Townsley Construction's proposed PUD for "Hills of Locanto" — a 38-unit, fee-simple townhome development on about 4.77 acres near County Road 486 — was the most contested item on the Jan. 15 Planning & Development Commission agenda.

Applicant Austin Daley said the project is intended to provide "missing-middle" homeownership options and argued the county's PUD framework is the appropriate tool for a product that relies on consolidated infrastructure and HOA-maintained private streets. He described deviations requested from the Land Development Code as technical and necessary for townhome product delivery: treating impervious-surface ratio (ISR) and floor-area ratio (FAR) on a project-wide basis rather than lot-by-lot; allowing 20-foot lot widths typical for townhomes; permitting connected driveway aprons; and reducing staff-recommended type-D buffer (25-foot masonry wall) to a 20-foot planting buffer with a 6-foot opaque vinyl fence maintained by the HOA.

Staff and commissioners questioned whether the proposed fee-simple, 20-foot lots could meet ISR and FAR requirements under the code, noted the project proposes the maximum MDR density (about 7.97 units per acre), and highlighted that county concurrency letters indicate off-site sewer upgrades will likely be required to connect the development to central sewer. Commissioners asked for specifics about unit size (applicant cited 1,453 square feet living area, 1,721 total) and parking; the applicant said each unit would provide a one-car garage plus driveway spaces and additional visitor parking cutouts.

Neighbors who spoke during public comment described Pinecone and Woodview roads as narrow, used as traffic shortcuts, and unsuitable for substantial construction traffic and an additional 70–80 daily vehicle trips. Multiple commenters asked whether turn lanes, improved shoulders, or other roadwork would be required as part of the development.

Commission discussion split: some commissioners argued the parcel lies in a plan-service area with utilities and is appropriate for higher-density MDR development and workforce housing; others said the project's density at the maximum allowable threshold and the fee-simple, 20-foot lot design make it incompatible with the immediately surrounding low-density residential parcels and undersized local roads. Suggested amendments discussed included a fence and planting buffer maintained by the HOA, sidewalks on both sides of internal roads, and project-wide maximums for ISR (50%) and FAR (0.4).

Commissioner David Bramlett moved to find the application consistent and recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners with amended conditions (including the fence/planting buffer, HOA maintenance, and sidewalks on both sides). The motion was seconded but failed on a roll-call tally recorded as 4-2; the application will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on Feb. 26.

What happens next: the project proceeds to the Board of County Commissioners; staff and applicant will need to resolve technical deviations and show how site engineering, stormwater design, and sewer connection requirements will be met at the site-plan stage.

Sources: Applicant presentation (Austin Daley), staff (Melissa Morris), public comment at Jan. 15 PDC hearing, and recorded motion and roll-call vote.