[1. 2026 Roadway and Transportation Alternatives List of Priority Projects (LOPP). The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the North Florida Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) requests project priorities from local governments for potential funding of new transportation projects to be considered for inclusion in the new fiscal year of FDOT’s Work Program. This is an annual recurring request sent to local governments. The St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners is charged with prioritizing all projects within the County, including those within municipal boundaries. The Transportation Advisory Group (TAG), consisting of County staff, representatives of the City of St. Augustine, St. Augustine Beach, St. Johns County School District, St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office, and the St. Augustine-St. Johns County Airport Authority met on November 13, 2025, to review last year’s priorities and recommend this year’s priorities. The attached LOPP includes TAG's recommendations for both highway and alternatives projects for FY 2027/28 - 2031/32.]

PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> OKAY. WE'LL GO DIRECTLY TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1.

MR. D' SOUZA.

>> GOOD MORNING, BOARD. DICK D' SOUZA.

[00:50:05]

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1, 2026 TRANSPORTATION LIST OF PRIORITY PROJECTS.

THIS IS THE ANNUAL RANKING THAT STAFF PRESENTS TO YOU THE BOARD FOR VOTING OR ANY CHANGES THAT YOU WISH TO MAKE.

THIS IS A LIST THAT IS THEN TRANSMITTED TO THE NORTH FLORIDA TPO AND IT GETS WRAPPED UP INTO THEIR PROCESS BY WHICH WE WOULD RECEIVE FUNDING THROUGH THE TPO AND SO I'LL GIVE A QUICK OVERVIEW OF HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE AND THEN GO OVER OUR LIST.

AND SO TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY GROUP, LIKE SAID, ANNUAL MEETING IT CONSISTS OF MEMBERS OF STAFF FROM THE COUNTY, THE CITY, ST.

AUGUSTINE BEACH, THE SCHOOL BOARD AS WELL AS ATTENDANCE BY THE PUBLIC AND THIS YEAR WE MET ON NOVEMBER 13TH, WENT THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS.

AND SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS CONSIDERATION FOR INCLUSION IN D.O.T. 'S NEXT FIVE- YEAR WORK PROGRAM. AND SO, KIND OF WANT TO GIVE A BRIEF KIND OF HIGH- LEVEL REVIEW.

SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES, WE'RE PRESENTING A COUPLE DIFFERENT LISTS. THESE LISTS INCLUDE OUR REGIONAL PRIOR IT IS.

THINK OF OUR LARGE ROADWAY NETWORK, OUR ROADS THAT HAVE HIGH CAPACITY, WE'RE MOVING PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE COUNTY. VERSUS OUR LOCAL PRIORITIES WHICH MAY BE ENHANCING THE COUNTY'S OWN ROADWAY NETWORK. SMALLER PROJECTS, LESS EMPHASIS ON CAPACITY. MAYBE SOME OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS, SOME ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

AND SO, WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS THAT THIS LISTING ISN'T JUST ABOUT THAT FIVE- YEAR WORK PROGRAM THAT D.O.T. HAS OR THE COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, THIS IS A LOOK AHEAD.

WE'RE LOOKING AT TOTAL PLANNING FOR THE COUNTY.

SO THESE ARE VERY LONG LISTS THAT WE PRESENT.

THESE AREN'T THINGS THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED IN THAT FIVE- YEAR TIME FRAME, SO WE'RE LOOKING OUT TOWARDS THE FUTURE. AS I SAID EARLIER, THIS GOES TO THE TPO AND THIS LIST ACTUALLY GETS INCORPORATED INTO THE LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN THAT THE TPO PRODUCES ON A FIVE- YEAR BASIS. AND SO LAST YEAR'S ITERATION IS ACTUALLY PART OF THE LRTP 2050. JUST TO GIVE YOU A SCOPE OF HOW LONG OUT WE'RE LOOKING FOR SOME OF THESE PROJECTS.

AND SO, FIRST ONE WE'RE GOING TO GO OVER IS THE HIGHWAY PROGRAM. THIS CONSISTS OF THE REGIONAL AND LOCAL PRIORITIES. SO AGAIN, THESE ARE, YOU KNOW, NEW ROADWAYS, IMPROVEMENTS AND CAPACITY. SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. WHAT'S IMPORTANT HERE IS THAT THE REGIONAL TOP FIVE IS REALLY WHAT THE TPO FOCUSES ON AS THEY LOOK FOR THEIR FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES. AND SO, OUR REGIONAL TOP FIVE REMAINS UNCHANGED FROM LAST YEAR. THERE WERE TWO ITEMS REMOVED BY CONSENSUS. AND THOSE WERE A PLANNING STUDY FOR AN INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION CENTER AND THE COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE FROM JACKSONVILLE TO ST.

AUGUSTINE. THESE ARE CHAMPIONED BY OTHER ENTITIES SO THE GROUP FELT COMFORTABLE REMOVING THESE FROM OUR PRIORITY LIST. WE'RE STILL CERTAINLY INVOLVED WITH THESE AS THEY COME IN THROUGH THE COUNTY. BUT AGAIN KEEPING IT AS A TOP PRIORITY WHEN THEY'RE CHAMPIONED BY OTHERS WE FELT IT REASONABLE TO REMOVE THEM.

A NEW PROJECT WAS ADDED THE BOTTOM PROJECT YOU'LL SEE ON THE LIST AND THAT WAS ADDED AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE.

THAT IS FOR A TRANSIT SLASH MULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENT ALONG SAN MARCO A 1 A BUSINESS SIDE. THEN THE LOCAL PRIORITY LIST, TWO CHANGES. SO FIRST WAS THE ELIMINATION OF THIS MULTI- USE PATH BECAUSE THAT IS NOW COVERED BY THAT NEW REGIONAL PRIORITY THAT THE CITY HAD RECOMMENDED.

AND THE SECOND PROPOSED CHANGE IS THE REMOVAL OF THE 305 EXTENSION. 305 EXTENSION HAS BEEN ON THE PRIORITY LIST FOR THE LOCAL PRIORITY SINCE 2021.

AND WE HAVE ROUTINELY KEPT THAT AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE LIST BECAUSE IT IS AT THE SOUTHERN END OF THE COUNTY ALONG THE 20- 209 CORRIDOR.

WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THE MIDDLE SECTION.

WE HAVE THE CURRENT PROJECT RIGHT NOW THAT'S GOING TO STOP AT STATE ROAD 16 AND LARGE GAP FROM 16 TO 208. FROM 208 DOWN TO THE REST OF THE SOUTHERN END OF THE COUNTY. SO THIS IS THE VERY SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF THAT. OF NOTE, THE COUNTY HAS HAD THE ROADWAY FOR THIS ROAD SINCE 2013.

THIS PROJECT WAS BROUGHT UP AND IT WAS EXTENSIVELY DISCUSSED AT THE MEETING IN NOVEMBER.

AND SO, INCLUDED IN THE PACK ET IS A LETTER FROM SOCA ABOUT THEIR REASON FOR REMOVAL OF IT. WE PRESENTED THAT TO THE BOARD SO THEY CAN MAKE THAT DECISION ON WHETHER TO INCLUDE OR EXCLUDE THIS ROAD. AND SO, REALLY QUICKLY, THE REGIONAL LIST, LIKE I SAID, WE REMOVED TWO PROJECTS BECAUSE THEY'RE CHAMPIONED BY OTHERS. THE TOP FIVE REMAINS UNCHANGED.

SO NUMBER ONE PRIORITY FOR THE COUNTY, STILL STATE ROAD 16.

NUMBER 2 IS 2209. 3, U.S. ONE INTERSECTIONS ON THE NORTHERN PART OF THE COUNTY. 4, IS INTERSECTION IMPROOUMS ALONG A 1 A AND NUMBER 5 IS 210 AND THAT IS ADDING THAT ADDITIONAL LANE. WE HAVE THE LITTLE BIT OF A GAP SECTION THERE RIGHT THERE AT

[00:55:01]

THE INTERCHANGE. AND THEN AGAIN THAT NEW PROJECT, WHICH IS THE MULTIMODAL TRANSIT LANE THAT IS THERE NOW AT NUMBER 16.

SO, LOCAL PRIORITIES. SO AGAIN WE REMOVED THE ONE PROJECT, WHICH IS THE SHARED USE PATH BECAUSE THAT IS NOW COURTED UNDER THE REGIONAL LIST. AND THEN AT THE VERY BOTTOM YOU CAN SEE THE 305 EXTENSION. AGAIN, THAT WAS REQUESTED TO BE REMOVED BY SOCA, SO WE'RE BRINGING THAT FORWARD AS THAT FOR DISCUSSION AMONGST THE BOARD. AND SO AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP THERE, L 9 IN THE DASHED LINE VERY SOUTHERN END OF THE COUNTY.

SO THE NEXT GROUPING SO OUR TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES.

THIS IS THE TRAIL NETWORK AND SIDEWALKS TO SCHOOL PROGRAM.

YOU WILL SEE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE APPEARANCE OF THE TRAIL SECTION.

AND THAT IS DUE TO THE FUNDING MECHANISM MOVING FORWARD. AND SO RATHER THAN HAVING VERY LARGE TRAIL SEGMENTS, THE TPO AND THE D.O.T. COME TO THE COUNTY AND SAID SPLIT UP THESE TRAIL SEGMENTS INTO SMALLER, CONSTRUCTIBLE LENGTHS.

SO WE HAVE A VERY LARGE LIST. SAME TRAILS AS LAST YEAR.

JUST MUCH MORE BROKEN APART SO THAT WE CAN HAVE SMALLER CONSTRUCTIBLE SEGMENTS. SIDEWALK TO SCHOOLS THAT REMAINS UNCHANGED. AND SO, YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT'S GOT THE ROADWAY ID. THOSE WERE THE OLD TRAIL SEGMENTS AS THEY WERE IN PREVIOUS ITERATIONS. BUT THEN YOU SEE THE NEW PRIORITY RANKING. AND SO, WE'VE GOT THEM ALL KIND OF GROUPED TOGETHER. AND SO WHAT STAFF DID IS PRIORITIZE BASED OFF OF CONSTRUCTABILITY AS WELL AS CONNECTIVITY, WHERE THOSE TRAIL SEGMENTS WOULD BE MOST APPROPRIATE TO RECEIVE FUNDING. AND WE'RE LOOKING AT PROBABLY AN EVERY OTHER YEAR FUNDING PSYCH FRL THE D.O.T. AND THE TPO.

THEN AGAIN SIDEWALK TO SCHOOLS. SO THERE WAS ONE REMOVAL ON PALM VALLEY ROAD BECAUSE THAT HAS SIDEWALK CURRENTLY.

AND SO AGAIN, OTHERWISE THOSE ARE UNCHANGED.

WITH THAT, STAFF IS PRESENTING THESE LIST TO THE BOARD FOR THEIR CONSENSUS AND APPROVAL SO THAT WE MAY TRANSMIT TO THE TPO IN THE COMING YEAR SO THAT WE CAN GET ON TO THEIR CYCLE FOR FUNDING. I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONER JOSEPH.

>> YES. YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU GAVE IT TO THE BOARD TO REFER TO A VOTE TO REMOVE 305. WHAT WAS THAT VOTE? WAS IT VOTED TO DO THAT?

>> THE DECISION OF THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY GROUP WAS TO BRING IT FORWARD WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION FOR REMOVAL FROM SOCA BUT LEAVING IT OPEN TO THE BOARD.

AGAIN, THE BOARD IS THE ONE THAT SETS THIS LIST.

STAFF IS JUST BRINGING YOU THE LIST FOR YOU TO VOTE ON.

SO IT'S BEEN ON THE LIST. WE'VE KEPT IT ON THE LIST WITH THE NOTATION THAT IT HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO BE REMOVED BY SOCA.

AGAIN THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY GROUP THAT MET IN NOVEMBER FELT IT APPROPRIATE TO BRING FORWARD WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION FROM SOCA FOR THAT REMOVAL SO THAT THE BOARD CAN MAKE THAT ULTIMATE

DETERMINATION. >> SO THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD VOTED TO TAKE IT

OFF? >> WE VOTED TO BRING IT FORWARD WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FROM SOCA FOR REMOVAL SO THAT WE COULD OPEN UP FOR THE

BOARD. >> I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY DID VOTE THAT WAY. THANK YOU.

>> THROUGH THE CHAIR, TO CLARIFY YOUR TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY GROUP IS THAT JUST A GROUP? THEY'RE NOT APPOINTED MEMBERS AS YOU WOULD IN A TRADITIONAL BOARD SO THEY'RE JUST VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT COME AND PARTICIPATE? THEY'RE NOT APPOINTED MEMBERS OF A BOARD AS YOUR TRADITIONAL BOARD, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY

THAT. >> NO.

I AGREE BUT I'M NOT GETTING A YES OR NO ANSWER.

THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING. I THINK IT WAS A YES, BUT THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE?

>> YES MA'AM.

>> I HAD A QUESTION. YEAH.

I AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION BUT I DID HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE ESPECIALLY NOW WITH NIGHT LIGHTS AND EVERYTHING. AND I APPRECIATE THE CITY COMING FORWARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR I THINK IT'S STATE ROAD 312. BUT I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH COUNTY ROAD 312 THAT GOES FROM CORDOVA PALMS ALTERNATIVE TO GNAT TO U.S. 1.

THAT'S NOT ON THERE. WE NEED SOME RELIEF FROM U.S.

1 ESPECIALLY DURING NIGHT LIGHTS AND THAT.

>> AND SO COUNTY ROAD 312 IS REALLY STATE ROAD AND AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY IN TERMS OF THE MAINTENANCE. THAT WILL BE A STATE ROAD.

STAFF HAS BEEN TOLD BY D.O.T. IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT CONNECTION REALLY TO BE EFFECTIVE WITH THE COMPLETION OF 313, 312, WHATEVER NUMBER WE'RE GOING TO REFERENCE IT BY WOULD FORCE THE ISSUE OF THEN SIX LANE FROM THAT CONNECTION POINT ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE INTERSTATE. AND THEN I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR D.O.T. LOOK AT FUNDING FOR 312.

THAT IS AN EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE PROJECT.

A LOT OF THAT LAND WHERE THAT CORRIDOR EXISTS IS ESSENTIALLY OLD BORROW PITS. SO THE CONSTRUCTION COST FOR THAT ROAD HAVE CERTAINLY EXPLODED.

[01:00:05]

IN COMBINATION WITH JUST THE MASSIVE INCREASE OF ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION THAT WE SAW WITHIN THE PAST FIVE YEARS.

I'M SURE AT SOME POINT D.O.T. WILL BE LOOKING AT ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO THAT ISSUE.

IT IS CERTAINLY STILL THERE. CERTAINLY STILL A PRESSING ISSUE. BUT I THINK D.O.T. IS PROBABLY RECOGNIZED THAT THAT IS A VERY LARGE LIFT IN TERMS OF THE FINANCING OF IT.

CERTAINLY UNDERSTOOD IT'S NEEDED.

BUT AGAIN, THERE'S A NUMBER OF CONCERNS. ALSO SOME ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS.

SOME OF THE LANDS IT GOES THROUGH PARTICULARLY ON THE NORTHERN PORTION JUST SOUTH OF WHERE IT CURRENTLY TERMINATES. A LOT OF WETLAND AND WETLAND IMPACTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

IT'S A LOT MORE OF A PROJECT THAN INITIALLY ANTICIPATED IN TERMS OF A COST PERMITTING AND THOSE IMPACTS.

>> I'M TRYING TO THINK OF RELIEF FOR U.S. 1 THAT'S SO MUCH NEEDED. THANK

YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE FROM THE BOARD?

>> DICK, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

SO THE IDEA OR THE CONCERN WITH SOCA TO REMOVE 305, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I STARTED DOING IS CALLING PEOPLE IN FLAGLER STATES TO GET THEIR TAKE ON IT. ULTIMATELY IT'S GOING TO AFFECT PEOPLE IN FLAGLER ESTATES. IF IT'S NOT OR IF IT IS, A FRIEND OF MINE WHO LIVES DOWN THERE WHO WORKS UP HERE SAYS THAT EVERYDAY 30 MINUTES OF HIS LIFE IS WASTED ON HAVING TO GO AROUND THE PATH. PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON MORRISON ROAD ARE CALLING ME AND SAYING, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD LOVE FOR PEOPLE TO GO A DIFFERENT DIRECTION AND GET OFF THEIR STREETS BECAUSE IT'S BACKED UP EVERYDAY.

SO I WOULD REALLY PERSONALLY -- YOU KNOW, LISTENING TO THE FARMERS, CALLING MR. BARNES, MR. SMITH, AND TALK TO THEM ABOUT THAT ACCESS AND HOW THAT WOULD HELP OR HINDER THEIR FARMING ACCESS.

I REALIZE THAT THERE'S STILL A NEED FOR THE ROAD.

I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF MOVING IT UP THE LIST.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY FUNDING.

I DON'T THINK THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ANY FUNDING FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS. BUT, I DO KNOW THAT IN RECOGNITION OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE AT LEAST KEEP IT ON THE LIST. SO I WOULD SUPPORT THAT.

ANOTHER THING YOU TALKED ABOUT 312.

YOU SAID IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE.

BUT YOU DIDN'T SAY HOW MUCH. NUMBERS I HEARD WERE IN THE UPPER HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS?

>> YES. THAT WOULD BE THE SAME NUMBERS THAT I'VE HEARD IS UPWARDS IN THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR THAT COMPLETION.

>> AND IT'S BECAUSE OF THE WETLANDS THAT IT GOES THROUGH AND THAT WE END UP HAVING TO BUILD MORE BRIDGES THAN JUST ROADS, RIGHT?

>> IT IS MOST CERTAINLY TIED TO THE FACT THAT IT WOULD BE OFF GRADE CONSTRUCTION FOR A LARGE PORTION OF THAT WHICH WOULD NECESSITATE BRIDGES AND SUCH.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE BEEN EXCITED ABOUT IS GETTING 312 DONE.

I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GREAT PIECE.

WHEN I CAME UP AGAINST $700 MILLION TO COMPLETE IT, I WAS LIKE, $700 MILLION TO COMPLETE IT? AND THAT'S THE NUMBERS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF D.O.T. NOW TO COMPLETE IT.

SO, I'M LIKE, WELL, WE CAN WAIT, IT'S NOT GOING TO HELP BOULEVARD. WE TRAVEL EVERYDAY.

BUT THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY FOR US.

THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY COMMENT. SO WILL YOU OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE. I'M SORRY.

MS. ARNOLD, PLEASE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MURPHY. I HAD SOME OF THOSE SAME CONVERSATIONS WITH BOTH THE RESIDENTS OF FLAGLER ESTATES AS WELL AS SEVERAL FARMING FAMILIES DOWN THERE. CHUCK SMITH, THEY'VE BEEN PROMISED THIS ROAD FOR YEARS.

AND THEY'RE REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO IT, NOT ONLY FROM A TRAFFIC STANDPOINT BUT ALSO FROM A PUBLIC SAFETY STANDPOINT.

CALPIN BRANCH IS DANGEROUS. I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF REMOVING IT FROM THE LIST. BUT THAT'S WHERE I STAND LISTENING TO THE RESIDENTS THAT ACTUALLY LIVE THERE THAT WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS THE MOST.

I APPRECIATE WHAT SOCA DOES, BUT THEY ARE THE SOUTH ANASTASIA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. AND I JUST DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THEM QUITE FRANKLY TELLING THE RESIDENTS OF FLAGLER ESTATES AND THE FARMER WLAS THEY CAN AND CAN'T HAVE.

SO THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

>> ANYONE ELSE?

>> OKAY. WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT NOW, PLEASE.

>> GOOD MORNING. ED SLAVIN.

CANDIDATE BOX 3084 FOR MOSQUITO CONTROL. THIS TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY GROUP, WHO APPOINTS IT AND HOW? AND WHY DOESN'T THE BOCC APPOINT IT LIKE EVERY OTHER BOARD AND ADVISORY GROUP THAT WE HAVE? WE NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.

NEEDS TO BE A FAIRLY BALANCED COMMITTEE.

HOW MANY PEOPLE ON THAT COMMITTEE ACTUALLY SPEAK OUT FOR TROLLIES?

[01:05:04]

MASS TRANSIT? ST. AUGUSTINE HAD A 1928 A FULLY FUNCTIONING SYSTEM OF TROLLIES THAT GOT YOU FROM HERE TO THERE. AND OF COURSE THE ROAD BUILDERS AND THE AUTOMOBILE COMPANIES AND THE MANUFACTURERS OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT TRASHED THOSE SYSTEMS IN 50 AMERICAN CITIES.

Y'ALL EVER SEE THE MOVIE "WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT" THE PREMISE OF THE MOVIE THAT SOMEBODY WOULD BUY UP THE TROLLIES AND TRASH THEM REALLY HAPPENED AND THERE REALLY WAS AN ANTI- TRUST LAWSUIT. AND THE TREASURER OF GENERAL MOTORS WAS FINED A DOLLAR. A DOLLAR IN FEDERAL COURT BECAUSE APPARENTLY FEDERAL COURT THOUGHT THEY WERE DOING US A FAVOR BY DESTROYING OUR ABILITY TO GET FROM HERE TO THERE WITHOUT HAVING AN AUTOMOBILE.

WE NEED TO HAVE A TROLLY SYSTEM. IT WOULD BE PART OF THE PLAN FOR THE ST. AUGUSTINE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK AND NATIONAL SEASHORE.

WHEN I FIRST DRAFTED THAT PROPOSED LEGISLATION IN 2006, WE INCLUDED THAT.

BILL LEERY, A ST. AUGUSTINE CITY COMMISSIONER LIKED THE DRAFT BILL AND HE SAID IT WAS PERFECT. I SAID, NO, BILL, IT'S NOT PERFECT YET BECAUSE IT'S NOT LAW.

IF WE HAD A NATIONAL PARK AND SEASHORE AND WE GOT FEDERAL FUNDS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO PAY FOR TROLLIES TO TAKE US FROM HERE TO THERE, WORKING PEOPLE WHO DON'T OWN CARS OR DON'T EVEN HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSE, PEOPLE LIKE ME, I DON'T HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE.

YOU WOULDN'T WANT ME TO HAVE ONE.

ANY WAY, MY DRIVER'S ED TEACHER WAS ONE OF MY FACEBOOK FRIENDS. STILL AROUND.

85 YEARS OLD. BUT SOME PEOPLE DON'T NEED TO DRIVE.

SOME PEOPLE DON'T NEED TO DRIVE. SOME PEOPLE YOU DON'T WANT TO DRIVE. THIS IDEA THAT WE'RE GOING TO WORSHIP THE AUTOMOBILE. DID Y'ALL EVER SEE THAT DUNES BURY CARTOON, 25, 30 YEARS AGO BASED UPON TRUE FACTS WHERE ONE OF THE CHARACTERS UNCLE WAS A COUNTY COMMISSIONER IN OKLAHOMA. AND THEY WERE TAKING BRIBES FROM YOU KNOW WHO. ROAD BUILDERS.

ROAD BUILDERS GIVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY TO POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND THROUGHOUT THE SOUTHEAST WHERE I THINK THERE WERE CONVICTIONS IN 25 STATES OF PEOPLE PAID OFF BY ROAD BUILDERS TO BUILD ROADS. SO LACKING A FAIRLY BALANCED ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WE COME BACK TO THESE MEETINGS EVERY YEAR AND THINKING ABOUT BUILDING MORE ROADS. BUILDING MORE ROADS IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS. MOVING PEOPLE IS.

AND YOU CAN MOVE PEOPLE BY DOING MORE THAN PUTTING ASPHALT DOWN. SO PLEASE STOP.

STOP THE MADNESS. AND LET'S HAVE A FAIRLY BALANCED ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMPLIANT WITH BASIC PRINCIPLES OF AMERICAN LAW.

THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM 1?

>> MY NAME IS DAVID WILLIAMS. I'M VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE FLAGLER ESTATES CRA. I'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD FOR 15 YEARS. I GOT TO TELL YOU, TEN YEARS AGO I WENT TO TPO AND I WENT TO ONE OF THE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND THEN I WENT UP TO JACKSONVILLE.

AND I PUT THAT 305 ON THE BOARD. AND THERE WAS A NEED FOR IT THEN THAT THEY WERE CONVINCED. NOW NOT A STRONG NEED PERHAPS, BUT IT WAS BECAUSE WE WERE IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING. AND WE ARE DEVELOPING GANG BUSTERS NOW. WE ARE MAKING TAX MONEYS AND ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACT FEES OUT THE DOOR.

LET ME TELL YOU. ALL RIGHT.

BUT THESE PEOPLE ARE WORKER BEES.

THEY'RE NOT THE LEISURE CLASS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CREEK THAT HAS 30 SHEKLES TO HAND SOMETHING AND SAY YOU NEED TO SHOOT THIS DOWN BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK THAT THE WEST SIDE OF THE COUNTY NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED. WE JUST DON'T LIKE THE IDEA.

MAYBE IT'S A LITTLE TOO CLOSE. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, IT'S A LOT CHEAPER TO PUT A HOUSE UP IN FLAGLER ESTATES THAN IT IS IN SOME HOA ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CREEK.

I GOT TO TELL YOU, IT WASN'T MUCH IN 2010.

I CAN ASSURE YOU. I BOUGHT CHEAP BECAUSE IT WAS PRETTY ROUGH. BUT NOT ANYMORE.

OH, NO. THERE ARE REAL HOUSES.

THERE ARE REAL PEOPLE OUT THERE. AND THEY'RE COMING.

EVEN MORE. AND THOSE PEOPLE ARE VOTERS.

ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS WAKE THEM UP.

'26 IS COMING. ALL RIGHT.

REAL SOON. AND I THINK BY THAT POINT

[01:10:01]

THEY'LL GET THE POINT, BUT I HOPE YOU ALL ARE ABLE TO WORK OUT SOMETHING AND I PUT THIS IN AN EMAIL TO YOU ALL AND I'LL TURN IT IN TO SAY, LOOK, WORK OUT SOMETHING.

KEEP IT ON THE LIST. AND LET'S START THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX AS TO HOW WE CAN GET PEOPLE FROM FLAGLER ESTATES TO ST. AUGUSTINE AND JACKSONVILLE. IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.

IT'S ROADS AND IT'S MONEY. I KNOW THAT. BUT WE'RE MAKING THE MONEY AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME IDEAS THAT WOULD HELP OUR PEOPLE BETTER THAN WHAT THEY'RE BEING HELPED RIGHT NOW. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH AND MERRY

CHRISTMAS. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.

>> GOOD MORNING. SHIRLEY LASSITER.

3555 COFFIN. OKAY.

SO, WHEN WE LIVE HERE IN FLAGLER ESTATES. AND WE NEED TO COME TO ST. AUGUSTINE OR JACKSONVILLE, A LOT OF PEOPLE -- I LIVE VERY FAR SOUTH. I'M PROBABLY FIVE COUNTRY BLOCKS TO THE BORDER. OKAY.

I'M GOING TO COME UP WEST CREEK AND COME UP HERE ON CRACKER SWAMP AND GET ON 13 AND I'M GOING TO TURN ON GEORGE MILLER AND COME UP MORRISON.

THEN I'M GOING TO COME UP HERE ON 207 AND I'M GOING TO GET REALLY UPSET BECAUSE I SEE 305.

DANG. MAN, ALL THE TIME AND GAS I COULD HAVE SAVED. SO, THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE. THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE TO GET THE EXISTING 305 IS CALPIN BRANCH ROAD.

THAT HAS SIX 90- DEGREE ANGLED TURNS.

COUPLE DAYS AFTER CHRISTMAS IN 2021, AFTER MY PARENTS GOT THEIR OIL CHANGED ON U.S. 1, THEY WANTED TO SEE MY LAND. BECAUSE THAT WAS WHEN WE WERE GETTING IT READY TO PUT A HOUSE ON. MY PARENTS, THEIR GPS LED THEM TO CALPIN BRANCH. CAR ENDED UP IN THE DITCH.

IT WAS RAINING. THE GRASS WAS WET.

ON THIS SIDE, MY MOM WAS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE CAR IN WATER IN THAT DITCH. EMERGENCY RESPONSE HAD TO TAKE HER OUT THE HATCH BACK. I DON'T LIKE BEING PART OF LIKE. MY MOM BROKE FIVE RIBS AND HAD THREE BRAIN BLEEDS. SHE NEVER FULLY RECOVERED.

SHE WAS TAKEN TO UF. WE WERE ACTUALLY AT A PLACE THAT MY PARENTS HAD GIVEN MY KIDS GIFT CARDS FOR AT DAVE AND BUSTERS WHEN I GOT THE CALL FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT MY MOM HAD BEEN TAKEN FROM THE SCENE TO FLAGLER HOSPITAL AND THEN AIR LIFTED TO JACKSONVILLE TRAUMA. THAT WAS SOME RIDE GOING TO SEE HER. SO ANYTHING WE COULD DO TO MAKE THIS SAFER, RIGHT? HERE WE ARE AND HERE IS 305.

RIGHT NOW I HAVE TWO GIRLS THAT HAVE LEARNER'S PERMITS.

I CAN'T EVER DRIVE CALPIN BRANCH WITHOUT THINKING WHAT HAPPENED TO MY PARENTS.

SO HERE IS -- WHEN YOU ZOOM IN ON GOOGLE, GUESS WHAT, THERE'S ALREADY A ROAD THERE. OH MY GOSH, I'M OUT OF TIME.

I'M SO SORRY. I HAVE A PETITION AND IF ANYBODY AT HOME IS WATCHING IF YOU WANT TO SCAN THE QR CODE AND ADD YOUR NAME. BUT THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO COULDN'T BE HERE OR CHOSE TO SIGN IT 42. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK.

>> THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.

>> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS PAT HAMILTON.

210 OWENS. I'M SO SORRY FOR YOUR PARENTS.

EVERYBODY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOTHING WORSE THAN THAT.

AND I GREW UP AT CRESCENT BEACH. AND HASTINGS WAS PART OF CRESCENT BEACH. THEY FED US LUNCH EVERYDAY.

SHE I'VE DONEDONE TON OF BUSINESS IN HASTINGS.

JOHNNY BARNS RAN OUR FISH CAMP. JOHNNY'S KITCHEN IN HASTINGS.

HASTINGS IS PART OF WHERE I GREW UP.

I STILL HAVE FRIENDS WHO LIVE IN FLAGLER ESTATES AND LIVE ALL

[01:15:02]

THROUGHOUT THAT HASTINGS AREA AND THROUGH THOSE FARMS. AND YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR PARENTS IS WHAT HAPPENED TO -- IT'S HAPPENING TO ALL OF US AS YOUR FAMILY AND OUR NEIGHBORS. PART OF 204 IS CLEARLY UNSAFE.

