Seven Oaks MPD modification PDD 23-7487 office uses
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
It is a stretch of the recording that this archive identified as a separate matter — a call to order, a recess, or something taken up that the agenda does not list. There is no official title, no staff recommendation and no disposition, because the county never recorded one. Everything below is inferred.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Jun 8, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Jun 8, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 39m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 71% of 181 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Wait, whoops. Jump dye. All right, seven oaks M P D, P D twenty three, seventy-four eighty seven.
Here is their location map. I believe we're all pretty familiar with seven oats. Proposed as a request to modify the MPUD to divide existing parcel S twelve into two parcels, retain the existing community rec center on parcel S twelve A, and add additional specific office uses for the existing office building. The master plan's table of alternative allowable uses and the conditions of approval will change to reflect the two new parcels in our ownership, include the revised acreages
for the two new parcels, and revised condition number 30 to add 30L to provide the allowed land uses and dimensional standards for parcel S12B.
There is parcel S twelve B circle in in the master plan.
On March 14, 2018, the BCC denied a similar request, but at that time, SB Associates, the applicant, was requesting all office uses for the proposed partial S twelve E. The BCC found the request inconsistent with the comp plan in L D C as noted in the memo. On April 11, 2018, SB Associates Attorneys submitted the to the county a request for relief under the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act, Section 70.51, Florida statutes, challenging the denial.
On May 22, 2018, the BCC approved retaining Carlos Alvarez as the special magistrate to facilitate a resolution. As a result, the county and the applicant negotiated a proposed settlement as indicated with this MPUD modification. The property is located on the north side of SR-56, west of SR 581 Bruce Bowns, and south and east of SR-54. Presently, Seven Oaks is developed as a mixed-use community with residential, office, commercial,
and recreational facilities, and the proposed use is consistent with the PASCO LDC Chapter 400 Subsection 402.2 zoning amendment and PUD and with the applicable provisions of the PASCO Comprehensive Plan. And with that, P D recommends approval with conditions.
Okay.
Any questions?
Any one? So the the only thing that Tammy didn't cover is why this has come to you, which maybe Barbara's in cover, but this project back in twenty eighteen originally went to the DRC, back when DRC heard MPDs, so you've you've never seen it before. Um so what happened is it went to DRC, DRC recommended denial, the board denied it. After the went through the 70.51 process, it was actually scheduled to go back to the Board of County
Commissioners. Um, but because of COVID and we went to completely virtual hearings, the applicant basically continued it to a date uncertain and has just now decided to kind of reschedule the public hearing. In the interim, DRC went away, you took over the due. So the applicant in an abundance of caution said we should get a recommendation from Planning Commission because they never heard this request. Okay. So that's why you're hearing it. Okay.
Thank
you.
And then they got to go behind Saddlebrook.
I I'll blame Mr. Smoker for that because he said he had a call that he had to do at two thirty so we couldn't take him first. Yeah,
I think he's a likely
suspect.
I think the client just fired him.
Barbara Well Heights, 6327 Grand Boulevard, Four Crown Communities SB Associates, one of my long standing clients, one of my first clients when I opened my law firm. So Let me try to explain this to you and that's what this binder is. I want to give you some perspective so that you can you know, it's one thing to say there's a settlement agreement and this has been negotiated, please just say okay. I know you guys don't say that. Um so I feel the obligation to kind of go through this quickly because I know we're getting tired. And I'll try to do it well.
I don't know at this point. So in this binder is is is history of this building. So if if you go out to Seven Oaks today, and I've been out there many times to my client's office, you you drive in to his office and there's an office and then there's vacant property. And so in 2002 the number one happened where there was an approval by DRC. of of a preliminary plan, preliminary site plan construction plans for offices and a clubhouse. And it was one approval document. And
specifically I approved a clubhouse of 7,800 square feet, three office buildings of 3,600 square feet, for a total office use of 10,800 square feet. Only one of those has been built. The Crown has had their offices in there the whole time.
So what's important of that is just to show you what when you look at the page two of number one, you can see c to construct office. So we're not making up the fact that this was approved as an office, because these are what the documents say. When you go to number two, this was an annual report study. And it tells you what in a DRI it tells you what's been constructed. And when you look at number two. You'll see in number two that the Recreation Center had been completed by that reporting
there in 2001, 2002, going into 2002, 2003, you'll see then that 3,800 square feet of office have been constructed. Going on to number three, you see this is a an What we had to do for the Seven Oaks DRI is is to figure out what um entitlements had been used over time. So it was quite a bit of elaborate tracking that was done because this is a very large project, a very large DRI. You can see
it under number three as you flip through those pages, you can see the clubhouse laid out. And then on the next page you can see S12 and where they are using their office square footage. in there in in keeping track of entitlements and and showing that they paid their impact fee based upon office. And then it shows the next two office buildings and S S twelve A as not being uh constructed yet.
