Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Development Agreements topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning Commission denies JDCO development-agreement request for Daniels Rd. property

Daniel Planning Commission · March 18, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Daniel Planning Commission voted to deny a request from Mark Skousen for a development agreement that would allow office and limited industrial activity on Daniels Road, citing concerns about trucks, chemicals, neighborhood impacts and lack of access to industrial zoning.

The Daniel Planning Commission voted unanimously March 18 to deny a development-agreement request from applicant Mark Skousen for JDCO property on Daniels Road.

Skousen asked the commission to keep the current zoning and allow a development agreement that would place an office building at the front of the lot and limit the number of vehicles parked in the rear. He said the property would need water only for flushing toilets and that other nearby residents operate businesses from their homes.

Commissioners pressed on several operational concerns. Commissioner Heber Taylor questioned the size of the proposed 3,000-square-foot office and pointed out the garage could accommodate up to eight trucks; Taylor suggested downsizing. Vice Chair Byron Horner said he saw little difference between a development agreement and a zone change and raised worries about traffic, noise and chemicals in a residential area, and said buyers should have exercised “due diligence” before purchase. The commission also noted the applicant lacks access to nearby industrial property and that adjacent owners had declined easement requests.

Commissioner Horner moved to deny the request; the motion, seconded by Commissioner Taylor, passed with the recorded votes of Long, Jones, Taylor and Horner in favor. The denial leaves the parcel in its existing zoning; no alternative mitigation measures or conditions were accepted at the meeting.

Next steps: the applicant may revise the proposal, including reducing building footprint or pursuing alternative access, and could return to the Planning Commission or pursue a separate zone-change petition. The commission did not set any follow-up direction at the March 18 meeting.