IT OUGHT TO BE ADDRESSED TO MAKE IT MORE -- THAT IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE COUNTY DO OR THE TPO IS TO MAKE -- NOT 305 BUT 13 MORE SAFE FOR PEOPLE -- FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE AND DRIVE IT.

I DON'T THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO PUT A MAJOR ROAD THROUGH A SINGLE OWNER'S BLOCK OF LAND BECAUSE IF WE DO THAT, IT'S GOING TO -- IT'S GOING TO BE URBANIZED. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER SILVER LEAF IN THE SOUTH PART OF THE COUNTY.

AND IF YOU THINK THAT A SILVER LEAF WOULDN'T AFFECT WHERE I LIVE OR, YOU KNOW, OUR LAND ON 206 OR OUR LAND -- THE BEACH, YOU KNOW, GO DRIVE AROUND IN THE NORTH PART OF THE COUNTY AND SEE WHAT THE ISSUES ARE.

MR. WHITEHURST SUGGESTED WE ZOD HAVE 305 SEGMENT REMOVED DURING THE COMP PLAN MEETINGS. THAT'S NOT THE WAY TO GO. WHAT YOU NEED TO DO IS GO TO THE ADVISORY GROUP. SO WE WENT TO THE ADVISORY GROUP AND I SAT NEXT DOOR TO -- NEXT TO MR. D' SOUZA SAID I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM TAKING THAT OFF THE LIST.

AND DOES ANYBODY ELSE? AND NO ONE HAD ANYANY -- AGREED WE SHOULDN'T TAKE IT OFF THE LIST.

WE DON'T HAVE A TRAFFIC PROBLEM.

IT WILL BE A MAJOR AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT YOU'RE ASKING ME TO PAY AS A TAXPAYER. TO OPEN UP LAND TO DEVELOPMENT DOWN THERE. AND WE HAVE RURAL AREAS IN THE COUNTY AND WE NEED TO KEEP SOME RURAL AREA.

MY FRIENDS WHO LIVE DOWN THERE, THEY TAKE THE DRIVE, THE EXTRA 15 MINUTES TO GET INTO TOWN BECAUSE THEY LIKE TO LIVE IN THE COUNTRY.

I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO KEEP THIS ON THE PRIORITY LIST BECAUSE STAFF CONTINUES TO TELL US DON'T WORRY, THAT'S 10 OR 15 YEARS OUT THE ROAD. THEN IT'S NOT A PRIORITY. IT SHOULD BE OFF THE LIST.

>> THANK YOU, MR. HAMILTON. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS AT THIS TIME? GOOD MORNING.

>> GOOD MORNING. JOHN REGAN WITH SOCA.

I APPRECIATE THE TIME AND THE WORK OF THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NOVEMBER 13TH. WE WENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION -- I'M WITH SOCA. WE WENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE PRESENTED OUR LETTER, OUR FINDINGS, OUR BASIS OF DECISION AND THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO REMOVE FROM THE LIST THE PROJECT.

HOWEVER, LATER I ASKED HOW IS THAT REFLECTED TO THE BOARD? IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ADDS AND DELETES ARE STRIKED THROUGH AND UNDERLINED WITH JUSTIFICATIONS. WHETHER THAT'S AN ASTERISK, SO I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT. THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING.

OUR POSITION WAS FUNDAMENTALLY THAT THE CONSTRUCTION, THE ROAD, BUILDING NEW ROADS BRINGS NEW DEVELOPMENT AND THAT'S CONTRARY TO THE COMP PLAN INTENT WITH REGARD TO PRESERVING AGRICULTURAL LANDS.

ALSO, IT IS NOT PART OF ANY TYPE OF D.O.T. MASTER PLAN.

WE CONFIRM THAT WITH THE D.O.T. AND ALL THAT IS IN THE LETTER.

AND THAT ALSO THAT THE ROAD DOES CHANGE TRAFFIC ON ROADS THAT ARE VASTLY UNDER CAPACITY AS POINTED OUT IN THE LETTER. OUR POSITION IS THAT THE CONSTRUCTION COST WHICH COULD BE ANYWHERE FROM 15 TO $30 MILLION CONSERVATIVELY DEPENDING ON TWO OR FOUR LANE THERE ARE PROBABLY MORE IMPORTANT NEEDS. AND I THINK WE HEARD TESTIMONY THAT I WOULD PROBABLY SPEND TIME ON SOME OF THE SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS THAT ARE INTRINSIC TO THE EXISTING ROAD TO PREVENT THE TRAGEDIES AS WERE DESCRIBED.

I WILL POINT OUT THAT THE D.O.T. -- THE PUBLIC WORKS DASH BOARD HAS 44 TRAFFIC PROJECTS. THE SLIDE FROM STAFF POINTED OUT THAT THIS IS A LOW PRIORITY ROAD AND IT KEEPS GETTING BUMPED DEPENDING ON WHATEVER PRIORITY REALLY DOES SHOW UP. AND SO WHAT IT IS -- WHAT IS IT REALLY ABOUT? AND I THINK IT'S CLEAR IT'S ABOUT IMPROVING THE CONVENIENCE OF FLAGLER ESTATES RESIDENTS TO GO NORTH. I CAN CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT AND UNDERSTAND THAT COMPLETELY.

I SPENT TIME MAPPING WHAT I THOUGHT WOULD BE THE TIME ENHANCEMENTS. AND I CAME UP -- IN ALL FAIRNESS I DON'T LIVE THERE.

SAVINGS OF 8 TO 9 MINUTES. IF YOU'RE GOING TO JACKSONVILLE AN HOUR PLUS COMMUTE WITH UNSTABLE TRAFFIC, I'M NOT SURE THAT BECOMES A MATERIAL

[01:20:03]

DIFFERENCE. BUT AGAIN I DON'T LIVE THERE, SO I DON'T WANT TO WEIGHT IN.

WHAT I WILL WEIGH IN, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE SERVED BY THAT ROAD, AT THE TYPE OF COST.

THERE ARE OTHER PRIORITIES THAT CAN PROVIDE REAL RELIEF LARGER POPULATIONS OF PEOPLE. AND EVENTUALLY MAYBE COME BACK TO THIS ROAD. WE'RE JUST SAYING TAKE IT OFF THE PRIORITY LIST. WE'RE NOT SAYING REMOVE THE PROJECT COMPLETELY FROM THE FORECAST IN THE COUNTY.

IT DOESN'T BELONG IN THE TOP TEN.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS BILL HAMILTON.

I LIVE AT 7000 CHARLES STREET. AND I'M HERE TODAY TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE 305 EXTENSION OFF THE PRIORITY LIST.

SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND I HAVE SERVED -- YOU HEARD ALL OF THIS FROM ME BEFORE.

MULTIPLE TIMES. BUT, I'M HERE TO TELL YOU THAT URBANIZATION AND AGRICULTURE DO NOT MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS.

THEY HAVE COMPETING INTERESTS. AGRICULTURE IS AN INDUSTRY.

AND THEY USE EQUIPMENT AND THEY USE CHEMICALS AND THEY USE TRUCKS ON THE ROAD. THEY DON'T DO WELL NEXT TO URBANIZED AREAS. AND IF YOU BUILD 305, WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO IS YOU'RE GOING TO UP THE AGRICULTURE AREA TO URBANIZATION.

WHAT THAT MEANS IS YOU'RE GOING TO OVER TIME ERODE, CORRODE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR AND ST.

JOHNS COUNTY WILL END UP WITHOUT A FARMING COMMUNITY.

IT IS AS PREDICTABLE AS TOMORROW COMING AFTER TODAY.

SO, I KNOW ST. JOHNS COUNTY IS CONCERNED ABOUT LOSING AGRICULTURE. AND I KNOW YOU'RE SETTING UP AN AGRICULTURA AGRICULTURAL LIAISON COMMITTEE.

YOU ASKED ME TO APPLY TO THAT. I KNOW THE FARMERS.

I KNOW MARK BARNS AND JIM BARNS. I KNOW THE SITES.

I BUY CORN FROM WESLEY SMITH ON CALPIN BRANCH ROAD FOR MY HUNTING LEASE ON 206.

SO, I KNOW THOSE GUYS, TOO. AND WHAT IT MEANS IS IF ST. JOHNS COUNTY WANTS AN AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY, YOU HAVE TO BE MORE THAN JUST A CHEERLEADER. YOU HAVE TO DO THINGS.

YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE THE DECISIONS THAT PROTECT AGRICULTURE. SO, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THE CHOICE. IF YOU WANT TO CHOOSE TO FACILITATE MORE DEVELOPMENT, AND I THINK THAT EVERYBODY THAT YOU ASK THAT YOU POLL, DO WE NEED MORE DEVELOPMENT? DO WE NEED MORE TRAFFIC IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY? THEY'RE GOING TO TELL YOU, NO, DON'T DO THAT.

SUPPORT THE FARMERS. MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO OUT THERE. FIGURE OUT THE PROGRAMS THAT ARE GOING TO HELP THE FARM COMMUNITY SURVIVE. AND DON'T BE IN A HURRY TO PRIORITIZE A ROAD THAT AT THIS POINT A SMALL PART OF ST.

JOHNS COUNTY WOULD USE THE NUMBER THAT I HEARD WAS 13 MINUTES THE TIME THAT THEY'RE GOING TO SAVE. SPEND THE MONEY ON IMPROVING THE ROADS IN FLAGLER ESTATES IF YOU WANT TO HELP THEM. THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY COULD BE WELL SPENT. IMPROVE SAFETY.

PROTECT AGRICULTURE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS WILLIAM FISHER. I'M PRESIDENT OF THE FLAGLER ESTATES ROAD AND WATER CONTROL DISTRICT. I'VE BEEN ELECTED PRESIDENT THREE TIMES. AND I'VE BEEN ELECTED TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIX TIMES.

I THINK I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

I'VE ASKED ONE OF THE FARMERS WE HAD A SESSION AND HE WANTED ME TO FIND OUT FROM THE RESIDENTS WHAT THEIR FEELINGS WERE.

WHAT I FOUND OUTOUT THERE WAS SEVERAL THAT WANTED TO SEE THE 305 EXTENSION.

BUT THERE WAS A LOT MORE THAT DID NOT WANT TO SEE IT.

AND I ASKED, WHY DON'T YOU WANT IT? WELL, IF THEY OPENED IT, THEY'RE GOING TO DEVELOP IT.

IT'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF HOMES IN THERE.

AND STOP SIGNS. HOW MANY STOP SIGNS WILL BE ON THAT STREET? HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE ME TO GET UP TO 206? YOU DRIVE FROM FLAGLER ESTATES INTO HASTINGS, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY STOP SIGNS.

THE ONLY THING YOU HAVE A BRIDGE CROSS, CANAL.

YOU GOT TRAFFIC LIGHTS. AND I HOPE THIS GETS REMOVED FROM THAT PROCESS. THANK YOU.

[01:25:05]

>> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER -- HERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT.

>> GOOD MORNING. CHARLIE HUNT.

MILL CREEK ESTATES. 305, 305 THE EXTENSION THAT WANTS TO GO DOWN IS ALMOST LIKE THE SAME SAYING AS WHEN THE HUDSON HIGHWAY WAS GETTING PUT IN DOWN TOIGP.

IT'S LIKE TO HELP FACILITATE TRAFFIC.

WELL, THAT DID WORK UNTIL ALL THE HOUSES, THE THOUSANDS OF HOUSES THAT ARE GETTING PUT AROUND THAT TYPE OF STRUCTURE. AND IS THIS THE SAME CAUSE OF IT OF SEEING WHAT'S GOING ON? OKAY. ANYHOW.

THIS RIGHT HERE, THIS WHOLE AREA THAT'S OUTLINED IN YELLOW AND ALL THE YELLOW LITTLE BOXES ARE ACREAGE. OKAY? THAT'S PRETTY MUCH CLOSE TO ABOUT 10,000 ACRES, WHICH IS REALLY STARTING -- BEEN PLANNED TO COMPARE -- EXCUSE ME, TO WORK WITH THE NEW 10,000 ACRE BILL FOR DEVELOPER WHERE THE COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE A SAY WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO. BUT, BY LOOKING AT IT, ALL THOSE PROPERTIES ARE OWNED BY ELKTIN GREEN INCORPORATED OR LLC, EXCUSE ME.

WHERE IS THAT PLACE LOCATED AT? 50 SILVER FORREST? WHAT IS THAT BUILDING? THE HUDSON COMPANY.

WOW. WOW.

SO ARE THEY GOING TO BE OUT THERE PROTECTING ALL THE FARMERS WHEN THEY OWN THEIR 10,000 ACRES AND ALL THE LOCAL PEOPLE.

BECAUSE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU KNOW IT'S GOING TO COME. WHEN YOU HAVE SO MUCH OF A SUPPORTIVE ATMOSPHERE OF GETTING THIS PUT IN AND ON THE AGENDA, TO KEEP IT ON THE AGENDA, YES.

THAT IS WHY -- THAT IS LIKE A PRIDE STATEMENT.

IT'S LIKE WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

THE HUDSON MAFIA WILL KEEP IT ON THERE AND WE WILL GET THE PEOPLE WHO WE PAY FOR TO GET IT -- AND TO KEEP IT ON THERE. THAT IS THE FULL ASPECT OF WHAT THIS IS. THAT IS THE BIG PICTURE.

IF YOU'RE NOT REALLY INTO A BIG PICTURE, THEN YOU NEED TO STEP ASIDE THEN. BECAUSE THIS IS THE BIG PICTURE. ELKTIN GREENS OWNED BY HUDSON COMPANY WHICH WANTS TO KEEP THAT EXTENSION OF 305 ON THERE IS BECAUSE YOU TALK TO THEM AND IT SOUNDS ALL SO GREAT AND EVERYTHING, BUT THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE. DO THE RESEARCH THEN.

ELKTIN GREENS, 50 SILVER FOREST ROAD AND ALL THAT PROPERTY.

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

>> THAT IS WHAT IT IS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> GOOD MORNING.

>> HEY. GOOD MORNING.

JEN LUBBERT. I APOLOGIZE.

I DIDN'T THINK TO GRAB MY IPHONE SO I'M GOING TO DO THIS HERE. SO ONE ISSUE THAT HASN'T BEEN RAISED YET IS THE TOPOGRAPHY AND HYDROLOGY OF THE LANDSCAPE WE'RE LOOKING AT.

I ENCOURAE YOU TO REALLY KEEP THAT IN MIND WHEN WE'RE MAKING LAND USE DECISIONS.

SO HERE IS CURRENT 305. HERE IS 206 THAT RUNS ACROSS HERE.

AND THIS IS WHERE THAT 305 EXTENSION WOULD GO.

RIGHT INTO FISH TAIL SWAMP. AND SO, ONCE THAT ROAD IS BUILT, ONCE THAT AREA IS DEVELOPED, THAT WATER HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE. AND SO, THE RESULT IS THAT THAT WATER IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO INUNDATE FLAGLER ESTATES OR IT'S GOING TO GET DUMPED INTO DEEP CREEK. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE COUNTY IDENTIFIED THAT DEEP CREEK IS A PRIORITY ISSUE WHEN IT COMES TO FLOODING AND WATER QUALITY.

THAT'S VERY LIKELY WHERE THE WATER WILL GO ONCE THIS AREA IS DEVELOPED.

IN TERMS OF THIS AREA BEING -- THIS ROAD BEING A SHORTCUT FOR THE FLAGLER ESTATES COMMUNITY, NOBODY LIKES SITTING IN TRAFFIC. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.

IT'S MISERABLE. I DON'T LIKE DRIVING UP HERE.

BUT, THIS ROAD HONESTLY IS NOT GOING TO RESULT IN A LONG- TERM TIME SAVE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF FLAGLER ESTATE.

THERE'S A PRINCIPLE AND LAND USE PLANNING CALLED INDUCED DEMAND. AND IT IS SUMMED UP VERY NICELY BY THE MOVIE "FIELD OF DREAMS. " IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME. IF YOU BUILD A NEW ROAD IT MAY IN THE SHORT- TERM BE A TIME SAVE FOR FOLKS STUCK IN TRAFFIC, BUT IN THE LONG- TERM, ONCE THAT 10,000 ACRES OF LAND IS DEVELOPED, THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE TRAFFIC ON THAT ROAD, THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE STOP

[01:30:01]

SIGNS. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A QUICK SHORTCUT. AND IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT THAT AREA WILL BE DEVELOPED, IF ANYBODY HAS READ THAT DONATION AGREEMENT, IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT WHEN THAT ROAD IS BUILT, IT'S GOING TO BE BUILT WITH FOUR CUTOUTS TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT 10 ,000 ACHE MERS CH THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS ROAD TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT AREA. AND THIS COUNTY REALLY HAS MADE A LOT OF FUSS ABOUT PRIORITIZING SAVING AG LANDS.

SO BUILDING A ROAD THROUGH THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY THAT WILL FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT IS A DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO PRESERVING AG LANDS. AND I WANT TO BRIEFLY PUSH BACK AGAINST THE NOTION THAT FOLKS THAT LIVE ON THE COAST SHOULDN'T HAVE OPINIONS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS INLAND. POOR INFRASTRUCTURE DECISIONS AFFECT ALL OF US. WE ALL HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT.

WHEN INFRASTRUCTURE SALES YEARS AGO, IT WASN'T JUST AFFECTING THE FOLKS THAT LIVE WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE ROAD THAT WAS GOING TO BE WIDENED.

WE'RE ALL PAYING FOR THAT. AND SO, YES, WE MIGHT NOT LIVE WITHIN A MILE OF WHERE THIS ROAD WOULD BE, BUT WE AS ST.

JOHNS COUNTY RESIDENTS WILL STILL BE FOOTING THE BILL FOR IT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME?

>> BJ, WEST CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE.

I DON'T GET DOWN TO THE FARM LANDS.

IT'S BEEN AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION THIS MORNING.

AND WHAT I WANT TO PUT UP HERE -- DING DONG.

IS WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN PUT UP HERE.

IT GETS DOWN TO DEVELOPMENT, TAKE IT OFF.

SAFETY, 305 SHOULD STAY. THE ROAD IS ALREADY THERE.

SO PEOPLE MAY NOT WANT TO FOLLOW UP WITH THAT NO MATTER WHAT IS DECIDED. THIS IS A LIST THAT THE LADY DIDN'T HAVE TIME BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE THREE MINUTES.

SO I'LL USE THE REST OF MY THREE MINUTES TO TALK ABOUT THIS. AND SHOW PEOPLE THAT THEY -- SHE DID DO HER HOMEWORK, A LOT OF IT, AND THESE ARE YOUR LITTLE LIST.

THAT YOU NEED TO SEE THAT PEOPLE ARE -- FOR KEEPING THE ROAD.

OKAY. AND IT'S ALWAYS INTERESTING TO ME WHEN WE HAVE -- I HAVE THREE MINUTES. WHEN WE HAVE DISCUSSIONS AND WHO SHOWS UP TO THESE MEETINGS. AND IT DOES GET CONCERNING WHEN EVER YOU HEAR PEOPLE THAT HAVE SPENT A LITTLE MORE TIME ON THIS SAY THAT A DEVELOPER, THE HUDSONS, THEY'RE INVOLVED.

SO IS IT GOING TO BE A 3- 2 VOTE AGAIN? OR NO? AND I THINK WHEN EVER DEVELOPERS AND PEOPLE THAT SPEAK FOR THEM COME UP AND SAY, WELL, WHEN IT HAPPENS THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN AND THEY'RE GOING TO DO THIS. IF YOU SAT IN THESE MEETINGS OR LISTENED TO THESE MEETINGS, WHAT YOU SAY YOU'RE GOING TO DO USUALLY YOU DON'T DO. WHAT YOU SAY YOU'RE GOING TO DO AS A DEVELOPER, YOU USUALLY DON'T DO.

YOU COME BACK HERE AND YOU GOT ANOTHER PLAN.

NEVER WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO, WHAT YOU SAY IN THE BEGINNING. SO I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO REALIZE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT MAYBE COULD NOT SHOW UP THIS MORNING TO SPEAK FOR YOU TO TAKE CARE OF THE SAFETY OF PEOPLE ON THAT PART OF THE COUNTY. SO IF I COULD VOTE BUT IT'S COMING UP IN 2026, WE EITHER KEEP IT FOR SAFETY. WE KEEP IT FOR SAFETY.

OR WE TAKE IT OFF FOR DEVELOPMENT. I APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE HUDSONS AGAIN. THEY'RE ALWAYS COMING UP HERE.

ALWAYS COMING IN TO WHAT WE'RE DOING IN THIS COUNTY. SO PEOPLE, IF YOU GET A CHANCE, DO YOUR LITTLE THING WITH YOUR LITTLE CELL PHONES. OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> ALL RIGHT. BACK TO THE BOARD FOR COMMENT.

FINAL COMMENTS, YES, COMMISSIONER

WHITEHURST. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

IF WE DO NOT LEARN FROM OUR HISTORY, WE WILL BE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT. HISTORICALLY, IN SPITE OF SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE THIS MORNING, COMMISSIONERS ON THIS BOARD HAVE LISTENED TO AND ACTED UPON WHAT THE PEOPLE HAVE ASKED THEM TO DO.

I'M GOING TO CITE JUST A FEW EXAMPLES.

[01:35:04]

ESPECIALLY RELATING TO INFRASTRUCTURE WITH ALL THE UPSET ABOUT THE LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE LACK OF PLANNING, DECADES AGO THERE WAS AN INTERCHANGE PROPOSED AT RACETRACK ROAD AND I-95.

AND SOME VERY WELL- INTENTIONED, SOME VERY SMART PEOPLE ROSE UP TO FIGHT THE INTERCHANGE AT I- 95 BECAUSE IT WAS COMMON SENSE THAT THE INTERCHANGE WOULD THEN UNLOCK THE DOOR TO DEVELOP THE REST OF RACETRACK ROAD SO THEY DEFEATED IT BECAUSE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DO NOT WANT TO UPSET THE RESIDENTS OF THIS COUNTY. CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF.

WE DO NOT. THEY DEFEATED THETHE INTERCHANGE. DRIVE RACETRACK ROAD ANY TIME OF THE DAY. IT'S BUILT OUT.

NOW IT'S JUST MORE DIFFICULT AND HAS CAUSED MORE TRAFFIC CONGESTION TO GET PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON RACETRACK ROAD TO I-95.

MOVING FURTHER SOUTH, COUNTY ROAD 210, THERE WAS A MASTER PLAN SUBMITTED DECADES AGO.

I THINK IT WAS ALL OWNED BY RAINER WAY BACK IN THE DAY. THE HAMILTONS PROBABLY KNOW, BETTER THAN I DO. BUT THERE WAS A MASTER PLAN SUBMITTED. IT WAS GOING TO BUILD OVER 10,000 HOMES. AND SOME VERY WELL- INTENTIONED, VERY SMART PEOPLE ROSE UP AND DEFEATED THAT MASTER PLAN.

THE MASTER PLAN, OF COURSE, WAS GOING TO BRING ALL THE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, SCHOOL SITES, DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE, PARKS BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO UNLOCK THE DOOR TO DEVELOPMENT SO THEY DEFEATED THE MASTER PLAN ON COUNTY ROAD 210. NO, THEY DIDN'T DEFEAT THE PLAN. NOT ONE HOME WAS NOT BUILT BECAUSE THEY DEFEATED THAT.

THEY JUST DEFEATED THE INFRASTRUCTURE. SO NOW YOU CAN DRIVE COUNTY ROAD 210 EAST OF I- 95, WEST OF I- 95 AND YOU'RE STUCK IN TRAFFIC. BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MASTER PLAN. THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT THE TIME SIDED WITH THE RESIDENTS WHO WERE VERY WELL INTENTIONED, VERY SMART INSTEAD OF THE PLANNERS, INSTEAD OF THE EXPERTS.

A 1 A, OUR GOOD FRIEND UP THERE, THEY KNEW THAT IF FDOT WIDENED A 1 A FROM FOUR LANES TO SIX LANES THAT IT WOULD INVITE MORE TRAFFIC.

THEY TOLD THEM SO AT A TOWN HALL MEETING AT THE MARRIOTT SAW GRASS. FDOT HAD IN HAND $150 MILLION ROAD WIDENING PROJECT AND THE PEOPLE WHO WERE VERY WELL INTENTIONED, VERY SMART SAID IF YOU WIDEN THIS ROAD, YOU'RE GOING TO BRING MORE TRAFFIC. FDOT SAID THE PEOPLE ARE COMING ANY WAY. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE IT MORE COMFORTABLE FOR THEM TO DRIVE THROUGH.

THEY SCREAMED SO LOUD FDOT TIPPED THEIR CAP AND SAID, WE'LL TAKE THIS $150 MILLION PROJECT SOMEWHERE ELSE.

AND NOW WE'RE ALL STUCK IN TRAFFIC WHEN DRIVING THROUGH PONTOVIDRA. THIS BOARD WANTS TO DO SOMETHING RADICALLY DIFFERENT, THEN WE SHOULD LISTEN TO THE PLANNING EXPERTS VOTING TO KEEP THE 305 EXTENSION DOES NOT ENTITLE DEVELOPMENT. THIS BOARD MOST IN THIS AUDITORIUM WOULD RECOGNIZE DENIED ANYTHING THAT WOULD ENCROACH AG LAND. THERE WAS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX PROPOSED AT THE GOLF COURSE OFF OF 207. THIS BOARD VOTED TO DENY THAT.

THERE'S ANOTHER PUD WINDING OAKS WE VOTED TWICE TO DENY THAT PROJECT. THERE'S AN AVENUES MALL SIZED WAREHOUSE OUT THE MIDDLE OF THE FARM COUNTRY THAT WE VOTED TO DENY.

WE VOTED TO DENY 3,300 HOMES SOUTH OF 208 DOWN TO 214.

THAT WAS A DENIAL. AND WE DENIED JUST RECENTLY A PRD THAT USED TO BE A PIECE OF WATER LILY.

WE JUST DENIED THAT. WE'VE DENIED EVERYTHING THAT WOULD HAVE ENCROACHED INTO FARM COUNTRY BECAUSE THAT'S THE JOB OF THIS BOARD IS TO PROTECT OUR AG LANDS AND MAKE THOSE POLICY DECISIONS. IF WE VOTE TO REMOVE THE 305 EXTENSION, UNINTENTIONALLY YOU THINK WE'RE STOPPING DEVELOP. WE'RE NOT.

WE'LL STOP THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED MAYBE THAT WE NEED ONE DAY TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT WHICH WILL INEVITABLY COME.

SO I THINK THAT WE SHOULD AS A BOARD SIDE WITH THE PLANNERS, SIDE WITH THE EXPERTS AND DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S BEEN DONE IN THE PAST SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT WHEN AND IF IT COMES.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER JOSEPH YOU'RE

RECOGNIZED. >> I'M SORRY.

I HAVE TO JUMP IN. THE BOULEVARD IS AWESOME. EVERYONE LOVES IT THAT LIVES THERE. I LIVE THERE.

WE DON'T WANT MORE LANES BECAUSE IT JUST BRINGS MORE TRAFFIC. THE WONDERFUL PUBLIC WORKS HAS REDONE THE INTERSECTIONS THAT'S MADE IT TIMED BETTER.

IT'S FANTASTIC. AND DON'T MESS WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ANY WAY. I AM SO THANKFUL FOR THE AG LANDS IN THE SOUTH AND 305 IS OWNED BY A DEVELOPER, SO BASICALLY I'M SUPPORTING SOCA. THEY'RE AWESOME.

WHAT THEY DO IS AWESOME. I WILL NEVER STOP SUPPORTING YOU. EVEN WITH ALL THE DEVELOPER COMMISSIONERS.

I'M WITH YOU. OBVIOUSLY GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS. SO THANK YOU.

>> COMMISSIONER TAYLOR.

>> YES. THANK YOU.

I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY SO MUCH FOR COMING UP AND

[01:40:06]

SPEAKING. MY HEART GOES OUT TO YOU FOR WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR PARENTS.

I WOULD REALLY WELCOME US LOOKING AT WHAT TYPE OF SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS CAN WE DO DOWN THERE? SO I WOULD LOVE TO LOOK FURTHER INTO THAT. AND MR. REGAN, I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU SHARED ABOUT -- YOU WERE ASKED WHAT TO DO.

YOU WENT TO SOCA. YOU DID WHAT YOU WERE -- WHAT WAS SUGGESTED OF YOU. AND IT WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO REMOVE THIS.

I AGREE. I KNOW THAT IT WAS SHARED THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT DID SIGN THAT PETITION.

HOW FAR, IF YOU GO AND LOOK AT THE COMMENTS AS WELL AS I RECEIVED A NUMBER OF COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE, OVERWHELMING PEOPLE IN THAT AREA DO NOT WANT TO SEE SILVER LEAF 2 DOWN THERE.

THEY DO NOT WANT TO SEE THAT. I HAVE NOT HAD ONE PERSON SAY THAT TO ME. SO, THAT IS WHAT WILL BE THE RESULT OF DOING THIS. SO I DO THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT SAFETY THINGS. BUT WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR FARMERS. WE NEED TO PROTECT THIS AGRICULTURE LAND. WE CANNOT JUST HAVE URBANIZATION. SO I AM DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO REMOVE THIS FROM THE LIST.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF COMPELLING COMMENTS TODAY.

I APPRECIATE EVERYONE THAT'S COME UP TO SPEAK. ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE FACE, OF COURSE, IS TRYING TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS.

AND IT'S NEVER EASY. I SAY THIS ALL THE TIME, THE ONLY EASY DAY WAS YESTERDAY. I GO BACK TO AS THE LIAISON TO THE FLAGLER ESTATES CRA AND ROAD AND WATER DEPARTMENT, I GO BACK TO MY PEOPLE IN FLAGLER ESTATES AND GO BACK TO THE THINGS THEY'VE TOLD ME, IT'S EASY TO GO THERE'S A POSSIBILITY. WE HEARD THESE ARGUMENTS MANY, MANY TIMES OVER THE LAST YEAR. WELL, YOU CAN'T MAKE A DECISION BASE ON WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN.

I'VE BEEN PRETTY ATTACKED OVER THE FACT THAT I DID BECAUSE I MADE A DECISION BASED ON WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN.

SO, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE HYPOCRITICAL WHEN WE'RE NOW SAYING THAT IF YOU MAKE A DECISION BASE ON WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN THEN THAT'S THE SMART THING TO DO.

FOR ME, IT'S ABOUT THE PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE LIVING IN FLAGLER STATES NEED IT AND WANT IT.

EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT -- EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF BUILDING THE ROAD, I DON'T THINK THAT IT NEEDS TO BE BUILT, I THINK THAT STAFF HAS COME TO US AND GIVEN US THE REASONS WHY IT NEEDS TO STAY ON THE LIST AND I TEND TO AGREE WITH STAFF. I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN FLAGLER STATES AND HAVE TO MAKE THAT JOURNEY EVERYDAY. AND SO, I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT ALSO.

>> SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO KEEP THE COUNTY ROAD 305 EXTENSION ON THE LIST OF LOCAL PRIORITY PROJECTS AS NUMBER 9.

