[1. Public Hearing * ENCERT 2026-05 Heritage Development East. The 2026 amendments to Sections 163.3162 and 163.3164, Florida Statutes establish a process allowing property owners to request certification that a property qualifies as an Agricultural Enclave before submitting a development application. Heritage Development Company of NE Florida, LLC submitted an application to certify PARCEL ID# 136090-0005 and 136640-0000 as an Agricultural Enclave. The property is approximately 615.41 acres and is located directly east of Interstate 95 and south of State Road 207.]

LET'S SEE... WE HAVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1.

LET'S JUST ROLL WITH IT. >> SO YOU'LL HAVE TO H TO HAVE -

>> ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO.

>> COMMISSIONER ARNOLD, YOU ARE EX PARTE?

>> YEAH. COME BACK TO ME.

I STILL HAVE TO PULL IT UP. >> YEAH, 74 OR MORE, PROBABLY A LOT MORE EMAILS. MEETING WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR

AND THE TEAM. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST?

>> I'VE HAD 220 EMAILS OR MORE.

MET WITH OUR STAFF. MET WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR?

>> YES, I'VE HAD AT LEAST 150 EMAILS OR MORE.

I HAD A MEETING WITH MIKE ROBERTSON AND KEALEY WEST.

I HAD A MEETING WITH OTHER ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF AND ALSO A MEETING WITH EDDIE KRAMER AND STAFF.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER ARNOLD, ARE YOU READY TO GO?

>> I AM. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

>> I AM. >> I'M SEEING ABOUT 150 EMAILS OR MORE. IT'S PROBABLY CLOSER TO 200, AND I HAD THE SAME MEETING WITH JOY ANDREWS.

>> I HAD A MEETING WITH ADMINISTRATIVE AND STAFF.

AND WE ALSO HAD A MEETING WITH JOE MACK AND HIS TEAM CAME IN A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO. SO THAT'S OUR EX-PART AT A.

EX-EX PARTE. >> THE APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE BOARD SEEK CERTIFICATIONS AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVES PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 163.3162 AND 3164 OF FLORIDA STATUTES.

THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NATURE.

[00:05:02]

SO, FOR EACH APPLICATION, THE BOARD MUST CONSIDER THE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, MAKE FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS NECESSARY TO APPLY THE STATUTORY CRITERIA.

DETERMINE WHETHER THE APPLICATION SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION AS AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE.

THE BOARD IS NOT BEING ASKED TODAY WHETHER IT SUPPORTS OR OPPOSES A PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT AS A MATTER OF POLICY.

RATHER, THE BOARD'S ROLE IS TO DETERMINE, BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, WHETHER EACH APPLICATION MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY STATE LAW.

INCLUDING WHETHER THE PROPERTY SATISFIES THE SATISFIER TO DEFINITION OF AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE.

ACCORDINGLY, PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE TODAY SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE STATUTORY CRITERIA THE BOARD MUST APPLY IN THE FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS THE BOARD MUST MAKE IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE PROPERTY APPLIES AS AN ENCLAVE.

SO THIS IS A STATUTORY DETERMINATION.

SO IT'S NOT COUNTY CODE. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT

FOR THE RECORD. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

AND BEFORE YOU START, I WANTED TO RECOGNIZE RABBI VOGALL.

I JUST WANT TO SAY "THANK YOU" SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.

WE STARTED A LITTLE BIT EARLY, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR GOING AHEAD, BUT I JUST WANT TO RECOGNIZE YOU, FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE.

YOU'RE FREE TO GO. SIR.

>> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS ROBERT WALTERS.

WE'RE HERE FOR TWO APPLICATIONS. AS MS. WEST SAID, BECAUSE THIS IS A QUASHIE JUDICIAL HEARING, THESE APPLICATIONS HAVE TO BE HEARD SEPARATELY. SO FOR ENCERT 2026-05.

THIS IS FOR HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT EAST ON BEHALF OF HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF NORTHEAST FLORIDA.

IT'S TWO PARCELS REFERENCED BY PARCEL I.D. NUMBERS 173-6090-0005 AND 136640-000. FOR PER SECTIONS 136.3162 AND 163.3164 AS AMENDED BY SENATE BILL 686, WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE ON JULY 1ST 2026. SENATE BILL 686 AMENDED THE DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE IN SECTION 136.31644 AND ALSO AMENDED THE PROCESS FOR CERTIFICATION OF AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE PURSUANT TO SECTION 136.3162.

A PROPERTY OWNER SEEKING CERTIFICATION OF A PARCEL OR PARCELS MUST ESSENTIALLY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AMENDED IN 163.3164.4 A THROUGH F. THE TIMELINE FOR CERTIFICATION, AT LEAST UP UNTIL THE POINT OF TODAY, IS ESSENTIALLY WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECEIVES THE APPLICATION.

IT MUST PROVIDE A WRITTEN STAFF REPORT, AND THEN WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THAT STAFF REPORT, A PUBLIC HEARING MUST OCCUR, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE HAVING TODAY. SO GENERAL THE CRITERIA IS TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR CERTIFICATION AS AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE, THE FOLLOWING FACTORS MUST APPLY TO THE REQUESTED INCORPORATED, INDEVELOPED PARCEL OR PARCELS OF LAND AS OF JANUARY 1ST, 2025.

THE PARCEL OR PARCELS MUST BE OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE PERSON OR ENTITY. THE PARCEL OR PARCELS MUST HAVE BEEN USED AND "H" IN CONTINUOUS USE FOR BONA FIDE AGOAL PURPOSES, AS DEFINED BY SECTION 193.461 FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS BEFORE THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION.

MUST MEET ONE OF THE FIVE PERIMETER REQUIREMENT DEFINITIONS IN SUBSECTION "C." THE PARCEL OR PARCELS SEEKING CERTIFICATION MUST BE PUBLIC SERVICES OR AGREE TO ENTERING INTO A BINDING AGREEMENT TO PAY FOR THOSE SERVICES.

THE PARCEL OR PARCELS MUST NOT EXCEED 1,380 ACRES, BUT IF THEY DO EXCEED THAT SIDES, THERE'S ADDITIONAL CRITERIA.

AND THEN FINALLY THE PARCEL OR PARCELS MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN A COUNTY WITH A POPULATION OF 1.75 MILLION OR LESS.

HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT EAST, AS I SAID, IS TWO PARCELS.

ESSENTIALLY TO THE EAST OF I-95 AND THEN SOUTH OF STATE ROAD T207. IT CURRENTLY HAS A COMBINATION OF DESIGNATIONS, BUT WITH MIXED USE AT KIND OF THE NORTHWEST OF THE PARCEL AND THEN THE REMAINDER OF THE PARCEL IS RURAL SILVACULTURE, AND IT'S ALSO SURROUNDED BY A MIXED-USE DISTRICT TO THE EAST. THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS OPEN RURAL, AND IT'S SURROUNDED ON THE WEST BY A PUD,

[00:10:02]

AND THEN TO THE EAST, I BELIEVE IT'S RESIDENTIAL 2.

SO, FOR CERTIFICATION OF APPLICATION 2026-05.

HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT FILED ITS APPLICATION FOR HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT EAST ON JULY 1ST, 2026, WHICH WAS RECEIVED AND PROCESSED BY STAFF ON JULY 7TH, 2026.

STAFF PROVIDED ITS WRITTEN REPORT REGARDING WHETHER THE APPLICATION MET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION ON JULY 31ST, 2026. AND STAFF DETERMINED THAT THE APPLICATION DEMONSTRATES THAT HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT EAST SATISFIES THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE. WHEN PREPARING THIS DEVELOPMENT, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT UTILIZED QUALIFIED LEGAL AND TECHNICAL PROFESSIONALS DURING THE PROCESS.

INCLUDING KEN METCALFE, WHO'S BEHIND ME TODAY.

MR. METCALFE HAS BEEN PROVIDING PLANNING SERVICES FOR AT LEAST 40 YEARS, INCLUDING 16 YEARS AT THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. HE HOLDS A MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING FROM FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY.

HE IS CERTIFIED AS A PLANNER BY THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PLANNERS, AND HE'S PARTICIPATED IN NUMEROUS ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER TYPES OF COURT PROCEEDINGS.

AFTER THE MEETING WAS NOTICE, THERE WAS A PUBLICATION IN THE ST. AUGUSTINE RECORD, WHICH IS ON THE SCREEN.

SO, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT SEEKS TO DEVELOP IS A PROPERTY NOT TO EXCEED THE HIGHEST ALLOWABLE DENSITIES FOR THE USES CURRENTLY SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY.

THIS WILL ESSENTIALLY ALLOW THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO DEVELOP SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UP TO 13 UNITS H PER ACRE, AND THEN UN CERTIFICATION AS AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT WILL SUBMIT DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO THE COUNTY AS REQUIRED BY THE SECTION. FURTHER PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT. SO, FOR HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT EAST, ALL THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS IN 163.3164 (4 ((A) (. A (THROUGH (F) HAVE BEEN MET.

FOR THE PROXIMITY ANALYSIS, IT UTILIZES ONE OF THE SUBJECT DEFINITIONS, WHICH ALLOWS FOR AN AG ENCLAVE THAT DOES NOT EXCEED HUNDRED ACRES, IS SURROUNDED ON AT LEAST 50% OF ITS PERIMETER BY PARCELS THAT ST. JOHNS COUNTY HAS DESIGNATED ON THE FLUM AS LAND TO BE DEVELOPED FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL OR RESIDENTIAL. AND SURROUNDED BY PARCELS WITHIN AN AN BORROW SERVICE AREA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AT LEAST BASED ON THE APPLICATION, WE ASSERTED THAT THERE WERE THE NECESSARY PUBLIC SERVICES, AS REQUIRED.

BUT HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT HAS ALSO OFFERED TO ENTER INTO A BINDING AGREEMENT TO PAY FOR THOSE PUBLIC SERVICES.

THE PARCELS DO NOT EXCEED 1,280 ACRES, AND THEY ARE LOCATED WITHIN A COUNTY WITH A POPULATION OF LESS THAN 1.75 MILLION PEOPLE. UPON RECEIVING THE STAFF REPORT -- IN THE STAFF REPORT, STAFF FOUND THAT, BASED UPON THE APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMITTED, THE STAFF'S REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION DOES DEMONSTRATE IS THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SATISFIES THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE UNDER SECTION 163.3164. WITH RESPECT TO SINGLE OWNERSHIP, PRIOR BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL USE, AJAYS SENSORY TO EXISTING OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

THE APPLICANTS WILL SOMEWHERE INTO AN AGREEMENT TO TO FUND, CONSTRUCT OR DEDICATE LAND FOR REQUIRED PUBLIC SERVICE IMPROVEMENT. AND NOW I'LL JUST BREAK DOWN BY DEFINITION A THROUGH F. THE FIRST ONE, THE PARCEL OR PARCELS ARE OWNED BY A SINGLE ENTITY.

