An extended public hearing over a proposed zone change in the Cove Fort area drew multiple residents and opponents who argued the application lacked required information and raised public-safety and resource concerns.

Applicant Duffy Williams (who introduced himself to the record) told commissioners he had invested in the property, holds conditional approvals for certain uses and sought highway-commercial zoning to secure long-term value and allow commercial development. "If my neighbor received command the financial benefit that comes with it, how can I be denied?" Williams said, arguing for equal treatment and noting investments on the property.

Opponents — including several people with the surname Pratt, John Kraut, Natasha Moose and Emily Pratt — told commissioners the application was incomplete, inconsistent and risky for the community because of limited emergency response, insufficient water resources and missing submittal materials. Natasha Moose said, "There's no professional firefighters or EM workers close to 20 or 30 minutes away." Nathan Pratt, a public commenter, told the commission the zone change "fails to meet several fundamental requirements for responsible land use planning and presents significant risk to public welfare, county resources, and long term development goals."

Public commenters also pointed to administrative inconsistencies in the materials (the public notice listed 37 acres while another page in the application said 53.8 acres) and alleged intimidation and prior complaints involving the applicant that they said should factor into the commission’s review.

Commissioners and staff discussed technical issues after public comment, including whether uses allowed under an existing conditional-use permit on the parcel would remain vested if the zoning were changed. Staff and counsel noted that certain existing, commenced uses can continue as nonconforming uses, but uses not commenced could be affected. A resident interjection asserted the applicant had not completed conditions of his conditional-use permit; the applicant responded by listing investments and ongoing work (including a 16,000-gallon sewer tank and site improvements) and said the project was progressing.

The record in the supplied transcript ends with commissioners asking follow-up questions and requesting further review; no final adoption or rejection of the Cove Fort highway-commercial map amendment is recorded in the provided excerpt.