So I tell you all this is and then going to number four. The taxes on the his the building have always been assessed at office. So all these years he's been paying taxes and that's what number four shows you. When you go to number five, number five tells you that the C D D has been assessing this as office and and and Crown SB Associates has been paying an office assessment.
Number six, are a couple different marketing plans over time. They're dated 2002, 2007, 2009. All of those show the offices.
Going to number seven, the parking easement at the bottom was highlighted. It was a parking easement for office building. Interestingly enough, it at number eight. There's a discussion between the C D D Council, the Seven Oak C D D, and County Staff listed here and these are the notes of basically explaining that the three office buildings have already been approved and one's been constructed and because of the governor granting the extensions that David mentioned
in our prior hearing, those plans for those three office buildings are still valid. That was the case in twenty. And it's still the case today that those plans that were approved by DRC are still valid. Going on to number nine is a compatibility analysis that was done with the prior amendment that was denied. And then number 10, I put in there because that is the CO for Crown's office building that they're occupying and been occupying all these years, and it was CO'd as office. So moving forward
Very high I put in your left pocket these three pieces of paper, and these are important if you lay them by side by side here. It's high-tech. It tells a story of uses. We know we have three buildings that are office buildings, but what can we do in those? So There's three pieces of paper here and I labeled them different ways. So permitted use is now. is what can happen The
counties did The zoning administrators determine that this list is called permitted uses now. is a list of what can be done without any change. So that's so you can look at that and you can see We've got swimming pools, tennis pubs, gymnasium, amusement, arcades, bowling alleys, shuffleboard court, billiard halls, dance halls, yoga studios, um bingo hall, I've said that twice, exercise classes, racquetball, weightlifting, personal trainer, crossfit. We can have daycare. Uh you
can see the list. So um not to that you can't read it yourself, but that's the list of of things that are without this amendment can be done on the the three the three up buildings, um including the building where Crown is now. The second one I called Seven Oaks M P U D Office Permitted Uses, PO two. So this is the position that we've always taken that Deal. It was approved they definitely approved for office. And when you look at office in the Seven Oaks M PUD, this is the list. It's PO two. So
this is the list of office uses allowed When the MPD allows office.
So where is what does all that mean? Where are we at with the settlement? So when we came before the board With having an amendment so that we would reaffirm that Office uses were allowed for the vacant parcel as well as the PO two office uses were allowed for the building that's been constructed and the vacant property. The board denied that. But these are the uses that would have been allowed. So
moving forward to litigation And then the settlement, I did not participate in any of that. Um I'm not a litigator, I just do this. Mr. Smoker worked with Mr. Weber on the on the on that and as well as City Terrapini as as their planner.
What was discussed was
for the we broke it down into two different things. The vacant property and the office building. Remember when we when we applied for the bonification that was denied, it was PO2 for all all of them. What my clients agreed to in being presented to you is for the vacant property It's just the primitive uses now list. So basically no action needs to be taken on the vacant property because he's willing to agree to abide by what's allowed today. Now it's
all in this memo obviously in this modification so all the the conditions are clear. But so no longer seeking the PO2 uses. For the property that I showed you was approved his office, no longer seeking that, which is he's now saying I'll live with this list of what's allowed today per the county. So that leaves the that leaves the office building that's been used as office and the public has come to it, I've come to it and we've had many meetings there and fundraisers by
the way. They're really cool fundraisers. And I really could use that glass of wine that I had last time I was there. So when it comes to the office building, it's it's these two lists. So this one was what he sought before, which is the PO2 uses, which include things like beauty and barber shops, tailor shops, laundry shoe repair, drive cleaning florists, photography, um
County state buildings, churches, civic organizations, and public schools. And he's agreeable to this list, which I have written here, very fancy on top of here, proposed for existing office building. So he comes before you really just for this and to say, I'm willing to do only these things in my building. That was approved as office. Now, I not want to debate the fact that there's a difference of opinion about that and I'm not here to debate that. We're here to solve this and and don't mean to get into any
kind of debate with the county over Was it office, was it PO two? It doesn't matter anymore. We're moving this forward. So he's willing to agree to this list called proposed existing office building, the uses for the office building. And you can see their professional officing services. So we took out PO two uses that staff felt were could be non-compatible and put in what they feel and I know they'll say because they said it in their agenda memo are compatible uses with how the it's used today. by the client. and
also compatible with that list of permitted uses now. So when you look at the permanent uses now and you say, Well I gosh I can have all these different things like an easy indoor movie theater, martial arts studio, laser tag facility. The fact that we're gonna do professional offices in that as well. i is not is compatible, it's not providing a greater impact, and is a reasonable way to resolve this issue, avoid
any future litigation. Um And I I I'm proud of the process that they went through to get to this and that the resolution that they came up with I had nothing to do with it. I'm just explaining it to you. So I hope you understood that. I tried my best to explain it.