IN THE APPLICATION THAT WE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY, WE HAD PROVIDED THE WARRANTY DEED FOR THE PROPERTY, WHICH WAS VERIFIED BY COUNTY STAFF, AND THE STAFF'S FINDING WAS THAT THE APPLICATION DOES DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE. INTO SUBSECTION B, THE PARCEL OR PARCELS HAVE BEEN IN CONTINUOUS USE FOR BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL

[00:15:03]

PURPOSES FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST FIVE YEARS BEFORE THE APPLICATION DATE. THE TWO PARCELS THAT MAKE UP HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT EAST HAVE ESSENTIALLY BEEN USED AS TIMBER OPERATIONS FOR THE LAST 70 YEARS, BUT IN THE APPLICATION THAT WE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY, WE PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION THAT THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER HAS CLASSIFIED THE PROPERTY AS AGRICULTURAL FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES FOR AT LEAST THE PRIOR TEN YEARS. STAFF REVIEWED OUR APPLICATION AND CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION BY VERIFYING THOSE RECORDS WITH THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISERS' OFFICE, AND THEY ALSO FOUND THAT, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE DOES NOT EXPRESSLY REQUIRE AN AGRICULTURAL CLASSIFICATION BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER, IT IS -- WHEN THE PROPERTY APPRAISER DOES THAT ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT LAND IS AGRICULTURAL, IT ANALYSIS THAT'S OUTLINED IN 193.641.

SO IT'S A PER SE DETERMINATION. STAFF FOUND THAT THE APPLICATION DOES DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 163.3164.4. B.

SUBSECTION C CONTAINS THE FIVE PERIMETER OR PROXIMITY SUB DEFINITIONS WHERE AN APPLICANT HAS TO AT LEAST MIDDLE EAST ONEF THOSE TO MEET THE DEFINITION OFFING A AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE.

THE PARCEL OR PARCELS DO NOT EXCEED 700 ACRES AND ARE SURROUNDED ON AT LEAST 50% OF THEIR PERIMETER BY PROPERTY DESIGNATED ON THE FLUM TO BE DEVELOPED FOR INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, OR RESIDENTIAL. IN OUR APPLICATION, WE ASSERTED THAT THE PARCELS ARE LESS THAN 700 ACRES, ARE SURROUNDED BY 69.06% OF I WAS PERIMETER BY PART OF SELLS DESIGNATED ON ST. JOHNS COUNTY'S FLUM AS LAND TO BE DEVELOPED INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, OR RESIDENTIAL AND ARE SURROUNDED BY PARCELS -- OR 78% OF ITS PERIMETER BY PARCELS WITHIN AN URBAN SERVICE DSTRICT. WHEN WE DID THE PERIMETER ANALYSIS, WE USED OUR IN-HOUSE GIS TEAM, UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF MR. METCALF, AND CAME UP WITH THIS PRETTY MAP.

IT SHOWS THE PERIMETER OF THE PARCEL COLOR-CODED TO REFLECT THE DIFFERENT FLUM DESIGNATIONS AND IT ALSO DESIGNATES THE DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

THE PINK PERIMETER AT THE LEFT OF THE PARCEL IS MIXED-USE, AND THEN THAT'S A QUALIFYING DESIGNATION, IN ADDITION TO THE TOP PERIMETER, AND THEN THE YELLOW PERIMETER IS RESIDENTIAL C. TOTAL THAT -- THAT MEANS THAT THE PARCELS HAVE A PERIMETER SURROUNDED BY PARCELS THAT ARE MIXED-USE OR RESIDENTIAL C AT 69.06%, AND THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS AT LEAST 50%. ADDITIONALLY, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP, THE DASHED RED LIE IS THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY, AND 78% OF ADJACENT PARCELS ARE WITHIN THAT DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY, AND THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS 50%.

WHEN STAFF REVIEWED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INCLUDING OBJECTIVE A-1.2, STAFF DETERMINED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY IDENTIFIES THE AREAS WHERE URBAN PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ARE PROVIDED OR PLANNED.

ACCORDINGLY, STAFF FOUND THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY SATISFIES THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF AN URBAN SERVICE AREA. FURTHER, STAFF FOUND THAT THE SUBJECT PARCEL SATISFIES THE CRITERIA SET FORTH, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY DOES NOT EXCEED 700 ACRES, IS IT SURROUNDEDED ON AT LEAST 50% OF ITS PERIMETER BY PROPERTY DESIGNATED ON THE FLUM FOR INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, OR RESIDENTIAL AND ARE SURROUNDED ON 50% OF ITS PERIMETER WITHIN AN URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT AREA OR LINE, AND FOUND THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY MEETS THE COMPLIANCE WITH 163.3164.4. C. NEXT, THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THAT AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE SEEKING CERTIFICATION MUST EITHER HAVE PUBLIC SERVICES OR ENTER INTO -- OR AGREE TO ENTER INTO A BINDING AGREEMENT TO PAY FOR SUCH SERVICES.

IN OUR APPLICATION, WE TOOK THE POSITION THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAD EXISTING SERVICES, BUT WE ALSO OFFERED TO ENTER INTO A BINDING AGREEMENT, IF IT WERE DETERMINED THAT THOSE SERVICES WERE NOT EXISTING. WHEN REVIEWED BY STAFF, BY VARIOUS COUNTY DEPARTMENTS, THEY DID DETERMINE THAT THERE WERE NOT ALL OF THE REQUIRED SERVICES AS DEFINED IN THE DEFINITION, BUT BECAUSE THE APPLICANT OFFERED TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT, IT MET -- IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH 163.3164.4. D

[00:20:05]

AND THUS DEMONSTRATED COME COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION D.

NEXT, THE PARCELS SEEKING CERTIFICATION DO NOT EXCEED 1 1,330 ACRES. AND, FINALLY, ARE LOCATED WITHIN A COUNTY WITH A POPULATION OF 1.73 MILLION OR LESS.

IN OUR APPLICATION, WE PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION FROM THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH THAT SHOWED THAT ST. JOHNS COUNTY'S POPULATION WAS APPROXIMATELY 348,000.

THUS, UNDER THAT 1.75 MILLION THRESHOLD.

AND, THUS, DEMONSTRATED COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION F.

SO, TO WRAP ALL THAT UP IN ONE LITTLE CHART: THERE'S ESSENTIALLY EIGHT CRITERIA THAT HAVE TO BE MET.

THE PARCELS SEEKING CERTIFICATION HAVE TO BE UNDEVELOPED. THE TWO PARCELS ARE UNDEVELOPED.

THEY MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN UNINCORPORATED ST. JOHNS COUNTY, WHICH THEY ARE. THE PROPERTY PARCELS HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AS AGRICULTURAL FOR AT LEAST THE LAST TEN YEARS. IT MEETS ONE OF PERIMETER REQUIREMENTS. HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT HAS OFFERED TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. THE PARCELS DO NOT EXCEED 1,280 ACRES, AND ST. JOHNS COUNTY HAS A POPULATION LESS THAN 1.75 MILLION PEOPLE. MEANING THAT THE TWO PARCELS MEET THE DEFINITION OF AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE.

SO STAFF CONCLUDED THAT, BASED UPON THE APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE INFORMATION REVIEWED BY COUNTY STAFF, THE APPLICATION APPEARS TO SATISFY THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE BECAUSE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY MEETS THE DEFINITION REQUIREMENTS IN 163.3164.4.

IT MUST BE CERTIFIED AS AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE UPON

REQUEST OF THE COUNTY. >> COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST?

>> MR. WALTERS, THAT WAS A THOROUGH PRESENTATION.

I APPRECIATE ALL THE INFORMATION.

IS THAT BASED ON DEVELOPMENT THAT'S ALREADY CONSTRUCTED?

>> THE PERIMETER CALCULATION WOULD HAVE BEEN BASED ON FLUM

DESIGNATIONS. >> SO JUST FUTURE LAND USE.

NOT EVEN ENTITLEMENTS. >> JUST WHAT'S ON THE FLUM, AS

REQUIRED BY THE DEFINITION. >> OKAY.

SO IT COULD BE ALL TREES TODAY, BUT IT WOULD STILL MEET THE REQUIREMENT PER STATUTE IF THE FLUM DESIGNATED IT AS

RESIDENTIAL C OR D? >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR SOMEBODY ELSE ON YOUR TEAM, MR. WALTERS, BUT THIS IS REALLY JUST TO SATISFY CURIOSITY.

YOU MENTIONED DURING YOUR PRESENTATION THAT THIS WOULD ALLOW YOU TO DEVELOP 13 UNITS PER ACRE.

HOMES. ARE YOU AWARE OF A PRODUCT THAT EXISTS THAT IS SINGLE-FAMILY HOME THAT COULD GET 13 UNITS PER

ACRE ON A PROPERTY? >> I AM NOT.

BUT WHENEVER SEEKING CERTIFICATION, IT'S ABOUT UP O THE MAXIMUM DOUBLE DENSITY. WHAT THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE IS DETERMINED IN STEP 2 OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS, SO THAT'S GOING TO BE BASED ON EXISTING LDRS AS TO WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT CAN LOOK LIKE.

BUT AS PER THE CRITERIA LAID OUT, IT ALLOWS FOR THE MAXIMUM DENSITIES, BUT, OF COURSE, YOUR OBSERVATION IS DUAL NOTED, THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A PRODUCT OUT THERE THAT WOULD ALLOW 13 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON ONE ACRE.

>> I WAS CURIOUS. I DON'T KNOW IF WE WERE DOING 8,000 TINY HOMES OR WHAT WE COULD EXPECT.

ARE WE EXPECTING TO PUT 8,000 UNITS ON THESE ACRES.

>> I CAN'T TELL YOU RIGHT NOW WHAT THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL LOOK LIKE, BECAUSE IT WILL DEPEND ON A LOT OF DIFFERENT FACTORS, IN TERMS OF SETBACKS, EXISTING LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT WILL CONSTRAIN WHAT THAT DEVELOPMENT LOOKS LIKE.

I CAN'T TELL YOU TODAY WHETHER OR NOT THAT MEANS THAT IT'LL BE TWO UNITS PER ACRE, THREE OR FOUR UNITS PER ACRE, ON AVERAGE.

I JUST DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION AT THIS POINT IN

TIME. >> THANK YOU, MR. WALTERS.

>> COMMISSIONER JOSEPH? >> SO, WAS THIS DENIED BEFORE BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER, THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY?

>> I DO NOT HAVE THAT KNOWLEDGE. >> CAN YOU FIND OUT FOR ME REAL QUICK? I'LL JUST WAIT RIGHT HERE.

>> NO. >> HAS THIS BEEN IN FRONT OF THE

COUNTY COMMISSION BEFORE, CHRIS? >> NO.