>> I'LL SECOND THAT. ANY DISCUSSIONS? OKAY. DO WE NEED TO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR --

>> NO. YOU HAD PUBLIC

COMMENT. >> OKAY.

CALL FOR THE VOTE THEN. IF YOU'LL PUT THAT VOTE UP ON THERE FOR ME. SO WE'RE WORKING ON IT.

EVERYBODY IS LOOKING AT ME. OKAY.

HE'S GIVING ME THE ONE MINUTE. ALL THOSE THERE FAVOR SAY AY-E.

>> AYE. >> ALL THOSE

OPPOSED. >> OKAY.

IT PASSES 3-2.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION IF NOW IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME. BEAR WITH ME.

I'M PULLING IT UP TO APPROVE THE 2026 ST. JOHNS COUNTY ROADWAY AND TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES LIST OF PRIORITY PROJECTS WITH THE AMENDMENT FOR THE LOCAL PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE NORTH FLORIDA TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE ALL IN FAVOR BY SAYING AYE.

>> AYE.

>> OPPOSED.

>> NO.

>> OKAY. THAT PASSES 3-2.

[01:45:03]

OKAY. MR. D' SOUZA, YOU HAVE

[2. Public Hearing * 2050 Comprehensive Plan - Transmittal Hearing - Restrictive and Burdensome Revision. The 2050 Comprehensive Plan was heard at the Board of County Commissioners' meetings on May 20, 2025, June 3, 2025, and July 22nd, which was the original Transmittal Hearing. The 2050 Comp Plan received a unanimous vote to Transmit. Subsequent to the Transmittal to the State, the Florida Department of Commerce rejected St. Johns County's Comprehensive Plan, due to alleged violations of Senate Bill 180 (SB180), which restricts a County or Municipal government's ability to institute more restrictive or burdensome land development or comprehensive plan regulations. County staff, along with the Comprehensive Plan consultant, Inspire Place Making Collective, have revised the 2050 Comprehensive Plan to remove any language deemed more restrictive or burdensome, as well as language deemed potentially more restrictive or burdensome. Made part of this item is a quick reference guide providing all restrictive and burdensome policies identified by the state, and the proposed action to correct; the majority of policies will revert to their original form as found in the current 2025 Comprehensive Plan. Also attached is the most recent draft of the 2050 Comprehensive Plan for Transmittal, restrictive and burdensome changes are highlighted in yellow.]

YOUR MARCHING ORDERS. WE'LL GO NOW TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2.

>> GOOD MORNING. MIKE ROBBERSON, DIRECTOR OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT. SO THE SECOND ITEM TODAY IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WHETHER OR NOT TO TRANSMIT IT. IF YOU REMEMBER -- I'LL JUST BRING UP THE KIND OF TIME LINE HERE TO GET US STARTED. A LOT OF WORK HAS BEEN DONE BY THE COMMISSION, THE COMMUNITY AND STAFF.

THE LAST DIRECTION WE RECEIVED -- AGAIN, WE GOT DENIED BY THE STATE BECAUSE IT WAS PERCEIVED OR VALUUATED THAT WE HAD SOME RESTRICTIVE OR BURDENSOME POLICIES. THIS IS NEW TERRITORY FOR THE STATE DENYING COMP PLANS ISN'T NECESSARILY -- WE USUALLY GET FEEDBACK FROM THE STATE.

SO, WE HEARD THE BOARD AT THE LAST MEETING WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND WE GOT DIRECTION BASICALLYBASICALLY COME BACK WITH A PLAN THAT PLAN MAKE IT THROUGH THE STATE'S REVIEW AND NOT BE DENIED VIA THE SENATE BILL 180, RESTRICTIVE OR BURDENSOME. SO, AGAIN, THAT'S A COMMISSION DECISION.

WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU IS WHAT YOU -- I THINK YOU REQUESTED OF US.

WE DID RECENTLY TALK TO THE STATE. REMEMBER THEY SAID THEY WOULD GIVE US A FREE LOOK, IF YOU WILL.

WE SUBMITTED WHAT WE HAD. THEY HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT COUPLE POLICIES THAT I DON'T THINK WERE LISTED.

WE ANSWERED THOSE QUESTIONS. AND THERE WAS ONE POLICY WHERE IT HAD TO DO WITH SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION.

AND BASICALLY WE JUST CHANGED THAT LANGUAGE AGAIN TO MAKE IT -- YOU HAVE A RED LINE IN FRONT OF YOU, TO MAKE IT NOT RESTRICTIVE OR BURDENSOME. OKAY.

BECAUSE THAT WAS THE DIRECTION. SO BASICALLY WE FEEL CONFIDENT THAT WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO TRANSMIT THIS, IT WOULD MAKE IT THROUGH THE STATE'S REVIEW WITH REGARD TO SENATE BILL 180.

DO NOT DENY IT, AND YOU TRANSMIT IT, YOU WOULD THEN HAVE THE REGULAR REVIEW, WHAT'S CALLED THE ORK REPORT.

THEY LOOK AT IT. IT GOES TO ALL THE AGENCIES IN THE STATE AND WE WOULD HAVE OBJECTIONS, COMMENTS AND THE LIKE. POTENTIALLY OR NOT.

SO THAT WOULD BE THE NORMAL STATE OF THINGS, RIGHT, IF THEY REVIEWED AND WE GOT COMMENTS BACK.

SO, IF YOU TRANSMIT, WE HAVE 180 DAYS TO THEN SUBMIT OUR ADOPTION, RIGHT? FOR THE COMP PLAN AGAIN THAT'S ANOTHER PROCESS THAT WOULD COME THROUGH THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY AND ULTIMATELY TO THE COMMISSION. THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.

YOU HAVE WHAT WAS SUBMITTED IN THE REPORT HAD THE QUICK REFERENCE SO YOU COULD SEE WHAT POLICIES THE STATE POINTED OUT AND THEN OF COURSE YOU HAVE THE OVERALL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT'S IN THERE. SO, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE.

IF YOU TRANSMIT TODAY, IT WILL GO OUT AND 60 DAYS. I THINK THEY'LL TAKE THE 60 DAYS. WE'LL GET COMMENTS BACK ON WHETHER IT'S APPROVED OR DENY AND GO FROM THERE.

BUT AGAIN -- >> THANK YOU, MIKE.

COMMISSIONER JOSEPH.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. IS THERE A DEADLINE TO TRANSMIT?

>> AT THIS POINT, AGAIN, I SAY IT'S UP CHARTED TERRITORY.

WE HAVE -- GIVEN IT'S A DENIAL, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A TIME FRAME, COMMISSIONER JOSEPH, THAT'S IN THE STATUTES IN THIS CASE. I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ALLUDING TO IS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE DON'T TRANSMIT?

>> IF WE JUST SORT OF SIT ON IT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE TWO -- THE GLITCH BILL AND INJUNCTION

POSSIBILITY. >>

SURE. >> AS WELL AS I MEAN, WE PUT SO MUCH TIME AND EFFORT WITH SO MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, IF WE TRANSMIT THIS, AND WANT TO GO BACK AND CHANGE IT, DON'T WE HAVE TO GO ALL OVER AGAIN WITH THE TOWN HALLS AND THE -- ALL THAT AGAIN, ALL THE MONEY, ALL THE TIME?

>> SURE. SO, ON THE COUPLE QUESTIONS THERE. SO ON THE TIME LINE, IF YOU DON'T SUBMIT -- IF THE STATE VIEWS US AS OUT OF COMPLIANCE, WHICH WE ASKED THAT QUESTION AND HADN'T GOT A RESPONSE AND I DON'T EXPECT A RESPONSE NECESSARILY. THEN IF THEY DEEM US THAT, THEN WHAT THEY CAN DO IS STOP ANY COUNTY INITIATED COUNTY WORK GOING ON.

I THINK WE HAVE SOME THAT WOULD BE COMING.

BUT THAT'S WHAT THE STATE BASICALLY CAN DO.

AND THAT COULD BE THE SAME IF YOU'RE OUT OF COMPLIANCE THROUGH THE REPORT, I ASSUME, TOO.

IF YOU DON'T MEANTIME LINES.

>> DON'T THEY HAVE A TIME -- ARE THEY TELLING US YOU NEED TO TRANSMIT IMMEDIATELY OR NOTHING. WE COULD BE SITTING AT IT UNTIL THEY ASK FOR IT?

>> WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE ALLUDES TO THAT, RIGHT, WHETHER OR NOT, HEY, WHERE DO WE STAND? SO, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. AND THAT WOULD BE THE

[01:50:03]

REPERCUSSIONS IF WE ARE OUT OF COMPLIANCE. NOT BEING ABLE TO TRANSMIT.

AND THEN YOU ASKED ANOTHER QUESTION.

I APOLOGIZE. WHAT WAS THE OTHER THING YOU ALLUDED TO?

>> IT WAS ABOUT DO WE HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THE WHOLE RIG MA

ROLL. >> YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT WHERE WE MET WITH THEM BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME MATERIAL. IT'S A COMMISSION DECISION ON WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO. WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO IS COME BACK THROUGH TRANSMITTAL AND ADOPTION.

THOSE WOULD BE THE MANDATORY THINGS.

>> SO THAT WOULD BE MY QUESTION TO YOU THEN, ARE THERE ISSUES THAT WE AS A COUNTY NEED TO GET ACCOMPLISHED BY TRANSMITTING SOMETHING TO THE STATE?

>> ALOUDING IF THE STATE STOPPED US FROM DOING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS? YES THERE'S A COUPLE DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE SOME WAITING IN THE

WINGS. >> SO TRANSMITTING SOMETHING WOULD BENEFIT THOSE DEPARTMENTS?

>> YES.

>> OKAY. OR THOSE PROJECTS I SHOULD SAY.

>> THROUGH THE CHAIR, ADDITIONALLY YOU HAVE PORTIONS OF YOUR COMP PLAN THAT NEED TO BE UPDATED TO CONFORM TO CHANGES IN STATE LAW.

SO YOU HAVE TO DO THOSE STATUTORY REQUIRED

UPDATES. >> OKAY.

MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE THEN IF WE TRANSMIT SOMETHING AND THEY ACCEPT IT, AS SOON AS SENATE BILL 180 IS EITHER SUNSETED OR FIXED, WE CAN THEN GO BACK AND DO OUR ORIGINAL COMP PLAN WE WORKED SO HARD TO DO BY JUST TRANSMITTING THAT AGAIN NEXT YEAR, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT. SO IF JULY 1ST, IF THAT WAS TO PASS AND IT RELIEVED OUR COUNTY FROM A LOT OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS, THEN IF THE BOARD GAVE DIRECTION WE WOULD COME RIGHT BACK IN WITH TRANSMITTAL AND THEN ADOPTION.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONERTARIAL?

>> I THOUGHT I HEARD SOMETHING THAT THIS WASN'T DUE UNTIL AUGUST?

>> SO THAT DEADLINE HAD TO DO WHEN WE TRANSMITTED, COMMISSIONER IN AUGUST OF 2025.

THERE WAS A TIME LINE BECAUSE WE'RE DOING AN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REVIEW YEAR THAT WAS DUE AT THAT POINT AND WE MET THAT DEADLINE. THAT WAS THE ONE CLEAR DEADLINE THAT THE STATE HAS.

>> AUGUST OF 2026.

>> I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE AUGUST OF 2026, YEAH.

>> BECAUSE YEAH. MY WHOLE THING IS IF WE DON'T NEED TO RESUBMIT AT THIS TIME, I THINK WE SHOULD WAIT. THERE'S TOO MUCH UNCERTAINTY.

YOU SAID IT YOURSELF. THIS IS NEW TERRITORY.

AND WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN RIGHT NOW. BUT THE FACT THAT WE SPENT SO MUCH TIME, EFFORT AND MONEY ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WE GOT TO SUBMIT SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT -- THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WANT TO SUBMIT.

SO I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD ALLOW THAT TO GO THROUGH AT THIS TIME. I'M FINE WITH WAITING AND WE JUST GOT STOO MUCH -- WE HAVE TOO MUCH THAT WE DON'T KNOW AND THERE'S TOO MUCH UNCERTAINTY FOR US TO SUBMIT SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T WANT AT THIS TIME.

>> SO LET ME GO BACK TO LEGAL WITH THAT COMMENT, WITH THAT QUESTION. THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO CHANGE IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE LAND PLAN BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES IN THE STATE LAW. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> OKAY. SO AND WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO BACK AND CHANGE OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS SOON AS SENATE BILL 180 IS TAKEN CARE OF?

>> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. ANY TIME?

>> CORRECT.

>> AT ANY TIME? OKAY. GOOD. THANK YOU.

ANYMORE COMMENTS.

>> I JUST HAD A COMMENT.

>> WHAT ARE THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY PERTINENT WE GET DONE THESE TIME?

>> THOSE WERE INCLUDED IN THIS CORP. PLAN UPDATE PART OF YOUR YEAR PROCESS.

>> OKAY. THAT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE AS TO EXACTLY WHAT THOSE ARE.

>> COMMISSIONER JOSEPH.

>> WHAT IF WE MADE SURE THOSE THINGS WERE MADE BUT THEN KEEP THE THINGS THAT WE WORKED SO HARD ON TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE --

>> I DON'T KNOW IF WI CAN DO A PARTIAL -- WE CAN'T DO A PARTIAL TRANSMITTAL, CAN WE?

>>.

>> SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING?

>> YOU'RE DOING WHAT YOU NEED TO UPDATE THE COMP PLAN AT THIS TIME TO PASS MUSTER. AND THEN RESERVING TO COME BACK LATER TO MAKE THE CHANGES THAT YOU ORIGINALLY PROPOSED.

>> BECAUSE WE DID WORK REALLY HARD ON THE COMP PLAN. I THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT COMPROMISE. MY JOB, OUR JOB, IS TO MAKE SURE THOSE CHANGES ARE DONE IN A TIMELY AS WE CAN.

IF WE CAN'T GET THEM DONE TODAY BECAUSE OF 180, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A COMMITMENT AND A CONSENSUS THAT WE GET IT DONE AS SOON AS 180 IS TAKEN CARE OF.

>> FAIR.

>> FAIR. OKAY.

>> PUBLIC COMMENT UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING

ELSE. >> AT THIS TIME WE WILL HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2.

>> GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. ED SLAVIN BOX 3084,

[01:55:01]

CANDIDATE FOR MOSQUITO CONTROL. I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER TAYLOR AND COMMISSIONER JOSEPH. LET'S WAIT ON THE GLITCH BILL.

LET'S WAIT ON THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNGTIVE RELIEF APGS ON SB 180. THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO HURRY. LIEUTENANT COLUMBO WOULD SAY, WE'RE PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE.

YOU'RE BEING RUSHED BY THESE FAST TALKING PEOPLE FROM SOMETHING CALLED GROWTH MANAGEMENT.

AND THEY ALWAYS TALK REALLY FAST.

TRY TO RUSH US THROUGH STUFF. TALK DOWN TO YOU.

TREAT US LIKE A BUNCH OF HICKS. THIS IS A BIG MONEY ISSUE FOR BIG DEVELOPERS, PEOPLE LIKE TRAVIS JAMES HUDSON AND HIS ILK. AND THEY WANT THEIR WAY WITH THIS COMMISSION. THEY WANT THEIR WAY WITH THIS COMMISSION SO MUCH THAT THEY GOT A 3- 2 VOTE TO HIRE A CORPORATE LAW FIRM AS OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY.

THAT DOG WON'T HUNT. AND COMMISSIONER MURPHY ACTUALLY WAS APPOINTED BY THREE OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO NEGOTIATE, INCLUDING HIMSELF, TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. HE NEVER NEGOTIATED.

THERE'S NO NEGOTIATION. NO DOCUMENTS EVEN EVIDENCING THAT HE EVEN PREPARED TO NEGOTIATE. YOU KNOW, THAT IS JUST WRONG. WE'RE GETTING PUSHED AROUND BY DEVIOUS DEVELOPERS. BIG MONEY CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS.

AND LET'S WAIT ON THE GLITCH BILL.

LET'S WAIT ON THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION.

AND HAS OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY EVER PREPARED A LEGAL MEMO FOR Y'ALL? ON ANYTHING? SB 180, THERE'S A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ACTION BROUGHT BY 25 FLORIDA JURISDICTIONS AND COUNTING. HAS LEARNED COUNSEL EVER WRITTEN YOU A MEMO ABOUT IT? NO.

I HAVEN'T SEEN IT. I HAVEN'T SEEN IT IN ANY AGENDA PACKET. IS THERE SUCH A MEMO? COULD YOU ASK FOR SUCH A MEMO BEFORE EVEN CONSIDERING THIS VOTE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE YOU'RE WASTING YOUR TIME.

YOU'RE WASTING OUR EFFORTS. YOU'RE INSULTING OUR INTELLIGENCE. YOU'RE LED AROUND THE BY THE NOSE BY BIG DEVELOPERS AND BIG MONEY CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS LIKE TRAVIS JAMES HUDSON.

AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO LIKE IT? THIS IS THE SHALLOWEST EXCUSE FOR PUBLIC DEBATE I HAVE EVER SEEN IN ANY GOVERNMENT BODY, INCLUDING THE CITY COMMISSION OF CLINTON TENNESSEE WHERE MY NEWSPAPER WAS FROM '81 TO '83.

AND ONE TIME -- SPEAKING OF ROAD BUILDING, THEY HAD A RUNT MEETING AFTER THE CITY COMMISSION -- CITY -- I GUESS IT WAS A TOWN COUNCIL THEN.

AND THERE WERE FIVE COMMISSIONERS IN THE ROOM.

AND I WAS THERE. AND THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT WHO IS GOING TO BUY UP WHAT PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WAS GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY STATE ROUTE 25W. AND THEY DID.

THIS IS CORRUPT. THIS IS NOT A PLANNING PROCESS.

THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. THIS IS NOT A MERITOCRACY.

EXHIBIT A IS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, A CORPORATE LAW FIRM.

GIVE ME A BREAK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. GOOD MORNING.

>> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS VICKI PEPPER.

I LIVE IN ST. AUGUSTINE. I'M HERE TODAY REPRESENTING MYSELF AND CARE. AS MY COLLEAGUE IRVING AND I STATED ON OCTOBER 7TH CARE IS CONCERNED IN MONITORING THE COUNTY'SRY RESPONSE TO THE SEPTEMBER 26TH FLORIDA COMMERCE LETTER REJECTING THE COUNTY'S UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

EVER SINCE WE LEARNED THE STATE REJECTED OUR PLAN, BASED ON CHANGES IN STATUTES MADE BY SB 180 WE ADVOCATED THAT THE COUNTY DO WHATEVER IT CAN TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT HOME RULE, NOT TO MENTION ALL THE HARD WORK THAT YOU, COUNTY STAFF MANY STAKEHOLDERS INCLUDING THE PUBLIC PUT IN OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS TO DEVELOP A STRONG, THOUGHTFUL PLAN TO MOVE US FORWARD TOGETHER AS A COMMUNITY. BY KEEPING THE INTACT UPDATED COMP PLAN YOU ADOPTED AND TRANSMITTED TO THE STATE, ON BEHALF OF OUR COUNTY, ALTHOUGH CARE NOT HAD TIME TOTO IDENTIFY DIGEST ALL THE RECENT REVISIONS ATTACHED TO TODAY'S AGENDA ITEM WE'RE DISAPPOINTED IN THIS APPROACH BECAUSE IT REPRESENTS A STEP BACK WARD FROM THE PROGRESS OUR COMMUNITY MADE TOGETHER OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS.

COUNTY FOLLOW THE PROCESS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA LAW TO REVIEW AND UPDATE ITS PLAN, SUBMITTING ITS REVISION WITHIN THE REQUIRED DEADLINES DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND COUNTY CONTROL, FLORIDA COMMERCE REJECTED THE PLAN. CITING SEVERAL PROVISIONS WITHOUT EXPLAINING THEIR OBJECTIONS.

SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US? WE UNDERSTAND THERE IS NO SPECIFIC TIME LINE IDENTIFIED UNDER FLORIDA LAW TO ADDRESS THE STATE'S OBJECTIONS AND RESUBMIT ITS UPDATED PLAN FOR APPROVAL.

BUT THE COUNTY IS NOT WITHOUT A COMP PLAN UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A NEW PLAN IS APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED THROUGH REVISIONS TO OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THE COUNTY IS USING ITS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN AS AMENDED WHICH REMAINS ON THE BOOK. WE ALSO UNDERSTAND EFFORTS ARE UNDERWAY IN THE LEGISLATURE TO CHANGE THE PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA LAW CITED BY FLORIDA CONGRESS WHEN IT REJECTED OUR

[02:00:05]

PLAN. FOR EXAMPLE, WE BELIEVE SB 840 VO INTRO DEUCED LAST WEEK WOULD REMOVE OUR COUNTRY THE SCOPE OF STATUTORY LANGUAGE SITED BY FLORIDA COMMERCE AND THE COUNTY WOULD RESUBMIT THE UPDATED PLAN ON JULY 1ST. IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS THAT APPARENTLY THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DEADLINE FOR THE COUNTY TO SUBMIT A PLAN, THAT ADDRESSES FLORIDA COMMERCE'S OBJECTIONS AND THE COUNTY WOULD CONTINUE AS IT IS DOING NOW OPERATE UNDER ITS CURRENT PLAN FOR SEVERAL MONTHS IN ANY EVENT. WE SEE NO NEED TO RUSH TO ABANDON THE BALANCE PLAN OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY WORKED ON FOR TWO YEARS MAKING CHANGES NOW WILL SET US BACK AND WE'RE CONCERNED WE'RE UNABLE TO RECAPTURE THE PROGRESS MADE WHEN THE LEGISLATURE CORRECTS THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES BROUGHT BY SB 180. WE URGE YOU NOT TO ADOPT THE REVISED ADOPTED PLAN PROPOSED TODAY WAITING UNTIL THE NEW YEAR TO GIVE STAKEHOLDERS MORE TIME TO EVALUATE THE PROPOSED CHANGE T AND GIVE EVERYONE MORE TIME TO SEE IF THE BASES FLORIDA COMMERCE OBJECTIONS RAISED ARE LIKELY TO BE ELIMINATED. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.

>> GOOD MORNING AGAIN. STILL JEN, 291 KOF AGE ROAD.

I'M HERE TO ASK YOU NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE VERSION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WAIT UNTIL THE END OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION. IT REMOVES ALL OF THE LANGUAGE THAT THE STATE FLAGGED AS BEING MORE RESTRICIVE OR BURDENSOME WHICH HAPPENS TO BE ALL THE LANGUAGE ADDED AS A RESULT OF COMMUNITY FEEDBACK. SO TO HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF THE PROVISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED, SO, THIS VERSION REMOVES LANGUAGE TO INCREASE BICYCLE SAFETY.

IT REMOVES LANGUAGE TO PROTECT HURRICANE EVACUATION ROUTES FROM FLOODING.

LANGUAGE PROTECT ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS, AGRICULTURE LANDS, AIR QUALITY, WATER QUALITY, IT PRETTY MUCH REMOVES ALL OF THE LANGUAGE THAT PROTECTS THE THINGS THAT ST. JOHNS COUNTY RESIDENTS HOLD DEAR.

AND THE VERSION THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN JULY WHILE I WOULDN'T CALL IT PERFECT, I DO THINK THAT WAS A BIG STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I DO THINK THAT IT DID A DECENT JOB OF CAPTURING THE WILL OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

AND SO MUCH WORK WENT INTO THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

INSPIRE SPENT TWO YEARS GATHERING COMMUNITY FEEDBACK OVER HALF A MILLION TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO GATHER ALL THAT FEEDBACK AN DO THAT WORK AND COME ONE THAT DRAFT.

THERE WERE THOUSANDS OF COMMENTS SUBMITTED.

AND IT IS SO HARD TO GET MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY TO SHOW UP TO THESE MEETINGS, TO PROVIDE THAT FEEDBACK.

WE THINK THAT SUBMIT SMITHING THIS WATERED DOWN VERSION WOULD BE A HUGE BREACH OF TRUST TO THE RESIDENTS OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY WHO TOOK THE TIME AND THE ENERGY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO, SENATOR FILED SENATE BIG 840. IT'S NOT PERFECT.

IF IT'S PASSED IT COULD GIVE US ANOTHER BITE AT THE APPLE AND GIVE US ANOTHER CHANCE TO RESUBMIT THE JULY VERSION OF THE COMP PLAN BECAUSE AS MR. ROBBERSON MENTIONED, WE DON'T HAVE A HARD DEADLINE TO DO THIS. THERE IS NOT A RUSH TO DO. THERE ARE PROVISIONS WE DO HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO UPDATE UNDER STATE LAW, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A HARD DEADLINE TO DO THAT, SO WHY WOULD WE RUSH AND ADOPT A WATERED DOWN VERSION OF THE COMP PLAN WHEN WE CAN WAIT AND SEE WHERE THE CARDS FALL AFTER THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION. THAT TIME LINE FOR SUBMISSION WAS THE FIRST TIME I HAD SEEN THAT, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS SCHEDULED TO BE -- IF IT WAS TRANSMITTED TODAY, IT WOULD BE SCHEDULED TO BE VOTED UPON BY THIS COUNTY COMMISSION IN MARCH.

THAT'S THE END OF SESSION. SO, WHY DON'T WE JUST WAIT AND SEE IF THERE'S A WAY THAT WE CAN JUST RETRANSMIT THE JULY VERSION.

IF WE TRANSMIT THIS VERSION TODAY, YES, WE HAVE TO GO -- WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ALL THE TOWN HALLS NECESSARILY UNLESS IT'S THE WILL OF THIS COMMISSION BUT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH PZA AND HAVE A FIRST READING, A SECOND READING.

IT'S GOING TO EXTEND THAT TIME LINE SIGNIFICANTLY FOR NO REASON AND I ALSO THINK IT SENDS A REALLY BAD MESSAGE TO SAY, YEAH, ST. JOHNS COUNTY IS WILLING TO COW TO THE WILL OF DEVELOPERS AND COW TO THE WILL OF OVERREACH FROM TALLAHASSEE.

THAT TELLS US HOW OUR COMMUNITY SHOULD BE.

SO I'M URGING YOU NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS VERSION TODAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2? ALL RIGHT SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC

COMMENT. >> BACK TO THE BOARD.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> YES, SIR. MR. ROBBERSON, I HAD A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WE'RE WORKING UNDER TODAY, DOES IT EXPIRE IN 2025?

>> IT IS THE 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND WE ARE SHOOTING FOR THE 2050.

>> SO, WE'VE GOT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT IS EXPIRING AT THE END OF THIS CALENDAR YEAR? IN 16 -- 15 DAYS. I DON'T THINK VOTING TO

[02:05:03]

TRANSMIT TODAY SAYS THAT WE ARE NOT WILLING TO INCORPORATE THE OTHER PARTS OF THE PLAN THAT THE STATE IS CARVING OUT. IT JUST SAYS THAT WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

IT'S NOT WISE IN MY OPINION TO MOVE INTO 2026 WITHOUT HAVING A PLAN.

I CAN'T BELIEF THAT WE SPENT THE FIRST TWO AGENDA ITEMS HEARING ARGUMENTS AGAINST PLANNING. BUT HERE WE ARE.

IT'S A BRAVE NEW WORLD WE'RE LIVING IN.

LET'S SUBMIT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THEN WE CAN ALL COMMIT TO COMING BACK AND PICKING UP THE REST OF THE THINGS THAT WE ALL VOTED FOR.

THE SUPPORT WAS UNANIMOUS IN SUBMITTING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE CUT OUT BY THE STATE. WE CAN COMMIT TO PICKING THOSE THINGS UP WHEN IT'S POSSIBLE.

BUT RIGHT NOW WE NEED TO DO WHAT IS POSSIBLE WHICH IS TO SUBMIT THE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER JOSEPH?

>> NO. MIKE, SO, IF WE RESUBMIT THE OLD ONE AND GET MORE COMMENTS ON IT, THAT WOULD WORK, RIGHT? BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR.

>> IF YOU SUBMIT --

>> I THINK SHE SAID SUBMIT THE ONE WE ALREADY

DID. >> I'M NOT SURE IF SHE MEANT THAT THAT WE WOULD SUBMIT WHAT WE ALREADY SUBMITTED BECAUSE THAT WOULD JUST BE AN INSTANTANEOUS

DENIAL. >> YEAH.

AND THAT GIVES US INTO THE NEXT YEAR.

AND IN THAT WE WOULD DO THE UPDATE OF THE TECHNICAL THINGS THAT NEEDED TO BE UPDATED.

>> THE STATE STATUTE DRIVEN.

>> YEAH. I DO THINK WE SHOULD WAIT UNTIL NEXT YEAR TO SEE WHERE THE COMMITTEES ARE GOING.

I DON'T -- YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A TIME LIMIT FOR SURE. SO, I MEAN, THANK YOU.

>> COMMISSIONER TAYLOR.

>> YES. I WOULD LIKE TO -- BECAUSE I DID HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. AND IF WE DON'T HAVE THOSE SPECIFICS TODAY, I WOULD LIKE TO MAYBE AT THE NEXT MEETING CAN WE GET -- CAN WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED AT THIS TIME?

>> WE CAN --

>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

>> WE CAN CERTAINLY BRING THOSE BACK TO YOU.

THERE WASN'T A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF THEM OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD I KNEW SOME HAD TO DO, MS. WEST, HELP ME, IT HAD TO DO WITH SOLAR

FACILITIES. >>

SURE. >> AND THINGS LIKE THAT, MAKING SURE THEY WERE PROTECTED.

>> THEY'RE IN YOUR PACKET. WE CAN CERTAINLY PARSE THOSE OUT AND BRING THEM OUT DURING THIS MEETING IF YOU GIVE US

TIME. >> CAN WE POSTPONE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING WHEN WE CAN GO OVER THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS? THAT WOULD BE MY ASK FOR TODAY.

>> I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE IN THE FORM OF A MOTION.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE THIS VOTE AT THIS TIME REGARDING TRANSMITTAL AND THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING WE GET FURTHER EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT ARE THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO AT THIS TIME.

>> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. DO WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS? I'M TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENT.

OKAY. WE ALREADY HAD PUBLIC COMMENT.

ANY MORE DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. LET'S VOTE.

>> OKAY. THAT PASSES 4-1.

WE'LL POSTPONE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.

GO TO AGENDA ITEM 3. DOUG IS NOT HERE.

HE DID CONTACT ME THIS MORNING AND SAY THAT HE WAS DOING SOMETHING WITH HIS FAMILY. BUT WOULD BE REALLY CLOSE BY.

