounds correct to me. Okay.
Well, if if that's correct then finding twelve is not accurate.
'Cause right
now it says fifty fifty feet.
Is it necessarily accurate because has that actually been approved yet for a reduction? Yeah.
Well,
I don't know.
I'm asking
No, because that's in the proposed comp plan. It's not in the new it's not in the existing comp.
I'm I mean I I think it should be noted, but I don't think finding twelve is an accurate.
You probably should have a caveat that says something like unless otherwise approved at the time of PSP or something like that.
The problem with the way it's worded right now is it doesn't it's it's absolutely wiggle room.
I mean can they get right away from the other side of the street anyway? There's a there's a house across the street.
Well they would have to take it. Right, but I'm just saying the the point I was trying to get to that in this case depending upon when his development application comes in under current comp plan or new comp plan, at the end of the day there's going to be for our corridor preservation ordinance, there's going to be a right of way dedication which then goes to Liam's point that he was trying to make that after we get the right-of-way dedication
and the this is C two, that'll be a twenty five foot front
setback. The rear setback would so you would lose the right-of-way dedication plus the 25 feet. Um, and the way the code is written for the rear setback, it calls that when adjacent to residential districts and then adjacent to commercial and industrial, it doesn't talk about agricultural district, which is what the rear would be, and historically that was always assumed that it was the So you would have the right-of-way in the front plus 25 feet and then a 30-foot rear
setback. We could build put uh build a pencil on there, right? I'm not saying you couldn't put something there. I just don't know if the applicant has thought that far.
Right. I also want to make a comment only because this was submitted for the record was the photos and I understand the applicants see that in photo six it looks like there is
yard debris, which is a conditional use um in C2. So I don't know if there's a code violation or if that is actually yard debris. It's kinda hard to see in photo six that was submitted to us, but just want to note that if that is
yard trash debris, then that might require a conditional use.
And I assume there's no staff, there's no permits for the portable buildings that are currently on the site, which I've personally driven by and seen.
Yeah.
That's a question for staff. John. Yes, that was a question for staff.
Well. No, I asked if there were permits for those portable buildings that are there.
Nick would not know the answer to the
road.
Nick just answers the road.
Mr. Chairman Mariano. Yes. Or over here.
Oh. Right here. There you are. So we're we're not aware of any code issues regarding those uh structures. Um what
does that
mean?
There's no violations. So So I can just go put a portable on my lot and there's no violation to do that without a permit?
That's
not the
portables are on the adjacent lot. The portables are on the adjacent lot.
They're not on your property? No. Okay. Right, that's what I'm trying to m
understand.
So these are not pictures of the property that we're looking at?
I think what they were saying th the point of access to that is looks like it's from this piece of property but they're sitting on the adjacent partials. Thank you.
I um I have a question. Yeah. Um I know there is a rezoning application that is continued to a date uncertain to the north. I'm wondering if that includes, and maybe Ms. Woolhite can answer, um, that portion that has those two portable buildings or if the MPUD stops at that boundary to the north.
Sorry, Barbara, for putting you on the spot, no rush.
Yes, yeah.
Yeah. There you go. Sure, exactly.
Or if you know the rezoning, I can I can pull it up myself over here if somebody knows the rezoning number or something like that. Well if you're gonna speak though you gotta
be on the microphone, please.
Good afternoon everyone. Joe Semino, 12363 Hampton Park Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, 33624. We were involved I was involved in the rezoning to the north. I don't have the MPUD number off the top of my head, but I do have it open here. And we are showing a 124-foot proposed right-of-way with a 62-foot proposed half-width, which equaled a 29-foot right-of-way dedication. And
that's to the north.
Okay. Did that include the parcel? With the portables on it?
The applicant appears to be correct that the portables.
Thank you. I
appreciate it.
And the portables are not on the applicant's property.
Okay.
Okay.