>> NO? SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALMOST 8,000 HOMES. JUST, CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT IT'S

[00:25:01]

LIKE TO WORK THAT PROPERTY? SO, TO MAKE SURE IT'S AN AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY, WHAT DO YOU DO EVERY DAY? LIKE, WHAT'S HAPPENED FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS?

LIKE, EXACTLY. >> I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME, BUT AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTORY ANALYSIS, IT JUST HAS TO BE BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES FOR THE PRECEDING FIVE YEARS, AND ONE OF THE WAYS TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENTS IS THAT CLASSIFICATION BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER. I KNOW THAT, WHENEVER A PROPERTY APPRAISER MAKES THAT DETERMINATION, THEY DO -- THEY GO THROUGH THAT REQUIREMENT IN 193.

I THINK IT'S MAYBE SEVEN OR EIGHT REQUIREMENT.

>> WELL, WHAT WOULD THAT BE? >> PARDON?

>> WHAT IS THAT GOING TO BE? WHAT DO THEY DO EVERY DAY?

>> I BELIEVE IT'S AN EXISTING TIMBER PRODUCTION?

>> LIKE, DO THEY HAVE TRUCKS AND ROADS ALL IN THERE AND THEY RE-PLANT AND TAKE 'EM OUT? WHAT'S --

>> I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT -- YOU KNOW, KIND OF WHETHER OR NOT -- WHEN THE LAST CUT WAS AND WHEN THE LAST REPLANTING WAS, BUT I CAN FIND OUT THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU.

>> RIGHT NOW? DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK AND THEN WE CAN GET BACK TO IT, OR...?

>> IT'S A TIMBER OPERATION, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MEANS THAT SOMEONE'S OUT THERE EVERY DAY. PROBABLY NOT, BECAUSE IT IS --

>> SO IT'S A FACT YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT INFORMATION.

>> I CANNOT -- >> I JUST WAS CURIOUS.

THANK YOU, THOUGH, VERY MUCH. >> OKAY.

ANYTHING ELSE? COMMISSIONER ARNOLD, DO YOU HAVE

ANYTHING FOR US? >> NO, CHAIR.

NOT AT THIS TIME. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> YEAH. >> ALL RIGHT.

AT THIS TIME, WE WOULD MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1. PLEASE COME UP.

WE'VE GOT THE THREE DIFFERENT PODIUMS. IF YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING TO SHARE, PLEASE USE THE MIDDLE

PODIUM. >> WE DO HAVE A DESIGNATED SPEAKER. JOE MCARNIE GETS TEN MINUTES, BUT I ALSO WANT TO REMIND THE CROWD THAT THIS IS NOT GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. ANY TYPE OF OUTBURSTS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A HEARING LIKE THIS, AND EVEN THOUGH I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU'RE HERE AND THAT YOU'RE PASSIONATE ABOUT SOMETHING, ANYTHING THAT YOU DO OR SAY CAN BE USED BY EITHER THE WINNING SIDE OR THE LOSING SIDE AS A REASON TO GO FORWARD FOR AN APPEAL. SO I WOULD IMPLORE YOU TO -- IF YOU HAVE A PARTICULAR FEELING ABOT ANYTHING, THAT YOU EXPRESS IT IN A NON-VERBAL WAY INSTEAD OF DISRUPTING THE HEARINGS, BECAUSE IT COULD GO EITHER FOR OR AGAINST YOU IN THE NEXT HEARING GOING DOWN THE ROAD, IF THERE IS ONE.

SO I JUST WANT TO CAUTION YOU ABOUT PUBLIC -- PUBLIC OUTBURSTS. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

GO AHEAD. >> GREAT.

>> FIRST OF ALL. THANK YOU, , CHAIR, FOR THE TEN MINUTES. SO, MY NAME IS JOE MCARNIE.

1055 BLACKBERRY LANE. I'M A COUNTY RESIDENT.

I'M ALSO A RETIRED ARCHITECT. I WORKED WITH CODES AND STANDARDS MY ENTIRE CAREER. SO MY PRESENTATION TO YOU TODAY -- LET ME SAY FIRST THAT I LIKE CHRIS SHE, BUT I DO NOT LIKE SENATE BILL 686. NOR THE FLORIDA STATUTES THAT HAVE DERIVED FROM THAT. AND SO I'M HERE TODAY TO PRESENT MULTIPLE REASONS TO YOU TO DENY. I KNOW YOU NEED THE NAIL IN THE WALL TO HANG YOUR HAT. A LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE REASON TO HANG YOUR HAT ON DENIAL, AND I'M BRINGING THAT TO YOU TODAY.

SO, LET'S HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND: FIRST OF ALL, THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ACT IS LAW.

FLORIDA STATUTE 163.3161. IT IS LAW.

AND THE INTENT IS TO STRENGTHEN THE POWERS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROGRAMS TO GUIDE AND MANAGE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

AND WHEN WE LOOK AT SUBSECTION 6, IT GOES FURTHER TO SAY IT'S THE INTENT OF THIS ACT THAT ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLANS SHALL HAVE THE LEGAL STATUS SET OUT IN THIS ACT AND THAT NO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PERMITTED, EXCEPT IN CONFORMITY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS." WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT. THAT IS KEY.

LET ME BACK UP HERE. THANK YOU.

EXCUSE ME. OKAY.

SO, SENATE BILL 686 -- NEITHER SENATE BILL 686 NOR THOSE STATUTES AMEND OR DELETE 163.3161, THE COMMUNITY PLAQUE G

[00:30:04]

ACT, AND, THEREFORE, BASED ON STATE LAW, ALL PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT SHALL CONFORM WITH YOUR COMMUNITY, YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT'S LAW.

AND I'M HERE TO SAY THAT THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT CONFORM.

AND I ASK THE QUESTION "WHY?" WE HAVE HEARD THE VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS IN 3164, BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT D., WHICH IS THE PROPERTY SHALL HAVE PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING WATER, WASTEWATER, TRANSPORTATION, SCHOOLS AND RECREATION FACILITIES, YOUR STAFF HAS REVIEWED AND ANSWERED THERE ARE NOT PRESENTLY ADEQUATE PUBLIC SERVICES FOR THE SITE.

THERE ARE NOT PRESENTLY ADEQUATE PUBLIC SERVICES FOR THE SITE.

AND I SAY, BUT WAIT... HOW ABOUT PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE PAYMENTS OFFERED BY THE APPLICANT? THAT'S ALSO KEY. BUT I'M HERE TO SAY THAT THE COUNTY, YOU, YOU ALREADY HAVE AN ANSWER BASED ON PRECEDENT, BASED ON PRECEDENT USING YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH YOUR STATE LAW ALLOWS YOU TO DO WHICH SAYS THAT, IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS INADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE -- UNFUNDED INADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE, AN APPLICATION MAY BE DENIED, AND 1411 IS VERY SIMILAR. AND YOUR PRECEDENT IS THAT -- AND THIS IS THE 2022 ADLER CREEK PROJECT THAT I HAVE PUT UP THERE, WHICH IS PART OF THE THIS WAS DENIED IN SPITE OF PROPORTIONAL FAIR SHARE OFFERS. SO THAT'S YOUR PRECEDENT.

AND BY LAW, YOU CAN USE YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND I BELIEVE THE PRECEDENT IN WHICH YOU APPLY THAT.

SO THIS IS KEY. AN APPLICATION THAT HAS INADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE CAN STILL BE DENIED IN SPITE OF PROPORTIONAL FAIR SHARE OFFERS. IN THIS CASE, ADLER, YOU COULD SEE THAT THE IMPACTED ROADS AND THE COST OF THOSE ROADS WAS GOING TO TOTAL OVER A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS.

PROPORTIONAL FAIR SHARE WAS 13 MILLION.

AND THIS PROJECT WAS DENIED. SO I ASK, BASED ON YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHERE IS THE TRAFFIC STUDY? WHAT ROADS WILL CARS USE? AND ARE THERE DEFICIENT ROADWAYS? WELL, WE DON'T SEE THAT IN FRONT OF US IN THE APPLICATION. BUT WHEN WE GO TO YOUR TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS SPREADSHEET AND DO THE MATH, 1613 ACRES AT 13 DWELLING UNITS, BUT I'M JUST DOING THE MATH, BECAUSE IF THIS IS CERTIFIED, THIS IS THE ENTITLEMENT: ALMOST 8,000 HOMES. NOW, USING THE ADLER CREEK PROJECT THAT I DID SHOW YOU AND DOING SOME MATH, IT'S POSSIBLE -- AND THAT MATH, THERE WERE 160 -- THERE WERE A 1.063 HOMES THERE AND THERE WAS SOME MATH APPLIED TO IT THAT BROUGHT THE PEAK HOUR TRIPS DOWN TO 82% OF THE DUS OF THE DWELLING UNITS. SO USING THAT SAME MATH, AND YOUR COUNTY STAFF WOULD HAVE DONE THIS FOR YOU, IF GOING THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESS, THEY WOULD HAVE IDENTIFIED IMPACTED ROADS. THEY WOULD HAVE IDENTIFIED PEAK HOUR TRIPS. I'M HERE TO SAY THAT, BASED ON THAT MATH, THERE COULD BE OVER 6,000 PEAK HOUR TRIPS, AND USING YOUR TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS SPREADSHEET, 207 IS ALREADY OPERATING AT 96.6%. ALREADY.

AND THAT'S ONLY WITH 4,200 PEAK TRIPS.

WE'RE LOOKING AT AN ADDITIONAL 6,000.

THAT DOES NOT MEET YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THIS IS ALSO A WET SITE. AGAIN, FROM YOUR COUNTY WEBSITE, YOU CAN SEE IN YELLOW AND BLUE. YELLOW IS DEVELOPABLE.

BLUE IS WET. SO THERE WOULD BE WETLAND IMPACT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE MITIGATED TO GAIN NET DEVELOPABLE AREAS.

BUT THIS APPLICATION WITH 615 ACRES TIMES 13, IS ASKING FOR 8,000 UNITS, AND I'M JUST HERE TO SAY THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE 615 NET DEVELOPABLE ACRES. AGAIN, THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND, FINALLY, THIS IS A LITTLE VAGUE, BUT I'M GOING TO PUT IT OUT THERE ANYWAY.

YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TALKS ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE.

[00:35:02]

SCHOOL DISTRICTS SAY THAT SCHOOLS ARE INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO WHERE ARE THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS' COMMENTS? AND PARTICULARLY IN THE FACE OF DECLINING SCHOOL BUDGETS, HOW WILL STUDENTS FROM 8,000 HOMES BE ACCOMMODATED? AND SO MY CONCLUSION IS THAT, BASED ON THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ACT, THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS STILL KING.

YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS STILL KING, AND, YES, YOU CAN USE THAT. THAT IS STATE LAW.

AND EVEN THE NEW AG ENCLAVE ACT RELIES ON THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. YOU CAN SEE THAT THROUGH SUBSECTION D, WHERE YOU HAVE TO HAVE ADEQUATE PUBLIC SERVICES.