Could
you go over
that one more time, please?
So basically we're asking for the office building that was approved as office has been used by office to be allowed these office uses on the proposed existing office building only. That's it.
So those allowances are not currently there.
He's currently using it so there's what he's currently doing, he uses it as a professional office.
Okay.
But We're trying to clean up the paperwork and the MPV paperwork to say 'cause Crown at some point will not continue to occupy that spot space. So we're trying to clean up the paperwork and what can it be.
Okay. If you if you want my opinion about what may indirectly be driving it is yes he's using his office today but the underlying zone is still recreation. So it may be difficult to sell that building For an office use if your underlying zoning is still recreation. Yeah,
that the current MPD plan calls it community recreations community rec center. With no definition. So I think that's kind of what got us in this flagmire.
So even though office is allowed under that worded the wording it's just
Well it's it's Community Record Center never had a definition in the MPUD. And that's what S twelve, because I'm looking at the M PUD plan that's approved, it never had a definition. To me, the fact that office was approved in this whole book means it was defined as office. That being said, not going backwards and going forward, and we're trying to clean up this paperwork in a fair and reasonable way that's fair to the client who's made the investments, as well as com coming up with uses that that are compatible. Um and we see, you know, and
I I'm sure there's a difference of opinion I'm sure by whoever's going to speak here after me, but um I just wanted to explain to you where we've been and where we'd like to to resolve this.
The other issue that that probably took some time to negotiate is that Barbara's writing doesn't define what community rec centre means, so staff has interpreted that as being recreational uses. So it took Denise and Cynthia Penny a great deal of time to negotiate what does that mean and that's all the first page of Barbara's handout is what does recreation mean? Right. Yeah,
the permitted use is today.
Okay. Yeah, I I can see where it would be difficult to market a building that you can't define the use. Yeah.
You you talk about Seven Oaks, right? Yes. And you talked about the complex uh they have an office at one location, Seven Oaks I mean the Crown has their offices there. Then you have the facility which y is behind the pool and or in front of the pool, and then you have the other areas there. And you have a little theater too on the side.
Yeah. So
so can ask uh you know, maybe they call it out quicker than I did. What's the problem?
Well You ha I know there's one person here to speak, so I guess we could hear what um what their thoughts are.
Okay. Okay. I withdraw the question. I mean I could probably summarize it for you, but I'd rather hear from the resident.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you, Barbara. All right. Uh who's here would like to speak?
Give us your
name and address, please. Yes, sir. Uh John Tomsu, [address removed]. I have been sworn in. So before I start, I just wanted to say I appreciate all of you guys' service to the county and to the community. Also I want to call out and recognize specifically Mr. Goldstein, Ms. Hernandez, and Ms. Snyder for their professionalism and their quick responses. They support people like me and other residents that don't understand land
use or compatibility or any of the rules that are governed here. Um so I just wanted to call that out. They should be recognized for their uh. their help for us and for the county. Um what I'm gonna start with is uh PD D eighteen O two seventy seven from twenty eighteen, um specifically from there the DRC Called out since the office building has been built and accomp and occupied since 2003. There are no changed or changing conditions that necessitate this amendment.