IS THERE ANY WAY -- WOULD IT BE PROPER FOR US TO PASS THIS AND -- YEAH. I WOULD LIKE TO PASS THIS

[4. Public Hearing * PLNAPPL 2025-03 Racioppi Family Pool (PVZVAR 2025-06). An Appeal of the Ponte Vedra Zoning and Adjustment Board (PVZAB) denial of a Zoning Variance (PVZVAR 2025-06) to Section VIII.M of the Ponte Vedra Zoning District Regulations to allow for a maximum Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR) of 44% in lieu of the required 40% to accommodate placement of a swimming pool, located specifically at 502 Morning Side Drive. This item originally came before the Ponte Vedra Zoning and Adjustment Board and their regularly scheduled meeting on October 6, 2025, and was denied with a vote of 3-2.]

ONE AND GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE.

SO WE'LL MOVE OVER. MR. WHITEHURST, TO AGENDA NUMBER 4 AND COME RIGHT BACK AS SOON AS HE'S HERE.

IV. >> I MET WITH MR. WHITE HOUSE YESTERDAY TO DISCUSS THE SITE LOCATION AND THE HARDSHIP AND THE DESIRE TO BUILD A POOL.

I MET WITH MR. FAULKNER LAST TUESDAY WITH OUR STAFF HERE IN THE OFFICE.

HE'S REPRESENTING THE OPPOSITION AND HE DISCUSSED HIS CONCERNS ABOUT PASSING THE VARIANCE.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR?

>> YES. I RECEIVED AT LEAST TEN EMAILS AS WELL AS PHONE CALLS. REGARDING IS THIS.

I HAD A MEETING WITH MR. WHITE AND I HAD A MEETING WITH MR. FAULKNER AS WELL.

[02:10:01]

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER JOSEPH?

>> YES. I HAD TEN OR MORE EMAILS OPPOSED. I'VE HAD MULTIPLE PHONE CALLS OPPOSED. I MET WITH JAMES WHITEHURST AND HUNTER FAULKNER AND STAFF. AND I ALSO DROVE BY THE PROJECT LAST NIGHT FOR QUITE A WHILE AND LOOKED AROUND THE AREA. SO THAT WAS ME.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ARNOLD?

>> THANK YOU. I HAD A HANDFUL OF EMAILS AND YESTERDAY IN MY OFFICE I TOOK A MEETING WITH JAMES WHITEHOUSE ON BEHALF OF THE

APPLICANT. >> THANK YOU.

I ALSO HAD TWO PLUS EMAILS ABOUT THIS. I HAVE A MEETING WITH JAMES WHITEHOUSE, THE APPLICANT AND ALSO MEETING WITH HUNTER FAULKNER WHO IS COUNSEL FOR THE OPPOSITION.

THANK YOU. YOU NOW HAVE THE FLOOR,

SIR. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

JAMES WHITEHOUSE. I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE FAMILY. ERIN AND STEVE ARE HERE WITH ME.

THEIR CHILDREN WEREN'T ABLE TO COME.

THEY'RE AT PZA BUT THEY'RE IN SCHOOL OBVIOUSLY.

AS I SAID, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THEM FOR THE REQUEST FOR THIS SMALL FAMILY POOL IN THE PONTE VEDRA ROAD.

YOU CAN SEE HERE IS THE INTERSECTION.

YOU ALL KNOW THIS AREA VERY WELL.

AGAIN, IT'S UP HERE OFF MORNINGSIDE DRIVE EAST OF A 1 A.

THIS IS LOCATED IN OUR RESIDENTIAL C FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AS WELL AS IN THE R 1 D ZONING OF PONTE VEDRA.

IT'S ON A LEGALLY PLATTED LOT AS YOU CAN SEE THIS IS THE PLATS THAT BEEN RECORDED FOR YEARS OF THIS AREA AND THESE ARE ALL THE SMALLER LOTS BUT LIKE I SAID, LEGALLY PLATTED WITHIN PONTE VEDRA. ON THE SMALLEST SIZE LOT IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE AREA DEVELOPED JUST AS IT WAS PLATTED IN THIS AREA, YOU SEE ALL THE HOMES THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT WERE BUILT ON ALL THESE SPLAUL LOTS AS I SAID, SMALLEST LOTS LOCATED IN PONTE VEDRA. THIS IS ALL THE SAME INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED THROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.

THIS SHOWS IN YELLOW ALL THE POOLS THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED ON THESE SMALL, SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. BUT THEN THIS LEGALLY PLATTED SUBDIVISION WEN PONTE VED RSHS A.

THIS IS MORNINGSIDE DRIVE ROAD. YELLOW IS THE AREA YOU JUST APPROVED A POOL ON A FEW MONTHS AGO. THIS IS THE ROAD IN ALL THESE OTHER POOLS.

GREEN IS THE LOT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.

ANOTHER AERIAL SHOWING THE SIZE OF THESE LOTS.

THIS IS THE ONE TO THE NORTH THAT YOU APPROVED A POOL ON RECENTLY.

THIS IS THE BLOCK ITSELF THAT -- THIS IS THE BLOCK ITSELF THAT SHOWS THAT THERE ARE OTHER POOLS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED OR BUILT ON THIS PARTICULAR ROAD. THIS IS THE ONE NEXT TO THEM. YOU'LL SEE THERE'S A LETTER FROM THE HOMEOWNERS THAT WRITTEN TO YOU IN SUPPORT OF THIS FAMILY HAVING THIS VERY SMALL FAMILY POOL. AS I SAID, THERE ARE SIMILARLY SITUATE D APPROVALS ON THIS BLOCK ITSELF WHERE WE'VE APPROVED POOLS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON SIMILARLY SIZED HOUSES.

I'LL SHOW YOU LATER THAT THEIR HOUSE IS ACTUALLY SMALLER IN SQUARE FOOTAGE THAN THESE OTHER HOUSES WE APPROVED POOLS ON, HENCE THIS REASONABLE REQUEST FOR THIS VERY MINOR VARIANCE TO HAVE THIS SMALL POOL FOR THEIR CHILDREN. YOU CAN SEE IN THE STAFF REPORT, THERE'S A SUMMARY AS TO WHAT THE REQUEST IS FOR.

THE REQUEST IS FOR 44% IN LIEU OF THE 40%.

IT'S ACTUALLY 43.3%. I'LL SHOW YOU THAT IN A MINUTE. AS YOU SEE FROM THE STAFF REPORT, STAFF RESEARCH SHOWED THAT THEY HAVE FOUND A NUMBER OF ZONING VARIANCE REQUESTS AND APPROVALS WITHIN THIS AREA IN THE LAST FEW YEARS.

YOU SEE FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT, I SAY THIS IS A STAFF REQUESTED VARIANCE BECAUSE THE REQUEST BASED ON THE STAFF INTERPRETATION UNDER YOUR CODE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT IMPERVIOUS SURFACES AND RATIO WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR THIS VARIANCE FOR A MINOR 3. 3% INCREASE, JUST FOR THE WATER AREA OF THE POOL. THAT'S ALL THEY'RE ASKING FOR.

EVERYTHING ELSE ON OUR LOT, WHICH I'LL SHOW YOU IN A LITTLE BIT IS PERVIOUS WHICH MEANS THE ONLY PART OF THE LOT THAT IS IMS YOU IS THE LOT.

[02:15:03]

UNDER OUR CODE, STAFF MADE THE INTERPRETATION THAT WHEN IT SAYS POOLS, THAT POOLS INCLUDES THE WATER PART OF THE POOL ITSELF. AS YOU ALSO SEE FROM YOUR CODE, THERE'S A SECTION OF THE CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT STORM WATER RETENTION AREAS.

THE WATER AREA OF THOSE ARE NOT COUNTED FOR IMPERVIOUS.

SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO.

AND THEREFORE WE HAVE TO ASK FOR THIS 3. 3% VARIANCE ON THIS VERY SMALL LOT TO ALLOW THE WATER AREA OF THE POOL.

AS I SAID, AND YOU CAN SEE FROM YOUR PACKET AND THE APPLICATIONS, BY THE FAMILY, THE APPLICANTS COMMITTED TO PERVIOUS PAVERS ON ALL PAVED SURFACES ON THEIR LOT ITSELF. AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE FROM THE AERIAL AND DEPICTION THIS VERY SMALL POOL ON A SMALL LOT ALREADY. AND AS I SAID, THE ONLY AREA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE FOR ARE THE WATER AREAS OF THE POOL.

YOU CAN SEE BY THE CALCULATIONS THAT ARE PROVIDED BY THE ENGINEERS WITHIN THE PACKET THAT SHOW THAT IT'S ONLY THIS -- THAT THE WATER AREA OF THE POOL 237 SQUARE FEET APPROXIMATELY ACCOUNT FOR THE AMOUNT THAT THE 3. 3% OF THEIR OVERAGE IN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION ITSELF, AS I SAID, ALL OF THESE LOTS ARE SIMILARLY SIZED.

60 BY 120, 275 SQUARE FEET WHICH IS ACTUALLY CONSIDERED THE SMALLEST LOTS WITHIN THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT.

TO ALLOW TO HAVE THE POOL, THE LOWEST PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO UNDER THE CODE AS WELL THEY NEED TO ASK YOU FOR THIS VARIANCE ITSELF.

WE WENT TO THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING BOARD.

A LOT OF DISCUSSION THERE REFLECTED WITHIN YOUR PACKETS ITSELF AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WATCHED THE MEETING, BUT IT WAS A 3- 2 VOTE BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THEY APPROVED SO MANY VARIANCES IN THE AREA THAT THEY WERE PARTICULARLY CONCERNED WITH THE FACT THAT THEY THINK THE CODE SHOULD BE CHANGED BECAUSE ON A VERY SMALL LOT -- THESE ARE THE SMALLEST LOTS WITHIN THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING CATEGORY, IT'S VERY -- YOU KNOW, IT HAS MUCH MORE OF AN IMPACT EVEN WHEN YOU'RE ASKING FOR A SMALL POOL RATHER THAN A LARGE LOT IN PONTE VEDRA YOU TALK ABOUT 40%, THAT GIVES YOU A LOT MORE ROOM.

LIKE I SAID IN THIS AREA, THERE'S A NUMBER OF APPROVALS THAT WE'VE GIVEN. AND WITH SIMILAR SITUATED CIRCUMSTANCES THIS PARTICULAR LOT PARTICULARLY ON THIS STREET ITSELF I PUT IN -- THIS IS IN YOUR PACKET I PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN.

THIS IS THE NEIGHBOR ONLY ONE IN THEIR VICINITY THAT DOESN'T HAVE A POOL AND THEY SUPPORT THIS FAMILY'S REQUEST FOR THIS VERY SMALL FAMILY POOL FOR THEIR CHILDREN ITSELF. I WANT TO GO THROUGH THIS REAL QUICK. WE TALK ABOUT EACH OF THE LOTS IN THE AREA. THE LOT AREA OF THEIRS IS 7,200 SQUARE FEET. YOU SEE THE ONE 506 ONE OVER FROM THEIRS. SAME SIZE.

508. THEY ALL HAVE POOLS. AND AS I SAID, AND THIS WAS NOTED IN THE MEETING BY A NUMBER OF THE MEMBERS THAT THESE HOUSES THAT HAVE POOLS AND HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR POOLS ARE ACTUALLY LARGER THAN THEIR HOUSE BASED ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S RECORDS IN THE -- ON THEIR WEBSITE. AGAIN, THEY ARE JUST ASKING FOR THIS VERY MINOR VARIANCE 3. 3% TO ALLOW THIS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEY ARE LOCATED ON THIS SMALL LOT.

THERE ARE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN CARRYING OUT THIS LETTER. SMALLEST LOTS.

ALL OF THESE OTHERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED VARIANCES.

THEY WILL RETAIN 55% PERVIOUS AREA.

THERE ARE STORM WATER RETENTION FACILITIES AROUND THEIR PARTICULAR LOT. WE ALSO ADDED WITHIN THE ORDER ITSELF A LANGUAGE AND A CONDITION THAT SAYS THAT THEY WILL INSTALL GUTTERS THAT WILL BE PIPED TO THE FRONT OF THE LOT.

THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION AS TO THE BACK OF THE LOT ITSELF.

AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY FLOODING THERE.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS YOU MAY SEE AND I CAN RESPOND LATER THEY SHOW PICTURES OF FLOODING IN THE BACK OF THE LOT.

THERE'S ACTUALLY A RETAINING WALL IN THE BACK OF THE LOT. IT SHOWS -- LET ME JUST GO TO -- OKAY HERE. SO HERE YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE PLAN ITSELF AND IT'S NOT LABELED IN THIS BUT THE ONE IN YOUR PACKET IS.

IT SHOWS THERE'S A RETAINING WALL BACK HERE.

[02:20:01]

ALL THE FLOW GOES TO THE FRONT. WE ACTUALLY MET WITH YOUR ENGINEERING STAFF. AND CAME UP WITH A PLAN THAT SHOWS THAT THE STORM WATER RETENTION -- YOU CAN SEE HER ON THE ENGINEERED SURVEY THERE IS A STORM WATER STRUCTURE RIGHT IN THE FRONT OF THEIR PARTICULAR LOT THAT CATCHES STORM WATER. AND THAT'S IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.

SO THAT WAS DESIGNED BY THE COUNTY WHEN THEY DESIGNED THESE ROADS ITSELF. AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO ISSUES WITH STORM WATER. AS I SAID, AGAIN, IF YOU WATCH THE HEARING THERE WAS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION THAT THEY HAD NO PROBLEMS AT ALL OR CONCERNS WITH THE STORM WATER. REALLY THEIR ONLY CON R CONCERN WAS THE FACT OF THE LANGUAGE OF OUR CODE. AND SAYING THAT THEY THOUGHT THAT IT SHOULD BE CLEARED UP BECAUSE IF WE CONTINUE TO APPROVE THESE VARIANCES, THEN THEY SHOULD BE REFLECT -- THAT SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE CODE ITSELF. WHICH IS WHY YOU SAW A 3- 2 VOTE ON THIS. IN FACT, AFTER THAT HEARING WAS OVER AT THE END OF THAT MEETING, IF YOU WENT BACK AND WATCHED IT, THEY DIRECTED THE STAFF TO BRING BACK LANGUAGE TO THEM TO AMEND THE CODE FOR THESE SUPER SMALL LOTS.

TO ALLOW MORE PERCENTAGE BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT THETHE HAS SUCH A HUGE IMPACT ON THESE SMALL LOTS THAT NONE OF THESE HOUSES THAT ARE APPROVED THAT I SHOWED YOU COULD HAVE POOLS UNLESS WE GIVE THEM THAT RELAXATION. AND THEREFORE, AGAIN, THEY DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITHWITH REQUEST ITSELF, THEY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE LANGUAGE OF OUR CODE WHICH AGAIN IS WHY I'M BEFORE YOU FOR A VARIANCE. AS I SAID, YOU CAN SEE THE SITE PLAN THAT'S INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET ATTACHED TO THE PROPOSED ORDER FOR APPROVAL OF THIS VERY SMALL 3. 3% VARIANCE WHICH SHOWS AN ENGINEERED APPROVAL OF HOW THIS STORM WATER WOULD BE COLLECTED IN THE FRONT AND HOW THE WATER FLOWS TO THE FRONT.

WE WENT OVER THIS WITH YOUR ENGINEERING STAFF AND THEY APPROVED THIS AS A -- AS A PLAN THAT COULD BE ATTACHED TO THE ORDER AND TAKE CARE OF ANY CONCERNS, WHICH AGAIN THEY HAD NO CONCERNS WITH IT, BUT JUST IN CASE BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S THE MAIN CONCERN OF THE NEIGHBORS BEHIND IT ON THE LARGE LOT. THAT THE STORM WATER WILL BE CONTAINED AND NOT FLOOD THEIR PARTICULAR LOT. AGAIN, THERE'S A NUMBER OF OF APPROVED VARIANCES. ALL OF THEM 44, 45%, AROUND THE SAME AMOUNT TO ALLOW THESE SMALL POOLS ON THESE VERY SMALL LOTS. AND THIS IS JUST OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS. AND I WON'T GO INTO THEM PARTICULARLY, BUT LIKE I SAID, AND YOU'LL SEE, THAT THESE PARTICULAR LOTS ARE THE SAME, SAME SIMILAR SITUATION, RECTANGULAR LOTS. ALL OF THEM HAVE POOLS. ALL OF THESE ARE LOCATED IN THIS SAME PLATTED AREA THAT I SHOWED YOU WHEN I BEGAN THIS PRESENTATION. AND LIKE I SAID, THAT'S WHY THESE -- THIS FAMILY IS ASKING YOU FOR THIS REASONABLE REQUEST FOR THIS VERY SMALL -- 3. 3 MRS. OF 7,200 SQUARE FEET AS I SAID IS 200 SQUARE FEET.

IT'S A TINY POOL. IT'S NOT LIKE -- THEY DON'T WANT AN OLYMPIC SIZED POOL IN THEIR BACKYARD. NOT TRYING TO BUILD ANYTHING.

THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR THE POOL DECKING.

THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR A LARGER HOUSE ON A SMALL LOT.

THEY HAVE A SMALLER HOUSE THAN ALL THE OTHER ONES AROUND THEM.

THEY'RE ONLY ASKING FOR THE WATER YAR OF THE POOL AS IT'S INTERPRETED UNDER YOUR CODE AND THEREFORE THEY WOULD ASK FOR YOU TO REASONABLY CONSIDER THIS REQUEST. AS YOU SAW FROM THEIR REPORT, THERE WAS NO CORRESPONDENCE.

THERE IS A NEIGHBOR FROM BEHIND THAT HAS AN ISSUE THAT TALKS ABOUT THE STORM WATER RETENTION, WHICH AGAIN WE'VE ADDRESSED THAT ISSUE SPECIFICALLY WITH YOUR ENGINEERING STAFF SAYING THE EXPERTS SAY THAT THIS WILL BE CONTAINED IF WE ADD THOSE CONDITIONS INTO THIS PARTICULAR APPROVAL.

THE WHOLE -- AGAIN, I EMPHASIZE THIS BECAUSE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, THE WHOLE LOT -- THIS GREEN IS ALL PERVIOUS. THE ONLY AREAS ARE THE HOUSE AND THE SMALL AREA OF THE POOL.

THE POOL WATER OF THE POOL. AS I SAID, JOINING PARCELS ON THE SAME STREET HAVE BEEN PERMITTED POOLS.

THERE'S A CATCH AREA IN THE FRONT SEAT.

COUNTY DESIGNATED OUT POOL. THE WATER OF THE POOL IS THE ONLY ALL LENDS SUPPORT TO YOUR REASONABLE VARIANCE REQUEST UNDER THE ZONING CODE. THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY LDC AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE STAFF HAS PUT A SUGGESTED MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITHIN YOUR STAFF PACKET. AND THE FAMILY ASKS YOU FORFOR CONSIDERATION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU M.

>> WHEN I FIRST MET WITH YOU I WAS LIKE, OH, THIS IS SOMETHING, SLAM DUNK. THEN I WENT OUT AND LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY.

[02:25:01]

IT IS COMPLETELY OVERBUILT WITH TONS OF CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY.

I DIDN'T SEE A RETAINING WALL IN THE BACK ACTUALLY.

I SAW A METAL. FENCE AND IT'S SUPER SMALL BACK THERE. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'LL GET EQUIPMENT BACK TO BUILD THE POOL BECAUSE THE SIDES ARE BUILT ALL THE WAY -- THERE'S AN AIR CONDITIONER IN THE SET BACK. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU EVEN DO IT.

MY QUESTION TO YOU IS CAN THEY DO A SMALLER POOL AND STAY WITHIN THE GUIDELINES? BECAUSE THE ONLY OTHER TIME I GAVE A VARIANCE WAS TO THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR BECAUSE THEY HAD ALL THE PROPERTY IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE.

AND IT WAS AN ODD- D LOT NEXT TO DOOR TO THEM.

THAT'S THE ONLY OTHER VARIANCE IN THAT AREA.

THERE'S TONS OF FLOODING IN MORNINGSIDE DRIVE.

>> YES, MA'AM. THROUGH THE CHAIR, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT THE VARIANCES DON'T COME TO THIS BOARD.

VARIANCES COME TO THE ZONING BOARDS.

THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING BOARD IF A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED.

THEY DON'T COME TO THIS BOARD UNLESS THEY'RE APPEALED. THIS ONE CAME TO YOU UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE CHAIR OF THE PIVS APP. HE VOTED AGAINST THIS MAKING THE STATEMENT THAT THE REASON HE WAS VOTING AGAINST IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STORM WATER, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU SAY AS THE OVERBUILDING. SAME AS EVERYTHING AROUND THEM IN THIS WHOLE DISTRICT.

>> CAN THEY BUILD A POOL THAT -- I HEARD THEY COULD BUILD A SMALLER POOL.

>> A SMALL --

>> AND BE WITHIN --

>> MAYBE A LAP POOL, YOU KNOW.

>> THE THING IS THEY HAVE ASTRO TURF WHICH IS NOT

GRASS. >> IT'S PERMEABLE UNDER YOUR COUNTY CODE.

>> I'M CONCERNED BECAUSE IT'S TIGHT AND THERE'S A LOT OF WATER. I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'RE SETTING A PRECEDENTS HERE BECAUSE THE OTHER ONES DIDN'T COME TO US. IT WAS ONLY THE ONE NEXT DOOR BECAUSE OF THE ODD- SHAPED LOT FOR A VARIANCE.

>> LIKE I SAID, WE'RE JUST HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT BUT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT THE ONLY REASON THAT ONE CAME TO YOU WAS BECAUSE IT WAS AN APPEAL BY THESE SAME NEIGHBORS BEHIND YOU THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM TODAY.

AND THE FACT IS THAT IS THE REASON WHY -- EVERY ONE OF THESE WAS EITHER APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD IN PONTE VED RA OR BUILT WITHOUT APPROVAL.

I'M NOT MAKING THIS UP. THIS IS AN A.I. SECRET SMOKE AND MIRRORS. THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE AERIAL OF THE OVERHEAD OF THIS LEGALLY PLATTED SUBDIVISION THAT ALL THE HOUSES ARE BUILT THE SAME.

IN FACT, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS AND THIS WAS COMMENT ON THE RECORD THIS HOUSE IS SMALLER THAN THE OTHER HOUSES ON THE SAME LOT THAT ACTUALLY HAVE POOLS. AND EVERY ONE OF THESE HAS POOLS. THE REAL ISSUE IS THE FACT -- IT'S NOT ABOUT THE STORM WATER. BECAUSE YOUR ENGINEERS SAY THAT THIS CONTAINS THE STORM WATER.

IT'S ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS LEGALLY PLATTED SUBDIVISION HAS SMALLER LOTS BEHIND SOMEONE WHO HAS A LARGER LOT AND ALREADY HAS THEIR POOL AND THEY DON'T -- AND THEY'RE MAD BECAUSE THESE -- BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN TWO HOUSES BUILT ON A LOT BEHIND THEM ON LEGALLY PLATTED LOTS, WHICH AGAIN, THAT'S NOT THE STANDARD THAT WE LOOK AT FOR THESE TYPE OF THINGS. THE STANDARD IS WHETHER OR NOT WHAT ADVERSE IMPACT THIS WOULD ON THE PROPERTIES AROUND THEM AND THE EXPERTS SAY THAT IT DOESN'T. SO AGAIN --

>> THERE'S SO MUCH WATER IN THAT GUY'S YARD.

I SEE THE PICTURES. THERE'S A HUGE -- THERE ISN'T A DITCH BEHIND THERE THAT IS GOING TO CARRY THE WATER.

I'M TELLING YOU THERE'S NO ROOM THERE. BUT THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

>> ANYONE ELSE?

>> OKAY. WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> MY APOLOGIES. PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4.

>> GOOD , COMMISSIONERS. HUNTER FAULKNER.

ON BEHALF OF CONCERNED NEIGHBORS I WANTED TO JUST STATE THAT, AGAIN, WITH RESPECT TO THE APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT AND I UNDERSTAND THEIR POSITION, BUT PRIOR VARIANCES GRANTED, PRIOR APPROVALS GRANTED FOR OTHER POOLS IN THE AREA IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS BOARD TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE FOR THIS APPELLANT.

YOU'RE REQUIRED TO CONSIDER EACH APPLICANT ON ITS OWN ON THE MERITS. PRECEDENT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT UNDERNEATH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY. MORE TO THE POINT, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED AT ALL THAT THEY HAVE A HARDSHIP IN THIS CASE. THEIR HARDSHIP DOES NOT EXIST.

THIS IS NOT A SUBSTANDARD LOT. IT'S ZONED R 1 D.

IT MEETS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS.

IT'S 200 SQUARE FEET OVER THE SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS.

IT'S NOT SUBSTANDARD IN WIDTH. IT IS 60 FEET WIDE THAT MEETS

[02:30:01]

THE ZONING CODES REQUIREMENT. WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS THEY BUILT THEIR HOUSE AND STATE IN THEIR APPLICATION THAT THEY WORKED DILIGENTLY TO BUILD THE RESIDENCE.

AND THEY BUILT IT TO THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT'S ALLOWED ON THIS LOT. THAT MEETS ZONING REQUIREMENTS.

THE PROPERTY DOES -- FOR HARDSHIP SAKE, DOES NOT -- IS NOT EXCEPTIONALLY NARROW OR SHALLOW.

NOT AN UNUSUAL SHAPE. NO EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS. DEVELOPMENT OF ADJOINING PROPERTY DOES NOT CREATE CONDITIONS THAT MAKE LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CODE UNDULY BURDENSOME. LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CODE WOULD NOT CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP TO FRUSTRATE THE SPIRIT AND THE PURPOSE OF THE CODE AND THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF THE CODE BECAUSE THE CODE CONDITIONS IS A REQUIREMENT FOR A VARIANCE TO SHOW A HARDSHIP. THEY DO NOT SHOW A HARDSHIP.

THEY DO NOT HAVE ONE. MORE TO THE POINT, PONTE VEDRA ZONING BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT VARIANCES.

IT'S NONSENSICAL TO PUNT THIS, MAKE THE APPLICANT SPEND MORE MONEY, MORE TIME, PUT A MEETING -- PUT THE APPEL LAPT ON YOUR AGENDA TO FORCE YOU TO MAKE THIS DECISION WHEN THEY REASONABLY DENIED IT ON THE MERITS. WE HAVE SHOWN YOU PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF STANDING WATER ON THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. DESPITE THE ENGINEERING THESE NEW HOMES BEFORE BUILT ON THESE LOTS, THEY BROUGHT IN TRUCKS OF FILL. THESE LOTS ARE HIGHER THAN THEED A ADJACENT LOTS. ADDING MORE HARD SCAPE IS LIKELY TO INCREASE THAT ISSUE. I'M NOT AN ENGINEER.

I DON'T CLAIM TO BE ONE, BUT THAT'S A REASONABLE INFERENCE. AGAIN, I DO WANT TO STATE THAT CITING THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER POOLS IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION TO GRANT THE VARIANCE.

THEY HAVE NOT SHOWN A HARDSHIP. AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU DENY THEIR APPEAL AND AFFIRM THE DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE BY THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING BOARD.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? GOOD MORNING.

>> GOOD MORNING. ANY NAME IS CRAIG.

AND I LIVE AT 500 LEE MASTER DRIVE WHICH IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY.

I'M SPEAKING TODAY TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE BOARD DENY THIS VARIANCE REQUEST.

FIRST, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED A LEGITIMATE HARDSHIP. DESIRE TO CONSTRUCT THE POOL LARGER THAN WHAT THE COUNTY ALLOWS IS A PERSONAL PREFERENCE. NOT A HARDSHIP.

THE LOT IS BUILDABLE, AS IS, UNDER THE EXISTING REGULATIONS. WHEN A REQUEST IS BASED ON WANTING MORE THAN WHAT THE COUNTY PERMITS, IT IS CONSIDERED SELF CREATED HARDSHIP, WHICH CANNOT BE USED TO JUSTIFY A VARIANCE REQUEST.

SECOND, THE VARIANCE WOULD DIRECTLY NEGATIVELY IMPACT ADJACENT PROPERTIES INCLUDING MINE. A LARGER POOL MEANS ADDITIONAL HARD SCAPE AND INCREASED IMPERVIOUS AREA. WHICH INCREASES STORM WATER RUN OFF AND DRAINAGE PRESSURES. MY PROPERTY EXPERIENCE RUN OFF DURING THE HEAVY RAIN JUST LIKE MY NEIGHBORS AND ADDING MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA WILL ONLY WORSEN THE CONDITION.

THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT ALLOW VARIANCES THAT POTENTIALLY HARM NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

AND IN THIS CASE, THE RISK OF INCREASED DRAINAGE IMPACTS IS CLEAR AND FORESEEABLE. INCREASE IN STORM WATER RUNOFF, PUSH WATERS TO ADJACENT PROPERTY, CREATE STANDING WATER AND POTENTIALLY EROSION. THIRD, THIS REQUEST IS NOT MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY. THE APPLICANT COULD CONSTRUCT A COMPLIANT POOL WITH AN EXISTING, ALLOWABLE LIMITS.

CHOOSING TO REQUEST AN OVERSIZED POOL GOES BEYOND WHAT IS NEEDED FOR REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY. FOR THESE REASONS, SELF- CREATED HARDSHIP, NEGATIVE DRAINAGE IMPACTS, CHANGING THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY, AND FAILURE TO MEET THE MINIMUM VARIANCE STANDARD, THIS REQUEST DOES NOT MEET THE COUNTY'S REQUIRED CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL. CAN I SHOW SOME PICTURES? OKAY.

>> YES, PLEASE DO THE MIDDLE SECTION, SIR.

>> MIDDLE?

[02:35:18]

>> SO THIS IS A BRICK FENCE THAT'S BETWEEN OUR PROPERTY LINES.

YOU CAN SEE HOW TALL THAT IS. THEY'RE ABOUT TWO FEET HIGHER THAN OUR LAND LEVEL. NOW WITH THE NEW POOL NEXT TO US, YOU CAN SEE ALL THE EROSION THAT THE WATER CAUSED.

YOU CAN SEE THAT GAP THE BRICK WALL IS GONE.

IT EVEN GOES OVER THE METAL FENCE.

HERE IS STANDING WATER. YOU LOOK AT THE SIDE, YOU CAN SEE HOW MUCH HIGHER THEIR PROPERTY IS THAN OURS.

IT'S ABOUT TWO FEET DIFFERENCE. WATER IS GOING TO FLOW DOWN CAUSING EROSION.

STANDING WATER AND FURTHER DAMAGE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, SIR.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY.

>> MY NAME IS WILL MONTOYA. 502 MASTER DRIVE.

I'LL USE THIS. I'M ADJACENT.

I APPRECIATE THIS PLATFORM TO BE ABLE TO EDUCATE YOU ALL ABOUT WHAT'S IMPACTED ME. I'M CERTAINLY NOT OPPOSED TO CHILDREN HAVING POOLS AND FAMILIES.

I THINK EVERYBODY IN FLORIDA SHOULD HAVE A POOL.