BUT THEY FAIL TO OVERCOME THE COUNTY'S USE OF ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PARTICULARLY IN THE PRECEDENT AND WAYS IN WHICH THE COUNTY HAS APPLIED THAT PLAN, TO DENY AN APPLICATION IN SPITE OF PROPORTIONAL FAIR SHARE.

SO, YES, STAFF HAD JUDGED IN A THERE IS CURRENTLY NOT ADEQUATE PUBLIC SERVICES FOR THE SITE. TYLER, I'M USING THE CLICKER HERE. SO, IT'S MY POSITION THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, YOU, YOU DO HAVE A LEGAL BASIS FOR DENYING THIS APPLICATION. AND, THEREFORE, YOU SHOULD DENY THIS APPLICATION. AND AS THE ATTORNEYS ALWAYS SAY, THANK YOU. I'M HERE FOR QUESTIONS.

BUT LET ME JUST ADD A COUPLE OF POST SCRIPTS: IF THIS APPLICATION IS CERTIFIED TODAY, THIS IS THE LAST TIME YOU OR US WILL EVER SEE THIS PROJECT AGAIN.

IT MOVES FORWARD CERTIFIED FOR 8,000 HOMES.

6,000 PEAK TRIPS. IT WILL OVERWHELM INFRASTRUCTURE. AND IF CERTIFIED TODAY, THE PROJECT JUST SIMPLY MOVES FORWARD TO YOUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND YOUR STAFF REVIEW DEVELOPMENT PLANS.

WE HEARD TODAY THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD NOT ANSWER WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WOULD LOOK LIKE.

THIS IS A BLANK CHECK. BUT A HUGE BLANK CHECK, WITH HUGE DEFICIENCIES BUILT IN. AND SO I JUST URGE YOU, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, COMPLY YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THAT IS YOUR RIGHT. THE STATE LAW GIVES YOU THAT RIGHT. 686 DID NOT ALTER THAT.

THEREFORE YOU CAN STILL APPLY IT.

PLEASE APPLY IT AND DENY THIS PROJECT.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

ABOUT. >> NEXT?

>> ANYONE ELSE? NOW'S YOUR TIME.

COME ON. IF YOU WANT TO SHOW SOMETHING, YOU CAN PUT IT IN THE MIDDLE. IF YOU DON'T, YOU CAN GO FROM RIGHT THERE. NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> SORRY. BETTER? I DID NOT INTEND TO COME HERE TO TALK ABOUT THIS PARCEL, BUT I BELIEVE WHAT I HAVE LEARNED APPLIES TO ALL THESE DEVELOPMENTS PROPOSED. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE ACTUAL LEGAL LAW -- LEGAL DEFINITION OF "PARCEL." YOU DO NOT HAVE TO USE AN APPRAISERS, AND YOU SHOULD NOT USE AN APPRAISER'S BOUNDARY OFA PARCEL WHEN DETERMINING BONA FIDE AGRICULTURE. A PARCEL COULD BE WHATEVER IS DISPLAYED ON A SOIL MAP. THOSE ARE SPLIT INTO PARCELS.

WHATEVER'S DISPLAYED ON AN ENVIRONMENTAL BOUNDARY MAP.

THOSE ARE PARCELS. BUT THEY ARE DEFINED TO TAX PARCELS. AND THE STATE LAW AND COURTS HAVE DECIDED THAT TAX PARCELS ARE NOT THE FINAL DICTATE LAND ZONE REGULATORY BO BODIES. SORRY.

BOUNDARIES. THE COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THE TAX PARCEL BOUNDARIES ARE CREATED FOR PROPERTY APPRAISER CONVENIENCE AND DO NOT DICTATE LAND USE, ZONING OR REGULATORY BOUNDARIES UNDER FLORIDA LAW.

USING TAX LINES AS A PROPERTY FOR LAND IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE SHORTCUT AND NOT A LEGALLY-BINDING BOUNDARY.

UNDER THE STATUTE, AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE REQUIRES LEGITIMATE BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL USE ACROSS THE ENTIRE CLAIM. NOT JUST BLANKET COVERAGES, INCLUDING RAW, UNCULTIVATED LAND.

SO HAVE THEY PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT EVERY SINGLE ACRE IN THIS BOUNDARY THAT THEY CREATED IS BEING USED AS BONA FIDE AGRICULTURE? I'M GUESSING THE ANSWER IS "NO." FLORIDA STATUTE 163 WAS NEVER INTENDED TO ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO CHERRY-PICK ARBITRARY TAX MAPS TO BYPASS LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE

[00:40:01]

PLANS. TO ESTABLISH TRUE BASELINE, THE COUNTY SHOULD EVALUATE SOIL RATING PARCEL MAPS AND ACTUAL ENVIRONMENTAL BOUNDARY PARCEL MAPS.

THE BOUNDARIES MUST BE REDRAWN USING MEETS AND BOUNDS TO REFLECT REALITY ON THE GROUND OF HOW EACH ACRE IS TRULY USED.

WE ALSO CANNOT IGNORE THE TROUBLING HISTORY OF SENATE BILL 686. THE STATUTE CHANGES ALL READ LIKE HYPER SPECIFIC SPECIAL LEGISLATION CRAFTED FOR PRIVATE INTERESTS, RATHER THAN THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

THE SUDDEN SHIFT FROM PARCEL TO PARCELS DRASTICALLY EXPANDING CONTIGUOUS LAND EXEMPTIONS ACROSS BODIES OF WATER AND REDUCING THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT THRESHOLDS FROM 75 TO 50% SEEMS SPECIFICALLY TAILORED TO FIT THIS EXACT ACREAGE. ALONG WITH THE CONVENIENT RETROACTIVE QUALIFICATION DATE TIED TO THE TIMING OF THE ADJACENT LAND PURCHASED... SORY.

ANYWAYS, I IMPLORE YOU TO DECLINE ALL OF THESE APPLICATIONS. THANK YOU.

>> WE'RE HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES HERE.

ANYONE ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR DENYING NUMBER 1? OKAY. SEEING NONE.

WE'LL COME BACK TO THE BOARD. TOM, WE'RE HAVING SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES UP HERE, IF YOU CAN COME HELP US OUT.

DO YOU WANT TO -- LET'S SEE... GO.

YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

LET'S GO BACK TO THE BOARD, BY THE WAY.

>> THANK YOU. >> MR. WALTERS, I'D LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED IN PUBLIC COMMENT. JUST TO GIVE YOU A HEADS-UP, MS. WEST, I'M HEADED TO YOU, NEXT.

ALL RIGHT. MR. WALTERS, WE HEARD MR. MCARNIE STATE THAT THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ACT, WHICH IS LAW WITHIN STATUTE 163, MEANS THAT OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS KING. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT ASSESSMENT? DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT

STATEMENT? >> SO, I BELIEVE MOST OF THE THINGS THAT MR. MCARNIE RAISED WERE ESSENTIALLY LEGAL ISSUES RELATING TO CHAPTER 163 AND HOW SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION MAY IMPACT EXISTING PROVISIONS IN LAW.

AND SO I'M NOT YOUR ATTORNEY. MS. WEST MAY HAVE SOME CLARIFICATION AS TO HOW THE INTERACTION BETWEEN SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ACT CAN BE READ IN CONTINUITY WITH EACH OTHER BASED ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF LEGISLATION THAT AMENDS IT.

>> OKAY. MY NEXT QUESTION IS, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THIS NEW LAW THAT WE'RE ALL LEARNING ON THE FLY, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT A PROPERTY OWNER'S ALLOWED TO SOMEWHAT ARBITRARILY DRAW THE LINE ANYWHERE ON THEIR PROPERTY AND PRESENT THAT LINE, THAT BOUNDARY, AS THE APPLICATION? OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE A REGISTERED TAX PARCEL OR SOMETHING WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER, OR CAN THE LINE BE

ANYWHERE? >> SO, IN 163.3164, THERE'S A DEFINITION FOR "PARCEL OF LAND," WHICH MEANS ANY QUANTITY OF LAND CAPABLE OF BEING DESCRIBED WITH SUCH DEFINITIVENESS THAT ITS LOCATION AND BOUNDARY MAY BE ESTABLISHED WHICH IS DESIGNATED BY THE OWNER OR DEVELOPER AS LAND TO BE USED AS A UNIT OR WHICH HAS BEEN USED OR DEVELOPED." SO THERE'S AN EXISTING DEFINITION OF "PARCEL OF LAND" IN THE SAME SECTION OF 163 WHERE THE DEFINITION OF "AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE" IS. AGAIN, I'M NOT YOUR ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE YOU LEGAL ADVICE AS TO HOW TO READ THOSE TWO THINGS TOGETHER, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT, BASED ON THAT DEFINITION OF "PARCEL OF LAND," THAT A PARCEL I.D. NUMBER WITH A PROPERTY APPRAISER COULD BE ONE WAY TO DELINEATE WHAT A PARCEL OF LAND IS, IN COMPLIANCE WITH DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT YOU

HAVE AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU, MR. WALTERS. THROUGH THE CHAIR: MS. WEST, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU THE SAME TWO QUESTIONS.

I WON'T REPEAT THEM, THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ACT, DOES

THAT SUPERSEDE 686S AUTHORITY? >> SO I WOULD SAY THAT MR. MCARNIE IS CORRECT THAT THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ACT IS THE STATE MANDATE OF HOW GROWTH IS TO BE MANAGED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. WITH REGARD TO SENATE BILL 686, IT SPECIFICALLY -- SO, BASICALLY, IT PROVIDES A LIMITED STATUTORY PREEMPTION, CAUSE IT BEGINS WITH "NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW OR LOCAL ORDINANCE, RESOLUTION, OR REGULATION."

[00:45:01]

AND SO WITH REGARD TO THE PLANNING ACT BEING KING, IT PREEMPTS THAT IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE, BUT SAYING "NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW." SO, THEREFORE, WHAT'S STATED IN 3161 WOULD BE PREEMPTED BY THIS SPECIFIC SECTION, SO, THEREFORE, IT -- YOU WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE STATUTORY DEFINITION HERE AND APPLY THESE ELEMENTS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT MEETS THE DEFINITION OF "AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE," IT IS RELYING STRICTLY ON STATE LAW AND NOT THE COUNTY COMP PLAN.

>> SO IF I'M PLANNING YOU, THE LANGUAGE IN SB 686 PREEMPTS THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ACT OR ANYTHING ELSE IN 163.

>> IT'S A LIMITED PREEMPTION, BUT IT DOES PREEMPT THAT.

