PDD 21-7528 Tunnel to Towers R-4 rezoning Parkway Boulevard

58:20So the next item is the zoning amendment, PDD 21-7528. Stephen Steller, tunnel to tower slash parkway boulevard is a rezoning from a PUD Plan Unit Development District to an R-4 high density residential district.

58:37The subject site is located on the south side of Parkway Boulevard, approximately a half a mile east of Aaron Cutoff.

58:46The site is currently undeveloped and contains approximately 75.15 acres. The owner slash applicant proposes to develop the site in conformance with the R-4 high density residential district standards. The property owner wishes to develop the Developed the site as a community for the foundation's three programs the Gold Star Family Home Program, the SMART Home Program, and the Fallen First. First responders home program.

59:16The surrounding area is characterized by residential development. The subject site has a future land use classification, res three, residential, three dwelling units per acre. under the comprehensive plan. The applicant has volunteered to record a deed restriction to limit the number of total lots, install a six-foot-high fence along Panthers Run subdivision, have a total of six lots with a hundred width along Panthers Run Run subdivision.

59:47And the applicant may in his sole discretion, develop the area along the western boundary of the subject site adjacent to the lots one through four of Panthers Run Subdivision as a neighborhood park.

1:00:03This is a look at the surrounding zoning.

1:00:11This is a look at the surrounding future land use classifications. To the north and east is Res 3, and to the south and west is Res 3 and Res 6.

1:00:24And this is an arrow of the access.

1:00:29To the subject site. And this is coming with a recommendation of approval.

1:00:36All right. Is the applicant present?

1:00:52I believe the applicant is virtually pres present.

1:00:59Well can I ask a question to Liam? Sure, David. So, Liam, can you address I think there was a deed restriction being proposed by the applicant ru to with some additional buffering requirements, can you address what those are?

1:01:15Mr. Chairman M

1:01:17Uh

1:01:18yes, hold on a minute, please.

1:01:20Uh Mr. Chairman

1:01:21Mariano. Thank you, but hold hold one second, please.

1:01:27Okay.

1:01:33The I'm I'm

1:01:40I don't believe the deed restriction had buffering requirements. I can go through the deed restriction if you would like. Um item by item.

1:01:50D restriction, that was why this got continued, right? So I'm just asking you to explain what's changed since the last time the Planning Commission heard it. That's really what I'm asking you to summarize.

1:02:02Okay, no problem, I can do that. So There I'm gonna go through the deed restrictions as listed. Um there shall be a maximum of 120 single family detached site-built homes on the property unless otherwise approved by the county in connection with any subsequential rezoning.

1:02:22Shall install a six-foot-high opaque fence along the three boundaries of the property that are adjacent to the existing Panthers Run subdivision. which fence shall be installed in the locations as generally shown in exhibit B. Which is included in your attachment number three in the agenda memo packet.

1:02:48Along the western boundary of the property that is adjacent to lots one through four of Panthers Run Subdivision. Shall locate a minimum of Five. Lots that have a minimum of a hundred foot a ha uh sorry, excuse me, let me restate that. A minimum of uh five lots that have a minimum width of a hundred feet. Those one hundred foot lots shall occupy occupied by one-story homes and shall generally be located as shown in exhibit B. along

1:03:19the northwest boundary of the property that is adjacent to lot four. of Panthers Run Subdivision, sh there shall be located one lot with a minimum width of 100 foot and will be occupied by a one-story home.

1:03:39And then as an alternative to the location of the a hundred foot width lots. As described. in this section in

1:03:49It may be at the sole discretion of the developer. to use the western boundary of the subject site as a neighboring park. I will also like to note that Planning Commission did request that the rezoning be limited to the beneficiaries of tunnels to tower programs. The applicant has refused to place that commitment in the deed restriction.

1:04:19All right. Well having gone through all those, um, I guess we're getting back to the central question that David asked. What is different from Mr. Chairman M what what it what is different from the uh what we what we discussed last week?

1:04:33Well I think that's a good thing. Mm. Liam did summarize what's different. I mean those additional restrictions that the applicant has offered would be what's different than from the last time it came to you.

1:04:45Okay, because I I was thinking that the You know, the the offense and all those things. I thought those were part of the application last time, but if they weren't

1:04:56Well there was There w there was nothing requiring the things that Liam just read, there was nothing requiring those to be in place. Okay. The deed restriction would be a requirement that those be in place.

1:05:07Right. So it um I know you're you're wanted to give uh your testimony, but what I I'm talking to the applicant now. Um And the it's John, right? John? Can you hear me?

1:05:25Mr. Chairman, can you hear me? Mine is John Grandolph.

1:05:27Yes, I hear you.

1:05:29Okay.

1:05:30Okay. So

1:05:30uh please go ahead. Yes, sir. Uh John Grandolph Hill Warden Henderson on behalf of Stephen Sillers, Tunnels to Towers Foundation, the owner of the property and the applicant. Is uh Cindy Chairpani on the line?

1:05:49John, I John, I'm sorry, this is Gina Della Region. I see that Cindy is on the participant list, but she didn't get moved up to the panelist.

1:05:56Okay. Can we promote Tindy please?

1:06:00Oh Hys and Dade. Thank you. Thank you so much. I believe come on now.

1:06:06Okay, so these are on Uh Mr Chairman Mariano Cindy Terrapani and ask her to summarize the application before you And then uh I will have some comments on the deed restriction document.

1:06:19All right. Go ahead.

1:06:23Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. I'm Cindy Terrapani with Terrapani Planning Strategies. My address is 128 East Tarpon Avenue. I am the applicant's representative along with Mr. Grandolf and I represent Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers Foundation, who is both the applicant and the property owner for the rezoning. Before I start my presentation, just to answer your question, Mr. Chairman, when we were for you last month on April 22nd, there was no deed restriction at all. We had verbally committed to the neighboring

1:06:54property owners that we would do a fence if it wasn't confirmed in a deed restriction. And there were no other provisions with regard to the lot size at all. So that is new. The entire deed restriction is new today.

1:07:07Okay, thank

1:07:07you.