BUT, UNFORTUNATELY WHEN YOU LIVE IN THE COASTAL COMMUNITY, DRAINAGE IS A VERY SENSITIVE SITUATION FOR A LOT OF US. ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE BEING ALREADY IMPACTED. I'M REALLY BIG CONCERN WAS WHEN THE THREE HOMES WERE BUILT AS IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE ATTORNEY JUST PRIOR, THE HOMES NEXT TO ME ARE MUCH HIGHER IN ELEVATION. THEY'RE IN WHERE FROM THREE FEET OR MORE HIGHER THAN MY YARD.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRST OF THE THREE HOMES, THIS IS THE WATER ACCUMULATION THAT'S TAKEN PLACE IN MY HOME. OF COURSE, WHEN IT'S NOT -- WHEN IT'S A BEAUTIFUL DAY IN PONTE VEDRA, THAT'S WHAT THAT YARD LOOKS LIKE.

AND OF COURSE, ANOTHER VIEW OF A FAIRLY BIG YARD.

SO WHAT'S HAPPENING IS ALL THESE THREE LOTS WHEN THEY WERE CONSTRUCTED THEY DISPLACED A LOT OF THE WATER. OF COURSE IT'S FINDING THE EASIEST PATH IN THE LOWEST POINT, RIGHT.

CRAIG IS GETTING IMPACTED AS WELL.

THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE ON A BEAUTIFUL DAY.

WHAT THAT ACCUMULATION LOOKS LIKE WHEN IT RAINS.

AND OF COURSE, THAT'S ALL COMING THESE YARDS BEHIND.

WHAT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT AND I THINK IT'S BETTER WHEN YOU'RE ABLE TO SEE IT YOURSELF.

THIS KIND OF SHOWS YOU THE HEIGHT OF DISPARITY BETWEEN THE BACKYARD AND MY YARD. AND WHY YOU'RE SEEING A LOT OF THIS WATER ACCUMULATE IN MY YARD.

THE OTHER THING I WANT TO POINT OUT IS, YEAH, THE NEW HOMES THAT WERE BUILT BEHIND DID HAVE A BULKHEAD. AND OBVIOUSLY THEY PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO DIVIDING THEIR YARDS.

BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THE FENCE IS BUILT ON TOP OF THE BULKHEAD AND THE YARD GOES RIGHT UP TO THE VERY TOP.

SO, UNFORTUNATELY WHEN IT RAINS THE WATER CASCADES BACK INTO MY YARD.

AND WHAT MAKES IT EVEN WORSE IS IN BETWEEN THESE HOMES, THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. YOU HAVE A GAP.

AND THEN OF COURSE THAT WATER -- FLOWS BETWEEN AND CASCADES INTO MINE. AND AGAIN, THIS IS THE OTHER NEIGHBOR THAT'S REQUESTED THIS VARIANCE AND THERE IS A GAP AS WELL IN BETWEEN THEIR HOMES. SO, UNFORTUNATELY I'VE HAD TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT AND I HAVE PUMPS THAT PUMP THE WATER OUT TO THE FRONT.

>> SIR, I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU ABOUT THAT.

SO YOU DO HAVE PUMPS?

>> YEAH. SO I HAVE THIS IS THE PIPE THAT SHOWS THIS IS WHAT I SET UP DURING A STORM.

AND I HAVE THE PUMPS THAT I PUT IN THE LOWEST POINTS IN MY BACKYARD TO PUMP TO THE FRONT YARD.

SO THAT WAY IT CAN GO RIGHT DOWN MY DRIVEWAY INTO THE LAGOONS

[02:40:03]

IN THE FRONT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE WAY THE DRAINAGE WAS MEANT TO WORK.

SO, YOU KNOW, AS MUCH AS MR. WHITEHOUSE SAYS THAT THERE'S STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN THE REALITY IS THERE'S ACCUMULATION IN MY YARD.

I CAN ONLY ASK AN ENGINEER TO

EXPLAIN. >> I JUST WANT TO TO YOU HAD THE HOME FOR SOME TIME.

>> I HAD IT FOR 30 YEARS.

>> WHEN DID THE FLOOTING START?

>> THREE YEARS AGO.

>> THAT'S AFTER THE FIRST HOME.

>> THE FIRST HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED, YEAH.

SO AGAIN, VARIANCES HAVE BEEN APPROVED.

AT SOME POINT IT HAS AN IMPACT ON NEIGHBORS.

AND I THINK IT'S REACHED THAT POINT.

AND IT WAS LONG BEFORE THESE HOMES WERE CONSTRUCTED. IT WAS THE FIRST HOME.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4? ALL RIGHT.

>> BJ. I WANT TO BRING TO EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION THAT MOST OF YOU, IF NOT ALL OF YOU -- I WAS TRYING TO LISTEN, HAS ALREADY SPOKEN WITH THE LAWYER.

BEFORE THIS MEETING, WHICH YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO. BUT HERE IS WHAT I WANTED TO BRING UP, I WOULD LIKE SOMETHING CHANGED.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL EVER CHANGE BUT I'M GOING TO BRING IT UP BECAUSE I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS FOR A WHILE. GIVING LAWYERS -- I TIMED HIM.

GIVING LAWYERS 15 MINUTES OR MORE TO PRESENT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. THE PUBLIC GETS THREE MINUTES.

YOU WON'T GIVE US FIVE. BUT SOMETIMES THE CLOCK STOPSSTOPS SOME PEOPLE AND THEY DO GET MORE TIME. SO, I WOULD SUPPORT THE DENIAL IN SUPPORT OF THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD WHICH VOTED TO DENY THIS.

BUT PLEASE THINK ABOUT EITHER CUTTING THEIR TIME OR GIVING US MORE. IF YOU GAVE US MORE, WE MIGHT VOTE YOU ALL BACK IN.

BUT WE SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY HOW MUCH MORE. THAT'S NOT JOKING. IT'S VERY SERIOUS.

BECAUSE YOUR MEETINGS GO ON AND ON AND ON.

LAWYERS AND DEVELOPERS SPEAK, SPEAK, SPEAK.

I KNOW THEY HAVE A RIGHT. BUT WHO WROTE THAT UP? WE CAN CHANGE ORDINANCES. WE CAN MAKE NEW THINGS.

BUT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT DO TAKE OFF FROM WORK, THAT MAKE A TRIP UP HERE WITH A CAR THAT MAY NOT BE WORKING AS BEST AS YOURS. SO PLEASE THINK ABOUT THAT.

THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A REBUTTAL AND WE CAN'T REBUT THEM BECAUSE WE'RE NOT LAWYERS BUT WE COULD HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT A REBUTTAL. BUT, THINK ABOUT THE PROCEDURE IN THIS ROOM AND CONSIDER THE RESIDENTS THAT DO SHOW UP AND COME IN HERE AND TRY TO EXPLAIN TO YOU HOW THEY WANT TO CONTINUE TO ENJOY THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE.

THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> I AGREE. ED SLAVIN.

I AGREE WITH MS. CALATI. I AGREE WITH THE PLANNING -- THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD.

AND THEIR VOTE TO DENY THE VARIANCE.

I THINK IT'S SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

I HEARD THE TESTIMONY HERE. AND QUITE FRANKLY I DON'T SEE A BASIS FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE.

THIS IS A NUISANCE. YOU HAVE A FLOODING PROBLEM.

WE HAVE FLOODING PROBLEMS NOT ONLY IN THIS NARROW BLOCK BUT ALL OVER THE COUNTY.

ALL OVER THE COUNTY WE'VE GOT FLOODING PROBLEMS AND WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH THEM. AND THERE'S A THING CALLED GLOBAL WARMING. AND OCEAN LEVEL RISE.

AND IT REALLY EXISTS. AND IT'S GETTING WORSE.

AND WE'RE NOT, AS A COUNTRY AND AS A COUNTY, DEALING WITH THAT IN ANY RATIONAL FASHION. I DON'T SEE HOW YOU COULD POSSIBLY OVERTURN -- IT'S SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND I ASK YOU TO AFFIRM THE BOARD. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

>> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4 AT THIS TIME? OKAY.

SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> OKAY. WE'RE BACK. MR. WHITEHOUSE, I JUST HAVE ONE

QUESTION. >> YES,

SIR. >> AND MAYBE IT'S PROBABLY BETTER ASKED FOR DICK D' SOUZA.

HE'S SITTING BACK THERE PEACEFULLY.

MY QUESTION IS ABOUT DRAINAGE. WE TALKED ABOUT DRAINAGE A LOT.

AND THIS PARTICULAR POOL THAT THEY'RE ASKING TO BUILD A

[02:45:03]

BIGGER POOL, WILL THAT IN THE EXPERT'S OPINION ADD OR DETRACT FROM ANY OF THE FLOODING ISSUES THAT THEY'VE HAD FOR THREE YEARS?

>> YEAH. SO CLINT LYNCH.

GROWTH MANAGEMENT. CHIEF ENGINEER.

THEY MET WITH STAFF AND COME UP WITH IDEAS TO DIRECT SOME OF THE STORM WATER FROM THE ROOF AND THE POOL TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH WILL MITIGATE FOR SOME OF THAT FLOODING.

WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION ON THE EXISTING FLOODING CONDITIONS AT LA MASTERS, KIND OF WHERE -- WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS BUILD TO WHERE IT'S AT NOW TO KNOW WHY IT'S KIND OF THAT WAY. THE PLAT FOR THOSE LA MASTERS PROPERTIES DO SHOW A 15 FOOT DRAIN AM EASEMENT IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.

AND SO, POTENTIALLY THAT COULD HAVE BEEN FILLED OVER TIME. WE DON'T KNOW WHO.

WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO KIND OF COME UP WITH A CONCLUSION ON THAT.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT.

ANY OTHER COMMENT FROM THE BOARD?

>> CAN I JUST REBUT FOR A MOMENT, MR. CHAIR?

>> YEAH, SURE.

>> I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS. IF I CAN JUST FOR ONE SECOND, I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THE THINGS THAT WERE SAID IF I

CAN. >> YEAH,

SURE. >> FIRST OF ALL, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, AS YOU HEARD FROM THE ENGINEERING STAFF WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS WHEN I WAS TALKING WITH THEM ABOUT TRYING TO HELP WITH THIS PARTICULAR LOT.

THE PICTURES YOU SEE ARE THE CURRENT SITUATION NOW.

NOT WITH A SMALL 200 SQUARE FOOT POOL IN THE BACK OF THESE PEOPLE'S HOUSE. THIS IS THE LAST LOT ON THAT PARTICULAR STREET THAT IS REQUESTING FOR ASKING FOR THIS. EVERYONE ELSE HAS A POOL.

YOU HEARD FROM THE PEOPLE NEXT DOOR THEY SUPPORT IT AND THEY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM.

THIS ENGINEERED SOLUTION WILL ACTUALLY HELP WITH THE DRAINAGE ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT AND IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA. NOT HINDER IT.

THAT'S WHY WE WORKED WITH YOUR ENGINEERING STAFF TO COME UP WITH A SITE PLAN AND AN ENGINEERING PLAN THAT WILL DIRECT THE WATER ON THIS PARTICULAR WATER TO THE FRONT. THERE'S BEEN PROBLEMS WITH THIS MSD FOR YEARS. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER WILL KNOW THERE'S COMPLAINTS ABOUT FLOODING IN THIS AREA ALL THE TIME.

THIS IS NOT OVERBUILT. THESE ARE PLATTED LOTS AND A NUMBER OF THESE HOUSES HAVE BEEN HERE FOR DECADES.

AND SO, THIS PARTICULAR LOT -- HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT WAS BUILT ON A PLATTED LOT. THESE -- THIS FAMILY DIDN'T BUILD THIS LOT. THEY BOUGHT THIS HOUSE. AND THEY JUST WANT TO BUILD THE TINIEST POOL THERE IS FOR THEIR CHILDREN TO SWIM IN THAT'S NOT A LAP POOL THAT SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT GO SWIM LAPS IN. IT'S JUST FOR THEIR CHILDREN TO BE IN. VERY TINY.

AS I TOLD YOU, EVERYTHING ON THEIR LOT IS PERMEABLE.

THE WATER AREA IS THE ONLY AREA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE. AGAIN, AS YOU JUST HEARD FROM YOUR OWN ENGINEER, THERE'S A DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON THE BACK OF THESE OTHER PEOPLE'S LOT. DRAINAGE EASEMENTS -- AGAIN, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER. YOUR ENGINEERS ARE TELLING YOU, DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ARE MEANT TO CONTAIN WATER AND TAKE IT OUT TO SALANA WHERE THE STORM WATER AREA AND SYSTEM IS FOR THE WATER TO DRAIN OFF AND WHERE THE OUTFALL IS. THE WATER RUNS IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS. THAT'S WHY YOUR ENGINEERS APPROVE THIS PLAN TO IMPROVE THE DRAINAGE IN THIS AREA. AGAIN, WITHIN YOUR PACKET, IT GOES THROUGH ALL OF THE ISSUES.

THE REAL HARDSHIP THAT IS HAPPENING IS YOU HAVE THESE PLATTED LOTS. I'LL GO BACK TO THE PLAT ITSELF. IN THIS AREA THAT BACK UP TO LARGER LOTS. THAT'S NOT THESE PEOPLE'S FAULT. THAT'S NOT CREATED BY THEM.

THIS WAS CREATED BY THE APPROVED PLAT THAT WAS BUILT ACCORDING TO THE PLAT.

AND JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE LARGER LOTS HERE, THAT CREATES A PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC DIFFERENCE. WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED A HARDSHIP UNDER YOUR CODE. THESE ARE THE SMALLEST LOTS IN PONTE VEDRA. IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR OWN ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDING STAFF TO BRING FORWARD NEW LANGUAGE FOR THE CODE TO SAY THAT THIS PERCENTAGE SHOULD BE INCREASED. THESE PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE PUNCHED AND HAVE TO WAIT SIX TO NINE MONTHS TO A YEAR FOR THIS BOARD TO PASS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE RECOMMENDED TO YOU FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD IN PONTE VEDRA BECAUSE THESE LOTS ARE TOO SMALL. BECAUSE IT'S NOT OVERBUILT UNDER OUR CODE AND THE FACT IS THAT THIS IS A REASONABLE CONSIDERATION. IT DOESN'T OUROUR CODE AS I SAID PARTICULARLY BECAUSE YOUR OWN APPOINTED BOARD IS GOING TO RECOMMEND FORWARD TO YOU A CHANGE IN THE CODE THAT WILL ALLOW THIS IN THE FUTURE.

THIS FAMILY ONLY WANTS TO HAVE A POOL FOR THEIR LITTLE CHILDREN. I'LL HAVE ERIN COME UP.

SHE WANTS TO TALK TO YOU REAL QUICK.

BUT REALLY TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, THIS IS A REASONABLE CONSIDERATION. AND THE FACT IS THAT WHEN YOU SEE PICTURES OF THINGS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY WANT, IF

[02:50:03]

THIS WAS ALREADY BUILT AND WE WERE AFTER THE FACT COMING TO ASK YOU FOR IT AND SHOWING YOU PICTURES OF FLOODING, MAYBE THAT'S CAUSING IT. THIS IS NOT CAUSING IT.

THIS IS AN ENGINEER PLAN THAT WILL HELP WITH THE FLOODING.

I'LL LET ERIN TA TALK TO YOU FOR A

SECOND. >> ERIN.

I OWN THE HOUSE AT 502 MORNINGSIDE DRIVE.

SO YEAR AGO WE BOUGHT THIS HOUSE. WE DID NOT BUILD IT. AND THIS IS THE THE FLIER FOR WHEN WE BOUGHT THE HOUSE. YOU CAN SEE OUR HOUSE HERE.

AND THEN THIS WAS ON THE FLIER, RIGHT? THERE COULD BE A POOL IN THE BACKYARD. SO WE'RE SUPER EXCITED TO MOVE INTO THIS HOUSE WITH OUR FAMILY WITH FOUR CHILDREN. WE CALL SOME POOL BUILDERS.

THEIR MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF A POOL THAT THEY'LL EVEN BUILD IS 400 SQUARE FEET. WHAT WE'RE ALLOWED IS UNDER 200 SQUARE FEET.

IT'S BASICALLY A HOT TUB. ESPECIALLY WERE THE FOUR CHILDREN. YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE COULD -- WE FIGURE IT WOULD BE NICE TO AT LEAST MEET THE MINIMUM. WHY PAY MORE TO BUILD LESS.

AND SO HERE WE ARE. I'M JUST A MOM OF FOUR KIDS.

WE WANT TO HAVE A GREAT HOUSE. I'M SURE EVERYONE WITH KID YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO HAVE THE KIDS AT YOUR HOUSE HAVING FUN.

AND SO WE'VE TAKEN THE STEPS TO DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

I UNDERSTAND THIS IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S OUR DESIRE TO HAVE A LARGER POOL. WE'RE NOT -- THERE'S NO INTENTION TO AFFECT OUR NEIGHBORS OR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ARE VERY REASONABLE AND WILLING TO DO ANYTHING ASKED, WHATEVER IS APPROVED ENGINEERING WISE, LET'S GET THE WATER TO THE FRONT. AND SO THAT'S IT. I'M JUST COMING TO YOU AS A MOM. THIS IS ALL FORMALITY AND WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN. I UNDERSTAND.

BUT, THIS IS JUST I GUESS STEPS WE HAVE TO TAKE TO TRY TO HAVE A NICE HOUSE AND POOL FOR OUR KIDS.

>> THANK YOU. IN CONCLUSION, THESE ARE THE SAME EXACT ARGUMENTS YOU HEAR TODAY THAT WERE MADE WHEN WE WERE HERE BEFORE ON THE POOL THAT WAS APPROVED BY THIS BOARD TO THE NORTH.

I UNDERSTAND THAT'S BECAUSE THE AREA IN THE FRONT OF THAT POOL THAT WASN'T INCLUDED IN THEIR LOT, THEIR LOT WAS LESS THAN THE 7,200. WE FOUND THAT THAT WAS SUFFICIENT AREA TO HELP THE PERM YABLT OF THEIR LOT. IF WE TAKE THE THINGS THAT WERE PRESENTED TODAY AND SAY, OKAY, WE GAVE IT TO THE ONE TO THE NORTH BECAUSE THERE WAS ENOUGH PERMEABLE WHEN WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHERE THEIR LOT WAS CUT OFF, HOW CAN WE SAY THESE PEOPLE ARE MAKING THE AREA WORSE. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

I YIELD AND WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO APPROVE PLNAPPL 2025- 03 RACIOPPI FAMILY POOL.

BASED UPON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AND SIX CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION.

>> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY MORE DISCUSSION? THEN LET'S VOTE.

THAT IS DEFEATED 3-2. THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE --

>> YES. I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT I THINK YOU SHOULD TRY TO DO YOUR POOL BUT TRY TO MAKE IT SO THAT IT WORKS. AND I REALLY WANT TO UPHOLD MY AREA IN THE PONTE VEDRA, THE MOTION DENY THE PLANNING APPLICATION 2025- 03 RACIOPPI FAMILY POOL.

UPHOLDING THE ZONING BOARD AND DENYING THE PZVAR 2025- 06 BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AS I DON'T THINK A HARDSHIP WAS DEMONSTRATED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> OKAY.

>> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A

SECOND. >> ANY MORE DISCUSSION?

[3. Public Hearing * WH 2025-01 Sebastian Oaks. Request to amend the conditions of REZ 2023-16 (Ordinance 2024-09) to eliminate the requirement to construct a roundabout at the southern intersection of Old Lewis Speedway and Lewis Speedway and replace it with a condition that the developer shall adhere to St. Johns County's standard requirement for proportionate fair share transportation mitigation, as outlined within Part 11.09.00 of the Land Development Code. The Planning and Zoning Agency (PZA) heard this request at their regularly scheduled public hearing on November 6, 2025. The Agency made a motion to recommend approval, which failed with a vote of 3-3. Support of the approval motion was made by members Spiegel, Matovina, and Perkins. Dissenting votes were made by members Olson, Hilsenbeck, and Labanowski. Member Green was absent. Discussion from the Agency members and the public was centered on the history of the project and the proposed roundabout that was included with the approval of REZ 2023-16 on March 5, 2024. At the regularly scheduled Board of County Commissioners public hearing on December 2, 2025, the board voted 4-1 to continue the item to the December 16, 2025, meeting to allow for additional information to be brought back before the board. This information is generally related to the cost associated to the roundabout construction, along with potential proportionate fair share contributions.]

LET'S VOTE. THAT PASSES 3-2.

BACK TO ITEM AGENDA NUMBER 3 NOW.

COMMISSIONER WHITE DOCTORS HURST, I HAVE OVER EIGHT EMAILS ON THIS TOPIC. I HAVE MET WITH MR. WHITEHOUSE AND MR. BLUNC THE APPLICANT AND STAFF.

I MET WITH DEBBIE JAMES OPPOSED TO THE CHANGE IN OUR

[02:55:02]

STAFF HERE IN THE OFFICE.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR?

>> YES. I ALSO RECEIVED OVER 12 EMAILS AS WELL AS PHONE CALLS. I HAD A MEETING WITH JAMES WHITE THE APPLICANT. I HAD A MEETING WITH JOE MACK ENERNIE, DEBBIE JAMES WHO OPPOSED AND I HAD A MEETING WITH DOUG BURNETT.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER

JOSEPH. >> YES.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 12- PLUS EMAILS MEETING WITH JAMES WHITEHOUSE APPLICANT, MEETING WITH JOE AND DEBBIE JAMES OPPOSED. AND STAFF.

AND I THINK I HAD A PHONE CALL. THAT'S IT.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

I WILL ALSO GO NEXT. 17 PLUS EMAILS.

I HAD A MEETING WITH JAMES WHITEHOUSE AND SCOTT BLUNC.

I HAD AN EMAIL JUST THIS MORNING FROM JOE MAC.

AND I'VE HAD SEVERAL PHONE CALLS FROM PEOPLE WHO EXPRESSED THEIR OPINIONS UPON THIS.

COMMISSIONER ARNOLD.

>> I HAD SIX EMAILS. I TOOK A MEETING WITH JAMES WHITEHOUSE AND SCOTT BLUNC, THE APPLICANT AND STAFF ANDAND JOE ENERNIE AND DEBBIE JAMES OPPOSED TO THE

PROJECT. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

MR. BURNETT, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

>> THANK YOU ECONOMIERS.

>> FOR THE RECORD, I WANT TO START BY MAKING ONE COMMENT.

WHICH IS THIS IS DEVELOPED A COMMENT WAS MADE I'LL START THERE AND COME BACK TO IT AS I MAKE MY PRESENTATION.

WHEN WE MET WITH -- ABOUT THIS TWO WEEKS AGO, I THINK YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE ANALYSIS THAT YOUR QUESTIONS WERE DEVELOPING AND WANTING TO SEE SOME RESPONSE TO. SO LET ME HIT THE HIGHLIGHTS ON OBVIOUSLY KNOW THE LOCATION. IT'S RIGHT DOWN THE STREET.

YOU CAN SEE WE'RE IN THIS LOCATION HERE WHERE THE COUNTY ADMIN OFFICES ARE. ALSO THE JAIL AND THE FIRE STATION AND SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND DOWN AROUND THE CORNER. FUTURE LAND USE ZONING.

IT'S ALREADY BEEN ZONED AND APPROVED TO WORK FORCE HOUSING. THIS IS AN APPROVED PROJECT.

WE'RE ONLY HERE TO TALK ABOUT THIS ONE CONDITION AND WHETHER THAT CONDITION TO REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO BUILD AROUND ROUND ABOUT OR PAY A PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE IS THE OUTCOME. THE ROUND ABOUT WOULD BE LOCATED ESSENTIALLY IN THIS LOCATION.

AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED TO COUNTY STAFF BACK IN THE MAY TIME PERIOD OF THIS YEAR. THERE'S ABOUT 60% ENGINEERING DRAWINGS DONE FOR THIS ROUND ABOUT. SO WE KNOW ABOUT WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

ABOUT WHAT IT WOULD COST. THAT PRICE TAG IS ABOUT 1. 1 MILLION. I HEARD OTHER NUMBERS THROWN AROUND. OBVIOUSLY WHEN IT WAS GOING THROUGH ORIGINALLY BEING APPROVED THE ENGINEER THREW OUT PROBABLY A HIGHER NUMBER.

WHEN YOU GO BACK A YEAR AGO AS TO WHAT IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO COST, NATURALLY THEY WANT TO COVER THEMSELVES. WHEN YOU GET TO THIS STAGE OF HAVING PLANS AND KNOWING BETTER OF WHAT RIGHT AWAY WIDTH IS THERE AND WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST, KIMBERLY HORN'S UPDATED ESTIMATE IS $1. 152 MILLION. THAT NUMBER ALIGNS WITH ABOUT WHAT OUR PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE AMOUNT WOULD BE AND ABOUT WHAT OUR IMPACT FEE CREDITS -- EXCUSE ME, IMPACT FEES TO BE PAID AND WE'RE ENTITLED TO IMPACT FEE CREDITS RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROUND ABOUT. GOING TO ADDRESS COMMISSIONER MURPHY'S QUESTION IS CAN WE TAKE THE ROUND ABOUT LOCATED LOOSELY AT THIS LOCATION AND RELOCATE IT TO THE FRONT OF THE PROJECT. AND WE ASK KIMBERLY HORN TO ANALYZE THAT AND EVALUATE IT. I TOOK A LITTLE LONGER THAN WE WANTED. I'M GOING TO JUMP -- THIS IS THEIR ACTUAL DRAWING, BUT I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU A ZOOM-IN OF JUST THE GREEN PORTION SO YOU CAN SEE IT A LITTLE BETTER.

IN TODAY'S MODERN LITIGIOUS WORLD, ENGINEERS DON'T JUMP TO DRAWING A ROUND ABOUT OR OTHER DESIGN ELEMENT UNLESS THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE DESIGN.

SO, THIS IS -- IT DID TAKE LONGER THAN A DAY OF JUST DRAGGING AND DROPPING A ROUND ABOUT IN THIS LOCATION.

THEY NEEDED A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO ANALYZE IT.

WE GOT THIS. WE WERE ABLE TO PUT THE POWER POINT PRESENTATION. IT'S NOT IN YOUR PACKET OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE WE COULDN'T GET IT IN TIME BASED ON THAT SCHEDULE.

BUT I WANT TO SHOW YOU A COUPLE PROBLEMS THAT OCCURS WITH THIS ROUND ABOUT.

[03:00:21]

A LEFT IN TO THEIR DRIVEWAY. THE OTHER THING TO NOTE ABOUT THAT IS THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU CAN JUST MOVE THEIR DRIVEWAY BECAUSE, ONE, THEY DON'T HAVE A PROPERTY WIDTH TO DO IT, AND ALSO THEIR GARAGE ON THEIR HOME IS LOCATED EITHER ON THE LEFT OR THE RIGHT AND THEREFORE LIMITS THE LOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY.

WE ALSO RUN INTO THE SAME CONFLICT OVER ON THE EASTERN SIDE, IF YOU WOULD, ACTUALLY THE SOUTHERN SIDE, BUT OF THE ROUNDABOUT, WHERE THAT RESIDENT CAN'T MAKE A LEFT OUT AND NOR COULD THEY MAE A LEFT IN. AND THE CHALLENGE WITH THAT SITUATION IS ON THIS SIDE, MAKING A LEFT IN TO THEIR HOME, THERE IS NO PLACE FOR THEM TO MAKE A QUICK EASY U-TURN OR TO CHANGE THAT TRAFFIC DIRECTION. THEY NEED TO GO UP TO PERHAPS WOODLAWN AND U- TURN AT THE INTERSECTION OR TURN INTO SOMEONE ELSE'S DRIVEWAY TO TURN AROUND. SO IT DOES CAUSE A REAL CONFLICT.

THE ADDED THING IS, IF WE MOVE THE ROUNDABOUT, WE LOSE THIS. THIS IS THE COMMITTED SITE-RELATED IMPROVEMENT FOR THE PROJECT.

AND IT IS WORTH LOOKING AT IN SOME ANALYSIS RELATED TO THIS, IF I ZOOM IN, THIS IMPROVEMENT CAN'T BE MADE WITH A ROUNDABOUT BEING RELOCATED TO THIS LOCATION.

SO, FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, FROM THE DEVELOPER'S STANDPOINT, IT IS GOOD FOR THE DEVELOPER BECAUSE WE REDUCED THE COST OF THE ROUNDABOUT, WE REDUCE THE COST OF THE OVERALL PROJECT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT BUILDING THIS SITE-RELATED IMPROVEMENT. SO, THAT'S ACTUALLY TO THE DEVELOPER'S BENEFIT. THE BAD PART ABOUT IT IS, FROM PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, THIS IS A SITE-RELATED IMPROVEMENT THAT NOT ONLY ADDRESSES OUR SUBDIVISION, HAVING THE TYPICAL RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT -- EXCUSE ME, RIGHT IN SITUATION WITH THE DECEL LANE AND LEFT CENTER TURN LANE, BUT THE DEVELOPER GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS COMMITTED AT THE ZONING STAGE THAT WE WOULD DRAG THIS THIS CENTER TURN LANE FURTHER TO THE SOUTH. GOING TO THE RIGHT, ON YOUR SCREEN. AND WHAT THAT DOES IS YOU CAN SEE TO THE NORTH, THE BIGGER DRIVEWAY ACCESS, THAT'S ACTUALLY HORSESHOE BEND. YOU END UP WITH A LEFT TO HORSESHOE BEND AND YOU HAVE A DUAL PURPOSE OF THE LEFT TURN LANE SO ON SUNDAY PEOPLE CAN LEFT INTO THE CHURCH THAT IS THERE.

THAT BENEFITS ALL. THE ADDED THING ABOUT THE LEFT CENTER TURN LANE, FOLKS TRYING TO EXIT THE RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS TO THE NORTH ON THIS DRAWING ARE ABLE TO TURN LEFT INTO THAT CENTER TURN LANE, WAIT FOR CARS, WAIT FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO THEN MERGE INTO TRAFFIC AND CONTINUE ON. THAT'S ALL A BENEFIT RELATED BENEFIT GETTING THIS SITE RELATED IMPROVEMENT. IT IS A SITE RELATED IMPROVEMENT. IT IS NOT IMPACT ELIGIBLE.

MEANING THE DEVELOPER IS PULLED BUILDER IS DEVELOPING THIS IMPROVEMENT.

THE STAFF DID SOME RESEARCH ON TRAFFIC CRASHES AT THIS GENERAL LOCATION AND GOING AROUND THE BEND ON LOUIS SPEEDWAY. IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, THEIR DATA TELLS THEM FROM THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE THERE IS SEVEN ACCIDENTS. IT IS NOT ALWAYS ACCURATE IN HOW THAT REPORTING, SO THERE MAY BE ONE THEY MISSED OR ANOTHER ANOTHER THEY MISSED FROM THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE BECAUSE THE DEPUTY PUT IN AN INCORRECT ROAD. SOMETIMES ERRORS HAPPEN OR IT GOT TRANSLATED INCORRECTLY. THOSE THINGS HAPPEN.