So
Is
there anybody else to speak? You can only get you only get one bite at the apples. I'm sorry, you can't speak from the audience. And if if there's anybody who would like to have him answer a question, you're welcome to invite him up. I'll have Mr. Solado. When you come up, I just want it's a good thing for me to tell you right now. You don't come up t two times or three times. I understand.
I just wanted to restate what I said. I understood that the portables were not on that property. It's the means of aggress of getting to that property that's being used by the current parcel that's up. That's what I was trying to convey to you.
I got
ya. Thank you, sir.
Yeah, I can see where they're driving on to this parcel and the portables.
Okay, so I still have an asking question of why The property to the north we're asking for twenty nine feet, but then we have an agenda memo here is where we're asking for fifty feet. Can somebody Address that question.
Uh Mr. Chairman Mariano Nictario Spito's Planning Development and Economic Growth. Um the finding of fact number twelve is referencing 160 feet based on the current comprehensive plan. So that's the actual number that we have on the books right now.
Okay.
In the we've worked with the county engineer and obviously in other projects where we identified an alternative. Right of a width for Sheedy Hills Road from uh County Line Road on the north to Bosley on the south. Um that's 124 feet in the PESCO 2050 comprehensive plan update. And that would be consistent with uh the conditions of approval that were mentioned in the MPUD to the north of this property that Mr. Simoneau had discussed. Um We're not referencing
the hundred and twenty four feet because that's not yet approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
An L D C variation or an alternative standard to the right-of-way?
Well is it being done through some kind of variation to the code, the one to the north? Yes. Yes. Okay, well then that would explain it. Yes. Okay.
Okay.
So is there anybody to speak on this uh here, ask questions here that has not spoken?
If not, the applicant has an opportunity to respond to any questions.
Well, I still have one more question for staff.
Okay.
So how confident is staff that once you apply the require right-of-way dedication and the setbacks that you can fit a building on this site.
What's the depth of that dimension on the top?
Northern line. Yeah, what's the depth?
There's no numbers there. The property appraiser says it's just shy of two hundred one ninety nine ninety nine.
So you'd have to set back uh what'd you say, fifty feet from the back, Lamp? Ooh, zoning question.
Um 30 feet from the rear, and then it would be the right-of-way with whatever that was determined plus 25. Um I will say since the reason why I was asking about the parcel to the north on if it was included in the MPUD or not, because if it is approved that MPUD, that setback would be different if because it would still be C2 adjacent, then that could be a zero foot setback.
So in this case, Liam. His rear yard is the easement. That's why I was asking where the stepback line's gonna get measured from the other side of the east.
Correct. That's why I was asking earlier on the slot.
That's the subdivision.
Correct. If he was going to subdivide the property.
So it would be measured from the other side of the easement, but if he subdivides, it would be thirty feet. Correct.
Are those two easement are those two segments that we're looking at now under two different ownership names?
No, the the easement area and this one acre portion is all under one owner.
And do we know does anybody know if the gas easement is an exclusive easement or is it a non exclusive easement?
It is a non exclusive easement.
So in theory if it is non exclusive
although he could not build a structure on the easement, he could potentially build parking and or storage on the easement. I'd
Correct. It is a non-exclusive easement which enables the owner to build parking. on there and that's probably why based on the conversations with the client's engineer to date they would probably not subdivide that parcel And so then they would be able to use the rear portion of the parcel towards their setback.
Is it strictly a gas easement or is there power lines there too? There's power lines. The power I see a power transit power in the photo. Okay. Well It may be a non exclusive easement for gas, but Duke's gonna have something to say about under their power lines.
Yeah.
We have met with Duke Energy on site. As well. To clarify. What we're able to do.
So are you able to provide us any type of conceptual development plan?
Yeah. 'Cause it it all de It it's ver uh gonna be a very flexible um small building. That will be designed based on the setbacks once we get the zoning approved. So that's why the client chose to wait to get a development plan in place. Um beforehand.
You said the client I asked you before if you were an attorney? No, I'm not an attorney. Okay,
what's your role?
My role is that I just represent the the applicant. You call them
your
client.
I'm a real estate broker in the county. Okay.