I believe that still holds true. Everything that was inside the DRC findings uh and even the um the denial from the BCC related to uh F L U 1.10, F L U one dot zero 6, FLU A-2, LDC 402-2F, and 402-1E are still applicable today. Nothing's changed. The only thing that's changed is the applicant, the landowner Wants to change it so that he can get a um
get rid of the property or you know sell the property. Um This isn't something that would be afforded to any of the homeowners that are inside Seven Oaks. Whenever we purchase, we purchase into the MPUD. We purchase into the Covenants. We purchase into all of the documents that we sign during closing that say we agree to these terms whenever we purchase this. So one of the things that we call out and that I heard recently was What's the current approved? usage. We also heard earlier in
testimony, not related to this case, about data and how it's flawed. If you go out to the assessor's office, they'll say that this land is zone C2. We had a dialogue today. Ms. Mandez is going to follow up with them and tell them no, that's the improper zone. So whenever the the county came up with this is what Rec Center
Great definitions, right? All those terms. Um the problem though is that uh what they want to move it towards isn't it. You'll notice that one of the um asked for uses is a veterinary clinic uh where everything will be inside. But normally there's a panel outside. Uh that would have an impact. Uh whenever we talk about compatibility, this isn't compatible because it adversely uh impacts the living conditions in the immediate and surrounding neighborhoods. Whenever we look at the traffic, and I know we can always refer back
to you know Mr. Henry and his expertise, but the rules and the uh data that's in place is old, it's stagnant. It doesn't take into account all of the changes that have occurred around the community, around the county, that have an impact on the arterial roads for the north, south, north, and west entrances to our community, to Southern Oaks. Whenever those, you know, this comes before the board and stuff, there should be updated traffic assessments to better analyze how new uses that
would be impactful outside of the community Would have an effect on traffic. And not just traffic, but how it ties to the CDB and their assessments for roads. The road uses that are used that are you know milled and resurfaced over time, those are based off of certain quantities, based off of what the trip counts are supposed to be. If you have trip counts that now exceed what your plans were because of this new use on the interior of Seven Oaks, not the exterior, where all of the other commercial properties are. That's something
that needs to be taken into account because it has a direct impact on the assessments that would be made to all of the residents and businesses in that area. And lastly, I'm representing the 191 residents that reached out to me over the past three days saying that they're against this. And specifically, whenever we talked about history, the 27 people that acknowledged that they were personally told by the sales agent, developer, and builder that the crown property would actually hand this property over to
the community.
Is
there particular
use That you and the people you represent find objectionable or that you think is going to create some traffic problem?
Yes sir. Anything outside of uh recreation? I don't have the red line document in front of me. So then what's
I think we just had a discussion about there was never a definition of what the recreation was. So what's that in your mind?
Uh recreation would be the points that the county has now called out, that calls out like the laser tag I think was one. Um a lot of these amenities that are inside. Um but riffice space is what it's been. If we look at what it's been historically, it's always been this this office space. It could be available for yoga classes. Um the real idea was that eventually that property would be turned over to the community and you Used as additional amenities for the Seven Oaks community. Understanding that there were CDD2, CDD
three, additional clubhouses that never materialized. A lengthy nature trail that ended up being chopped in half instead of it being the full eight miles. So there's there's a a ton of history that's behind this. And that's what we're trying to go to. Towards is everything's perfect the way it is. The office use that could still be used as you know limited office space, but it should be something that's you know not gonna
bring in additional traffic. Uh, in addition to the parking, right now the easement that's granted between the CDB and that um and the property owner, uh it's only for 13 spaces. It's the spaces that are incident. to the property. Whereas whenever you look at more documentation, it talks about what's the overall plan for parking, and it talks about 35 spaces being accommodated. Because again, people had to come up with these ideas of how to segregate and how to break it out to be able to apply the parking reasonably. There isn't enough parking and there won't be enough parking just like the denials stated
whenever it comes to loading and unloading. So there's no place to bring in a large truck if you ended up going with one of the ideas like a cafe or something like that, and you have a Cisco truck coming in to offload product. There's no place to do that.
D do you know if the the property or that building was originally used as like a uh sales office or something like that when the pro when Seven Oaks was being built? Or it was. Okay. Um and you said the intention was to eventually turn it over to the community for some sort of amenity usage for the community. Yes sir. D do you know if there was anything ever put in writing to that effect or it was just
no there's nothing in writing. Um it was basically All word of mouth. Again, we'd have you know 27 people attest to it. And I think four or five of these people don't even live in Seven Oops anymore. There are brochures and documentation that that show that property as being part of the recreation center. And moreover, whenever you think about the design of the MPUD and even the DRR DRI at one point, it was all just S12. It was here's recreation. Because that was the idea. And I think there's a lot of communities that if you go into
and you see the place where they're selling from, it ends up being a piece of the clubhouse or ancillary to the clubhouse. And that's what this one was. And I understand this is a problem where you've got something called Rec Center and you need to fill in the blank. Well, what is this thing? It's an office building. And if it was, hey, this is what the clear definition of this property was. property is and they want to build two more buildings. That's their right as a property owner. Nobody can argue that. You want to build two more buildings? Fine, do it. But whenever you want to build them for
a specific thing, and if you look at the way that this uh This these conditions have been written. It's focused on, hey, we're gonna take what you said we could do in the beginning. and apply it to this the other potential two buildings that won't be built. But for this other one that we have, well we want to add some more to it. Because maybe we've already s spoken to a a vet clinic that wants to come in here. Or maybe we've already spoken to somebody that wants to do uh bonds or you know other types of businesses that facilitate that that need. But
again, it's gonna have an imp impact on uh on parking and and traffic. Um the biggest thing is you know the kids. Uh whenever you have uh a business like that. and you have kids and parents that are you know moving back and forth across those areas to get to the clubhouse and use the amenities that are afforded to them, they're gonna be the ones that are impacted by the volume of traffic, uh the lack of crossings, those types of things.