BUT THEIR DATA THEY OBTAINED SHOWS THERE IS SEVEN ACCIDENTS IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS IN THIS STRETCH OF ROADWAY. THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THAT IS THEY ARE NOT SPEED- RELATED, NOT THE TYPES OF ACCIDENTS THAT INDICATE HIGH RATES OF SPEED SUCH AS RUNNING OFF THE ROADWAY.

OR SWERVING MOVEMENT ARE REAR- END COLLISIONS.

REAR- END COLLISIONS, DOESN'T MATTER HOW FAST YOU'RE GOING OR HOW SLOW YOU'RE GOING, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE ROAD WHEN YOU RUN INTO THE BACK OF SOMEBODY, MORE OFTEN THAN NOT. THE REAL ISSUE IS PEOPLE TURNING LEFT, FOR EXAMPLE, ON TO HORSESHOE BEND, OF THE ACCIDENTS THAT OCCURRED IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS, A NUMBER O THEM OCCURRED IN THIS PARTICULAR STRETCH THAT IS ON YOUR SCREEN. WHEN FOLKS ARE TRYING TO TAKE A LEFT ON HORSESHOE BEND AND OTHER CARS ARE COMING BEHIND THEM AND BLOCKING THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC, THIS WILL GET THEM OUT OF THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC INTO THE LEFT CENTER TURN TO HELP THE OVERALL SYSTEM. IT IS ALSO A FLOW ISSUE BECAUSE SO OFTEN WE LOOK AT TRAFFIC, WE SAY ROUNDABOUTS ARE GREAT.

BEING THE DEVELOPER REPRESENTATIVE WHO DID THE FIRST ROUNDABOUT IN THE COUNTY, YOU KNOW, I LOVE ROUNDABOUTS. THEY'RE REALLY NEAT. AND THEY'RE UNIQUE AND THEY

[03:05:02]

DO HAVE A PURPOSE. THE CHALLENGE HERE IS, THOUGH, THEY DON'T ALWAYS HELP THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC.

SO FROM THAT STANDPOINT, IT IS A CHALLENGE TO PUT A ROUNDABOUT ON THIS ROADWAY, WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE THIS LEFT CENTER TURN LANE IMPROVEMENT THROUGH THE STRETCH. AND THEN FINALLY, I JUST WANT TO TOUCH ON SOMETHING WHICHWHICH IN YOUR STAFF REPORT IT TALKS ABOUT STAFF HAD INITIAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE ROUNDABOUT BEING ADDED AS A CONDITION. THE ROUNDABOUT WOULD NOT HAVE THE INTENDED AFFECT, CONSTRUCTION WOULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT DESTRUCTION ON A COLLECTOR ROAD. YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT ISSUE WHERE THIS IS GOING TO TAKE IT DOWN, THIS IS GOING TO PUT LOUIS SPEEDWAY DOWN TIME DURING CONSTRUCTION WHERE YOU GOT FIRE STATION, SHERIFF'S OFFICE NEEDING TO RESPOND DOWN LOUIS SPEEDWAY.

IT WILL CAUSE AN INCONVENIENCE THERE.

AND STAFF RECOMMENDED THE APPLICANT SUBMIT TO REMOVE THE ROUNDABOUT CONDITION. YOUR STAFF IS BOUND BY GOING BY WHAT IS IN THE ORDINANCE, YOU GOT A ORDINANCE THAT SAYS ROUNDABOUT HERE. WE SUBMITTED IT AND COUNTY STAFF IS RESPONSIBLE AS, YEAH, MAYBE THIS NEEDS TO BE RE-EVALUATED. WE KNOW MORE NOW.

AND I TOLD YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS TWO WEEKS AGO, BUT I WENT AND PULLED THE STAFF REPORT FROM 2004, WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED. AND WHAT IS IN THERE IS IT SUPPORTS THE SHORT TIME WINDOW THAT STAFF HAD TO LOOK AT IT. IT WENT FROM MARCH 5TH, BCC HEARING,÷÷HEARING, CONTINUANCE FOR POTENTIAL ROUNDABOUT. SO FROM THE -- VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, BETWEEN THE 6TH TO THE 5TH FOR STAFF TO LOOK AT IT.

AND THEN ALSO WONDER, WHEN WAS IT ACTUALLY SUBMITTED TO THEM AND THEY GET TO VIEW IT. WHAT IS INTERESTING ABOUT THE STAFF REPORT BACK THEN, AND, AGAIN THIS IS ALL THE WAY BACK IN 2004, STAFF DOES NOTE THAT THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES THAT FRONT LEWIS SPEEDWAY APPEARS THERE IS EXISTING TREES TO BUFFER THE ROAD. SO THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT BUFFERING. STAFF NOTES THAT THE ROUNDABOUT DOES NOT INCREASE THE CAPACITY THE ROADWAY. THERE IS CURRENTLY A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT THROUGH PUBLIC WORKS TO WIDEN WOODLAWN FROM STATE ROAD 16 TO WHITEHURST ROAD.

AND THERE IS A SHORT FALL OF FUNDS.

AND THE FUNDS FOR THE ROUNDABOUT WOULD BE BETTER USED FOR THAT IMPROVEMENT, WHICH IS WHERE I STARTED THE PRESENTATION. YOU'RE STUCK IN A SITUATION WHERE BUILDING THE ROUNDABOUT IS TELLING THE COUNTY WHERE TO PUT ITS MONEY, WHERE AS IF WE PAID A PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE, YOU CAN MAKE A DECISION ON WHAT YOU THINK IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE USE OF THOSE FUNDS.

AND THEN ALSO REMOVING THE TREES.

AND IT IS INTERESTING BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE ON THIS AERIAL BACK THEN, THE TREES THAT ARE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY BUFFER IN THROUGH THIS AREA THAT WILL BE CLEARED, YOU CAN SEE A NUMBER OF SPACES THERE THAT VERY CLEARLY WILL NEED TO BE CLEARED TO PUT THAT RIGHT OF WAY IN THERE, REMOVE BUFFER FROM EXISTING RESIDENTS IN THAT LOCATION.

WHETHER THE ROUNDABOUT IS PUT IN THE ORIGINAL LOCATION OR PUT IN THE RELOCATED LOCATION IS JUST NOT THE RIGHT FIT.

AND I THINK YOUR STAFF HAS REALLY LOOKED AT THAT.

AND THAT'S WHY THEY REQUESTED THAT WE PURSUE THIS AND, OF COURSE, MY CLIENT, KB HOME, KB OWNS THE LAND, KB IS MOVING FORWARD WITH DEVELOPMENT. THEY FILED PLANS FOR THE SUBDIVISION A YEAR AGO. THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT THEY ALSO WANT TO BE A GOOD RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN HERE WITH THE COUNTY COMMISSION AND YOUR STAFF SEES A PROBLEM, THEY DIRECT TO ME TO COME TRY AND BRING IT TO YOUR ATTENTION AS BEST I COULD TO ARTICULATE WHY THIS IS A PROBLEM. HERE'S ONE THING THAT IS INTERESTING. I'LL NOTE THIS IS THE EXISTING LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE.

THIS IS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS BOUND TO GO BY IN BUILDING THE PROJECT. THEY GOT TO BUILD THE ROUNDABOUT.

BUT THEY GET IMPACT FEE CREDITS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROUNDABOUT. SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS NOT, LIKE, CHANGING THIS IS A WINDFALL TO THE DEVELOPER.

THEY'RE GETTING IMPACT FEE CREDITS REGARDLESS.

THE NEW LANGUAGE THAT WOULD -- OOPS, THAT WOULD GO IN THERE AND SUBSTITUTE, THE DEVELOPER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FAIR SHARE PROGRAM AND IT WOULD BE PAYING FUNDS TO THE COUNTY AND IMPACT FEE CREDITS FOR, SO REGARDLESS IT IS A WASH FROM THE DEVELOPER'S SIDE.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL BE QUIET AND BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, COMMISSIONER TAYLOR.

>> THANK YOU. YES, THANK YOU FOR GOING OVER EVERYTHING. DO YOU HAVE A DOLLAR AMOUNT OF WHAT THE IMPACT FEE CREDIT WOULD BE FOR THE ROUNDABOUT? YOU TALKED ABOUT IT BEINGBEING $1. 252 MILLION TO BUILD IT.

>> IN THE OLD SYSTEM, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN $1. 152 MILLION IMPACT FEE CREDIT. BUT THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A REDUCTION YOU GET NOW, COUNTY STAFF HAS SHARPENED THE PENCIL WITH TIME VALUE OF MONEY. SO YOUR IMPACT FEE CREDIT OVER TIME IS A LITTLE BIT LESS AND MAYBE STAFF CAN EXPLAIN IT.

BUT $1. 152 MILLION BECOMES $1.

[03:10:10]

153 MILLION. THE SAME THING, WHETHER WE BUILD THE ROUNDABOUT OR PAY THE MONEY TO THE COUNTY, IT IS THE SAME.

>> IT IS A WASH. IT IS LIKE THE COUNTY IS PAYING FOR IT?

>> IT IS A USE OF THE FUNDS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE PAID TO THE COUNTY THAT THE COUNTY CAN USE HOWEVER THEY WANT, YES, MA'AM.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. LET ME JUST ASK YOU A SIMPLE CAVEMAN QUESTION. IF THIS MOTION IS APPROVED, IS IT A BETTER PLAN FOR THE COUNTY FOR THE TRAFFIC?

FOR EVERYBODY INVOLVED? >> IF THIS IS APPROVED, THAT BECOMES CASH PAID TO THE COUNTY THAT WOULD THEN -- WE ALREADY IDENTIFIED A PROJECT THAT IS NEEDING FUNDS AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. IT WOULD IMMEDIATELY GO TOWARD FUNDING A PROJECT RATHER THAN BEING A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ALONG -- TWO CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS BECAUSE THEIR SITE ACCESS IS STILL THERE, AND ANOTHER SEPARATE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ALONG THE SAME STRETCH OF ROADS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A VERY LONG EXTENDED CONSTRUCTION ZONE ON LEWIS SPEEDWAY RATH IRTHAN THE RATHER THAN THE ONE IN THAT LOCATION AND FUNDING ANOTHER PROJECT IN A SEPARATE LOCATION.

>> REMEMBER, THIS IS A SIMPLE

CAVEMAN QUESTION. >> AND I WOULD LOVE TO SAY, YES OR NO. A POLICY DECISION, WHETHER THE BOARD WANTS TO HAVE A ROUNDABOUT OR NOT, I WOULD SAY YOU WOULD HAVE A VERY LONG CONSTRUCTION ZONE, SHOULD THERE BE A ROUNDABOUT, JUST NORTH OF THE PROJECT ENTRANCE, WHICH ALREADY HAS A CONSTRUCTION ZONE, VERSUS FUNDS TO A COUNTY CIP PROJECT THAT IS IDENTIFIED IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM UNDER PUBLIC WORKS THAT HAS A

FUNDING NEED. >> OKAY.

I THINK I GOT A YES OUT OF IT.

DID I GET A YES OUT OF IT?

>> POLICY DECISION, BUT --

>> OKAY. SIMPLE CAVEMAN.

>> YES, SIR.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THE ROADWAY THAT YOU SHOWED AS THE ENTRANCE AND THE LONG, YOU KNOW, LEFT AND RIGHT AND THE VERY FANCY THING, IS THAT ALREADY PART OF YOUR PLAN OR IS THAT NEW?

>> NO, THAT'S PART OF OF THE PLAN THAT'S BEEN THERE SINCE THE INCEPTION.

>> OKAY.

>> THAT'S THE SITE- RELATED

IMPROVEMENT. >> OKAY.

>> SO YOU GET THAT IMPROVEMENT.

>> WE GET THAT ALSO WITH THE

MONEY? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. ANY OTHER ACCOUNTS TO THE BOARD? WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC

COMMENT. >> AT THIS TIME WE'LL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER

3. >> HI.

GOOD MORNING. SHERRY BADGER, 2772 SOUTH COLLINS AVENUE. THIS RIGHT HERE IS DOUG HAVING A PRIVATE MEETING THIS MORNING IN THE BACK OF THE MEETING ROOM BACK THERE WITH DICK DE SOUZA. THIS IS GOING ON.

WE THE PEOPLE SEE IT. WE THE PEOPLE ARE GETTING SICK OF THE DEVELOPERS AND THE LAWYERS FOR THE DEVELOPERS GETTING TO COME IN HERE, SAY WHAT THEY WANT, HAVE PRIVATE MEETINGS WHEN A MEETING IS GOING ON UP HERE AND Y'ALL DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. EVERY ONE OF YOU DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. GOD BLESS.

HAVE A GREAT DAY.

>> LET'S ANSWER THAT. IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR THEM TO ANNOUNCE A MEETING IF THEY CONFER RIGHT THERE?

>> NO.

>> OKAY. SO THEY'RE NOT BREAKING ANY LAWS?

>> WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS --

>> OR DOING IT IN PUBLIC? THEY'RE DOING IT IN PUBLIC, RIGHT, IN A PUBLIC MEETING?

>> LET ME ASK YOU THIS THEN, WHYWHY IS IT OKAY FOR THEM TO GET -- TO HAVE PRIVATE MEETING IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM? THERE IS STUFF GOING ON IN THIS COUNTY, THIS WHOLE COUNTY NEEDS TO BE UNDER INVESTIGATION BECAUSE, CLAY, YOU BLEW SMOKE UP A BUNCH OF PEOPLE'S SHORTS.

>> ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3?

>> YEAH, HOW DO YOU FOLLOW THAT?

>> TAKE ANOTHER DEEP BREATH.

MERRY CHRISTMAS, EVERYBODY. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

THANK YOU FOR THE VOICE THAT WE CAN TALK.

WE'RE IN A FREE COUNTRY. AND WE SHOULD APPLAUD IT AND WE THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. AND LISTENING.

MY NAME IS DEBBIE JAMES. 557 NORTH HORSESHOE ROAD, NOT BEND. WE DON'T LIVE IN A BEND. WE LIVE ON A HORSESHOE.

THIS IS NOT A BETTER PLAN. MR. MURPHY, YOU ASKED, IS IT A BETTER PLAN? IT IS NOT A BETTER PLAN.

THE PLAN SHOULD BE WHAT OTHER COMMISSIONER DEAN SAID, AND THIS IS WHY HE VOTED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. HE HAD, OF COURSE, THE ROUNDABOUT, FOR SAFETY. IT IS SAFETY.

THE ISSUE IS SAFETY. AND THIS DOES NOT MAKE US SAFER.

IT MAKES IT WORSE. AND I THANK YOU.

[03:15:02]

MERRY CHRISTMAS.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? MR. HUNT.

>> ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON.

CHARLIE HUNT, MILL CREEK ESTATES.

THE VOTE WAS 3- 2 TO APPROVE THIS FINAL DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMISSIONERS, JOSEPH AND WHITEHURST AGAINST AND THE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONERS LAMO, DEAN AND ARNOLD FOR. THAT WAS THE DETERMINING FACTOR.

IT WAS ALWAYS SAID, YES, WHEN COMMISSIONER DEAN PRETTY MUCH PUT HIS POINT DOWN TO IT, LIKE ALWAYS, THEY NEED TO LISTEN TO HIM. NOW KB HOMES, WHO THIS YEAR HAS ESTIMATED ABOUT $4. 25 BILLION PROFIT CAN'T AFFORD TO GIVE THE MONEY÷÷ FOR THIS. IT IS GOING TO COST TOO MUCH. LET'S JUST WASTE IT OFF TO A COUNTY AND LET THEM DO WHAT IT IS. BUT, WHY ARE THEY NOT FOLLOWING THEIR WORD? WHAT IS THE ETHICS BEHIND THAT? THAT'S ALWAYS A PROBLEM. IF THEY CAME IN AND SAID NO TWO WAYS ABOUT IT, WE'LL BUILD THIS WHETHER THE PUBLIC LIKES IT OR NOT AND IT GETS APPROVED OF, THEY BUILD AND WE MOVE ON. WE HAVE TO ADAPT AND OVERCOME. WE WILL, BUT TO HEAR THIS AND SEE ALL THE GLAMOUR AND THE EXTENSION AND THE HOUSE BEING DRUG OUT AND DRUG OUT, THIS BEING AN ICONIC LAME DUCK SESSION AGENDA ITEM FOR THE LAWYERS TO COME UP AND TRY TO TEXT PEOPLE WHILE THEY'RE TALKING AND ASK THEM TO -- THE BOARD TO WAIT, I'M TRYING TO GET A TEXT OUT.

AND YOU WAITED. BUT THAT'S WHAT IT IS. THE PEOPLE DIDN'T WANT THATTHAT DEVELOPMENT. NOW THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT. BUT IT WAS ON THE SENSE OF THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN, THAT PERSON FLEW TO -- HAD KB HOMES PRIVATE JET FLYING DOWN HERE, FOR HIM TO EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS GOING TO DO, HOW THEY'RE SO GREAT TO THE ECONOMY AND THE PUBLIC, AND THIS DOES, IT RUNS PARALLEL TO THE ACTUAL GRAND OAKS DEBACLE THAT WENT ON WHEN THEY SAID, YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU $50 MILLION TO DEVELOP THIS, AND, YES, AFTER THIS HOUSE, WE HAVE TO HAVE IT END.

AND THEN IT GOES INTO LITIGATION. AND IT MOVES ON. AND THIS IS THE HEADLINE, FEDERAL COURT BACKS ST.

JOHN'S COUNTY AND DISPUTE A DEVELOPER OF GRAND OCCASION OF GRAND OAKS. IT REAFFIRMS THE COMMITMENT TO HOLD OUR DEVELOPER ACCOUNTABLE AND ENSURE THAT PROMISES ARE MADE TO THE RESIDENTS AND KEPT -- ARE KEPT, EXCUSE ME.

THE DEVELOPER -- THE DEVELOPER'S ATTEMPTED TO ALTER THE TERMS YEARS LATER, WAS A BREACH OF TRUST, WE STOOD FIRM ON OUR

COMMUNITY -- >> OKAY, MR. HUNT.

THANK YOU, MR. HUNT.

>> THE DECISION IS SENT CLEAR AND A MESSAGE TO ALL EXPECTEDEXPECTED PARTIES. THANK YOU, MR. HUNT.

>> FOR OUR COMMUNITIES.

>> YOUR THREE MINUTES IS UP. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3?

>> YES, MA'AM. LET'S TAKE A LUNCH BREAK. HENRY DEAN IS ON HIS WAY. I GOT A TEXT MESSAGE FROM HIM. HE'S HAVING PROBLEMS WITH HIS HEARING AIDS. HE'S AT COSTCO. LET'S JUST BREAK UNTIL WE CAN HAVE HIS TESTIMONY BECAUSE I ASKED HIM TO COME AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM AND HE AGREED SEVERAL DAYS AGO TO DO SO.

AND HE IS ONE OF THE SMARTEST PEOPLE, I SAY HE'S WISER THAN A TREE FULL OF OWLS.

LET'S NOT DO THIS UNTIL AFTER LUNCH.

THERE IS NO PRINCIPLED REASON TO RUSH THIS. NOW, IF YOU HAD YOUR COUNTY COMMISSION DO WHAT I ASKED YOU TO DO ALL THE TIME, WHICH IS TO RESEARCH THESE APPLICANTS, THERE IS A CONSENT DECREE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AND A LAWSUIT BROUGHT AGAINST KB HOMES BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE STATE OF COLORADO, THE STATE OF MARYLAND, THE ÚSTATE OF NEVADA, AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. YOUR STAFF NEVER BRIEFED YOU ON THAT. WHY? THEY DON'T DO ANY RESEARCH. ALL THEY DO IS RUBBER STAMPSTAMP DEVELOPER APPLICATIONS, ALL THEY DO IS SAY, OH, YES, SIR, HOWHOW HIGH. I MEAN, REALLY. COULDN'T WE GET A REPORT, A BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION, YOU DO BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS ON ANY EMPLOYER YOU HIRE. THIS DEVELOPER WANTS TO COME IN HERE AND DELETE A SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY NOW, PROVIDING FOR THIS ROUNDABOUT.

WELL, TWO MEETINGS IN A ROW THEY DIDN'T PRESENT A SINGLE

[03:20:03]

EXPERT. COUNCIL TESTIFIED.

COUNCIL IS A LAWYER, NOT AN EXPERT.

AND HE TALKED A STARVING DOG AFTER A MEAT WAGON.

HE'S A LOVELY MAN. HIS FATHER WAS A WONDERFUL GENERAL, VERY GOOD GENERAL. TWO OF HIS COLONELS ARE MY FRIENDS. TWO RETIRED COLONELS, GOOD PEOPLE TOO.

BUT DOUG BURNETT IS NOT NOT COMPETENT WITNESS AND AS THIS APPLICATION, AS IT STANDS BEFORE YOU NOW, IS NOT SUPPORTED BY CONFIDENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. WHAT IT IS IS THE DEVELOPER SAYING, HAIL MARY PLAY, WE WANT TO SAVE SOME MONEY.

THIS IS A MULTIBILLION DOLLAR CORPORATION. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS IN ST.

JOHNS COUNTY ALL THE TIME. NO BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS EVER ON ANY OF THESE APPLICANTS.

YOUR STAFF DOESN'T GIVE YOU A REPORT SAYING, WELL, THIS IS KB HOME AND THIS IS THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN WATER ACT VIOLATIONS, CONSENT ORDER IN FEDERAL COURT.

YOU NEVER HEARD ABOUT THIS, DID YOU? THEY KEEP YOU IN THE DARK. YOUR STAFF.

YOUR DEVELOPERS. YOUR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS.

IT IS WRONG. IT IS A SIN, A CRIME AND A TORT. PLEASE VOTE NO. PLEASE KEEP THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. AND, AGAIN, AS JFK'S FAVORITE POLITICIAN SAID, WHEN IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CHANGE, IT IS NECESSARY NOT TO CHANGE.

AND IF YOU SAY YOU'RE CONSERVATIVE, YOU'LL VOTE NO BECAUSE WE NEED TO CONSERVE OUR RESOURCES, WE NEED TO CONSERVE OUR ORDINANCES, AND I THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND WISH YOU A HAPPY

HOLIDAY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3. SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> MR. BURNETT, ANY CLOSING COMMENTS?

>> YES, FEW THINGS WORTH ADDRESSING.

OFTENTIMES WHEN I SHOW UP HERE, I MAKE THE ROUNDS WITH STAFF, ESPECIALLY THE ONES THAT MAY BE HERE RELATED TO MY AGENDA ITEM TO FIND OUT IF THERE IS ANY NEW EMAILS, ANYTHING NEW I SHOULD ADDRESS, ESPECIALLY THE LATE SUBMITTAL TRYING TO GET THIS ROUNDABOUT DRAWING.

IS THERE ANYTHING I NEED TO ADDRESS OR DISCUSS IN MY PRESENTATION? AND THE OTHER THING I'LL COMMENT ON, THIS IS NOT A GRAND OAKS.

GRAND OAKS IS A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS NO MONEY.

THIS ISN'T THAT SITUATION. MY CLIENT CAME THROUGH WITH CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THE SUBDIVISION, AND ALSO FOLLOWED THAT UP WITH CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THE ROUNDABOUT, TO BUILD THE ROUNDABOUT.

IT IS KB HOME. THEY'RE READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR PROJECT. AND STAFF SAID THAT'S NOT THE BEST USE OF THE COUNTY'S MONEY.

THEY DIDN'T DIRECT US, DEMAND US OR COERCE US TO BE HERE TODAY. THEY ASKED US, CAN YOU REVISIT THIS WITH THE COUNTY XHIN AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. THE BEST USE OF COUNTY'S MONEY IS FOR THIS OTHER WOODLAWN ROAD IMPROVEMENT, ALREADY IN THE CIP, THAT'S WHAT THE MONEY IS USED FOR.

THIS IS NOT GRAND OAKS WHERE WE DON'T HAVE MONEY.

WE'RE HERE AND MY CLIENT WILL BE PAYING MONEY AND WE'LL BE BACK HERE IN JANUARY TO FINALIZE THE PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE AGREEMENT RELATED TO THAT PAYMENT TO THE COUNTY, KNOWING THE COUNTY NEEDS THE MONEY FOR THE FUNDS AND KNOWING WE NEED IT TO SATISFY OUR OBLIGATION FOR ROADWAY. THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS NO MONEY. THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE A CLIENT ARE READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT.

I HOPE THAT CLARIFIES THINGS. AGAIN, REGARDLESS OF YOUR VOTE HERE TODAY, THIS IS A PROJECT THAT WILL STILL MOVE FORWARD AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT IS PRETTY CLEAR ON THE RECORD FROM YOUR STAFF AS TO WHAT IS IN THE COUNTY'S BEST INTEREST IS TO PUT THOSE FUNDS TOWARD SOMETHING THAT IS PROGRAMMED AND NEEDED AND BEEN PROGRAMMED AND NEEDED IN THE CIP FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. I'LL SHUT UP AND BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU

NEED. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.

>> VERY BRIEFLY, I WANT TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE YOUR STAFF REPORT IS NOT 100% CLEAR ON YOUR MOTION, A MOTION TO APPROVEAPPROVE WOULD ELIMINATE THE CONDITION FOR THE ROUNDABOUT.

A MOTION TO DENY KEEPS THE ROUNDABOUT. I WANT TO CLARIFY. IT IS NOT VERY CLEAR IN THE MOTION. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MISS WES, MR. CHAIRMAN. I APPRECIATE MR. HUNT PUTTING COMMISSIONER ARNOLD'S QUOTE UP THERE, WHICH MAKES THE POINT THAT THIS BOARD HAS NOT BEEN AFRAID TO HOLD DEVELOPERS ACCOUNTABLE. WE HELD THAT DEVELOPER IN DEFAULT BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO WIGGLE OUT OF THEIR AGREEMENT AND COMMISSIONER ARNOLD HELD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

THIS BOARD VOTED UNANIMOUSLY BEHIND HER MOTION TO HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE. WE'RE NOT AFRAID TO HOLD DEVELOPERS ACCOUNTABLE AS WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED IN THE PAST. WE HAVE GIVEN DIRECTION TO OUR OFFICE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO TAKE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY LEGAL ACTION TO HOLD ANOTHER DEVELOPER WHO IS TRYING IN THE PAST TO WIGGLE OFF THE HOOK.

[03:25:01]

SO WE ARE NOT AFRAID TO GO NOSE TO NOSE WITH THESE GUYS IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LIVE UP TO THEIR AGREEMENTS.

I THINK WHAT IS COMPELLING TO ME IN THIS CASE IS THAT IT IS NOT THE÷÷THE DEVELOPER, IT IS MR. DE SOUZA, SAYING THE BEST USE OF THESE DOLLARS IS AT ANOTHER POINT IN THE COUNTY'S TRANSPORTATION NETWORK AND NOT HERE.

I THINK YOU MADE A POINT THAT MAYBE WAS GLOSSED OVER. THE CONSTRUCTION ZONE THAT WILL EXIST IN BUILDING THIS ROUNDABOUT WILL BE A NIGHTMARE. AND IT MAY GO ON FOR YEARS.

BUT EVEN LET'S SAY WE CAN ADD WATER IN THE ROUNDABOUT SPRINGS UP OUT OF THE GROUND TOMORROW, THAT'S NOT AS SAFE AS THE PROJECT THAT MR. DE SOUZA AND HIS STAFF HAS BEEN WAITING TO BUILD FOR YEARS.

THE PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN ON THE LIST, THAT'S BEEN IN THE PLAN, THAT'S THE PROJECT THAT WILL MAKE THIS AREA SAFEST, SO I'M GOING TO VOTE TO GET RID OF THE ROUNDABOUT AND USE THE FUNDS TO BUILD MR. DE SOUZA'S

PROJECT. >> COMMISSIONER

TAYLOR. >> YES.

I'VE SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME ON THIS AND OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS I'VE BEEN ON THIS ROAD QUITE A BIT, JUST TO REALLY SEE WHAT IS THE SPEED, WHAT ARE THE ISSUES.

AND DEFINITELY I AGREE THAT THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE IS THAT CARS -- I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS TRAFFIC OR WHAT AT FIRST, BUT CLEARLY THAT PEOPLE ARE TURNING LEFT AND ALL THESE CARS HAVE TO BACK UP AND WAIT FOR PEOPLE TO MAKE A LEFT.

I THINK THAT THE PROPOSED PLAN WITH THAT MIDDLE LANE AND TURN LANE WILL BE VERY HELPFUL. THE OTHER THING THAT EVERYBODY IS TALKING ABOUT IS REGARDING THE COST OF THE ROUNDABOUT, REMEMBER, WHEN THAT ROUNDABOUT, IF THAT ROUNDABOUT IS BUILT, THE IMPACT FEE CREDITS, JUST ABOUT OFFSET THAT. SO, BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS HAVING SO LITTLE IMPACT ON A ROUNDABOUT, AND I AM ALL FOR ROUNDABOUTS IN THE CORRECT PLACE, THE OTHER THING THAT I REALLY TOOK NOTE OF ARE THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT LIVE RIGHT BY WHERE THIS ROUNDABOUT WOULD BE BUILT AND MY GOODNESS, THERE ARE TREES RIGHT THERE THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME DOWN AND BE DESTROYED AND THEY -- THAT WOULD BLOCK THEIR VIEW.

THEY WOULD HAVE A CLEAR VIEW OF THE ROUNDABOUT.

I KNOW IF I WAS LIVING IN THAT HOME, THERE IS NO WAY I WOULD WANT TO LOSE THE TREES BUFFERING THE VIEW AS WELL AS THE SOUND. I CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE HOW UPSET THOSE PEOPLE WOULD BE -- THOSE PEOPLE THAT OWN HOMES ALONG THAT AREA.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, TO SHARE THAT.

I APPRECIATE STAFF AND I'M ALL FOR DEVELOPERS DOING WHAT THEY PROMISED TO DO. UNFORTUNATELY, IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, I AGREE THOSE FUNDS CAN BE BETTER USED IN ANOTHER

LOCATION. >> THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? I'LL JUST SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR ME, IT IS COMMON SENSE, LET'S DO THE BEST THAT WE CAN FOR THE PEOPLE, FOR THE MOST PEOPLE THAT WE CAN. I WOULD ENTERTAIN AA MOTION.

>> YES, I'M PREPARED TO MAKE THAT MOTION.

I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, MOTION TO ENACT ORDINANCE 2025- 47, APPROVING WH 2025- 01 SEBASTIAN OAKS BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AND FOUR CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED BY THE STAFF REPORT.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. LET'S VOTE.