1:07:12by you and Panther Run, which is our neighbors to the to the west. And we believe that the D-Restrictions address preserve the rights of the tunnel to towers while addressing the concerns of our neighboring property owners. The deed restriction is in your packet and Mr. Liam, Mr. Devine has discussed them, but I just want to highlight a couple things to clarify. There is a maximum number of units of 120 and must all be site-built. No modular will be allowed. Which would be allowed normally in the R four. The six-foot fence

1:07:42is along the three shared boundaries of the of our neighboring property for Panda Run. Your code does not require a fence or any type of buffer because the two uses are the same. They're single family detached homes. But we are committing in the deed restriction to do a six-foot solid fence along those three property lines. Then along the western edge where before we had all 60-foot lots, mostly 60 with some 100-foot lots, we are committing to five 100-foot lots at a minimum. There could be

1:08:12more. And these 100-foot lots will be for the injured veterans and therefore they will be one story. The five larger lots, we've we've strategically located them in proximity to the zic existing homes to minimize the number of homes backing up up to Panther Run. Along that southern boundary next to Panther Run Lot 4, same concept, but we only look there's only one home located on that boundary of Panther Run. So we are committing to one hundred foot lot in general proximity of that existing home.

1:08:44The commitments of this deed restriction reduced the number of lots along that western boundary from thirteen to ten total. I think it also should be noted that four of the four homes in Panther Run that we are talking about adjacent to our rezoning site, three of them are two-story homes. Even though there are these two-story homes adjacent to us, we respected the Panther Run's request to commit to as many one-story homes as we can. The question was asked previously, why can't you put all the hundred foot lots on that edge? Well,

1:09:14the reason is that it that it would limit the homes for the injured veterans to only one location within this rather large 75-acre project. And as Matt Mahoney with the Foundation has said it so eloquently before, the foundation wants to give the veterans the same rights as every other homeowner to pick their home site and their home location within the development. if all of the hundred flots were on one side of one street, which is what that would require Not only does it eliminate the personal preference for that veteran, But it

1:09:44creates the feeling that they are being segregated from the rest of the community. And that is the last thing the foundation wants to do, is they want to create a community of people who have shared experiences and can help each other and live in harmony with their neighbors. Again, the foundation proposes only single detached homes, no townhouses, no multifamily, neither of those are allowed in the zoning district that we have requested. Another question was asked is if the foundation would commit to allowing only disabled veterans and their surviving spouses to live

1:10:15in the neighborhood. On the advice of our attorney, we have not included this for a couple of reasons. And I'll just list the plainer reasons, and Mr. Grandloff may have some other comments. If you restrict this development to one class of homeowner and indeed a protected class of disabled persons, that's counter to federal and Florida housing law that require equal opportunity for everyone to live wherever they would like to live. But also we're really asking you to approve this rezoning based on its merits. We demonstrated that the rezoning

1:10:45complies with all your criteria. And inde indeed, your staff agrees that it complies with the criteria and has recommended approval. The single family homes are compatible with the existing single family homes. Utilities are available to the site. There's an elementary school and a middle school, Pine View Elementary and Middle South of the site. The road network has capacity for the development. We plan to preserve almost all the twenty-six acres of wetlands on our site. And we are being developed

1:11:15at about 25% less than the residential three plan category. We're not asking for any plan amendment change. And then finally, as you all know very well, the site will have to go through the county site plan review process and also Swift MUD. And we will have to demonstrate that the site can meet all of the county site development regulations. We believe the site size and configuration can do that. We've done some preliminary engineering to demonstrate that it can. In summary, the rezoning complies with all of the criteria.

1:11:46The rezoning district that is being requested allows only single-family homes at the detached, and that's again confirmed in the deed restriction. As the property owner, Tunnelton Towers is committed to developing the site as only a single family detached neighborhood. The fact that their intended homeowners are a specific group of people does not make the project more or less compatible with the existing single-family homes. Single family next to single family is by its very nature compatible. And land use land use law

1:12:16tells us that a rezoning decision should be blind to the demographics of the future homeowners and base the rezoning decision solely on compliance with the rezoning criteria, which we believe we have met. One last note, we do ask you to give consideration to the Foundation's excellent 20-year track record of developing single-family homes in various parts of the United States. By the end of 2021, they will have delivered 370 homes to injured veterans, falling first responders, and military service members' families. The foundation

1:12:46respectfully requested your approved this rezoning to allow them to build the first neighborhood in the United States. to bright homes for their constituents. Thank you very much. And I'll turn it over to Mr Randolph for some closing comments.

1:13:00Say that again. Can

1:13:00I ask for

1:13:01a question?

1:13:01Yes, I'm sorry.

1:13:02So Cindy, I get your point about the zoning being blind to the occupant, uh which I agree with, but then why did you say that certain homes would be one story because they were going to be occupied by disabled veterans. I mean to me I get your point. But if we're gonna be blind, we it should be blind, completely blind. In other words, we shouldn't be saying a home gets to be one story because it's going to be occupied by disabled veterans if we're going to be blind to the occupants. Would you agree?

1:13:36Mm not exactly if I can explain a little bit what our what our Uh what we were trying to address with dealing with the one lots and the one-story homes was to deal with the neighbors' concern about two-story versus one-story. And as I said, there are some two-story homes next to us, but that was a concern that the neighbors had, and so we elected to deal with it. the the re we're just by way of explanation, the larger lots are one stories because they do serve a particular constituent. But be that as it may, the most important part we're

1:14:06trying to stress is that There will be a minimum of five one story homes along that west edge. We tried to locate them in a in a place as close to the existing home homes as possible to minimize the number of homes adjacent to Panther Run, which which was the neighbor's concern that we are trying to deal with. So it's not that they happen to be

1:14:28Yeah, I I get your point. I actually agree with you that the zoning decision should be be be blind to the occupant. It just that I'm confused because you yourself made a comment that Some of the some of the homes had to be one story because they were going to be occupied by disabled veterans, but my understanding is we're not taking that into account. Well, who's gonna occupy it? Brighty?

1:14:53We're yes, we're asking you to to rejudge the zoning on its merits, but the a way the the only way that we can develop that we can totally commit to one story homes is on the one hundred foot lots. Forget about who might occupy them, but the only way that we can commit to and be sure that they will be one stories is the larger lot.

1:15:12I would agree with that. Well I just want to be clear Can I finish please?

1:15:17Commissioner

1:15:19Yeah, if I if I may. No, you're I'm not done talking.

1:15:23sorry.

1:15:24Okay. I want to be clear with the Planning Commission. I actually agree with the applicant that the the zoning should be blind to the occupant. Okay. That means I'm asking you to disregard Ms. Terrapenny's statement that certain homes had to be one story because they were going to be occupied by disabled veterans because It shouldn't matter. They're not This is not about who's going to occupy the home. It's about use that's a little bit more than a little bit unit type compatible with this surrounding area. This is a compatibility issue not an occupancy issue. And I suspect that's what

1:15:54Mr. Grandolf's gonna say too. But I want to be clear because even Ms. Terrapani was implying that certain homes had to be one story because of the occupant. And that's not something you should be taking into account in your decision.