Is there something in that definition of things that are approved that you specifically object to? Um we've got a definition now of things that can be put there.
I mean I see the list then I can tell you. I just don't have the red line in front of me, I'm sorry.
Um I think we have a copy there.
Commission Mr. Chair, are you asking about the existing approved uses or the proposed use for the office building? Which one you asking about?
The one that that first section, the first paragraph.
The one the one that the recreational uses?
Okay.
Right, so the primary uses that are currently allowed, correct?
That's what I'm asking, yeah.
Oh
Yeah, I mean I I I don't
Honestly I don't have the expertise as the Planning Board does. So, you know, I I've spent the past two days speaking with them, trying to understand what the rules are, and unfortunately there's not a clear definition. So
Well that is the definition.
Well no, this is the this is what they made up. So what I'm saying is like don't
you want
to do that?
So that's gonna be the new definition of of the approved uses. I ask you if there's anything on that list that you don't approve of or that you think there's a problem with, because I'm having a really hard time trying to figure out why you would not want a veterinary clinic, but you would want a recreational facility. Because a recreational facility we could probably create more traffic than a veterinary clinic.
That's what I'm saying. Skating, ramp, dancing.
I I don't know. I mean, I just don't get it. Um Yeah, you know, and I think to have a building, you know, if you owned a building That there was no specific definition for the U And you wanted to sell it and I wanted to buy it but you couldn't tell me what I could use it for. I probably wouldn't buy it. Yes, sir. So I mean that's the position he's in. So what we're trying to do is get him to a point and I think that's a the right thing to do, get him to the point where he
can say definitively to somebody, this is what you can use this building for. And so far you haven't convinced me, I don't know about the rest of 'em, but you haven't convinced me that there's a reason not to Good proof.
Yeah, I think ideally it would be great if it were a recreational building for the com uh like an amenity for the community, but we can't d you know, we can't stipulate that because that's up to the private Owner to determine what goes in there
unfortunately.
And there's nothing legal that's
going to be
that. So yeah, I I get what you're coming from
just to clarify I think the I think uh what what you're standing up talking about is is the proposed uses for the existing building, correct? Or are you talking about the permitted uses for the to be built buildings?
I think he's objecting to the proposed uses for the existing property.
I agree. I'm not sure that everybody up here understands that.
I
guess I'm not sure. It has nothing to do with this first one that says permitted
use is been used for an office bill. What I'm trying to figure out is he
claimed that how can he be an office proposed existing building uses are going to create some sort of incompatibility or nuisance to his neighborhood. good over and above what the permitted uses are now. I mean I'm looking at uh a land surveying office as compared to a movie theater. I mean who's generating more traffic here?
Right, so I'm I'm not arguing in the primary uses because if that's what we're saying the definition of, then that's their right as a landowner. It's the ancillary uses.
What are the ancillary uses that you're objecting to? Uh all of them.
So that's the same thing.
That's That's
permanent pretty many uses now. So
those are those are now.
Yeah there's nothing.
So the proposal for the existing office building to additional primary uses.
Additional primary uses.
Those just seem from a traffic and lighting and intensity.
Less intense than
way less intense. Just someone who works in a professional office all the day.
Right,
but all of those would be inside the building. So like whenever you talk about a golf course, it's a mini golf inside. I think it's a good idea. It's a rec center.
Okay. I I guess my point being is how many people on Friday evening are going to the land surveyor office versus how many of them are taking their kids to the indoor mini golf arcade place, laser tag place. I'm just not
Well and ultimately it's a land use a l allowed l land use, not just so someone can demolish that building and build A movie theater there.
Well and that's the other problem is that you know the height requirement. So right now it's committed to one story, but it could be up to thirty-five
feet
if this type of thing.
Which would be less of a uh it would be more of a traffic impact than what the possibility of number four would be. So
Yeah, I mean the the ideas that you're putting forth and saying that hey all these records. Recreational uses, they're gonna bring in large volumes of traffic. If that's what was going to be done, it would have been done. And that's fine, keep it that way. But there's no reason to say, okay, let's make it into professional office buildings and then break it out into multiple buildings. It just doesn't make sense. There's nothing that warrants this. I I mean your power is to allow rezoning. This is something that's been there for decades. And there's no There's
no real reason other than one person wants to say, I wanna sell my property and I wanna get I want to get all the definitions of what it can be and I want to extend it more. That's that's one party. Whenever we should be thinking about the community, whenever we should be thinking about everyone else that bought into this.
Well it's we need to be thinking about individual property rights. That's we need to be thinking about individuals. It's not concerned both sides. It's not always uh the community that decides it's it's what's right and what's wrong.
But it's you're it's you're right, it's private property and we although there's the assertion that, you know, some real estate agent twenty years ago told somebody that this is gonna be this and this is gonna be that. Well, and you know, maybe that's what they thought, but that's not he acknowledged, this wasn't in writing. I'm a real estate contract in this state isn't valid unless it's in writing. I
And then the last point was uh on section V, where it talks about the uh setbacks. And this could just be a data problem, but if you pull up Pasco Mapper, I think it was referenced earlier, the awesome tools that we have access to. Um if you pull up this property and you look at the dimensions Uh you'll actually see that their setback can't accommodate the seven point five feet that it it looks like it's right on the property line. And again, it could be a data issue, but Pasco Mapper was referenced earlier as the tools that citizens have available to them to help identify
these types of issues.
And it's coming up right there.
And you'll see the property uh the rectangular building next to the tennis courts and you'll see at the upper right hand corner um that's I mean unfortunately there's no scale, but it's not seven and a half feet.
Well then and I guess Denise I'll test my knowledge here, then that's an that would become an existing nonconforming property whose degree of non conformity cannot be expanded in future.
Well
it's just the final. I I hear your point. I'm just saying that these are calling out rules and whenever we're knowing we break the rules.
Well I think they're referring to new things here. If the building's there and if it's to whether it's two feet or seven and a half feet it is where it is.
But
if a new building's built on the property they have to conform to these setbacks.
Hmm.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Mm. Marvara? Is there anybody else do we have anybody on Webex for this one?
We don't have anyone on WebEx on this one.
I don't really have anything to add. I thought your conversations were very good. If you have any questions I'm available but
Any questions. Do you want to address the setback?
I think our I think mm what you said that applies to the new buildings, and that's why we wrote it that way. Maybe we need to make that clearer. Um
Okay.
Any other questions? I'll try and figure out how he's agreged by whether that's two feet, I'm looking at this picture, whether it's two feet, five feet or ten feet, it how does that affect him?
No, I think he's just looking for our opp opportunities to present an argument that would, you know, somehow overcome it you know, what I think is the rightful use of the property. So but that's just me.
Would anybody like to make a move a motion?
Yeah, we're going to have to do that. Barbara, you you forgot. We've been looking
through it for thirty lashes.
So moved.
Okay. Okay, all in favor? I
so the one thing a comment I want to make before you all vote is that uh Um when this was heard by DRC and the board back in whatever year was twenty eighteen, there was substantially more opposition to the request. Now I don't I can't tell you what happened in the last four years as to why there isn't is or is not more opposition, but my speculation is that the There was an attempt by the CDD
to purchase this property for their own use, which is for recreational uses. That purchase was unsuccessful for whatever reason. And so we are where we are today.
Yeah. So it's yeah. So it could be m form more advantageous for them to
But even if you approve this, there's nothing stopping the C D D from continuing to negotiate with Mister Weber to acquire this property if they can reach agreement on a price and then the C D D could use it for whatever recreational purposes they want to use it for. So I mean Yeah. Your approval of this doesn't stop that from happening. CDD is a government just like we are and they have the ability to figure out a way to buy property.
Yeah,
motion. Or do we want to do that? Yeah, I I don't think there's an issue with adding this this other um principal use which is less um you know has less impact on the property than what's currently allowed. So yeah, I'd move to approve
A second.
We have a motion to approve and a second. Further discussion on the motion. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Like signed. Okay. Motion carries.
Is that it?