AND IT PASSES 5-0. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THIS TIME WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK FOR LUNCH. WE'LL BE BACK AT TEN MINUTES

[5. Public Hearing * VACROA 2025-03 Maure Family Property - Public Hearing to vacate a portion of Poinsettia Road right-of-way. The unopened portion of Poinsettia Road right-of-way does not contain any asphalt or sidewalk and is not used for traffic circulation or access; therefore, the applicant is requesting to vacate this portion of right-of-way. Based on staff's review thus far, no party will be unreasonably affected by the requested vacation.]

>> AND WE'RE BACK. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5, MR. WHITEHOUSE, SORRY.

>> YES, SIR.

>> FOR THE RECORD, JAMES WHITEHOUSE, 104 -- ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE MAURE FAMILY. THIS IS FOR A CLEANUP.

WHEN WE CAME TO YOU BEFORE, FOR THE VACATION THAT WAS JUST TO THE SOUTH OF THIS, HE HAD CONTACTED ME AND HIS NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET HAD CONTACTED ME TO TRY TO GET IT IN, THE NOTICE WAS TOO LATE TO GET IN. WE BROUGHT IT BACK.

IT IS A LITTLE PIECE AT THE NORTHERN END AS YOU CAN SEE.

IF ANY OF YOU HAVE GONE OUT HERE, THERE IS BARRICADES RIGHT HERE, WHERE THE PAVEMENT ENDS. AND THIS IS ALL AFTER IT AND THEY HAD SOME ISSUES WITH SOME VAGRANCY AND STUFF OWN THERE. THEY WOULD LIKE THAT AREA CLOSED OFF. RIGHT BY WHERE THEIR DRIVEWAY IS, THEY CAN CONTROL WHAT IS GOING ON BACK THERE.

IN ANY CASE, THE STAFF REVIEWED THIS.

WE HAVE GONE TO ALL THE UTILITIES, NO ISSUES WITH THIS AT ALL.

BASED ON STAFF REVIEW, NO OBJECTIONS TO THIS REQUESTED VACATION. THERE HAS BEEN NO COMMENTS OR CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE PUBLIC. LIKE I SAID, STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST. THEY HAVE PROVIDED YOU A SUGGESTED MOTION IN YOUR PACKET.

AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE.

[03:30:02]

>> AT THIS TIME, WE WILL HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5.

SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> I'M WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION IF THAT'S OKAY.

MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2025-498.

APPROVING VACROA 2025- 03 MAURE FAMILY PROPERTY PETITION TO VACATE A PORTION OF POINSETTIA ROAD RIGHT OF WAY.

>> A SECOND. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND. LET'S VOTE.

[6. Public Hearing * The annual review of the St. Johns County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) Annual Report. As required by Florida State Statute, the St. Johns County’s Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) annually reviews established policies, procedures, ordinances, and the County’s Land Development Code, and Comprehensive Plan and make recommendations on strategies to encourage or facilitate the development and/or preservation of affordable housing. On November 19, 2025, AHAC conducted a noticed public hearing and by affirmative vote of the majority of the AHAC membership approved the attached final report.]

THAT PASSES 5-0. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

WE'LL GO TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6 PLEASE.

BILL LAZAR. AND JOE.

>> JOSEPH CONE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

GOOD MORNING. MOMENTARILY YOU WILL HEAR OUR PRESIDENT OF OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE COME AND SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AFTER MEETING ALL YOUR -- THE STATE REQUIREMENT WE DO THAT IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE SHIP FUNDS.

VERY QUICKLY, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK ALL OF OUR VOLUNTEERS WHO SERVE ON OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE HOUSING AUTHORITY.

THEY PUT A LOT OF TIME BOTH MEETING MONTHLY, OUT OF THEIR JOBS, AND ATTENDING VARIOUS WORKSHOPS AND WE'RE ADVOCATING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN OUR COMMUNITY.

ALSO, I'D LIKE TO THANK BOTH THE BOARD HERE AS WELL AS OUR ADMINISTRATION FOR YOUR CONTINUED COMMITMENT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISSUES. AND ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO SAY A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO COMMISSIONER TAYLOR WHO SERVES AS OUR AHAC BCC MEMBER AND COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST. IN MY TIME HERE IN THE LAST NINE YEARS, SERVING AS THE SHIP -- SORRY, THE STAFF APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR FOR BOTH OF THESE BOARDS, I HAVE NEVER RECEIVED SO MANY POSITIVE COMMENTS ABOUT BOTH OF YOUR WORK HERE IN THIS LAST YEAR, FOR BOTH OF THESE COMMITTEES. THE MOST PREVALENT COMMENT THAT I RECEIVED FROM OUR BOARD MEMBERS WAS THAT THEY APPRECIATED HOW MUCH YOU ENGAGE WITH THE BOARDS, AND AS WELL AS LISTEN TO WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY.

I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU ON BEHALF OF THAT.

AND I WOULD BE COMPLETE REMISS NOT TO MENTION IT.

WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, I WILL INTRODUCE MR. BILL LAZAR FROM THE ST. JOHNS HOUSING PARTNERSHIP.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU.

I AM BILL LAZAR, DIRECTOR OF THE ST. JOHNS HOUSING PARTNERSHIP 525 WEST KING STREET AND THE CURRENT CHAIR OF OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

HOW DO WE TURN OUR -- WHAT DO WE DO? THIS ONE? TECHNOLOGY. THERE WE GO. OKAY.

Y'ALL HAVE THE REPORT THAT WE PUT TOGETHER.

IT IS SOMETHING WE DO ONCE A YEAR AND A LOT OF THE 10 OR 15 DIFFERENT INCENTIVES WE HAVE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME. WE KEEP BRINGING THEM UP, HOPING SOME OF THEM WILL RESONATE MORE THAN OTHERS, DIFFERENT YEARS, THINGS ARE DIFFERENT.

BUT WHAT WE WANTED TO DO WAS TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA IN OUR VIEW OF THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN HAPPENING OVER THE LAST YEAR, BECAUSE WE'RE MAKING DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF PROGRESS. THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AS JOE SAID IS ACTUALLY A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT, IF YOU GET CHIPCHIP FUNDS THE STATE OF FLORIDA, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A COMMITTEE OF PEOPLE SET UP TO SORT OF REVIEW IT, TALK ABOUT THESE INCENTIVES AND HOW THOSE CHIP FUNDS ARE USED EVERY YEAR. THIS IS THE CURRENT GROUP OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS. AND SOME OF US HAVE BEEN THERE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, SOME OF US ARE NEW, BUT THE WHOLE IDEA IS TO SORT OF A SMORGASBORD OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE, SOME BUILDERS, LENDERS, PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST REGULAR CITIZENS, FEW THAT REPRESENT LOCAL EMPLOYERS, WHO STRUGGLE WITH THE ISSUES WITH EMPLOYEES AND FINDING HOUSING IN OUR COMMUNITY. THIS CAME FROM THE CHAMBERS WORKFORCE HOUSING REPORT. I THINK Y'ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT. THEY DID IT TWO YEARS AGO AND RECENTLY UPDATED IT. I THINK THIS JUST REALLY SPEAKS TO OUR CHALLENGE. SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DID THE SURVEY, TALKING TO OUR LARGEST EMPLOYERS, AND FIGURED WE HAD A DEFICIT OF 13,000. THAT'S NOT EVERYBODY.

THAT'S NOT TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE NOW RETIRED THAT HAVE BRN BORN AND RAISED HERE AND LIVING ON SOCIAL SECURITY AND NOTHING ELSE AND CAN'T FIND A ONE- BEDROOM APARTMENT. IT IS TALKING ABOUT CRITICAL EMPLOYEES OF LARGER BUSINESSES THAT ARE HERE.

IN IS NOT ONE SINGLE SOLUTION. NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, NO MATTER WHO YOU TALK TO, THE BIGGEST PRODUCTS ARE RENTAL HOUSING OR RENTAL OPPORTUNITIES AND WITHIN EACH OF OF THOSE THERE IS A MULTITUDE OF DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS BASED ON WHATEVER THAT FAMILY MEMBER OR HOUSEHOLD IS EARNING AND WHAT THEY CAN TRULY AFFORD TO LIVE WITH.

[03:35:03]

WE PUT THIS IN HERE JUST BECAUSE I THINK ONE OF THE BEST THINGS Y'ALL HAVE DONE OVER THE LAST YEAR WITH THE COMP PLAN, SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS IS STARTING TO DEFINE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BY GROSS HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY FAMILY SIZE. IT IS NOT PHILOSOPHIC DISCUSSIONS OF ATTAINABLE OR ESSENTIAL OR PROFESSIONAL OR ANYTHING ELSE.

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW, AND THIS IS TO BE HONEST THIS IS WHAT DEVELOPERS DO ON THE BACK OF THE ENVELOPE. THEY MAY OR MAY NOT TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT, BUT THEY'RE BUILDING SOMETHING AND THEY'RE THINKING, WHO ON THIS LIST CAN AFFORD.

THIS IS ONLY GOING TO 80% OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME.

BUT YOU CAN SEE IN SOME CASES, YOU KNOW, IT IS EXTREMELY CHALLENGING FOR ANYBODY IN THESE INCOME CATEGORIES TO BUY A HOUSE HERE IN OUR COMMUNITY.

SO THIS IS SOME INFORMATION THAT WE PULLED TOGETHER.

THE DEVELOPERS ON THE TOP PART, AND YOU HAVE AN ASTERISK THERE, THAT'S PART OF WHAT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TRACKS BASED ON SOME OF YOUR WORK FORCE HOUSING ZONING DISTRICT OVERLAYS. BUT THERE ARE -- THERE IS MORE ACTIVITY GOING ON, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS ALL OF IT, BUT I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS YOU GUYS NEED TO BE ABLE TO DO IS UNDERSTAND DID WE DO SOMETHING AND WHAT IS THE END PRODUCT? DID IT REALLY HAPPEN, DID IT COME TO FRUITION, DID SOMEBODY MOVE? THAT'S A SUCCESS RATE.

SO THESE ARE SOME OF THE FOLKS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN CREATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT DIFFERENT LEVELS. I PUT OUR NONPROFIT PARTNERS DOWN BELOW SIMPLY BECAUSE ALL OF US ARE WORKING WITH THAT PART OF THE POPULATION THAT EARNS LESS THAN 80% OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME. AND IN SOME CASES, SOME OF THEM, THEY'RE REACHING DOWN TO PEOPLE AT 50 AND 30% AMI, WHICH IS AN INCREDIBLE CHALLENGE TO GET TO.

BUT THEY'RE ABLE TO DO IT BECAUSE THE TAX CREDIT PROGRAM BRINGS OUT A BUCKET OF MONEY AND AT THAT POINT IT IS DEVELOPER MATH. HOW DO YOU FIGURE THE RENTAL INCOME AND THE COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION THAT GOES ON? SO WE ARE REALLY GRATEFUL THAT YOU BROUGHT OUT AND SUPPORTED AN IMPACT FEE RELIEF PROGRAM THIS YEAR. PART OF OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING REPORT LISTS DIFFERENT INCENTIVES.

WE ALWAYS HAD TWO OR THREE AT THE TOP OF THE LIST.

ONE IS DENSITY. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THOSE DEVELOPERS, THAT'S WHAT THEY GOT.

THEY CAME TO YOU FOR DENSITY BONUSES TO GET A FEW MORE UNITS ON THERE AND AGREED THOSE WOULD BE FOR PEOPLE OF LOWER INCOMES THAN THE REST OF THE MARKET WERE. IMPACT FEE STRATEGIES. WE ASKED, IF WE CAN LOWER IMPACT THESE. WHEN I STARTED BUILDING HERE, IMPACT FEES WERE $2,000 A HOUSE AND I REMEMBER TALKING TO THE COMMISSIONERS AND SAYING IF THEY GET MUCH BEYOND THAT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE DOING ANYTHING.

THEY'RE OBVIOUSY WAY BEYOND THAT.

SOME OF THAT STILL WORKS, IT MAKES IT HARDER FOR SOME OF THE LOCAL FAMILIES TO PURCHASE. THERE ARE OTHER TYPES OF IMPACT FEE IMPACTS THAT Y'ALL COULD CONSIDER.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE ASKED FOR IN THE PAST IS YOUR IMPACT FEES THAT DEVELOPERS PAY INTO GOING INTO A BANK ACCOUNT SOMEWHERE. AND GENERALLY SPEAKING, I ASSUME SOMEONE IS EARNING INTEREST ON THAT. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU TAKE THE INTEREST FROM THOSE IMPACT FEE ACCOUNTS AND APPLY IT TO SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY. WHETHER IT IS THE COUNTY'S HOME REPAIR SERVICES, ANYTHING ELSE. THAT'S MONEY THAT IS GENERATED BY IMPACT FEES. I KNOW YOU HAVE TO KEEP YOUR IMPACT FEES IN WHATEVER DISTRICT THEY'RE COLLECTED IN.

I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANYTHING THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO DO THAT WITH THE INTEREST.

IT COULD BE SOMETHING -- IT IS NOT HUGE, BUT COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR SOME PEOPLE IF WE ROLL IT BACK INTO A HOUSING STRATEGY. THESE ARE JUST SOME O■F THE PICTURES OF WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON, HOME AGAIN ST. JOHNS HAS EIGHT UNITS WHERE LEWIS SPEEDWAY COMES INTO IT. ALPHA OMEGA, THEIR NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY'RE DOING. BOTH OF THESE PROJECTS WENT TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO GET HELP WITH FUNDING. THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT PART WHENEVER WE TALK ABOUT HELPING 80% AMI.

YOU CAN'T CARRY THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND PASS IT ON TO THE END USER. THEY REALLY HAD TO GO RAISE MONEY. I REMEMBER I THINK ALPHA OMEGA, THEIR ALLOCATION OF THE STATE WAS MAYBE $2. 5 MILLION. IT ALL WENT INTO HORIZONTAL.

NOT THE FIRST BIT OF IT WAS LEFT WHEN IT CAME TO ACTUALLY BUILDING THE STRUCTURES.

ABILITY HOUSING THIS IS IN THE VILLAGES OF NEW AUGUSTINE ON 4 MILE ROAD. THIS WAS A TAX CREDIT DEAL.

AGAIN, THEY ARE REQUIRED FOR I THINK 30 TO 40 YEARS TO RENT TO FAMILIES, SOME AT 60% -- EVERYBODY IS UNDER 60% AMI, SOME UNDER 50% AND TEN FOR FAMILIES UNDER 30% AMI, WHICH IS AN INCREDIBLE GIFT TO HAVE IN THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT KEEPS SOME PEOPLE FROM BEING HOMELESS.

HABITAT HAS GOT SEVERAL DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS.

THEY PROBABLY ARE YOUR BIGGEST NONPROFIT DEVELOPER THAT HAS

[03:40:01]

GOT A FIVE- YEAR PLAN. THEY GOT TWO OTHER DEVELOPMENTS BEYOND VOLUSIA WOOD IN THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT STAGES. AND THEY JUST ACQUIRED ANOTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY OVER BY THE CALHOUN CENTER THAT PROBABLY HAS A FIVE- YEAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE HOUSING PARTNERSHIP, WE DO A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFERENT THINGS. SOME BUILT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OCCASIONALLY AND THE APARTMENTS THAT YOU SEE THERE IS ACTUALLY TWO DUPLEXES THAT WE BUILT ON A SINGLE FAMILY LOT, INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. WE GOT AWAY WITH NOT PAYING IMPACT FEES. Y'ALL IN THE CITY DON'T AGREE ON IMPACT FEES. AND WE GOT A DENSITY BONUS FROM THE CITY AS A SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND WE GOT FOUR UNITS ON IT PLUS PARKING.

A LITTLE BIT OF A RETENTION POND.

SO, THIS IS WHAT WE WANTED YOU TO SEE, THESE ARE SOME OF THE NONPROFIT PARTNERS, AND NOT ONLY ARE THEY GETTING MONEY FROM THE LEGISLATURE OR TAX CREDITS, SEVERAL OF US GOT FUNDING THROUGH THE ARPA PROGRAM, WHEN THAT WAS HERE, OR YOUR CITY PROGRAM WAS HELPED TO PAY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, THAT GOES THROUGH YOUR COUNTY.

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES HOUSING DEPARTMENT.

THE SHIP DOWN PAYMENT PROGRAM IS A CRITICAL PART OF HELPING GET FAMILIES INTO THEIR OWN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

MAJOR COMMUNITIES FOR ALL OF US ARE OUT BEGGING FOR DOLLARS EVERY WHICH WAY, WE HAVE TO. AND I THINK ABILITY HOUSING DID GET IMPACT FEE RELIEF. Y'ALL GAVE THEM A -- NOT A WAIVER, BUT A POSTPONEMENT ON IMPACT FEES FOR 15 YEARS, THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY IT. I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD BE PAYING 4% INTEREST ON IT, BUT THAT'S WHAT SOMEBODY SET THEM UP TO DO.

SO, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE THINK THESE INCENTIVES ARE SOMETHING THAT ARE REALLY IMPORTANT.

THEY MAY NOT RESONATE WITH EVERY DEVELOPER AND THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, WE CHALLENGE YOU TO ASK STAFF WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T.

LET'S TRY SOMETHING AND IF IT DOESN'T WORK, IF IT DOESN'T HIT THE MARK, IT MAY BE BECAUSE THE DEVELOPERS DON'T SEE IT AS INCENTIVE ENOUGH. IT MAY BE BECAUSE IT JUST DOESN'T FIT THE MOLD HERE IN ST.

JOHNS COUNTY. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CHAMBER'S REPORT, YOU REALIZE PART OF WHAT THE CHAMBER IS SAYING IS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT THIS NOT FROM A CHARITABLE EFFORT, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THEY'RE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME ATTRACTING BUSINESSES TO STAY AND SURVIVE IN OUR COMMUNITY IF THEIR EMPLOYEES CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE HERE.

AS MANY PEOPLE COME BEFORE Y'ALL AND COMPLAIN ABOUT TRAFFIC, AND SHOOT DOWN ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THAT POPS UP, OUR TRAFFIC IS PREDOMINANTLY CAUSED BY OUR LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. ALL THOSE TEACHERS BOUGHT HOMES IN PALM COAST BACK IN THE EARLY 2000S BECAUSE THEY GOT MORE HOUSE DOWN THERE AND THEY CLOG UP THE ROAD EVERY DAY WHEN I DRIVE INTO WORK.

IF SCHOOL IS OUT, I GET TO WORK FASTER BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT DOING THE COMMUTE. PUTNAM COUNTY, PEOPLE LIVING IN DUVALL, THEY'RE ALL DRIVING IN AND AT A CERTAIN POINTPOINT AS EMPLOYER, IF SOMEBODY IS DRIVING 45 MINUTES, SOONER OR LATER, THEY'RE GOING TO GET ENOUGH EXPERIENCE WITH US THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK TO FIND A JOB CLOSER TO HOME AND WE'RE STUCK WITH THE RETRAINING PROCESS. YOU SEE THAT WITH COUNTY EMPLOYEES ALL THE TIME. THE SHERIFF HAD THOSE KINDS OF PROBLEMS FOR YEARS. WE REALLY NEED -- WE THINK THAT THIS IS A CRITICAL ISSUE FOR OUR LONG- TERM ECONOMY. THE BEST EXAMPLE I CAN SAY, YOU'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH YOUR CRA DISTRICTS. THINK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS A CRA PROBLEM.

IT IS ALL HANDS ON DECK. YOU WANT SUGGESTIONS FROM EVERY DEPARTMENT ABOUT HOW WE CAN ADDRESS IT.

I KNOW THEY ALL GOT DIFFERENT CONCERNS, EVEN FOR THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES. BUT SOME OF THEM PROBABLY HAVE OTHER IDEAS ABOUT HOW WE CAN CREATE MORE HOUSING.

IT IS GOING TO BE HARD TO GET DEVELOPERS TO DO ANYTHING BELOW 80% AMI FOR ONE VERY SIMPLE REASON.IF IT IS BELOW 80% AMI, SOMEBODY IS COMING UP WITH CASH TO HELP WRITE IT DOWN.

AND NO DEVELOPER IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WANTS THE PAPERWORK THAT COMES WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOLLARS. THEY'RE ALL TRYING TO STICK ON THAT UPPER TIER, AND IT IS SERVING A SIGNIFICANT PURPOSE BECAUSE SADLY WE GOT PEOPLE BETWEEN 80 AND $150,000 THAT CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY SOMETHING HERE. BUT THE DEVELOPERS MAY BE ABLE TO MEET THAT AND THAT OPENS UP OTHER÷÷ OPPORTUNITIES FOR FOLKS BELOW THEM.

THAT'S WHY IT IS A MULTITIERED APPROACH.

BUT WE REALLY HOPE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS WILL LOOK AT THIS AND ASK STAFF TO GIVE YOU IDEAS. WHAT WE HEAR CONTINUALLY IS THE STAFF IS WAITING FOR DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSIONERS AND THE COMMISSIONERS ARE WAITING FOR IDEAS FROM STAFF. THE WORKFORCE HOUSING ZONING DISTRICT OVERLAY WORKS TO A CERTAIN DEGREE. IT OUGHT TO HAVE A LONGER DEED RESTRICTION. THEY OUGHT TO VERIFY INCOME SO YOU KNOW WHO IT IS BEING HELPED. THE PRICE OF THE HOUSE DOESN'T MATTER. IT IS THE MONTHLY PAYMENT THAT IS THE MOST CRITICAL. THIS IS WHAT WE PUT TOGETHER.

YOU GOT THE REPORT THERE. WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE ANY FEEDBACK FROM ALL OF YOU. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR IS A REGULAR PARTICIPANT AT OUR HOUSING COMMITTEE AND BETWEEN US AND THE HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY,

[03:45:02]

WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO FIGURE BUT WE NEED SOME DIRECTION AND AT A CERTAIN POINT WE NEED THE COMMISSIONERS TO SAY WE WANT TO TRY THIS. THE OTHER THING IS TO BE REALLY FAIR, IF SOMEONE GETS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVE BONUS, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, THAT'S WORTH SOMETHING IN REALTIME. YOU CAN'T LET THEM WHEEZELE OUT FIVE YEARS LATER BECAUSE SOMETHING HAS CHANGED. I LEARNED THERE IS $300,000 FROM AN IMPACT ACCOUNT FROM SILVER LEAF BASED ON DEI REQUIREMENTS. BUT THAT WAS BUILT, PAID AND THAT MONEY IS NOW SITTING THERE FOR Y'ALL TO HAVE ACCESS TO. PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THE RESOURCES YOU HAVE, ASK STAFF WHERE IS ALL THE MONEY THAT COULD BE USED. Y'ALL HAVE SOME LAND THAT IS SET ASIDE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

THEY'RE NOT GREAT LOTS, BUT SOME ARE BUILDABLE, SOME ARE NOT. THE SOONER WE DO T THE BETTER.

SITTING ON IT AND NOT DOING ANYTHING WITH IT JUST BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T COME UP WITH A PLAN ISN'T A REASON FOR TRYING TO -- WE GOT TO FIGURE OUT SOME WAY TO HOUSE OUR LOCAL PEOPLE.

I'M NOT ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO MOVE HERE.

BUT I'M SERIOUSLY SAYING WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN.

THAT'S WHAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS ALL ABOUT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE GOT A NUMBER OF OUR MEMBERS HERE THAT I THINK ARE GOING TO COME UP.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU CAN ASK IT TO ME OR OF ALL OF THEM.

>> THANK YOU, BILL. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.

PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> GREAT. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6. GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.

I'M HERE REPRESENTING MYSELF IN CARE COMMUNITY ADVOCATES FOR RACIAL EQUITY.

CARE WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THIS REPORT AND FOR ALL OF THEIR EFFORTS OVER THE PAST YEAR.

CARE FREQUENTLY ATTENDS AHAC MEETINGS AND CONSULTS MEMBERS OF AHAC OF ISSUES OF COMMON CONCERN. AS YOU KNOW AND AS JOE POINTED OUT, AHAC IS A VOLUNTARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

ITS MEMBERS WHO REPRESENT A BROAD RANGE OF PERSPECTIVES IN OUR COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER THEIR TIME AND TALENTS TO TACKLE THE LONG- STANDING ISSUE OF HOW TO INCREASE OUR HOUSING STOCK, AFFORDABLE TO VITAL MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY, INCLUDING TEACHERS, FIRST RESPONDERS, SERVICE WORKERS AND HEALTHCARE AND HOSPITALITY INDUSTRIES AND PEOPLE ON FIXED INCOMES INCLUDING SENIORS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES.

CARE SHARES THIS INTEREST AS YOU WELL KNOW.

ALL OF US IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY SHARE THIS INTEREST OF ENSURING ALL OUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS CAN ATTAIN A CLEAN, SAFE PLACE TO LIVE.

WE URGE YOU TO ACCEPT AND EMBRACE THE AHAC ANNUAL REPORT, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE ASK YOU TO LISTEN TO THE ADVICE AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COLLECTIVE EXPERTISE REPRESENTED BY YOUR AHAC.

AND TO FACTOR THEM INTO THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE, PARTICULARLY HOUSING RELATED DECISIONS.

NOT JUST AS YOU TAKE THEM FROM THIS REPORT, BUT WHENEVER AND HOWEVER.

GOOD IDEAS AND ADVICE COME TO YOU. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS.

GOOD AFTERNOON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS ALEX MANSUR. I CURRENTLY SERVE ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND AREAS OF LABOR. I ALSO WAS THE CHAIRMAN FOR LAST TWO YEARS AND GAVE THE SPEECH THAT BILL JUST DID.

EVERYTHING THAT BILL LAZAR SAID, I SAY DITTO, REAL SHORT. ADDRESSING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS NOT EASY. THERE IS NO SINGLE POLICY THAT WILL SOLVE IT. THE CHALLENGE IS COMPLEX AND IT IS NOT UNIQUE TO OUR COUNTY.

IT IS HAPPENING AACROSS THE STATE, NATION AND WORLDWIDE. WE -- WHAT WE CONSISTENTLY FIND IN OUR MEETINGS IS THAT PROGRESS REQUIRES A MULTIPRONG APPROACH WHEN TACKLING THIS.

WHICH MEANS BUILDING MORE AFFORDABLE HOMES, INCREASING RENTAL HOUSING, AND ADJUSTING POLICIES, AND MORE AS IT ALL MATTERS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE OTHER DAY, WHILE I WAS OUT SHOPPING, I OVERHEARD A YOUNG GUEST TELLING ONE OF HUR CO- HER CO- WORKERS IN REAL DISTRESS SHE DIDN'T THINK SHE WOULD EVER BE ABLE TO MOVE OUT OF HER PARENT'S HOUSE BECAUSE RENTAL PRICES WAS SO

[03:50:02]

HIGH. AND THAT'S THE TRUTH.

THAT STORY IS NOT UNIQUE.

IT IS HAPPENING ACROSS OUR COUNTY.

ONE OF MIGHT HAVE COLLEGE PROFESSORS ONCE GAVE ADVICE THAT STUCK WITH ME.

JUST DO SOMETHING. EVEN WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS, ACTIONS MATTER. BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT MIGHT WORK. SO I ASK OF YOU TO CONTINUE DOING MORE AND ANYTHING TO HELP OUR CITIZENS WHO ARE STRUGGLING TO FIND SAFE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND WITH THAT SAID, I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT AND I WANT TO WISH EVERYBODY A GREAT AND SAFE HOLIDAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. NEXT, GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JUDY SPIEGEL, I AM A CITIZEN OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY, I SERVE ON PLANNING AND ZONING, BUT ALSO A MEMBER OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND WHAT A GREAT GROUP OF PEOPLE.

THEY ARE SO SMART. THERE IS SO MUCH TO THIS.

YOU THINK YOU KNOW AND YOU JUST DON'T KNOW.

THERE IS SO MANY THINGS THAT YOU NEED TO LEARN.

WE OFTEN HAVE PEOPLE COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND THEY SAY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS AND WHAT IS WORKFORCE AND WHAT IS AFFORDABLE.

THERE IS A NEW SUBSTACK HOUSING POLICY, IT IS CALLED HOUSING ACTION LAB. AND IT IS ONLY BEEN UP FOR ABOUT SIX MONTHS NOW. THERE IS A SUBSCRIBE AND A FREE SIDE OF IT DEPENDING HOW IN DEPTH YOU WANT TO GET.

THERE ARE MYRIAD ARTICLES, YOU CAN GO AS DEEP OR SHALLOW AS YOU WANT TO. IT TALKS ABOUT LEGISLATIVE UPDATES, LAND USE, LIVE LOCAL, ANYTHING THAT YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS AVAILABLE HERE AND IT IS REALLY ACCESSIBLE AND REALLY EASY. SO I WANT TO RECOMMEND THAT AS AN EDUCATION TOOL. WHEN I FIRST CAME TO THE COUNTY, OF COURSE, I HAD A PASSION FOR THIS, BUT WAS VERY MISGUIDED. I REALLY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND AT ALL WHAT IT MEANT. I THOUGHT THIS IS EASY, WE'LL JUST DO THIS. I START BRINGING UP THINGS AT AHAC AND THEY'RE, LIKE, YEAH, WE HAVE BEEN WORK ON THAT FOR 20 YEARS. ALWAYS THE SAME ISSUES.

BUT IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE. AND WE DO INCREMENTAL CHANGES. AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE DISCUSS IN THE GROUP OR THAT WE HEARD ARE ABOUT LAND TRUST. AND MR. LAZAR DID AN EXCELLENT JOB, SPOKE ABOUT THERE IS SOME LAND THAT THE COUNTY OWNS, MAYBE NOT GREAT, MAYBE NOT SUPER CLOSE TO INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT SOME OF IT IS AND SOME OF THAT MONEY COULD BE USED IN A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP.

I THINK THAT'S AN %-Ú PROBLEM.

EDUCATING OURSELVES, EDUCATING THE PUBLIC, COMMUNITY EDUCATION, I THINK, IS HUGE. REDUCING THE STIGMA PERSPECTIVE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

EVERYBODY, SECTION 8, CABRINI GREENS, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO LOOK THAT WAY, DOESN'T HAVE TO FUNCTION THAT WAY. PEOPLE NEED A PLACE TO LIVE.

AND I THINK HAVING AN EYE THAT IS OPEN TO SEE AND TO RECEIVE THAT I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

WE NEED TO PUT A FACE TO THE NEED.

I THINK WAYNE IS REALLY GOOD AT DOING SOME OF THAT.

MAKING SOME VIDEOS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY IN THE SITUATION.

CONVERSATION WITH BANKS AND LENDERS, GETTING PEOPLE TO DO LENDING. YES IN GOD'S BACKYARD IS A NEW POLICY WHERE A CHURCH CAN DONATE A PROPERTY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING CAN BE BUILT ON THAT AND THERE IS A LOT LESS RESTRICTIONS. POLICIES THAT WE HAVE FOCUSED ON FOR YOU TO TAKE CARE OF, MOST OF THE THINGS I SPOKE ABOUT TODAY ARE THINGS LIKE CITIZENS THAT WE CAN DO. I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO GET CITIZENS INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE THAT AFFECTS US ALL. THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS GREG BURK, 534 MONTE SERUAT DRIVE. I WAS RECENTLY ASKED TO JOIN THE FLORIDA HOUSING COALITION FOR SEVERAL REASONS.