Amy, did you have something you wanted to insert?
Uh I was just going to also confirm that we spoke to Duke and they didn't have any opposition to this change as well.
Okay, well I still need you to answer my question, which is are how confident are you that when you apply the setbacks in the right-of-way that a building can be built on this property?
Uh I measured once the backs were taken into consideration, measuring from the easement the the west side of the easement, I'll call it. Um, is about a hundred and forty four feet of depth to available to put a building on. Which of course as as you move south into the triangle is gonna it's gonna shrink a little bit. But at the very north end of the site it's gonna be about a hundred and forty four feet.
And only the little triangle is proposed for C two. Correct.
And is there any other
commercial property in the immediate vicinity.
Doc.
Just circle B for that.
But it does appear that there's some C two zoning along that stretch of shady hills. Correct.
With cars, okay.
Mr. Chairman Mariano Yes I'm sorry. Just to facilitate the conversation a little bit with regard to the rural character area. Um the rural character area area it ends on the west side of Shady Hills. Um and in the Pasco twenty fifty Comprehensive plan update, the boundary of the real character is actually gonna get pulled off of Shady Hills by um one parcel depth. uh from the road so that Shady Hills Road properly
is the whole corridor is outside of the rural character area. The subject property as well as the C2 that you see on the map there, those are in uh the ROR uh future land use category, which will remain as part of Pasco twenty fifty. So these are uh areas that were designated mostly Non rural. uh according to the comprehensive plan. The same is gonna be true along County Line Road where the care rural character area will be pulled off
of County Line to respect the commercial depth that's fronting along along County Line Road going west from Shady Hills.
Okay.
So
So the staff's recommending approval.
Yes, sir.
Question for staff as I read the background and and what the what they're actually asking for and I know it's it's C two zoning, so it's not really use prohibitive, but there's a statement in there that says they do stay allow for the use of a contractor's office and associated storage. But if I look at the C two zoning requirement, when it talks about contractors office and there's a pro Oh, I see. It's
number eleven.
Number eleven. It says all storage shall be inside the building or in an enclosed area not visible from the right of way. Does that pro so that restriction would be on the storage? It couldn't be outside storage of con contractor materials, et cetera. So correct. Okay. Just wanted to clarify.
Mr. Chair, it's up to the Planning Commission what you do with it, but if the this is approved I think Planning twelve needs to be changed to say that it should say unless otherwise approved at the time of preliminary site plan or preliminary development plan review. That they have to dedicate 50 feet. I don't think it's appropriate that we're considering a variance for the property to the north. And then we're not willing to at least consider one for this property.
Amy Toll, we can add that standard language.
Okay. So moved.
To approve. Okay. So we have a motion to approve subject to the most recent comment. Um any further discussion on the motion that I have a second.
I'll second that.
So the discussion? Yes.
So along the west side of Shady Hills Road. adjacent to the northern portion of this property. Your future land use is calm. The zoning is C two and it goes all the way up to county line. I know there is a pending M P U D for townhouses. But it's not yet been approved. One parcel to the north. Of this.
My first thought was, we're asking for C2 out here in this rural area, and this would be spot zoning. But after reviewing the map and seeing all of the C two on the west side of Shady Hills and then all the way up to Shady Hills currently on the east side, this just appears to be a natural extension down to the apex of the triangle. They woke. caution the applicant. that as per Liam, who
used to be Ory in house zoning expert or one of them.
you're gonna have fun trying to develop this property because you're gonna find that there's not a lot of buildable area.
I would tell you that perhaps you should have gone and seen an engineer and had some conceptual layout. before you did this, but that'll be your Gamble, I guess. But I don't find this to be spot zoning. It just appears to be a minor continuation of the C T district that's already there.
All
right, any further discussion? We have motion and we have a second. No f there was no further discussion. All in favor of the motion signified by saying aye. Aye. Like opposed, like signed.
Okay. I would just like to thank everybody out there who helped with that item. Yes. Real team effort.
Is that like an amicus remote?
All right.