Hamilton County amends zoning and PUD approvals for 9101 Amos Road to add road‑improvement condition; developer to fund widening

Hamilton County commissioners on Aug. 27 amended and approved three related zoning and planned-unit-development measures affecting property at 9101 Amos Road, adding a condition requiring road-work tied to the project and recording unanimous passage of the amended resolutions.

The three items read into the record were Resolution 825-37 (amend an existing condition in County resolution 324-30B for the property), Resolution 825-38 (rezoning and related condition changes), and Resolution 825-39 (amendment to the residential planned-unit development approved under earlier county case 2024-0029). The items had been before the commission at a prior meeting and were brought back to the recessed meeting for action.

The applicant requested amending condition No. 1 to add Amos Road to an existing right-of-way dedication condition that already referenced Snow Hill Road. County staff and the applicant told commissioners the applicant previously presented a plan showing widening on both Snow Hill and Amos Road and that deeds indicate approximately 50 feet of right-of-way exists on both roads.

During public comment and commissioner debate, safety concerns around a blind curve near the high school and recent crashes were described by residents. Opponents asked the commission to condition the approvals on specific road improvements, turn lanes at entrances and a lower building height. The applicant, Mike Price of MAP Engineers, told the commission he would adhere to the submitted plan and had no objection to making the road work a condition.

Commissioner Highlander moved an amendment to add a condition requiring two right‑turn lanes on Snow Hill Road; Commissioner Graham seconded. Commissioners discussed whether the county could impose a height limit after the applicant received a 50‑foot approval from the construction board of appeals; the construction board approval was discussed by the applicant and residents but the county record does not show a separate county action changing building height. The applicant said the approved 50-foot height would still sit below the high‑school gymnasium roofline and that the submitted plan and an agreed land swap with adjoining property owners were necessary to implement the full widening and the turn lane.

The commission recorded roll-call votes approving the amendment (adding two right‑turn lanes) and then passed Resolution 825-37 as amended. Commissioners then amended and approved Resolution 825-38 to carry the same road‑improvement condition and approved Resolution 825-39 (the PUD amendment). The commission’s recorded roll calls show the measures passed unanimously as amended.

County staff and the applicant confirmed the developer will pay for the road improvements and that all three resolutions must be approved to enable the planned roadway work. The meeting record does not include a construction schedule or a detailed funding agreement; implementation steps were tied to the applicant’s submitted plan and additional documentation to be provided by the applicant.