ONE IS THAT THEY WOULD -- THEY ARE LOOKING AT LEGISLATION FOR 2027 TO TAKE THREE TO EIGHT UNITS, MISSING MIDDLE TYPE STUFF, INTO LEGISLATION IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

I THINK WE GOT SOME REAL UPHILL BATTLES, BUT I'M GOING TO BE WORKING WITH THEM ON TRYING TO COME UP WITH IDEAS AND WAYS OF MAKING IT WORK.

UNTIL WE REALLY GET ZONING AND FINANCING ALSO IN THE RIGHT PLACE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A TOUGH TIME DOING THAT.

BUT AT LEAST IF WE CAN GET ONE HORSE IN FRONT OF THE CART, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET A WHOLE TRAIL OF HORSES. THE OTHER GOOD THING THAT THE FLORIDA HOUSING COALITION DID IN MY OPINION, THEY HAVE JUST RECENTLY PARTNERED WITH A FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE

[03:55:01]

OF ARCHITECTS TO DO A CASE STUDY ON MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING. THERE ARE THREE UNIVERSITIES THAT ARE GOING TO BE TAKING ON MISSING MIDDLE TYPE HOUSING. EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE AT 80% AMI OR LESS. SO, WE'RE LOOKING IN THE RIGHT PLACES. WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT -- MISSING MIDDLE CAN BE ANY LEVEL, 30, 120 AND ABOVE. BUT THEY HAVE SET THE LIMIT AT 80% AMI FOR THESE DESIGNS. SO, THE TRIPLEX, I DESIGNED THAT BUILDING IN THREE DIFFERENT LEVELS.

ATTAINABLE, MARKET RATE AND LUXURY.

WE CAN DO THAT ALL AT THE MISSING MIDDLE AND THE FACT WE HAVE THAT NOW INCORPORATED INTO OUR COMP PLAN, I THINK THIS IS ONE STEP THAT WILL HELP US START TO SEE WHAT CAN BE DONE WITH THIS.

SO I THINK THE FLORIDA HOUSING COALITION IS MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

AND HELPING TO DEFINE WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO HOUSE THESE PEOPLE. AS BILL, ALEX, JUDY ALL SAID, WE GOT PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT NEED A PLACE TOO LIVE, WITH A REASONABLE COST. 43,000 TRIPS IN AND OUT OF THIS COUNTY EVERY DAY FROM PEOPLE WHO WORK HERE BUT CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE HERE.

WE WANT TO KNOW WHY OUR ROADS ARE OUT OF SERVICE.

THERE IS ONE OF THE BIG REASONS. HOPEFULLY ALL THE STUFF WILL WORK IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND WE CAN BRING MORE INFORMATION TO YOU TO MOVE FORWARD AND START TO LOOK AT MORE CREATIVE IDEAS OF HOW TO SOLVE THESE ISSUES.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER

JOSEPH. >> I JUST HAVE A -- DID YOU NOTICE THE LEGISLATION TOO WHERE YOU CAN PUT -- IT IS COMING THROUGH, WHERE YOU CAN PUT A HOUSE IN YOUR BACKYARD

IN. >> THE ADU,

YES. >> DOES THAT KIND OF WORK INTO WHAT YOUR PLAN IS?

>> WELL, WE'RE NOT BEING ASKED IN THIS CASE STUDY TO DO ADUS, BUT YES.

THE ADU CAN BE A GARAGE, A CARRIAGE HOUSE TYPE APARTMENT THAT IS ABOVE A GARAGE. ADUS COME IN ALL DIFFERENT SIZES AND SHAPES. I SAW A FOUR STORY ADU IN CALIFORNIA WITH THREE UNITS. IN MY MIND, THAT'S NOT AN ADU.

I THINK YOU CAN ABUSE THE SYSTEM HOWEVER YOU WANT.

AND YOU GOT TO BE VERY, YOU KNOW, RESTRICTIVE, BUT PERMISSIVE IN DOING THESE THINGS.

YOU GOT TO THINK ABOUT HOW YOU WANT THAT TO WORK.

ADUS THE WAY WE'RE SEEING IT HERE IN FLORIDA, IT IS A VERY SMALL HOUSE.

IT IS ATTACHED TO AN EXISTING PROPERTY. IF THAT'S THE WAY WE WANTED TO WORK, I THINK THAT'S ALL PERFECTLY WELL AND GOOD.

JUST TO UPDATE YOU A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW I WENT TO THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL TO TRY TO GET TRIPLEX AND FOREPLEXES IN. EVEN WITH THE CHAIR OF THEIR COUSIN STANDARDS COMMITTEE ASKING FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL, THEY SHOT IT DOWN.

THEY THINK THEY NEED MORE STUDY. WE HAVE DONE A TON OF STUDIES ON THESE THINGS. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MORE YOU NEED TO HAVE.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> BACK TO THE BOARD.

>> WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR YOUR APPROVAL THAT PART OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE IS THAT WE BRING THIS REPORT TO Y'ALL. WE ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL SO WE CAN SEND IT ON TO THE STATE EVERY YEAR.

YOUR APPROVAL IS JUST BASICALLY ACCEPTING THE REPORT. IT IS NOT AGREEING TO DO EVERYTHING IN THERE, BUT WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT SO WE CAN SEND IT

FURTHER. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> A MOTION. I DO HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT TO MAKE AND I AGREE WITH YOU, MR. LAZAR, WE NEED TO INCREASE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND WE DID TRY TO DO THAT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THAT WAS REJECTED.

SO THAT IS IMPORTANT AND I AGREE, WE WILL NEVER INCREASE OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK IF WE HAVE SHORT -- VERY SHORT DEEDS.

WE NEED TO INCREASE THAT SO WE CAN BUILD UP THAT HOUSING STOCK. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2025- 499 TO ACCEPT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2024 INCENTIVES REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS ANNUAL REPORT.

>> SECOND.

>> OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND

SECOND. >> CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? YOU KNOW, I WATCHED YOU FOR THREE YEARS NOW AND YOU DO A WONDERFUL JOB AND YOU REALLY WORK HARD ON THIS TOPIC.

SO CONGRATULATIONS ON DOING IT. THANK YOU.

>> WE ALL ENJOY IT. WE RUN INTO PEOPLE -- THE BEST THING ABOUT THIS, I'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR 28 YEARS, I RUN INTO PEOPLE AND STORES, THE SHIP PROGRAM HELPED ME BUY MY HOUSE. THEY'RE STILL HERE.

THEY'RE THRIVING BECAUSE THEY HAD STABLE HOUSING.

>> CAN YOU BRING UP THE VOTE,

PLEASE? >>

SORRY. >> THAT'S FINE.

PLEASE VOTE. AND THAT PASSES 5-0.

[7. Public Hearing * Second Reading - LDCA 2025-09 Certified Recovery Residences. This amendment amends Land Development Code Article II (Zoning Districts and Special Uses) and Article IX (Administration) to comply with changes to State Statute that went into effect on July 1, 2025, with the enactment of Senate Bill 954. The bill requires the adoption of an ordinance to establish procedures for the review and approval of certified recovery residences and to provide a process for requesting reasonable accommodations from any local land use regulation that serves to prohibit or unreasonably restrict the establishment of a certified recovery residence consistent with Section 397.487(15), Florida Statutes. The first hearing for this item took place at the Board of County Commissioners meeting on November 18, 2025. There was no Board discussion. This is the second hearing for this item.]

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7.

[04:00:12]

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS, AMY RING WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT, PRESENTING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DEVELOPMENT FOR CERTIFIED RECOVERY RESIDENCES. THIS IS BEING BROUGHT FORWARD SO WE CAN AMEND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY WITH CHANGES TO FLORIDA STATUTES THAT WENT ÚR THROUGH THE ENACTMENT OF SENATE BILL 954. THAT REQUIRES THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH THE PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF CERTIFIED RECOVERY RESIDENCES.

IT MUST INCLUDE A PROCESS FOR REQUESTING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS.

SO THE CODE RED LINE 2 WITHIN YOUR STAFF PACKETS. THE AMENDMENT WOULD REVISE SECTION 2. 0, 2.01 TO ADD A RESIDENTIAL USE AND CREATE 9. 0200 REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED PROCEDURES FOR THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE RESIDENCES AND TO PROVIDE A PROCESS FOR REQUESTING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR ANY LAND USE REGULATION THAT SERVES TO PROHIBIT OR UNREASONABLY RESTRICT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH A RESIDENCE. THIS ITEM WAS FIRST BROUGHT TO YOU FOR FIRST READING ON NOVEMBER 18TH OF THIS YEAR.

THERE WAS NO BOARD DISCUSSION AT THAT TIME.

IT WAS RENT PRESENTED ON DECEMBER 4TH OF THIS YEAR.

AND RECEIVED A VOTE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 5-1.

SO TODAY WE'RE HERE FOR THE SECOND READING.

AND THE MOTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD ARE ON THE SCREEN AND WITHIN THE STAFF

PACKET. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> AT THIS TIME, WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7. SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION.

>> I CAN MAKE THAT MOTION.

>> MOTION TO ENACT ORDINANCE 2025- 48, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR CERTIFIED RECOVERY RESIDENCES TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY WITH FLORIDA STATUTE.

>> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, PLEASE VOTE.

[8. Public Hearing * LDCA 2025-08 Land Development Code Revisions - Second Reading. On November 4, 2025, the Board of County Commissioners requested amendments to Land Development Code regulations for outdoor archery and development order application procedures. The first hearing of this item took place at the Board of County Commissioners meeting on December 2, 2025. This is the second hearing.]

>> THANK YOU. PASSES 5-0.

MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JACOB SMITH, WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT TO PRESENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8, ANOTHER LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT, SPECIFICALLY FOR ADDING ARCHERY AS A SPECIAL USE AND OPEN RULES ZONING DISTRICT AND TO UPDATE SOME PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS OF OUR CODE.

JUST TO GIVE A RECAP, WE HEARD THIS A FEW TIMES, DID GO TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY BETWEEN THE LAST TIME YOU HEARD IT AND THEY GAVE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL AND WE'RE HERE FOR THE SECOND HEARING AND POTENTIAL ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE.

AND AS A QUICK RECAP, WE'RE JUST ADDING THE SPECIAL USE FOR ARCHERY, OUTDOOR ARCHERY RANGES AND OPEN RURAL.

WE'RE MAKING SOME SMALL ADJUSTMENTS TO SHOOTING RANGES AND CLARIFICATION LANGUAGE THAT AFFECTS ARTICLE TWO, THREE AND SIX OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND THE SECOND PART OF THIS IS TO UPDATE ADMINISRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATIONS TO SIMPLIFY THAT PROCESS.

AND TO PROVIDE MORE NUANCED OR MORE SPECIFIC STANDARDS TO REQUEST A WAIVER TO BE REHEARD FOR REZONING APPLICATIONS AND THAT AFFECTS ARTICLE NINE AND TEN OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. I DO HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THIS AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD

HAS. >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, ANYONE? COMMISSIONER?

>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. WHAT WAS THE PZA VOTE?

>> IT WAS UNANIMOUS AND

APPROVED. >> THANK YOU,

SIR. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ONE THING, THIS TOOK A LONG TIME TO GET THIS PUSHED THROUGH.

SOMETIMES THE GOVERNMENT'S WHEELS ROLL SLOWLY. I'M GLAD WE'RE FINALLY HERE.

PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> YES, AT THIS TIME WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8. SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> OKAY, BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION AND I'LLI'LL --

>> TO ENACT ORDINANCE 2025- 49 AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD OUTDOOR ARCHERY AS LAND USE AND APPLICATION PROCEDURES

[04:05:01]

AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE.

AND THAT PASSES 5-0. THANK YOU SO MUCH,

[9. Purchasing Policy Updates - 2nd Reading of Ordinance amending ORD2022-22. Based upon operational changes related to the implementation of Workday, the County's new ERP Solution, and the inclusion of the procurement/contracting modules within Workday, changes to the Purchasing Policy are necessary to incorporate terms, definitions, and requirements which were previously not applicable. During the review for updates related to the ERP, some additional changes were made in order to address inconsistencies and/or clarify the parameter of the policy.]

CONGRATULATIONS. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 9, PLEASE.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

JAMIE LOCKLEAR, PURCHASING DIRECTOR.

TODAY'S AGENDA ITEM IS THE SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PURCHASING POLICY ORDINANCE WHICH IS 2022-22. WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2024-21. LARGE PART OF THE CHANGES IN THIS ORDINANCE -- MAYBE. WE ADJUSTED SOME DEFINITIONS TO ACCOMMODATE AND COINCIDE WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ERP SYSTEM. THE DEFINITION ON THE LEFT SIDE ARE DEFINITIONS ADDED RELATED TO THE ELECTRONIC PROCUREMENT PLATFORM AND THE PROCESS OF THE PROCUREMENT. THE DEFINITIONS ON THE RIGHT HBD SIDE ARE DEFINITIONS THAT WERE ALREADY EXISTING IN THE POLICY AND WERE UPDATED TO ACCOMMODATE THESE ADDITIONAL PROCESSES AND EFFICIENCIES.

SECTION 6, SOURCING IN THE POLICY, WAS UPDATED IN VARIOUS PLACES FOR PURCHASING THRESHOLDS THAT MOVED US TO A PROCESS WHERE WE WILL RECEIVE ELECTRONIC PACKAGES AS OPPOSED TO SEALED HARD COPY PACKAGES. EXCEPT WHERE AS REQUIRED.

6. 2 ADDED TO INCORPORATE COOPERATIVE PURCHASING, IN OUR DEFINITION, JUST AN OVERSIGHT IN THAT SECTION.

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS WAS REVISED JUST TO ALLOW FOR SUBSEQUENT PRICING CONSIDERATION AFTER THE INITIAL QUALIFICATION PROCESS. PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP SECTION WAS ADDED TO INCORPORATE A REFERENCE TO OUR PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP AND UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL PROCEDURES WHICH HAVE BEEN ADOPTED IN THE LAST YEAR.

6.5 ED 6.5, ADVERTISEMENTS WHERE PROVIDED BY STATUTE UNLESS REQUIRED TO BE PUT IN THE PAPER.

CANCELLATION OF SOLICITATIONS WITH UPDATED TO INCORPORATE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AS A DECISIONMAKER IN THAT PROCESS AND THEN WE ALSO ADJUSTED 6.

10, THE WITHDRAWAL OF BIDS PROPOSALS, QUOTES AND RESPONSES, WHICH BASICALLY PROVIDE CLARIFICATION ON HOW THAT WITHDRAWAL WILL HAPPEN IN THE NEW PLATFORM.

SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE IN 14. 2 IN OUR CONTRACT EXECUTION SESSION IS THE REMOVAL OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE CLERK OF COURT TO ATTEST OUR CONTRACTS WITH THE ELECTRONIC PLATFORM AND ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES, JUST NOT A FEASIBLE PROCESS ANYMORE. TODAY, BEFORE YOU, IS THE MOTION FOR ADOPTING THIS ORDINANCE OR I'M HERE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU, ANY COMMENTS? TO PUBLIC

COMMENT. >> AT THIS TIME, WE'LL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 9.

SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> THANK YOU, BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION.

>> I'M HAPPY TO MAKE THAT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MOTION TO ENACT ORDINANCE 2025- 50, AMENDING THE PURCHASE POLICY SJCORD 2022-22.

>> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

PLEASE VOTE. THAT PASSES 5-0.

[***Convene the Community Redevelopment Agency***]

THANK YOU. NOW RECESS THE BOARD OF -- RECESS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING AND CONVENE THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.

[10. St. Johns County Community Redevelopment Agency - Transfer of Tax Increment Financing Revenue for the West Augustine Health and Wellness Center within the Fiscal Year 2026 budget. Request to amend the Fiscal Year 2026 West Augustine Community Redevelopment Agency Budget and the associated list of identified redevelopment projects to add the West Augustine Health and Wellness Center as an approved and funded capital redevelopment project; to allocate a not-to- exceed amount of $650,000 from the West Augustine trust fund to reimburse West Augustine Historical Community Development Corporation for eligible capital construction cost overruns; and authorize the execution of the attached funding agreement in substantially the same form as provided here, for the construction of the Health and Wellness Center. The Health and Wellness Center has received funding by way of state appropriations, federal grants, and private investment; however, market cost increases and unanticipated underground construction costs have resulted in the project exceeding the original budget. The West Augustine CRA funding is being requested to complete the project on schedule and fulfill the remaining financial obligations for the Health and Wellness Center.]

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. TERA MEEKS, DIRECTOR OF DESTINATION AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTS.

AND WE ARE HERE CONVENING THE CRA BOARD TO TAKE UP A REQUEST FOR FUNDING FOR THE WEST AUGUSTINE HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER.

THE WEST AUGUSTINE HISTORICAL IS ASKING FOR A REALLOCATION OF WEST AUGUSTINE CRA FUNDING TO OFFSET THE COST OVERRUNS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE WEST AUGUSTINE HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER. THE COST OVERRUNS FOR THE WEST AUGUSTINE HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER ARE THE RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE SIZE AND WEIGHT OF THE BUILDING.

CONSTRUCTION OF THE WEST AUGUSTINE HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FUNDS AND ALIGNS WITH THE ASSOCIATED 2004 CITIZENS REDEVELOPMENT VISION PLAN FOR WEST AUGUSTINE.

AN ARPA GRANT AND STATE GRANT PROVIDED APPROXIMATELY $7 MILLION OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FUNDING FOR THE WEST AUGUSTINE HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER. CONSTRUCTION OF THE WEST AUGUSTINE HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE AT THIS TIME AND THERE IS A CELEBRATORY RIBBON

[04:10:02]

CUTTING SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 23RD.

AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE WEST AUGUSTINE HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO EXPENDING CRA FUNDS, AND IN THE FY 26 WEST AUGUSTINE CRA BUDGET, THERE IS 1. 3 MILLION ALLOCATED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE WEST AUGUSTINE AREA.

THE REQUEST FOR YOU TODAY WOULD BE TO REALLOCATE HALF OF THAT FUNDING, SO $650,000 FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT AND APPLY IT TOWARDS THE WEST AUGUSTINE HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER. IF THIS REQUEST IS APPROVED, THERE WILL STILL BE $650,000 REMAIMING FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN FISCAL YEAR 26. AND WE DO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS ADEQUATE FUNDING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INITIAL RFP FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. STAFF IS CURRENTLY WORKING WITH THE WEST AUGUSTINE COMMUNITY TO CREATE A DESIRABLE SCOPE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT AND WE ANTICIPATE SOLICITING THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT FOR WEST AUGUSTINE AND SPRING OF 2026. THE WEST AUGUSTINE CRA IS WELL ÷÷POSITIONED TO CONTINUE TO GENERATE SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO SUPPORT FUTURE PHASES OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND UPCOMING YEARS AS WELL.

SO BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A MISSION FOR CONSIDERATION, AND THAT MOTION AMENDS THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 WEST AUGUSTINE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET.

AND THE ASSOCIATED LIST OF IDENTIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. IT ALLOCATES A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $650,000 FROM THE WEST AUGUSTINE REDEVELOPMENT FUND.

AND STIPULATES THAT THE FUNDS ARE SOLELY TO BE USED FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF ELIGIBLE CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE WEST AUGUSTINE HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER. I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU, ANYTHING FOR THE BOARD? SEEING NONE, TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> AT THIS TIME, WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. ED SLAVEN, 3084.

COULD WE HAVE AN ENGINEERING REPORT ON ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS FOR THE COST OVERRUNS? THERE IS TOO MANY COST OVERRUNS IN GOVERNMENT PURCHASING, FROM THE PENTAGON TO THE COURTHOUSE TO THIS OFFICE BUILDING. WE HAD 41% COST OVERRUNS, IN ST.

JOHNS COUNTY ON A $4. 5 MILLION MOSQUITO MUSEUM.

I'M RUNNING FOR MOSQUITO CONTROL.

WE NEED GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY.

IS THERE SOMEONE WHO CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS, PLEASE, MA'AM, PLEASE, SIR, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, ABOUT THE ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS FOR THE COST OVERRUNS? WE HAD A ONE LINER, PLEASE DON'T PATRONIZE US. SO, PLEASE EXPLAIN.

IS THERE AN ENGINEER IN THE HOUSE? CAN MISS MEEKS EXPLAIN $650,000 IN COST OVERRUNS AND MORE THAN TEN WORDS? IS THERE A PARAGRAPH? IS THERE A MATURE DISCUSSION IN OUR FUTURE ABOUT WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE IN ST.

JOHNS COUNTY? I SUPPORT THIS PROJECT, SUPPORTED IT WHEN IT WAS PROPOSED. BUT WHEN WE GET COST OVERRUNS OF THIS DIMENSION, IT REMINDS ME OF WHAT PATRICIA SCHRODER, CONGRESSWOMAN FROM COLORADO ONCE SANG AT AN ENTERTAINMENT CALLED SHE SANG IT TO THE TUNE OF THE RAIN IN SPAIN, IMMENSE EXPENSE IS MAINLY IN DEFENSE. WE HAVE A LOT OF COST OVERRUNS IN GOVERNMENT. WE SHOULDN'T ASSUME THAT'S GOING TO BE THE CASE. THERE USED TO BE A GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION CALLED RENEGOTIATION BOARD.

AND UNFORTUNATELY IT WAS ABOLISHED IN 1977, BUT THAT BOARD WAS CHARGED FROM WORLD WAR 2 ON WITH RENEGOTIATING CONTRACTS.

AND IF THE DEFENSE CONTRACTOR OR THE MILITARY CONTRACTOR WAS CHARGING TOO MUCH, WE GOT MONEY BACK. $650,000.

COULD WE PLEASE HAVE AN EXPLANATION THROUGH THE CHAIR, FROM THE STAFF, FROM THE ATTORNEYS, FROM THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ABOUT THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE COST OVERRUNS? WHO IS THE CONTRACTOR? HOW MUCH ARE WE PAYING? WHO ANALYZED THE COST OVERRUNS FROM THE COUNTY STAFF? SILENCE. WELL, Y'ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT, BUT WE WISH YOU WOULDN'T.

I WISH SOMEBODY FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WOULD COME AND SPEAK TO YOU FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE. AND EXPLAIN THESE COST OVERRUNS.

[04:15:01]

DON'T JUST GIVE ME A PURPOSEFUL LOOK.

LET'S HAVE SOME DISCUSSION. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. REAL QUICK, JUDY SPIEGEL, SO THIS 1. 3 MILLION FOR CUTTING IN HALF, IS THAT A REPLENISH ABLE ANNUAL THING.

IS THAT MONEY THAT COMES EVERY YEAR OR THIS IS JUST A ONE- TIME THING, SO I'M JUST ASKING A QUESTION, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE?

>> HELLO AGAIN. STILL VICKI PEPPER, STILL LIVE ON -- CIRCLE IN ST. AUGUSTINE, STILL REPRESENTING CARE, COMMUNITY ADVOCATES FOR RACIAL EQUITY INCLUDING MYSELF AND I'M GOING TO AGAIN REMIND YOU THAT CARE IS AN INFORMAL AND INDEPENDENT ACTION GROUP WHOSE PURPOSE IS TO SERVE BLACK AND OTHER UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY BY IDENTIFYING RESOURCES INCLUDING FUNDING SOURCES AND LINKING THEM WITH COMMUNITY NEEDS AS IDENTIFIED BY COMMUNITY LEADERS. AS MUCH AS IT PAINS ME TO HAVE TO SUPPORT A PROJECT THAT IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY MONEY FROM AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT, WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT TAKING OUR CUES FROM COMMUNITY LEADERS S TO WHAT IS NEEDED IN THE COMMUNITY. WHEN OUR UNTIL AFTER ALL VOLUNTEER CIVIC ACTION GROUP STARTED DURING THE PANDEMIC, I BELIEVE THAT THE FIRST PERSON WE MET WITH WAS BILL LAZAR AND THE SECRETARY WAS THE SECOND WAS THE UNOFFICIAL MAYOR OF ST. AUGUSTINE. WE'RE ALMOST OVER THE FINISH LINE. AND WE REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS COME HOME. WE WANT TO SUPPORT IT.

AND THE WEST AUGUSTINE HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER IS SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS DECIDED IT REALLY NEEDS.

AND SO, AGAIN, AS MUCH AS IT PAINS ME TO HAVE TO TAKE SOME MONEY AWAY FROM AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THERE ARE MANY NEEDS IN THE COMMUNITY AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU SUPPORT THIS.

SO, CARE IS, YOU KNOW, FROM OUR EARLY DAYS OF WRITING LETTERS TO THE LEGISLATURE, TO ADVOCATING FOR ARPA FUNDING, WE CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THIS VERY MUCH NEEDED AND WORTHWHILE PROJECT IN WEST AUGUSTINE. THANK

YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10? OKAY.

SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC

COMMENT. >> BACK TO THE BOARD.

LET ME START -- LET ME GO WITH COMMISSIONER ARNOLD FIRST AND I'LL GO LAST. THANK YOU.

>> CONGRATULATIONS, GUYS. IT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING.

AND I'M HAPPY TO MAKE THE MOTION.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS, THAT'S FINE, BUT I'M SUPER EXCITED FOR JANUARY.

>> I HAD SOME QUESTIONS.

>> YEAH.

>> ME TOO.

>> COMMISSIONER.

>> I HAD SOME QUESTIONS, I WOULD LOVE SOME OF THOSE ANSWERED AS WELL.

CAN YOU GIVE A SUMMARY OF WHAT SOME OF THE OVERAGES WERE AND WHY SO MUCH MONEY IS NEEDED WITH THE OVERRUNS?

>> THIS IS A VERY LARGE PROJECT. IT HAS A -- IT WAS ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED TO HAVE A $7 MILLION BUDGET.

TASS IT IS A VERY LARGE BUILDING AND VERY HEAVY.

WHEN THEY STARTED TO LOOK AT THE GROUND, THE ACTUAL SOILS, THERE WAS SOME ADDITIONAL STABILIZATION THATTHAT NEEDED FOR THE WEIGHT AND SIZE OF THE BUILDING. SO THAT HAD A PRETTY MEANINGFUL COST ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

SO THEY WERE JUST UNANTICIPATED FUNDS REALLY AGAIN FOR SUPPORTING THE SIZE AND WEIGHT OF÷÷ THAT LARGE BUILDING ON THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY.

AND I THINK THOSE WERE -- U DON'T REALLY KNOW UNTIL YOU GET IN TO DO THE SOIL BORINGS AND LOOK AT IT. THAT'S THE BULK OF THOSE

OVERAGES. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT.

REGARDING THE QUESTION ABOUT HOW IT WILL BE REPLENISHED, IS THERE A WAY? HOW WILL THAT WORK?

>> THIS IS PART OF THE WEST AUGUSTINE CRA FUNDING.

THE CRA IS AN ESTABLISHED GEOGRAPHICAL AREA IN WEST AUGUSTINE AND THERE IS A TIF ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AREA THAT GENERATES MONEY FROM THE ED AD VALOREM TAXES. IN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR, THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL FUNDING THERE.

WE HAVE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CONTINUING TO FUND THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM, BUT, OF COURSE, THAT'S A DECISION THAT COMES BEFORE THE BOARD

[04:20:04]

OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND WILL BE PRESENTED AS PART OF THE FY 27

BUDGET. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> COMMISSIONER ARNOLD.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2025- 2 AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 WEST AUGUSTINE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET AND THE ASSOCIATED LIST OF IDENTIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ALLOCATING AND NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $650,000 FROM THE WEST AUGUSTINE REDEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND TO BE USED SOLELY TO REIMBURSE FOR ELIGIBLE CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE WEST AUGUSTINE HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER, AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE A FUNDING AGREEMENT AND THE SAME FORM AS ATTACHED HERETO.

>> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE MOTION AND A SECOND. LET'S VOTE.

[***Convene the Board of County Commissioners Meeting***]

THAT PASSES 5-0. WE WILL ADJOURN THE COMMUNITY

[11. Public Hearing * St. Johns County Condominium and Cooperative Milestone Inspection Ordinance. During the 2022 Special Session, the Florida Legislature enacted Senate Bill 4-D, codified as Chapter 2022-269, Laws of Florida, establishing mandatory “milestone inspections” for condominium and cooperative buildings three (3) stories or more in height to ensure the structural integrity of aging buildings throughout the State of Florida. In 2023, the Legislature adopted Senate Bill 154, codified as Chapter 2023-203, Laws of Florida, further clarifying the milestone inspection process and requiring coordination between building officials, professional engineers, and condominium and cooperative associations. In 2025, the Legislature enacted Chapter 2025-175, Laws of Florida, amending section 553.899, Florida Statutes, to require all counties and municipalities to adopt an ordinance by December 31, 2025, establishing specific timelines for scheduling and commencement of repairs following a Phase Two Milestone Inspection.]

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CONVENE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING AGAIN AND GO INTO GO TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11.

GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.

FOR THE RECORD, HOWARD WHITE, BUILDING OFFICIAL, ST.

JOHNS COUNTY.

I AM HERE THIS AFTERNOON TO PRESENT THE SECOND READING OF THE MILESTONE INSPECTION ORDINANCE.

JUST AS A RECAP, THIS IS AN ORDINANCE BEING MANDATED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA, UNDER STATE STATUTE 553. 899, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND AMENDED BY CHAPTER 2025- 175 LAWS OF FLORIDA.

SO, JUST TO GO OVER BRIEFLY THE WHOLE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE, IT IS TO IMPLEMENT STATE REQUIRED MILESTONE INSPECTIONS.

WE BEGAN THIS PROGRAM SEVERAL YEARS AGO.

APPROXIMATELY FOUR YEARS AGO, AND WE JUMPED INTO IT IN EARNEST AND HAD SOME GREAT RESULTS, WHICH I'LL SHARE WITH YOU IN JUST A FEW MOMENTS. BUT IT APPLIES TO CONDOMINIUMS AND COOPERATIVE BUILDINGS, THREE STORIES OR GREATER ABOVE GRADE. THAT WAS SOME CONFUSION EARLY ON IN THE STATUTE. IT JUST LUMPED IN THREE STORY CONDOMINIUMS AND COOPERATIVE BUILDINGS AND I THINK IT WAS MISUNDERSTOOD INITIALLY WHERE YOU HAD A PARKING GARAGE ON THE FIRST FLOOR, AND THEN TWO STORIES÷÷STORIES HABITABLE SPACE.

THAT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED NOW, UNDER STATE STATUTE.

AND WE'RE MOVING FORWARD. IT DOES ESTABLISH TIMELINES IN THIS ORDINANCE FOR INSPECTIONS, REPAIRS, DISCLOSURES, AND REPORTING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION.