5-a - Zoning Atlas Amendment - Conditional Zoning – Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point

Browse Search

Approved 11/01/2017 10 talked about the area itself since they did not have specific plans together at the time. There were questions from adjacent property owners that live outside of and south of this property. These neighbors have not come back to subsequent meetings. There have been concerns over types of uses, traffic, but generally, no concerns from individual property owners with specific things they wanted from the developers. The attendees have been well- informed and he said that he and his partners have listened to them. Tony Blake asked if in the project would expand in the future if additional adjacent properties became available. Jim Parker said that they have reached out to most every property owner in the area and offered to buy their property to make it part of the development. The properties in the development are a result of property owners selling their lots to Mr. Parker’s group. Tony Blake responded that he sees the challenge facing the County that there are no big areas for development, just segmented properties. Jim Parker said that other EDDs look similar; it’s just the way it is. There are a lot of little properties that need to be amassed to do a development. Michael Harvey made a point of clarification. He said that if the development secured additional property, the Settler’s Point Master Plan would have to be amended to add the additional properties into the proposal, which would initiate another public hearing process. If Settler’s Point is approved without District 3 and District 3 becomes possible to develop later on, the developer will have to go through an entire new process to do so as well. Lydia Wegman asked for clarification. If the Board tabled District 3 this evening, there would not be a need for an entirely new process, unless District 3 is withdrawn. Michael Harvey said that this is correct and added that if District 3 were to come back to the Board but there is no movement forward on the components still needed for it to be viable, the Board may recommend that it is denied, and it would have to go through the process again as well. Jim Parker said that they are supportive of Staff’s recommendation. Kim Piracci said that she did not do her homework to study the materials for this development. She cannot make an informed decision on any of the items tonight. She said that she suspected that other members may be in a similar position. If she recommended that this item be tabled, the world would not come to an end. What is the worst that would happen? Michael Harvey responded that if the decision is to table the entire project, it will be tabled and brought back up at the Board’s November regular meeting. With the delay, the project would not be going forward to public hearing in November because there will likely not be enough time to get it to the BOCC. He recommended that she ask Mr. Parker any questions. He also said that he would need direction on what Staff should provide in terms of more information or direction. Kim Piracci said that she needs more time to study this project. She feels like this is too much to go forward with, for her personally. Lydia Wegman said that she appreciated Ms. Piracci’s comments and gave Mr. Parker a chance to respond. She said that she would also like to know how other members feel, and wanted to give the public a chance to comment. The public has been extremely patient. Jim Parker said that he understands Ms. Piracci’s position. He said that on his end, they are on a timeline and have a contractual obligation. Mr. Parker said that he does feel like the world would come to an end for he and his group. He wishes the project had been ready to move forward this past spring but here they are so much later. He said that he 20