1:16:07Yeah, I I agree. Okay. Uh now the opc can continue. Did you have something?

1:16:17Diana?

1:16:20Sorry, Chairman. Gina, yes, hi. This is Gina Del Region. I'm sorry. I just was going to explain that the our specially adapted smart homes that we build across the country are for our catastrophically injured veterans, uh, because it needs to be wheelchair accessible. So that's all I was going to add. Thank you.

1:16:37Okay. Thank you. you. All right. So uh then uh Sundi, are you finished?

1:16:45Yes, sir. If I could just just follow up with just a just to close the loop on that, so Because the homes that they build for one of their clients needs to be all one story, that is, and that goes on a larger lot, that's why, and we don't we have a limited number of those larger lots, it is not all the development, as you know. So that's why we did try and look at as many as we could along that western, along the two edges next to Panther Run. So really I would I'm just trying to explain that's why the hundred-foot lots happen to be one. story and that's are the ones that

1:17:15we are committing to go on those two edges.

1:17:18Okay, thank you.

1:17:21Uh Mr. Grand Office are you do you have comments?

1:17:31I think you must be muted.

1:17:37Mr. Grandolph, you need to unmute.

1:17:39Yes, Mr. Chairman can you hear me now?

1:17:41Yes.

1:17:43Okay.

1:17:43Um

1:17:44John Ronald on behalf of the applicant. A couple things I'd like to reintroduce Gina in a moment so she can explain to you the ownership protocol for these lots when the uh gold star families move into them. But first I want to explain that as you know under federal and state laws that there cannot be a limitation upon Who owns certain properties imposed by the the planning uh or the zoning authorities, as Ms. Penny mentioned.

1:18:15What I also want to emphasize is the the one-story homes. Uh or an accommodation to the Panther on neighborhood and it's it's a win-win and that they wanted some amount of balance to the intensity of the project and we obviously have a need for one story homes so the five lots along that boundary line work for both neighbors. Uh and I urge you to to consider that as meeting a compatibility requirement. Uh

1:18:45now I'd like to introduce Gina, if Gina would would explain the uh the ownership program and how the uh Properties are kept in trust for a time being and and how the uh ownership is handled. Gina Della Raggione, she's general counsel for tunnels to towers.

1:19:02Thank you, Jack. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Commissioners. So all of our homes for whether it's for our catastrophically injured veterans and first responders, whether it's for our Gold Star families or our full and first responder families, the foundation places those homes in a 10-year trust for the benefit of either the veteran or the family. The foundation also reserves the right of first refusal with all of our properties. across the country and would be the same way with all of the homes in our Let us do go village that we would like to build in Pasco County.

1:19:33So m Mr. Chairman I just want to be clear though. I I'm fine with her providing that information, but this is the Euclidean zoning district. Mm-hmm. And what she just said is not in the D restriction. You need to treat this like any other Euclidean rezoning request. It's either compatible or it isn't based on what they've offered. So Yes, I understand that they're the owner now, but they could sell it to a different owner and you're gonna be living with the zoning based on the zoning and the deed restriction Not by

1:20:04what she just said. Gotcha.

1:20:10Okay. Uh Anybody else to speak on behalf of the applicant? If not, is there anybody here to uh speak Uh or have questions from the public.

1:20:23Okay.

1:20:23Mr. Chairman M there is one email that I have received regarding this project.

1:20:29Okay. Would you like to read it into record?

1:20:31Sure.

1:20:36The email is from Corey Ward. Uh dated May eighteenth, twenty twenty one. Petition number seven five two eight rezoning application. My name is Corey Ward and I live at [address removed]. I am writing today in response to the continuation from the prior meeting Regarding the above-mentioned petition for rezoning of about 75.15 acres by the Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers project off of Parkway Boulevard. This

1:21:06project is adjacent to my subdivision, Panther Run, and how this project is handled will have a direct impact on my neighbors and myself. As you know, the request is to rezone this property to R4 high-density housing for the purpose of donating homes to the Veterans and surviving families of first responders. I could not be more supportive of this mission, as my family is comprised of both military and Pasco County Fire Rescue. At the last meeting, the Commissioner has requested that Tunnel to Towers add a deed restriction, that the zoning be limited to the beneficiaries of the Tunnel to Towers program. My

1:21:37understanding is that they have refused to place this commitment in the deed restriction for rezoning, and my question is: why? Without this language, There is nothing legally preventing the applicant from selling the homes to persons that are not military veterans, first responders or their families, or from selling the entire property to another residential developer. If their purpose is to develop this property for use as they described, adding the language to secure the zoning should be a non-issue. The only reason not to add such language would be if there were other plans for the property that did not include the purpose

1:22:07they have stated. That is where my concern lies. If a developer was here at this meeting requesting this zoning, the answer would be a quick no. The zoning is being considered because of the purpose and mission Tunnel to Towers has represented throughout the process. It would not be afforded to someone looking to maximize profits by stuffing this property with as many homes as possible. I ask that you protect Pasco County. If this is approved, it is only a matter of time before they Sell to a developer who will do exactly that on this property. If that isn't

1:22:37the case, then why won't they include the deed restriction as requested by the commissioners? If Tunnel to Towers has not met the requests made by the commissioners at the prior meeting, how could you consider approving this today? As I've said before, our veterans and first responder families deserve to be taken care of. The addition of the deed restriction does just that. It secures the This property and these homes for those beneficiaries. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, Corey Ward.

1:23:04All right. Thank you very much. Uh since we have a number of people to speak, uh I want to take about a five minute recess and then we'll come back and get started.

1:33:34Yeah.

1:33:49Yeah.

1:33:54Is everybody back? Think so.

1:34:03You ready, David?

1:34:04I'm ready whenever you are. Okay.

1:34:06Gary, are you all set? Okay.

1:34:13Okay, we'd like to call the meeting to order. Read your staff receipts, please.

1:34:23Okay, thank you uh applicants for your presentation. We have a Some questions or concerns from the general public? They're gonna be coming up to speak and as they

1:34:38Respond to uh Any questions or concerns? Uh when once they're completed. Um As you come up, please uh State your name and address, please. And um What I what I try to do is try to make sure that Um, everybody doesn't come up and say, you know, I'm concerned about the traffic. Yeah, we only really need to hear that once or twice. So If you can add something new, you know, we like to make sure

1:35:08we cover all the topics. But we just don't want to cover 'em Ten times. So Um

1:35:16Whoever wants to go first, if you just come forward, state your name and address. And you've all been sworn, so uh let's get started. Who who wants to go first?

1:35:39Hello, my name is Shelby Carrero and I live at um [address removed]. Before I go into my script, because I will not remember this, I just wanted to address Ms. Terraponies. She mentioned about the two-story homes being um in Panther Run. I think she said uh we're we're lots one through four. Um I live on lot three and my house is a one story home. I just want to thank you guys for allowing me the opportunity to speak again in opposition to the R4 rezoning

1:36:09that is being requested by the applicant. After reviewing the deed restriction, I am disheartened to say the least that our valid concerns we have expressed several times have not been taken into consideration by the applicant. The fact the applicant has ignored its future Pasco County neighbors as well as the Pasco County Planning Commission should speak volumes as to what their plan was this entire time. As you see in the memorandum. They have refused to put in their deed restriction that they will not sell the land to a developer

1:36:39or that they will not sell the homes to people that are not military veterans, first responders, or their families. Therefore, the applicant's narrative doesn't hold true. During the last hearing, the Vice President Matt Mahoney advised that the Foundation was excited to build their first community for our nation's heroes and their families, and had the wherewithal to do so. Then why wouldn't you put that in writing? I wanted the Planning Commission to know that prior to the first hearing on April 22nd,

1:37:10myself and a few of my neighbors had been in contact several times with the applicant, and they were already well aware of our concerns with developing the land as high density and our unease with their current plan. I thought after the applicant heard some of you mimic our concerns, they would adjust or change their approach. This did not happen, and the only thing I see they took away from this was that a six foot fence would make everything better. It was an insult to see their updated site

1:37:40plan. I will not go into every detail as you have the new plan in front of you, but the previous plan had 22 homes lining Panther Run, and the updated plan has 19. So they took away three homes. On the new plan they have also lined two additional properties in Panther Run with homes. Of the now nineteen homes that line Panther Run, only six are a hundred by hundred foot lot. If you look at lots 28, 24, and 22, you will see

1:38:11the placement of these lots do not make sense. Two of the lots are placed in front of RV Barnes, and one doesn't back up to a Panther Run residence. In the deed restriction, it states only the 100 by 100 foot lots will be one-story homes. With that said, they did not change anything in regards to our concerns for two-story homes, as the 100 by 100 foot lots were in their original plan as one-story homes. I will still have two homes in my backyard, one of those a sixty foot by a hundred foot lot with a two story on it. As

1:38:41I said before, two story homes will provide my family with zero priv privacy as they will be able to see my entire backyard as well as a portion of the interior of my home. Anyone can see if they do plan on developing the donated land and not selling it, They are taking seventy five acres, with a decent amount of it being wetland, and shoving as many houses as possible on it, then presenting it as the same density as Panther Run. To help put their lot sizes in perspective with our lot sizes, the amount of houses that they

1:39:11have lined four of our properties with is the same amount of houses we have in our entire neighborhood. The same people that the foundation serves are the same people within my own family and probably in your family as well. Would it have mattered if I told them that I grew up surrounded by firemen, my father included. My eighty sixty six. Your old grandfather is not only a Purple Heart recipient, but he's also a retired military firefighter. And

1:39:42my father-in-law is a hundred percent disabled veteran. I say this because it shouldn't matter, that my family consists of these heroes. And this is simply about doing the right thing and being, as they call it, neighborly. Following the first hearing, we were asked by the applicant civil engineer if they could access our properties to complete a topo survey, which we agreed to, but we still have not had uh We've n received a report, as promised. The applicant's narrative hits the feel-good spots for all of us,

1:40:12and in my opinion, they were giving some grace from all of us. However, we cannot treat them any different than a big developer as we now know this is a possibility. If the applicant chooses to sell the donated property, having the property zoned as R4 high density will open the door for multifamily homes to be built. My neighbors and I understand we are going against a powerful well known company with a lot of connections and that we could receive backlash as people could mistake our opposition as we

1:40:42don't support their mission, which couldn't be further from the truth. I'm not trying to dictate what they do as property owners, but I truly believe what myself and my neighbors were advocating for was minimal and made the most sense for the high density they were requesting. This property cannot accommodate a high density neighborhood. I asked that do the applicant not providing a workable and comparable site plan for the R4 rezoning, they are requesting. the rezoning application be denied. Thank you again for your consideration.

1:41:10Thank you.

1:41:13Next.

1:41:20Good afternoon, Chairman and the members of the board. My name is Sabrina Fernandez. I reside at [address removed]. I'm here to respectfully ask that you deny this request for the R4 high density zoning. All of the surrounding neighborhoods, which has been shown in all of the slides, are designated as medium density. There's been a lot of discussion from Ms. Terrapani that they're the same. Well then why are there two different zoning one's in R four, one's in R three for a different for a reason. And I ask that the board

1:41:50um take that into consideration. I know that the width between the homes are different. There's a lot of other different changes in the requirements of the land when you're changing those zonings. So I ask that you do deny the high density zoning for those reasons. The truth is that this applicant has ignored the request from this board, and I do appreciate you taking our thoughts into consideration a couple of weeks ago. This is very emotional for us because it's going to impact our lives greatly. So thank you for that and thank you for letting us speak today.

1:42:22They're fact they're adding more homes to the southern edge of the property, the western edge of the property, Um that didn't have homes bordering them. And they're all two-story homes and on very small lots that will be overlooking our properties, our pools, our recreation areas that we like to we keep private and a six foot fence does nothing to really border that or give us any privacy. They've even taken away what they originally said they would do, which is to put up some trees, which I think is the least they could do to help

1:42:52us out. Um I don't really wanna duplicate what everyone else is saying, so I just wanna go into saying I I think that their true intent isn't what it what they originally said to you and that they could choose to change this and sell it to another developer, which would be very bad for us. But I do want to point out that the um foundation who donated this property to the uh Towers for Tunnels Foundation. was the Esther and Harold Mertz Foundation who also donated the property

1:43:22gracefully that's adjacent to the east, which was a lot of acreage and I'm so grateful that that will now be um used for um Wildlife. And I just want to say what their um website states, Um as far as our philosophy. We describe charity as the highest form of love, the unselfish love of one's fellow man. Our mission is to show kindness and compassion. And it goes on to quote a Bible verse. Let's not get tired of doing good work. Let's work for the good of all Whenever we have an opportunity. I

1:43:53believe that the Esther and Harold Mertz Foundation would not want this land developed in a way that does not meet with their philosophy. I asked the board to deny this request for the high density zoning and asked the developer to please stick with the philosophy of the foundation who donated the property. and to work for the good of all, and not just for their own proposed development. But it will also help those who are being donated that land. Thank you for your time today.

