Motion by Vice Chairman Lockhart, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to find, based
on Staff’s findings and the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, that the
request meets the identified portions of the Land Development Code and moves to
approve the Special Exception and associated Development Order #25-32000010 to
allow, with conditions, the use of a community civic assembly church in the A-1
(Agriculture) zoning district on approximately 2.44 acres, located on the northwest
corner of EE Williamson Rd and Myrtle Lake Hills Rd; Richard Dixon, Applicant; as
described in the proof of publication.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.
30.
Sandy Lane Homes Rezone - Consider a Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture)
and R-1AA (Single-Family Dwelling) to MM (Missing Middle) for a
proposed single family residential development of twenty-four (24) lots on
approximately 7.54 acres located on the west side of Sandy Ln, south of
Sand Lake Rd; (Z2025-014) (Giovanni Jordan, Jordan Homes, Applicant)
District3 - Constantine (Kaitlyn Apgar, Senior Planner)
Ms. Apgar addressed the Board and presented the item as outlined in the agenda
backup. There were no initial questions for staff from the Board.
Attorney Brent Spain, Theriaque and Spain, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the
Board and spoke on the request. He addressed some concerns brought up at the
community meeting and the Planning and Zoning meeting. He clarified the request is
for 24 detached, single-family homes, not townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, etc.
Nothing about the request is changing the density, and they are not proposing Live
Local Act housing. The applicant stipulated at P&Z they would comply with the
conceptual site plan in the agenda packet and shown in Ms. Apgar's presentation. Mr.
Spain reviewed Land Development Code and Future Land Use policies he believes the
proposed project meets. He discussed a traffic engineering report done by Walsh
Traffic Engineering (received and filed). He stated the P&Z motion to recommend
denial was based on three grounds. The first was traffic/school safety issues. They
didn't have a traffic analysis then because they weren't required to do one but have
since done one. The second was a concern about setting a precedent since this is the
first proposed Missing Middle project in the county. The last reason for denial was a
concern this project may potentially reduce the County's budget, presumably through
property tax, which is not a review criteria. He requested the Board approve the
rezoning.
Vice Chairman Lockhart commented the current zoning is R-1AA and inquired what
caused them to choose Missing Middle. Mr. Spain responded in exploring potential
zonings, the feedback the applicant received from the district commissioner was
Planned Development was not preferred to go on that property. At the pre-application
meeting, due to the size and limitation on the property, staff recommended it would be
suitable for Missing Middle. From the developer's standpoint, none of the straight
zoning categories can obtain four dwelling units per acre on the property but Missing
Middle can get a little closer. Vice Chairman Lockhart clarified and confirmed with Mr.
Spain that R-1AA allows four units per acre, but they don't believe they could get four
units per acre, and they believe they could get closer to four units per acre with Missing
Middle zoning. Mr. Spain explained four dwellings per acre is 30 units, but they would
yield less than 24 units. Upon Vice Chairman Lockhart's request, Mr. Spain discussed