1:44:17Thank you.

1:44:27M Mr Chair, if I could ask ask staff a favor. Um 'Cause when the when the folks come up here and they talk about the site plan, it's kinda hard to envision what they're talking about without actually seeing the site. Can we put the site plan up on

1:44:43Everybody knows what site plan we're talking about.

1:44:47Or the exhibit, yeah.

1:44:49So I think it's exhibit B to the D description.

1:44:51Yeah, that'd be helpful.

1:44:56That would not be in the PowerPoint. That would be in the attachment number three to the agenda memo. If you would like, I can share my screen because I do have it up.

1:45:08Yeah. That would be helpful. I it just it's hard to to hear these comments about a site plan that's not in front of us. So

1:45:22Are you able to see it?

1:45:24Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

1:45:32Hi, thank you for having me today. My name is Joanna Robinson and I reside at [address removed]. I believe what Towers to Tunnels has envisioned for our disabled veterans and widows of fallen first responders is amazing and I would like to see it happen, but I think they can accomplish it with some changes on the border of Panther Run. I know the applicant has stated that the high density, that the density between the properties is similar, but if you look at exhibit B, you can see that these two things are not even close to the same. My biggest concern

1:46:02is the lot sizes. We own lot number four, which is we call it the Pizza Pie. And we own a big R V garage. It's like fifteen feet high. Um, nobody really wants that in their backyard. My driveway is on opposite sides of where also they plan to build. They've got to be a big thing. Driveway is seven feet away from the actual property line. We will have several houses staring not just into our backyard, but also both sides of our yard if they move forward with the drawing

1:46:32on exhibit B. This alone would put nine homes looking directly into my backyard and side yards. Six of those homes, which will be two-story homes, with sight lines directly into our backyard and into our pool. Mm. It will make me feel like our backyard is on display and in no will fill no way feels compatible with Panther Run. We are simply asking for compatibility in some type of buffer, not just a six-foot-tall fence. I ask the committee to please consider this before making their decision to

1:47:02allow high density directly behind a neighborhood with half acre lots. Thank you.

1:47:08Thank you. Next.

1:47:19Hi, my name is Kimberly Armitrot. I reside at [address removed]. Thank you for letting me speak again today on behalf of the Panther Run subdivision. And I won't I had this wonderful speech prepared, but obviously everybody else covered it. So I would just like to share that I am one of the houses on one through four. I'm lot two as I describe, and I am not a two-star. House either. And they are putting three new neighbors behind me, which is fine. But and

1:47:49two of them are gonna be on the hundred lot, which is okay. But the one that's in the middle is gonna be the smaller lot, which is gonna be directly right in the middle of my yard, and it's gonna obviously be a two-story if this is approved. Um, so and then we talked about the blind, uh not um not labeling the residents, but But only looking at the rezoning. And why does a family have to have a one two-story? They can also have a one-story, but they seem to keep saying that the families are the ones that are gonna get the two stories, and only the wounded veteran

1:48:20veterans are gonna get the one story. So again, there they are sub subcategorizing the houses that they're using. Um The biggest concern, as we all have talked about, is that fact that they do not want to commit to this project, because if they did, they would actually put it in a deep restriction, which they have refused to do. So I'm not understanding what their mission is if they're not um re guaranteeing us for the future. So basically after 10 years, they can sell it to anybody that they would like to sell it to. And that leaves us kind of open

1:48:50for um for anything to happen. Mm-hmm. And then also the paperwork that they discussed as far as they also mentioned that other areas and other properties in the area have been rezoned. And just because properties have been rezoned to allow for more housing doesn't make it right. But first of all, if it also it doesn't make it that they're rezoning properties that aren't comparable to our properties. So just because they built Japree Lakes and they built some other subdivisions,

1:49:21our subdivision is very unique in the way it stands with the lot sizes that we have. So I'd like you to consider all of our topics and thank you for letting me speak again today.

1:49:31Thank you.

1:49:37Good afternoon, everybody. How are you? Good. My name is Joe Claybon, [address removed]. I have in front of me the twenty twenty five Comprehensive Plan, Pasco County, Florida. Objective FLU 1-4, protection of residential neighborhoods. to ensure the long term viability of residential neighborhoods by regulating future developments. And development

1:50:08to create Compatibility with surrounding land uses. Policy FLU 1-4-1, Subdivision Standards. Pasco County shall maintain the viability of established and future residential neighborhoods by continuing to enforce land development cords codes, excuse me, provisions relating to development of flood prones, building setbacks in heights, roadway buffers,

1:50:39landscaping, tree preservation, On-site traffic, drainage, water storms, J. Maintaining the use of common open space areas and neighborhood parks through homeowners associations or county development. traffic, access management, I mean there is a list. Compatibility. What Tower the Tunnel is proposing is an R4 high density, which is not compatible with anything in the surrounding

1:51:10area. I like the idea of what they are trying to do. but there are many questions left that are unanswered. that they do not even want to address, the example would be Although the Planning Commission requested that the rezoning be limited to the beneficiaries of the Tunnel the Tower program, the applicants have refused. to place then commitment in the deed restrictions for the rezoning. So there is no guarantee that there will be home excuse me. There

1:51:40are no there is no guarantee that these homes will all go to these five for these fo to the veterans first responders, especially after the ten year trust expires. Thank you very much. Thank you.

1:51:59Anybody else to speak?

1:52:08Hello gentlemen. I'll be brief. Uh my name is Tim Robinson and I live at the [address removed]. I can't say enough how much I like what Tunnel Towers is doing, um, you know, for our servicemen and women, our first responders. Very admirable endeavor. Uh however, still purely a zoning thing with us, you know, as we've discussed numerous times. Um Really my main issue is compatibility. During the last meeting, Mrs. Terrapani kept stating that the density is the same between the two neighborhoods. And statistically speaking it is, but that's

1:52:38only if you build in wetlands and ponds. However, as you can see, with Schedule B looks quite different. And it was pointed out that their homes would be clumped together in certain areas, as you can see there. Um

1:52:53You know, for the last conceptual drawing we had, there were ten homes lining my property. Now they've got nine, six of which would be two-story homes with a sight line right to the backyard. Uh really The R four high density zoning does not have requirement for buffer zones, so in effect we would have the bunch of houses butting right up to homes with half acre lots. And I really don't feel that that is compatible at all. And if we look deeper, I I was reading into the memo. Uh Written by Mr. Devine, dated five twenty

1:53:24twenty one, and he drew some comparisons between some previous uh Board of County Commissioners approvals for rezoning, one being Depree Lakes and uh Pristine Lake Preserve, Lake Preserve. And I would like to point out that uh those are very different Pieces of property and neither of them had compatibility issues such as this. So I really don't see, I think they're a poor comparison. Um And I would like to thank you all for your time. Thank you.

1:53:56Anyone else?

1:54:04Hi, my name is Trina Van Ostran and I live at uh [address removed]. Um Basically I was pretty much gonna say everything my neighbors would say so There's no reason for me. I just agree with everything that they've pointed out as far as the zoning. And Uh we basically would just hope that you would deny us an R4 zoning and keep it to an R three minimum like most of the other areas or most developers would have to

1:54:34have. Um There is one thing that I'd like to point out though that is a little different and that's my property. If you look, I am lot six on Panther Run. And because I put in a pool and patio area, the elevation I had made my elevation have to be about two foot up. So my six-foot fence is equivalent to like a three-foot fence. When I'm standing on my patio, I literally can see lot two,

1:55:05three, and four on my patio very clearly over my fence, which means in turn they can see right into my patio as well when I'm on my patio and pool area. which, with the way they have all this done, basically Lot's eleven through uh 15 will actually be able to look into my backyard as well. Like I said, my six foot fence is equivalent to a three foot when you're standing on my patio. So even if they put

1:55:35in a six foot fence, it's not gonna change it. they're gonna be able to look right into my patio areas. I'm standing there completely 'cause uh and I will be able to just look right into theirs as well with the way that is. So I just hope that you would consider our needs as far as being the density that they're asking for and denying that. Alright. And thank you for your time. And I am military family also. My dad twenty-eight years, my son four years reserves. I mean four years

1:56:05Marines and he's in the reserves right now. So I appreciate their mission. But not to go with changing of the zoning. Thank you.

1:56:25Hello, my name is Danielle Hardage. I live at [address removed]. I am actually in the Dupree Lakes subdivision, so I have a little different perspective. However, I do stand with everything that everyone is saying regarding the fact that we support wholeheartedly the mission. But we would like to see that they mandate in the restrictions that we will continue to have ownership by the people that they have outlined. And also,

1:56:55as you can see from the exhibit, I don't think there's any argument to be made against the fact that they're cramming way too many homes into space. I appreciate that you've given the opportunity for all of us to speak today and I humbly stand here with these people who have worked really hard to put together their case. So thank you.

1:57:14Thank you.

1:57:18Did we miss anyone?

1:57:21Everyone's done?

1:57:24All right. Okay. Um

1:57:33Uh Cindy, are you still there? Mr. Penny?

1:57:39Yes, all right.

1:57:41Do you want to uh respond? Are you the one that we want to respond or?

1:57:47Y yes, sir.

1:57:49We're ready.

1:57:50Uh again s Cindy Terrapani. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members I'm saying I know there's a lot of complicated issues being discussed today. Um, I want to correct a couple of things. Um, number one, someone mentioned that this will open the door to multifamily that can't be further from the truth. The R4 zoning district, and you can ask your staff to confirm it, does not allow townhouses and it does not allow multifamily. So that's just You know, that's just not going to happen. The other thing that someone said was that our zoning is different from theirs. I think it was a Panther Run

1:58:21resident who said that. Our zoning today is exactly the same. We both have a PUD. That's an old PUD from 1973. The difference is the Panther Run subdivision actually got built under the PUD and this site sat vacant. So because your PUD's district doesn't exist anymore, that's why we're here before you. It is the same zoning. It also is the same land use plan category. Panther Rhine is Res 3, which is residential 3, 3 units an acre, as is our site. The last thing I want to mention, and

1:58:51then I'll talk about some concepts, is the last person who spoke from Dupree Lakes, just like to point out that the Dupree Lakes immediately adjacent to our property is 55 foot wide lots, and our development adjacent to debris lakes will be 60s and 100 foot lots.

1:59:09So let me just address the major issue which your attorney has addressed, but I just give you some some flavor to it with regard to why the foundation is reluctant to add that restriction other than the fact that we believe it borders on an illegal exaction. Um the foundation is forever. The foundation is will plans to continue forever. And foundation's mission may change. They may address other needy folks as this goes along. One example might be some of the medical doctors at

1:59:39the nurses who delivered wonderful service during COVID. Another opportunity that might happen is perhaps a veteran who who comes into the property and lives in the property all his life and he deeds it to his children when he dies and there's no longer a veteran living on that property. So you can see the complications that go with it. The the fact that Taunsa Towers has a track record of doing this service of building single family homes for over 20 years and the fact that they own the property should be the key to your decision. They

2:00:09are standing here asking you to do this rezoning so that they may build a single family subdivision. That is exactly what they intend to do. We've all been sworn in, and that is exactly what the plan is. There is no there's no high The bacon, there's no townhouses, no multifamily coming in. This would be a completely single family detached subdivision. Just finally be like, just we understand that it's difficult when you're used to seeing a vacant property and now that vacant property is not going to be vacant anymore. It's going

2:00:39to be developed. I understand that. I understand that change happens. It's happened to me as well. But we all have to balance the property rights between I'm the developer, the Tunnels and Towers Foundation, and the existing residents both in Panther Run and Jacru Lakes. We made a valiant effort to do that. We truly true tried to come to a conclusion that would do that. If there's something else that's uh in the rain of realm of legitimacy that the Pantherun folks can suggest to us, short of losing lots, we will be open to it.

2:01:09But every lot we lose is one of the less lot and one less person that we can't serve. So with that I'll I'll stop. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

2:01:19Mr. Chair, just to be clear, um

2:01:28So her statement that there was an illegal exaction is Completely false. Planning Commission never exacted anything to start to start with, and I've repeatedly advised the Planning Commission that you cannot condition Euclidean rezoning. The request the Planning Commission made was whether the applicant wanted to impose that deed restriction on themselves. The county itself is not imposing any restrictions on this applicant. So If the applicant doesn't want to do that, the applicant doesn't have to do that. You just need to take into account that It can be sold to anybody. So

2:01:59But we didn't exact anything. So I strongly disagree with that characterization by Ms. Terubini.

2:02:05Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. That was one of my questions. Um

2:02:10Mr. Chairman Mariano.

2:02:13Pardon me?

2:02:14May this is John Grandolph. May I be heard, please? Sure.

2:02:17Yeah.

2:02:18Okay.

2:02:21I um have a few things I want the board to consider. Um, I've been general counsel to the Mertz family and the Mertz Foundation and their operating trust, the Lavender Trust for About thirty years. I'm intimately familiar with this property and it was my idea, along with other trustees of the family. to donate the property across the street to the Southwest Florida Management District in perpetuity. And we felt that these the donation of this property

2:02:51to tunnels to towers would complement our Mission of conservation. and our mission of conservation of lives. So we've decided to conserve land on one side of Pines Brockway, and we've decided to conserve lives on the opposite side, and that's the application before you this afternoon. I sincerely tell you, in my professional opinion, that this is an outstanding organization. We

2:03:22wish no other rights than the rights of those in plan to run. And don't wish to diminish our rights other than the rights of those in path or room. We simply want to be equal in our rights to our property. I submit to you that this is a marvelous application. that my client is sincere in the development and I also represent tunnels of towers in this matter. I sincerely request for your approval.

2:03:49All right. Is there any questions from the days?

2:03:56Well, Well they're thinking um I understand what you're saying that your commitment to preserve a property, preserve lives, um Which Puzzles me as to why you won't Commit to reserving this to um to veterans to a veteran community because if that's what you're already doing if you're trying to preserve lives then I I'm not sure what you'd be protecting by

2:04:26limiting it to uh veterans. Uh your example of uh Of um a veteran living there for for their their whole life and passing away and then trying to convey that property to their heirs. Well, first of all, Talente Towers has the first right of refusal to to buy the property back. as I understand it. And secondly, you know, the veteran got the property free

2:04:57of charge if you don't buy it back. Um Anything that family gets, their heirs gets uh for the pr for the property is uh is a benefit to the heirs. So you're not d you're not doing it for that purpose. So I I would I'd say that's a probably a very weak excuse in my in my mind. So, um

2:05:21You know, I I just think

2:05:25if you if you want to do this project and I think the

2:05:34From the our county is to do something for the veterans that have done so much for us. If it weren't a v a veteran issue it would be a completely different matter. So

2:05:49We understand uh what you s what you've said and we understand the your your wanna your desire to help with the veterans. Um we also have to weigh and balance the needs of the Surrounding community. So I'm very much in favor of this project. I just think you need to limit it to a veteran use. Mm and but that is a deed restriction as uh As

2:06:19I said, w the county cannot compel you to do so. We can't compel you to do so. Because of Euclidean zoning. Um Whether this board will approve you without that? That's uh that's a matter for you to decide. And for the members of this board to decide. No. Does anybody else have any questions or comments?

2:06:45Yeah m Mr. Chairman I wanted to point out that You know, the foundation's already opened up the door to possibly doing you know I'm I'm speaking to the compatibil compatibility issues specifically on the western property boundary. So the foundation's already opened up the door to possibly doing some sort of passive recreation park or something along that that border. It would seem to me that that with the hundred foot lot. on that site might uh take into consideration

2:07:15some of the the concerns of the the adjacent neighbors as far as two story houses looking into their to their lot. So they've already opened up that that door um of potentially doing that and it might be an avenue that they want to consider.

2:07:31Um

2:07:31So I want to caution you that's not what's before you

2:07:34but today. It's an observation, yes. Right.

2:07:38Um Yeah. Yes, I would like to just make a comment and one hundred percent agree with the with your chairman. I consider and I don't know if it's possible in the legal way, the lot that are the northwest uh of the Sud of the proposed Subdivision that are facing the Panther Ron Subdivision. There are any way that we can have some restrictions that those lots are on hundred foot and also just one level houses. So that means they keep some privacy through

2:08:09the the houses of the neighbors. So limit those northwest subdivis the uh lots that again that are facing Pantheron to just one level houses One hundred foot lots. and do the same with the south uh lots of the subdivision that are not reflecting there, that are facing another subdivision that the name is, if I no mistake, Uh uh again I ca I cannot see it here. But uh I don't

2:08:39know. Sir, if you can just put a full f side plan of reflect the full side plan That

2:08:49Yeah you can Liam, do you have a full site plan? On some words I can share.

2:08:56I don't have it up currently, but if you give me a moment I can pull it up for you.

2:09:02So basically my comment is just to try to limit the heights. when the subdivision is facing another house Again I agree with you in your point. If this is some way that we can dedicate this for veterans, I think need to be in writing in some way that protect the land to be reused for somebody else. Or or just sell it just for business purpose. and the same time limit. I totally

2:09:33Liam is pulling that up. I'll just answer your question. The short answer is no. Okay, you can't. It this is this is a Euclidean rezoning And whether it's You know, restricting heights on particular lots or restricting it to a particular user or That would have to be done by the applicant. The applicant would have to volunteer that through the deed restriction. Yeah. Could they continue this and then try to refashion their deed restriction to address your concerns? Yes. But that's

2:10:03not what's before you today. They would have to agree to do that. and chains or deed restriction. Otherwise You need to vote on what is what's before you today. So unless the applicants want to voluntarily agree to some of the things you just said No, you can't force it. You can't condition it. Because this is a Euclidean rezoning request.

2:10:23No, I totally understand that the law is the law, but I think like you say it's coming from the applicant in order to satisfy the needs of the situations around the subdivision. If they are volunteer and say they hey I will Restrict the high in those uh in those lot and the same size of the lot.

2:10:45I

2:10:45mean

2:10:46you can you you can certainly ask the applicant if they'd be willing to modify their restriction

2:10:52those address your comments, but you can't force it.

2:10:55No, no, absolutely.

2:11:00Okay. Um Anybody else? Jamie?

2:11:04Yeah, I I guess uh really as far as I'm concerned, when I when I was looking through the deed restrictions, I as I was reading the language of the deed restrictions, I I will admit I got excited and I thought they addressed the concerns with their statement that there's gonna be hundred foot lots adjacent to the west boundary of Panther Run. However, as I continued through the deed restrictions, I got to the exhibit and I remember at the last meeting when this was continued the first time we asked him to go back and relook at the lots that were laid out adjacent to Panther Run. That concept

2:11:34plan that was part of the traffic study had 11 lots that immediately abutted Panther Run. The exhibit B that was on our screen a little while ago and that's part of the deed restrictions now has 19. I I struggle to find how they've done anything to address what we asked them to address. So I I mean that's I mean again, I'm I'm all for the cause. Um I mean, even though we're supposed to be blind to that, I just uh I I I don't know how they've addressed the things that we heard the residents bring up at the last meeting.

2:12:04We heard them bring up today. The things we brought up at the last meeting and again the things we're bringing up again today. I mean I I think all of those issues still exist and haven't been addressed.

2:12:17P. I concur with that. Uh Let me just say one thing about the residents that in Panther Run out there. At some point in time this property will be developed. That's that's a given. Uh even in my neighborhood it it's developed. My concerns are that. or the two that you've heard already, one is the deed restrictions. They're just hesitant to do that. And I can understand. to a certain degree why they uh may feel that way.

2:12:47You know, we have we can be sympathetic towards the Tower to T tunnel to Towers program. We've heard nothing but good and positive things from that particular program.

2:12:58But my biggest concern is that at some point in time this property can be Designated to it.

2:13:08project or can be used in a different format. In other words, there's no guarantee. So those are those are my concerns and that's why I I would probably vote no on those. This is why we'll vote no. So

2:13:20Chris.

2:13:22Well I agree with Mr. Ansel to some extent. I mean 'cause eventually i if Let's say it's not approved and then somebody else takes it over. I I I can't imagine that they come in with anything less dense. I mean eventually there will be people who might develop and They might have some two story homes. I mean I don't think you can prevent that. So I mean they did try to um um improve some of the lot situation over there. Um I'm trying to look at this previous

2:13:53um

2:13:56I mean, would I like to see some extra I mean, I'd like to see some better combination of the first the one we're looking at now vr and Put some of those lots over across the way. But anyway. Um

2:14:12can I just add to Mr.

2:14:16no. I think that's a good thing. If I could uh just address Mr. Williams' comments. I think part of your dilemma in this case is that it came in as an R four zoning as opposed to an MPUD. I think if this had come in as an M P U D we probably would be having a different conversation because some of the issues that you all are mentioning could be addressed through Restrictions. Revised restrictions in the M P D and and And Mr. Williams is probably right. It's gonna be developed as something, but in MPUD

2:14:46you have more control over what it develops as. So But that's not what was applied for, so that's you all have to act on what was applied for.

2:14:59All right. There's nothing else from the data.

2:15:06comment in reference to the south side or the south houses or proposed houses, as you see they are the back of those houses are facing the subdivision at the south. Yeah if the applicant is willing to modify the the heights of the house at the northwest, why don't do it in the south side as well? That's all my point.

2:15:28Well but My my question would be how many houses on the south side are two story? I mean I uh that's where I would that's where I struggle.

2:15:36Mm-hmm.

2:15:40Okay. Well I think we've identified the concerns uh You wanna address those, Cindy?

2:15:47Well to be clear, the UG

2:15:49Yes sir, Mr. Chairman. I just would like to comment first on a site plan that's up. just want to address the site plan that's brought up. That site plan is back from last September, is what we used when we had our pre-application meeting with the staff. It has changed dramatically since then. The site plan that we were working off of when we came to you in April had 13 lots on the west edge. We've dropped that down to 10 and have the restrictions of the the larger lots in the one-story homes. There are the There are the same number along the south edge. There were seven

2:16:19before. There are still seven because one of them was always a one a hundred foot lot along this. That's this south edge. So I just want to clarify that that that that plan is not the current site plan. I just wanna be very clear that we dropped it down from 13 to 10 on the western edge. Thank you.

2:16:41Yeah. And frankly that's the problem with approving R force zoning as it is, is because we're not we can't really without the deed restrictions, we can't restrict what's adjacent to that property boundary. Um

2:16:55Uh that's my that's my point.

2:16:57Yeah. And uh also Cynthia you didn't didn't address as far as I I as far as I heard. anything with regard to the deed restrictions that we talked about.

2:17:14Uh thank you Mr. Chairman Mariano if they wanted to um Add that restriction that you are talking about, the residents talking about, that would restrict it to only the constituents and clients of tunnel to towers, and they are not willing to do that for the variety of reasons that we discussed today. We think that we've addressed the land use compatibility through the deed restriction and respectfully request your approval with the deed restriction as we have. Adjust it.

2:17:43Okay.

2:17:47All right. Then is there for any further discussion? Any questions? I like to w David, do you have anything?

2:17:54No, just to be clear that if you're not sure if you're not sure I think I know what motion's about to be made, but I just wanna be clear that To the extent you deny this application, it should be based on compatibility rather than ownership. Mm-hmm.

2:18:11Okay. And they could come back uh and uh uh reapply as an M P U D.

2:18:16There's nothing stopping them from reapplying as an M P D.

2:18:22Uh and again I I think several people have said this now and I would like to make sure that The audience. you know, takes this to heart no matter what happens today, at some point. That property's gonna be developed. Yeah. So you you want to make sure you don't That would you know. In get something worse than you could have gotten. So Uh but I'd like to hear a motion. I think we've heard all the arguments. I'd

2:18:53like to hear a motion. Uh

2:18:54I'll make a motion to to deny. A second.

2:18:59We have a motion to deny and we have a second.

2:19:04Lack

2:19:04of combat compatibility and it's Pode and the COM point twenty eight. So I want to get all that in there, yeah. Thank you.

2:19:15All right, so we have a motion. We have a second. Is there any further discussion of the motion?

2:19:22Uh uh just a clarification. Uh the recommendation it's a recommendation because the next step is to go to the Board of County Commissioners. Correct. Um So it it's not the end of the Right. At not the end of the road for this.

2:19:35Important for the public to understand that even if this body recommends denial, it doesn't mean the Board of County Commissioners will make the same decision.

2:19:42Right.

2:19:43Exactly.

2:19:46Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Uh all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

2:19:53Aye.

2:19:53Aye.

2:19:54Aye. Opposed signify by saying no.

2:19:56Nay.

2:19:59Okay. Who's the name?

2:20:00Chris Williams. Okay.

2:20:08All right.

2:20:12Thank you for your time. Thank you.

2:20:18Thank

2:20:18you.

2:20:21Okay. I say it was at the last one. Yeah. Thank you. Is there anything else Pete? I mean Dairy. Uh

2:20:32there's nothing on my my end. Okay.