>> THE DEFINITION IS CORRECT, AS MR. WALTERS SAID, I CONCUR

WITH THAT. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE FROM THE BOARD HAVE

ANY QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> OH, SORRY. COMMISSIONER JOSEPH, YOU HAVE

THE FLOOR. >> I JUST WANT TO ASK KEALEY WEST, REALLY QUICK. SO, WHO IS DECIDING THAT THAT'S HOW IT'S LOOKED AT? I MEAN, ARE YOU -- DID YOU LOOK AT IT THAT IT'S WHAT YOU JUST SAID? THAT IT'S NOT A PREEMPTION? LIKE, THE COMP PLAN ISN'T KING? I MEAN, DO OTHER ATTORNEYS FEEL A DIFFERENT WAY, OR IS THAT JUST

THE WAY YOU LOOKED AT IT, OR...? >> SO, WE'RE JUST APPLYING THE LAW AS IT'S WRITTEN BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE, SO IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS "NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LOCAL LAW OR ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION." AND THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY HOW THE APPLICANT CAN APPLY FOR AND WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED.

SO THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE SENATE LANGUAGE IS WHAT WE'RE

LOOKING AT. >> SO, BY THAT BE LOOKED AT BY OTHER ATTORNEYS IN A DIFFERENT WAY?

>> I WOULD SAY "NO." IT'S VERY CLEAR.

>> OKAY. REBUTTAL?

>> YES. ON THE POINTS THAT WERE RAISED BY MR. MCARNIE, AS I KIND OF EXPLAINED, A LOT OF HIS POINTS THAT HE RAISED WERE ON MORE LEGAL ISSUES, RATHER THAN FACTUAL ISSUES REBUTTING THE EVIDENCE THAT WE PRESENTED THAT WE MEET ALL THE CRITERIA IN 163.3164.4 A THROUGH F.

ALSO, A LOT OF HIS COMMENTS WERE MORE ABOUT THE SECOND STEP OF THE PROCESS. SO, WE'RE HERE TODAY ABOUT THE CERTIFICATION. SO, WHETHER OR NOT THESE TWO PARCELS MEET THOSE CRITERIA IN 163.3164.4 A THROUGH F.

AND AT LEAST WHAT WAS PRESENTED TODAY, THERE WAS ESSENTIALLY NO REBUTTING EVIDENCE THAT I HAD HEARD THAT MADE ANY COUNTER POINTS TO SAY THAT WHAT WE PRESENTED WASN'T FACTUALLY ACCURATE, IN ADDITION TO HOW STAFF ANALYZED IT, REVIEWED IT, AND THEN ALSO CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION.

ADDITIONALLY, I DID WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THOUGH MR. MCARNIE SAID THINGS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THIS COULD DEVELOP UP TO 8,000 ACRES. THERE IS ABOUT THE CERTIFICATION OF IT. THERE'S THE SECOND STEP OF THE PROCESS THAT HE POINTED OUT, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THROUGH STAFF, WHERE WHENEVER THOSE DEVELOPMENT PLANS ARE SUBMITTED, THEY HAVE TO MEET ALL APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS AND ALSO LOCAL LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

SO, YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE WETLANDS ON THE PROPERTY, THEN THEY -- ANY DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH DEP OR WATER MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS.

THERE'S SETBACKS REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THEN THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE, AND THAT'S THE SECOND STEP OF THIS PROCESS THAT'S LAID OUT IN 163.3162.4 AND FOR SPECIFICALLY FOR E THROUGH G, I BELIEVE, WHERE THEY LAY OUT.

ONCE YOU ARE CERTIFIED AS AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE, THEN YOU

SUBMIT THOSE DEVELOPMENT PLANS. >> ANYTHING ELSE?

>> NOPE. >> COME HOME.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE'RE B BACK TO THE BOARD.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? I'M JUST THINKING OUT LOUD HERE. I MEAN, WE ARE TRULY IN

[00:50:04]

UNCHARTED TERRITORY. THIS IS A BRAND -- YOU KNOW, BRAND NEW LEGISLATION, AND THE FACT THAT THIS IS THE ONLY TIME THAT THIS WILL BE IN FRONT OF US IS -- WE JUST -- WE'VE GOTTA MAKE SURE THAT WE MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION TODAY, AND TO ME, THERE ARE JUST -- THERE'S TOO MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS RIGHT AT

THIS POINT. >> OKAY.

ANYTHING ELSE? >> YES.

I WASN'T SATISFIED THAT IT MEETS THE AGRICULTURAL WORKING OUT OF THE ACTUAL PROPERTY FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE, SO I'M DENYING THIS. THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. DID YOU WANT TO PUT THAT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION? .

>> IT'S NOT MY AREA. >> I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.

DO I JUST READ THIS? >> MAKE.MOTION.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE CERTIFICATION APPLICATION ENCERT 2026-05 THAT THE SUBJECT PARCELS DO NOT SATISFY THE STATUTESSER TO DEFINITION OF AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE UNDER THE FLORIDA STATUTES AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 163.1362 FLORIDA STATUTES AND DIRECT THAT OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE FINAL WRITTEN ORDER, INCLUDING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAWS SUPPORTING THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION AS REQUIRED BY

SECTION 163.3162. >> THROUGH HE CHAIR.

SO COMMISSIONER TAYLOR, WITH THAT MOTION, I'M GOING TO NEED YOU TO STATE THE FACTS THAT YOU'RE BASING THAT ON.

>> SO, I'M GOING TO USE IT ON THE FACT THAT THE -- THE FACT THAT WE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW IT'S EVEN BEEN MANAGED IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, AS FAR AS DOES IT TRULY MEET THE BONA FIDE AGRICULTURE. BECAUSE WE HAD A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS TODAY THAT WERE NOT ANSWERED.

SO I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. >> SECOND.

SECOND. I SECOND THAT.

>> OKAY. >> SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE

FLOOR, RIGHT? >> WE DO.

WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST?

>> JUST A POINT OF DISCUSSION, MR. CHAIRMAN.

THANK YOU FOR RECOGNIZING ME. SO, COMMISSIONER TAYLOR, YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION TO DENY IT BASED ON DOUBTS PRESENTED THAT THIS MEETS THE BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL OPERATION.

WHAT EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED EITHER BY THE APPLICANT OR BY SOMEBODY IN PUBLIC COMMENT? WHAT EVIDENCE DID WE SEE THAT THIS IS NOT A BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL OPERATION?

>> WELL, WE ASKED ABOUT THE LAST FIVE YEARS AND WHAT WAS REALLY GONE ON, AND ALSO, I DO WANT TO INTERPRET THE 163.3161.

SO I WOULD LIKE THAT INCLUDED. I DO THINK THAT WE NEED ANOTHER

INTERPRETATION OF THAT. >> CAN I SPEAK?

>> HOLD ON. I STILL HAVE THE FLOOR.

SO, AGAIN, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION: WHAT EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED THAT THIS DOESN'T MEET THE STATUTORY DEFINITION, RIGHT? THEE'S -- WE WANT TO SEE COWS OR CROPS BEING GROWN, AND WE THINK THAT THAT'S THE ONLY ACT, BUT THERE'S A TIMBER OPERATION, AS ANSWERED BY THE APPLICANT.

AND I THINK -- I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY.

I'M NOT PRETENDING TO BE ONE, BUT I THINK THAT THAT MEETS THE STATUTORY EVIDENCE OF DEFINITION OFAGRICULTURE.

>> I THINK THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WE CAN LOOK AT.

THE DEFINITION OF A PARCEL WITHIN THAT AGRICULTURAL.

>> OKAY. WELL, BASED ON THAT ANSWER, I THINK WE'RE ON SOME SHAKY LEGAL FOOTING, AS -- IN TERMS OF A MOTION TO DEFEND OURSELVES AGAINST A DENIAL HERE.

I'M NOT HEARING ANY COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS A REASON TO DENY. AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD ALL BE VERY AWARE OF THAT BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH THIS MOTION.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER JOSEPH?

>> YES. THAT'S WHY WE ARE ALL SEPARATE COMMISSIONERS. WE DON'T HAVE TO BE TOLD BY COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST WHAT TO DO, IF WE FEEL A CERTAIN WAY AND THAT'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO VOTE. WE REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT YOU SHOULD BE BULLIED, COMMISSIONER TAYLOR. IF YOU BELIEVE SOMETHING AND I BELIEVE SOMETHING, IT'S UP TO US TO VOTE THAT WAY.

>> I DIDN'T REALLY FEEL LIKE THAT WAS BULLYING.

I THINK HE WAS ASKING A LEGITIMATE QUESTION.

BUT THERE'S A MOTION OUT THERE AND THERE'S A SECOND.

SO, WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, I THINK WE NEED A

[00:55:03]

VOTE ON IT. NOW, ARE WE GOING TO DO JUST A VOICE VOTE ONLY, BECAUSE COMMISSIONER ARNOLD'S NOT IN THE BUILDING, OR DOES IT MATTER? WHAT WOULD YOU RATHER SEE?

>> YOU CAN DO IT EITHER WAY. WE CAN RECORD IT.

>> OKAY. WELL, THEN LET'S DO LIKE WE DID YESTERDAY. LET'S BRING UP THE VOTE AND LET'S VOTE ON THIS. UNLESS THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT ANYONE ELSE HAS...? OKAY.

BRING UP THE VOTING. THERE YOU GO.

IT'S COMING. ALL RIGHT.

HERE WE GO. DOES EVERYBODY HAVE IT?

>> NO, I DON'T HAVE IT ON MY PHONE.

>> OKAY. IN THAT CASE, WE'LL JUST DO A VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE DENIAL, SAY "YEA." OKAY.

WE HAVE TWO. ALL IN FAVOR -- OPPOSED TO THE DENIAL? SAY "YEA."

>> OKAY. THAT FAILS 3-2.

THANK YOU. >> SO, THIS IS JUST IF WE COULD

JUST GET A CONFIRMATIVE MOTION. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D BE HAPPY

TO MAKE A MOTION. >> PLEASE DO.

>> I'M GOING TO MOVE TO APPROVE THE CERTIFICATION APPLICATION ENCERT 2026-05. BASED UPON THE COMPETENT EVIDENCE IN THE REGARD, THE APPLICANT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE APPLICATION SATISFIES THE DEFINITION OF AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE AND THAT CONVERT FICTION REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 163.3162

OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES. >> OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> OKAY.

WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY. DO WE HAVE -- EVERYBODY'S GOT THEIR VOTES UP NOW? OKAY.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE. AND YOU CAN VOTE BY SAYING YEA

OR NAY. >> YES.

[2. Public Hearing * ENCERT 2026-06 Heritage Development West. The 2026 amendments to Sections 163.3162 and 163.3164, Florida Statutes establish a process allowing property owners to request certification that a property qualifies as an Agricultural Enclave before submitting a development application. Heritage Development Company of NE Florida, LLC submitted an application to certify PARCEL ID# 136635-0120, 137350-0010, and 140390-0000 as an Agricultural Enclave. The property is approximately 551 acres and is located west of Interstate 95 and south of State Road 207. Presenter: Ellen Avery-Smith, Esq., Rogers Towers, P.A. Staff Member: Saleena Randolph, Senior Planner]

>> OKAY. >> SO WE HAVE -- THAT CARRIES 3-2. THANK YOU.

LET'S GO TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2.

GENTLEMAN I APOLOGIZE AHEAD OF TIME IF I'M A LITTLE REPETITIVE.

BUT AS WE KNOW, THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING.

TWO SEPARATE RECORDS. TWO SEPARATE VOTES, SO I'LL TRY TO BREEZE THROUGH SOME OF THE BACKGROND ON THIS APPLICATION.

SO WE'RE HERE FOR THE SECOND ITEM FOR --

>> WE'RE GOING TO DO --

>> WE HAVE EX-PART AT A. >> I HAD APPROXIMATELY 200 EMAILS AND ALSO HAD A MEETING AND A BRIEFING WITH STAFF.

AND JOY ANDREWS. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER JOSEPH?

>> IT'S SAYS 74 MORE, BUT I'LL SAY 200.

MEETING WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR AND THE TEAM.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WHITE WHITEHURST?

>> 218 EMAILS. MET WITH STAFF.

MET WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR. >> OKAY.

COMMISSIONER TAYLOR? >> AND I HAD OVER 200 EMAILS.

MEETING WITH EDDIE KRAMER AND STAFF.

MEETING WITH OUR ADMINISTRATIVE, JOY ANDREWS, AND STAFF, AND A MEETING WITH KEELEY WEST AND MICROBAR SON.

>> OKAY, I ALSO HAD A WHOLE BUNCH OF EMAILS.

MEETING WITH ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF.

A MEETING WITH JIM WILCOX, AMELIA WILCOX RAMSAY AND STAFF.

OKAY. NOW YOU CAN GO.

>> SO, THIS IS FOR HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT WEST ENCERT 2026-06.

HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT WEST. THE MILK APT IS HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NORTHEAST OF FLORIDA.

THE PARCEL I.D. NUMBERS ARE -- THERE'S THREE PARCELS THAT MAKE UP HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT WEST. 136635.0120, 137350.0010 AND 130390-000. THE THREE PARCELS EQUAL APPROXIMATELY 550 ACRES IN SIZE. AND THIS APPLICATION IS FOR SEEKING CERTIFICATION OF THOSE THREE PARCELS AS AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE PERFECT SECTIONS 163.3126.4 AND 4.4 AZAMED BY SENATE BILL 686, WHICH WAS EFFECTIVE ON JULY 1ST.

AS WE KNOW, SENATE BILL 686 AMENDED THE DEFINITION AND THE PROCESS FOR SEEKING CERTIFICATION AS AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE. A PROPERTY OWNER SEEKING TO CERTIFY A PARCEL OR PARCELS MUST MEET THE AMENDED PROVISIONS AS

[01:00:02]

SET OUT IN 163.3164.4 A THROUGH F.

AND AS WE'RE HERE TODAY. WE ARE WITHIN THAT 60-DAY WINDOW FOR HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING, AS THE STAFF REPORT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE COUNTY ON JULY 31ST. SO, WE KNOW THE CRITERIA THAT IS ESTABLISHED IN 163.3164 A THROUGH F IS ESSENTIALLY THAT AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE SEEKING CERTIFICATION MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN AN UNINCORPORATED PART OF THE COUNTY AND THE PARCELS MUST BE UNDEVELOPED AS OF JANUARY 1ST, 2025.

THE PARCEL OR PARCELS MUST BE OWNED BY OR CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE PERSON OR ENTITY. THE PARCEL OR PARCELS MUST BE IN CONTINUOUS USE FOR BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AS DEFINED IN 193.461 FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS, AND THEY MUST MEET ONE OF THE -- ONE OF THE FIVE PERIMETER REQUIREMENTS IN SUBSECTION 4 C.

THE PARCEL OR PARCELS SEEKING CERTIFICATION MUST HAVE PUBLIC SERVICES OR THE APPLICANT MUST OFFER TO ENTER INTO A BINDING AGREEMENT TO PAY FOR SUCH SERVICES IF THEY ARE LACKING.

THE PARCEL OR PARCELS SEEKING FOR CERTIFICATION ARE NOT TO EXCEED 1,230 ACRES, UNLESS THERE'S CERTAIN CRITERIA THAT ARE ALSO MET, AND THEY MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN A COUNTY OF 1.75 MILLION OR LESS. SO HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT WEST IS VERY CLOSE IN PROXIMITY TO -- IT ACTUALLY ABUTS I-95 TO THE WEST AND THEN IS ESSENTIALLY SOUTHEAST OF STATE ROAD 207, AND IT IS MADE UP OF THREE PARCELS. THIS IS THE FLUM DESIGNATIONS FOR THE EXISTING PARCEL OUTLINED IN RED.

IT'S SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL B TO THE WEST.

A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH, AND THEN TO THE USE, SOUTH, AND SOUTHWEST, IS SURROUNDED BY RURAL AND SILVACULTURE. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED OPEN RURAL AND IS SURROUNDED TO ITS ESSENTIALLY NORTHWEST BY A PUD AND THEN ALSO SURROUNDED BY OPEN RURAL.

HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT FILED ITS APPLICATION FOR H HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT WEST ON JULY 31, 2026.

STAFF PROVIDED ITS WRITTEN REPORT REGARDING WHETHER THE APPLICATION MET THE REQUIREMENTS ON JULY 31ST, 2026, AND STAFF DETERMINED THE APPLICATION DEMONSTRATES THAT HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT WEST SATISFIES THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE. ENCERT 2026-06 WAS PUT TOGETHER BY QUALIFIED LEGAL AND TECHNICAL PROFESSIONALS, INCLUDING KEN METCALFE, WHO HAS OVER 40 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AS A PLANNER, INCLUDING 16 YEARS WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. HE HOLDS A MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING FROM FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY AND IS CERTIFIED AS A PLANNER BY THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PLANNERS AND HAS PARTICIPATED IN NUMEROUS ADMINISTRATIVE AND COURT PROCEEDINGS. AFTER THE MEETING WAS NOTICED FOR TODAY, THERE WAS A PUBLICATION NOTICE THAT WAS PLACED IN THE ST. AUGUSTINE RECORDER.

HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT SEEKS TO DEVELOP THE SUBJECT PROPERTY NOT TO EXCEED THE HIGHEST ALLOWABLE DENSITIES AND INTENSITIES FOR THE SURROUNDING PARCELS. THE SUBJECT PART WILL INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL UP TO 13 UNITS PER ACRE AND OTHER USES PERMITTED UNDER MIXED-USE. HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT WILL COMMIT DEVELOPMENT PLANS WITH THE COUNTY AS REQUIRED AND THEN GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. SO, ENCERT 2026-06 HAS MET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: IT CONTAINS ONLY UNDEVELOPED PARCELS LOCATED IN UNINCORPORATED ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

IT IS OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE ENTITY.

IT'S BEEN IN CONTINUOUS USE FOR BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES FOR FIVE YEARS BEFORE THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICATION.

AT LEAST 75% OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S PERIMETER IS A COMBINATION OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY AND PARCELS THAT ARE WITHIN AN URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT AREA OR LINE, WHICH THE COUNTY HAS DESIGNATED IN THE FLUM AS LAND TO BE DEVELOPED FOR RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY EITHER HAS THE NECESSARY PUBLIC SERVICES, BUT HAS ALSO AGREED TO ENTER INTO A BINDING AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE SERVICES.

THE PARCELS DO NOT EXCEED 1,280 ACRES, AND THE PARCELS ARE LOCATED WITHIN A COUNTY WITH A POPULATION OF LESS THAN 1.75 MILLION PEOPLE. WHEN STAFF REVIEWED THE APPLICATION, THEY CAME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION: BASED UPON THE APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMITTED AND STAFF'S

[01:05:03]

REVIEW, THE APPLICATION DOES DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PROPERTY SATISFIES THE SOUGHTER TO STATUTORYDEFINITION OF AN AG EN.

WITH RESPECT TO SINGLE OWNERSHIP.

PRIOR BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL USE, ADJACENCY TO EXISTING OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANTS' WILLING NECESSARY TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT TO FUND OR DEDICATE LAND FOR REQUIRED PUBLIC SERVICES AND APPLICABLE DENSITY AND INTENSITY REQUIREMENTS. SO NOW WE'LL GO INTO THE DEFINITION-BASED CRITERIA AS ESTABLISHED THROUGH A THROUGH F, BEGINNING WITH A. HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.

NORTHEAST FLORIDA OWNS AND CONTROLS THE THREE PARCELS THAT MAKE UP HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT WEST.

AS PART OF THE APPLICATION, THE WARRANTY DEED FOR THE PROPERTY WAS PROVIDED TO STAFF, WHICH THEY VERIFIED, AND THEY MADE THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATION THAT THE APPLICATION DOES DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 163.3164.4 A.

THE PARCEL OR PARCELS HAS BEEN IN CONTINUOUS USE FOR BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AS DEFINED BY 193.461 FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS BEFORE THE DATE OF ANY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT OR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. THE THREE PARCELS HAVE OPERATED AS A TIMBER FARM FOR OVER 70 YEARS.

IN ADDITION TO THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS RECEIVED THAT CLASSIFICATION FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER, ALSO AS PART OF THE APPLICATION, WE WENT THROUGH ESSENTIALLY THE STEP-BY-STEP CRITERIA THAT IS LAID OUT IN 193.461 THAT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER ALSO WENT THROUGH IN MAKING THAT DETERMINATION, THAT THE PARCEL IS AGRICULTURAL AND MEETS THE BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE TEST. SOME OF THESE CRITERIA ARE THE LENGTH OF TIME THE LAND HAS BEEN USED.

SO IN 1956, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS LEASED AS FINE FARM A PINEM OPERATION AND HAS CONTINUED TO BE USED AS A PINE FARM OPERATION TODAY. THE PARCELS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION HAVE BEEN USED FOR A PINE FARM.

THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE LAND. THE ENTIRETY OF THE PARCELS THAT WERE PURCHASED THAT MAKE UP THE VARIOUS PARCELS THAT ARE OWNED BY HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT NORTHEAST ARE COMMENSURATE ARE PROPERTY THAT IS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES WHENEVER THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT WERE PURCHASED WERE VERY LARGE. THESE TWO -- OR THESE THREE PARCELS ARE 550 ACRES IN SIZE, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO OTHER AG OR TIMBER FARM OPERATIONS. AND SO IN GOING THROUGH THAT ANALYSIS, SIMILAR TO HOW THE PROPERTY APPRAISER MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT THESE PARCELS ARE BEING USED FOR A BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE, WE ALSO LAID OUT THAT CRITERIA AND THAT ANALYSIS IN THE APPLICATION MATERIAL THAT WE PROVIDED.

ADDITIONALLY, THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY PROPERTY/PRAPRAISE APPRAR IS A CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION AND ANALYSIS WHENEVER THEY'RE DETERDETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT PROPERTY IS BEING USED FOR A BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE.

ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT INFORMATION SO WHENEVER THAT APPRAISER MAKES THAT DETERMINATION, THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THEY'VE COLLECTED THAT MEETS THE DEFINITION IN 193.461. SO, WHEN STAFF WAS REVIEWING THE APPLICATION, THEY STATED THAT ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE DOES NOT EXPRESSLY REQUIRE AN AGRICULTURAL CLASSIFICATION BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER, STAFF REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND REFERRED TO THE RECORDS WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE AND DETERMINED THAT AT LEAST BETWEEN 2015 AND 2025, THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER. AND STAFF MADE THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATION, THAT THE APPLICATION DOES DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 163.3164.4 B.

NEXT, WE GO INTO ONE OF THE PERIMETER-BASED REQUIREMENTS.

SO, UNDER -- FOR APPLICATION 2026-06, THE PERIMETER BASED ANALYSIS THAT WAS USED WAS THAT THE PARCEL OR PARCELS ARE SURROUNDED ON AT LEAST 75% OF THEIR PERIMETER BY A COMBINATION OF AN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY AND ONE OR MORE PARCELS WITHIN AN URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT AREA OR LINE THAT ARE DESIGNATED ON THE FLUM

[01:10:05]

FOR INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

THE PARCELS ARE SURROUNDED ON AT LEAST 75% OF ITS PERIMETER BY A COMBINATION OF INTERNATURE HIGHWAY, WHICH WOULD BE I-95, AND THE PARCELS THAT ARE WITHIN AN URBAN SERVICE AREA OR LINE AND THAT THE COUNTY HAS DESIGNATED IN THE FLUM AS LAND TO BE DEVELOPED FOR RESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. WE USED OUR IN-HOUSE GIS TEAM UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF MR. METCALFE.

THIS INFORMATION WAS ALSO VERIFIED BY STAFF.

SO THE PERIMETER ANALYSIS SHOWS ESSENTIALLY THREE QUALIFYING PERIMETERS. ONE IN RED, WHICH IS THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY, WHICH EQUALS 34.76%.

ANOTHER PERIMETER IS THE MIXED-USE DISTRICT ON THE FLUM, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 13.8%, AND THEN THE RESIDENTIAL B FLUM, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 32.03%, WHICH MEANS THAT, OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 32,355 -- OR HAS A PERIMETER OF APPROXIMATELY 32.355 FEET, 25,893 FEET OR 80.59 --% OF THAT PERIMETER QUALIFIES UNDER 4C1C. IN ADDIT4C1STAFF IN ITS WRITTENT ALSO MADE A DETERMINATION THAT ST. JOHNS COUNTY'S DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY IS ESSENTIALLY THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF AN URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND THAT WAS BASED ON REVIEWING THE STATUTORY DEFINITION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ELEMENTS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. STAFF MADE THE FOLLOWING FINDING: THAT THE APPLICATION DOES DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECTION.

NEXT, IN SUBSECTION 4D, THE PARCEL OR PARCELS MUST HAVE PUBLIC SERVICES OR ENTER INTO THAT BINDING AGREEMENT.

THOUGH THE APPLICANT -- IN OUR APPLICATION, WE ASSERTED THAT THERE WAS PUBLIC SERVICES, WE ALSO SAID IF THERE WAS A DETERMINATION THAT THERE WEREN'T, WE WOULD ENTER INTO A BINDING AGREEMENT FOR THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE SERVICES, AND STAFF RECOGNIZED THAT OFFER AND MADE THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATION: THAT THE APPLICATION DEMONSTRATES COMPLIANCE WITH 163.3164.4. DID HAVE FOR OFFERING TO ENTER INTO THAT BINDING AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FOR ANY OF THOSE LACKING SERVICES. NEXT, THE PARCELS -- THE THREE PARCELS DO NOT EXCEED 1,280 ACRES.

THEY'RE APPROXIMATELY 550 ACRES IN SIZE, AND THUS STAFF ALSO AGREED THAT THE APPLICATION REPRESENTS COMPLIANCE.

AND FINALLY THAT THE PARCELS ARE LOCATED WITHIN A COUNTY OF LESS THAN 1.75 MILLION PEOPLE. AS PART OF THE APPLICATION, WE PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION FROM THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, WHICH IS A STATE AGENCY OR STATE OFFICE, WHICH ESTIMATED ST. JOHNS COUNTY'S POPULATION TO BE 348,336 AS OF APRIL 1ST, 2025, WHICH FALLS UNDER THAT 1.75 MILLION THRESHOLD. MEANING THAT THE APPLICATION DEMONSTRATES COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 163.3164.4F, AS DETERMINED BY STAFF. SO ENCERT 2026-06 HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT WEST MEETS THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW. THE THROUGH THREE PARCELS ARE ALL UNDEVELOPED. THEY ARE LOCATED WITHIN UNINCORPORATED ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT.

ALL THREE PARCELS HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED BY THE PROPERTY PRAISER AS AGRICULTURALLAL FOR AT LEAST THE LAST TEN YEARS, AND AS DEMONSTRATED THROUGH THE COMPLICATION AS I PRESENTED TODAY, IT ALSO MET THEIR CRITERIA WHENEVER DOING THAT BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE ANALYSIS IN 193.461.

OVER 75% OF THE PERIMETER QUALIFIES UNDER THAT PROVISION IN SUBSECTION 4 C. THOUGH THE COUNTY DETERMINED THAT THERE WEREN'T ALL OF THE PUBLIC SERVICES NECESSARY, THE APPLICANT OR HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT WEST OFFERED TO ENTER INTO GOOD-FAITH NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE AUTHORIZE FOES SERVICES OF THE THREE PARCELS DO NOT EXCEED 1,280 ACRES, AND ST. JOHNS COUNTY HAS A POPULATION OF LESS THAN 1.75 MILLION PEOPLE. SO, TO CONCLUDE: STAFF MADE THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION.

[01:15:02]

THAT BASED UPON THE APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE INFORMATION REVIEWED BY COUNTY STAFF, THE APPLICATION APPEARS TO CERTIFY THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE CONTAINED IN SECTION 163.3164.4.

AND THE CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 163.3162.4 A, AND BECAUSE THE APPLICATION AND THE THREE PARCELS MEET THAT REQUIREMENTS IN 163.3164.4, THEN UPON REQUEST BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER, IT SHOULD BE CERTIFIED AS AN

AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER JOSEPH?

>> YES. OKAY.

JUST LEAVE THAT UP THERE. SO STAFF CONCLUSION: BASED ON APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMITTED...

SO THAT'S THE MATERIALS YOU SUBMIT.

AND IT APPEARS TO SATISFY, SO THAT'S, LIKE, NOT WRITTEN IN STONE, THIS WHOLE THING. BY THE WAY, IS THIS THE ONE THAT WAS DENIED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BEFORE?

>> I DO NOT HAVE THAT KNOWLEDGE. >> CHRIS? NO? ALL RIGHT.

SO, I HAVE A QUESTION: SO THIS IS 7,000 HOMES, POSSIBL? 7,163. BIG ENOUGH FOR A DATA CENTER, BECAUSE IT'S INDUSTRIAL. TRUE?

PUT A DATA CENTER ON THAT THING? >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR A DATA CENTER ARE.

>> OKAY. SO, AGAIN, HOW HAS IT WORKED AS A TIMBER FARM? LIKE, WHEN IS THE LAST CUT YOU

GUYS HAD IN. >> I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION WITH ME, BUT AS I SAID IN THE -- AS WAS DEMONSTRATED IN THE APPLICATION AND AS PROVIDED IN THIS PRESENTATION, THE ST.

JOHNS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER DID THAT ANALYSIS AS REQUIRED BY 193.4616, GOING THROUGH THAT STEP-BY-STEP ANALYSIS TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION THAT IT'S BEING USED FOR A BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE. AND I BELIEVE AS PART OF THAT ANALYSIS, THE OWNER WOULD HAVE PROVIDED INFORMATION RELATING TO LEASES, TIMBER MANAGEMENT PLANS IN MAKING THAT DETERMINATION.

>> WELL, UNTIL I SEE THAT, I REALLY CAN'T BE ON YOUR SAME PAGE. SORRY.

THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? LET'S GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT. I THINK WE HAVE A DESIGNATED

SPEAKER. >> OKAY.

AT THIS TIME, WE'LL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2.

>> YES. MY NAME IS WILLIAM FISHER.

1013 MCMAHON AVENUE. FLAG STATES.

I HAD A FRIEND OF MINE. HIS NAME WAS BUZZY DUPONT FROM DUPONT LAND CLEARING IN HASTINGS, AND HE OWNED A LOT OF THE PROPERTY IN THAT AREA OFF U.S. 1, AND IT WAS DECLARED WETLANDS. HE COULD NOT USE IT AT ALL.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING. >> THANK YOU AGAIN.

JOE MCARNIE. 1005 BACK BERRY LANE.

SO I HAVE TO STAND AND GIVE THE SAME PRESENTATION.

SORRY. JUST AS THE ATTORNEY DID, BECAUSE I THINK I'M RIGHT. SORRY TO SAY, I THINK I'M RIGHT.

AND, IN FACT, LET ME JUST ADD BEFORE I GET INTO THIS THAT THE -- THERE IS CURRENTLY STATE LAW WITH YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT ALLOWS AN APPLICANT TO PROPOSE PROPORTIONAL FAIR SHARE.

AND IT'S ONLY BY YOUR INTERPRETATION, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THAT'S STATE LAW -- IT'S ONLY BY YOUR INTERPRETATION THAT PROJECTS HAVE BEEN DENIED IN SPITE OF THE OFFER OF PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE DUE TO INADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND SO I'M HERE TO SAY, IF I CAN OFFER A VARIATION ON THIS THEME, IS THAT JUST AS THIS IS A NEW LAW, AND WE'VE HEARD WE'RE IN SOME UNCHARTED TERRITORY HERE. JUST AS THIS IS A NEW LAW, YOU CAN VOTE TO DENY AND YOU CAN DEFEND THAT ON THE BASIS OF INADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE, IN SPITE OF PROPORTIONAL FAIR SHARE. SO, I -- I APPRECIATE THAT IT SAYS IN -- YOU KNOW, "NOTWITHSTANDING CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN." LET'S JUST TAKE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OUT OF IT AND JUST FOCUS ON 163.3162, 64.

YOU CAN VOTE TO DENY, AND THEN SET THE PRECEDENT, AS YOU HAVE DONE WITH THIS NEW LAW. YOU CAN SET THE PRECEDENT BASED ON INADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE. I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT.

AND, FURTHERMORE, 163.3162 DOES SAY, WITH REGARD TO AN AMENDMENT

[01:20:05]

TO LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THAT THE OWNER OF A PARCEL OF LAND DEFINED AS AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE MAY APPLY FOR AN AMENDMENT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHERE SUCH AMENDMENT IS PRESUMED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND INCLUDES LAND USES AND INTENSITIES AS SUCH. I STILL THINK YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF DEFENSIBLE REASONS FOR DENYING THIS, AND THE NEXT APPLICATION. BUT LET ME QUICKLY JUST REPEAT FOR THE RECORD: THAT I THINK THERE ARE MULTIPLE REASONS TO DENY. I DO GO TO THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ACT. WE'VE BEEN -- WE'VE BEEN OVER THAT. WE HAVE HEARD FROM YOUR COUNTY ATTORNEY, SO I'M GOING TO BYPASS THAT, WHERE I AM SAYING THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS KING. AGAIN, BASED ON THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ACT, YOU'VE MADE THE DECISION, IN SPITE OF A PROPORTIONAL FAIR SHARE, TO DENY, AND THAT'S BEEN UPHELD%-Ú. YOU CAN ONCE AGAIN VOTE TO DENY AND DEFEND, DEFEND YOURSELVES, AND, I BELIEVE, HAVE A LEGALLY-DEFENSIBLE REASON BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, MY PREVIOUS PRESENTATION, THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS KING. BUT LET ME SAY AGAIN THAT, YOU KNOW, STAFF HAS SAID THERE'S PRESENTLY NOT -- THERE'S NOT PRESENTLY ADEQUATE PUBLIC SERVICES FOR THE SITE.

BUT THEN THEY HAVE BACKED OFF BY SAYING BUT THE APPLICANT OFFERS PROPORTIONAL FAIR SHARE. WELL, YOU'RE INTO UNCHARTED TERRITORY HERE, AND I THINK THAT A DENIAL IS STILL REASONABLE, THAT YOU CAN DEFEND THAT ON THE BASIS THAT THIS IS THE PRECEDENT YOU WANT TO SET. YOU DO NOT WANT TO LEAVE FUTURE TAXPAYERS HOLDING THE BAG FOR PROVIDING ALL OF -- TO BRING ALL OF THOSE INADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES UP TO -- UP TO STANDARD. THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE WITH THIS FIRST DECISION.

8,000 HOMES. 6,000 CARS.

ON A ROAD THAT'S ALREADY OVERCROWDED WITH 4,000 CARS.

WE HAVE JUST BY 150% INCREASED WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ON 207.

SO, LOOK HERE: WITH RESPECT TO -- WITH RESPECT TO THE WEST AREA, AGAIN, THOSE CARS HAVE TO GO SOMEWHERE.

TYLER, HELP ME OUT HERE. I'M PUSHING THE BUTTONS, I BELIEVE. THERE WE GO.

SO, 551 ACRES AT 13 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

7,000 NEW UNITS. APPLYING THE POSSIBLE STAFF ANALYSIS, ALMOST 6,000 ADDITIONAL TRIPS.

THEY'RE GOING TO GO SOMEWHERE. THEY'RE GOING TO GO EAST ON 20 , W7, WHICH IS ALREADY AT 96.6%. CLEARLY, CLEARLY, IT'S GOING TO ADVERSELY AFFECT 207. AND, YES, AS THE ATTORNEY HAS POINTED OUT, PERHAPS THIS IS STEP 2, BUT JUST THE SAME WITH AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1, THAT IS NOW ENTITLED FOR ALMOST 8,000 HOMES. OKAY? BECAUSE THEY USED GROSS ACRES. IT'S ALREADY ENTITLED FOR 8,000 HOMES. THIS IS GOING TO BE ENTITLED FOR ALMOST 7,000 HOMES. AND LOOK AT ALL THAT WET AREA, AND YOU'VE JUST HEARD FROM BILL HERE ABOUT THE WETLANDS.

SO, I -- I'M GONNA TO GET THROUGH THIS.

SORRY. BUT I DO THINK THAT, JUST AS A CURRENT LAW ALLOWS AN APPLICANT TO COME FORWARD WITH PROPORTIONAL FAIR SHARE, YOU HAVE JUDGED THAT, WHERE THERE IS TRULY INADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE, NOT CAUSED BY THE APPLICANT, BUT THAT THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE IS INADEQUATE, YOU CAN DENY.

YOU'RE SETTING NEW -- YOU'RE CHARTING NEW TERRITORY HERE.

AND I THINK THAT IT'S WORTH DENYING THIS AND DEFENDING THIS AND SETTING NEW PRECEDENT ON THIS NEW LAW.

SO, ONCE AGAIN -- ONCE AGAIN, I THANK YOU.

[01:25:02]

AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. AND, ONCE AGAIN, I SAY THAT, TO CERTIFY THIS IS THE LAST TIME THAT YOU OR ME OR ANYBODY WILL REVIEW THIS. IT'S THE LAST TIME YOU'LL HAVE A "YES" OR "NO" ON THIS PROJECT. AND WITH 7,000 -- ALREADY ALREADY 8,000 HOMES COMING ON WHAT HAS BEEN APPROVED, ANOTHER 7,000 HOMES APPROVED HERE... HUGE, HUGE, HUGE IMPACT ON EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE. I THINK YOU CAN DENY THIS.

I HOPE YOU WILL DENY THIS. THANK YOU.

THAT JUST AS YOU HAVE SET PRECEDENT BEFORE, YOU CAN SET PRECEDENT AGAIN. THIS IS UNCHARTED TERRITORY.

I HOPE YOU WILL DENY THIS, THIS PROJECT ON THAT BASIS.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME?

COME ON UP. >> DENVER COOK.

PROTECTED ADDRESS. I ONLY HAVE ONE QUESTION, FOR CLARITY: THEY SAY SERVICES.

THE ONE THING WE HAVEN'T HEARD ABOUT IS OUR SCHOOLS.

I DON'T -- I'M NOT A LAWYER. I'M NOT GETTING INTO OUGHT "H" ALL THELAWS. I'M NOT ANTI-ANYTHING OR PRO ANYTHING HERE. I NOTICE THERE ARE SUPERINTENDENTS HERE, AND WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE SCHOOLS.

JUST FOR A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY, CAN WE GET AN ANSWER ON HOW OR HOW NOT THE SCHOOLS MAY BE DEALING WITH THIS AND OUR SCHOOL DEBT IS ALSO AT OVER 600 MILLION.

ALL THESE THINGS, YOU GUYS NEED TO WORK THIS OUT.

YOU REALLY DO. I HAVEN'T HEARD INPUT FROM THE SCHOOLS AND WHAT THEIR KIND OF PERSPECTIVE ON THIS LEGISLATION IS AND HOW IT AFFECTS THEM. WE UNDERSTAND THE BOARD'S -- YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD FROM THE LAWYERS.

WE'VE HEARD FROM EVERYBODY, BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT EDUCATION AND SCHOOLS. IT IS SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS OUR COMMUNITIES AT LARGE, SO... I'M JUST A DAD HERE.

ARE A COMMUNITY ISSUE. IT'S THE ONE THING I JUST -- I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER ON THAT. I DON'T -- TIMBERLAND IS AGRICULTURAL. IT IS.

THEY CUT TREES WHEN THEY CUT TREES, AND THOSE TAKE A LONG TIME TO GROW. BUT WHERE DO OUR SCHOOLS SIT? I DON'T KNOW. AND I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS.

SO THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY -- MY ONLY QUESTION, IS HOW IT AFFECTS OUR EDUCATION. THANKS.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE?

GOOD MORNING. >> HELLO.

MY NAME IS RACHEL TRIVLETTO. 290 VALLEY GROVE ROAD.

BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL USES MEANS GOOD-FAITH AGRICULTURAL USE OF LAND AIMED AT GENERATING PROFIT.

I'M JUST CURIOUS, IF THAT IS ACTUALLY BONA FIDE USE OF AGRICULTURE, YOU WOULD THINK THEY WOULD HAVE A BUSINESS NAME.

MAYBE SOME SORT OF BUSINESS LICENSE OR A TAX NUMBER OF SOME SORT. SO THAT WOULD BE MY QUESTION.

DO THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A BUSINESS? BECAUSE THEY KEEP SAYING THAT THEY HAVE IT UNDER THE TAX ASSESSOR, BUT IS THERE ACTUALLY A BUSINESS ON THAT LAND? THAT WOULD BE MY QUESTION. SO...

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE? COME ON UP.

GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING.

CHRIS FARRELL. 410 ALLAPAT AVENUE, ST.

AUGUSTINE. I WAS MORE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM BURKE THERE WAS ONE GENERAL QUESTION THAT I HAVE THAT I THOUGHT I WOULD SHARE ON THIS ONE.

SENATE BILL 686 SAYS ALL THE CRITERIA MUST BE MET AS OF JANUARY 1ST, 2025, AND IN REVIEWING PART OF THE MATERIALS IN THE USED FOR DETERMINING BOUNDARIES AND PERCENTAGES, SOME MORE RECENT DATA IN 2026, AND SO I JUST WANTED TO ASK THE QUESTION TO MAKE SURE THAT STAFF DID REVIEW THIS AS OF JANUARY 21, 2025, AND THAT Y'ALL FEEL COMFORTABLE IF YOU ARE CERTIFYING IT MEETS THAT REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW THAT YOU HAVE SEEN THE DATA THAT SHOWS NOT ONLY ARE THEY MET BUT AS OF JANUARY 1, 2025, ALL OF THESE

CONDITIONS DESCRIBED CRITERIA. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING.

JEAN ACLAND. I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP MY ADDRESS PRIVATE BUT I CAN ATTEST THAT I LIVE IN CYPRUS LAKES AND MY BACKYARD BACKS UP TO THE PRESERVE TO WHICH THIS IS SPEAKING. SO I DO HAVE A VERY VESTED

[01:30:01]

INTEREST AND I ALSO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE TRAFFIC ON 207 AND IT IS ALREADY A MESS, AND SINCE THIS HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR THE 8,000 ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY, PLANNING THIS FOR HOW MANY MANY MORE THERE WILL BE. THAT IS A TRUE CONCERN SPECIFICALLY FOR MYSELF AS WELL AS ANY OF THE OR WILDLIFE CONCERNS THAT ARE THERE AS WELL. MY MAIN CONCERN IS I THINK MR. MCINERNEY MADE SOME VERY GOOD POINTS, AND ALSO DENVER MADE GOOD POINTS AS FAR AS THE SCHOOL SYSTEM, WE'RE ALREADY HAVING ISSUES. IT SAYS THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE HAS TO INCLUDE SCHOOLS. AS DENVER ALSO MENTIONED I'M NOT HEARING THAT. WE DO WANT GOOD EDUCATION FOR OUR KIDS. I DO THINK THERE ARE GOOD QUESTIONS OUT THERE FOR YOU DIDN'T GET THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS YOU ASKED. WELL I CAN'T SAY.

I DON'T KNOW THE LEGALITIES. I CAN'T SAY, YES, YOU SHOULD APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE. I ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO DO FURTHER RESEARCH. GET THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS YOU'VE ASKED:AND IF YOU CAN'T DENY IT, I ASK THAT YOU POSTPONE THIS DECISION UNTIL ALL THE INFORMATION CAN BE PRESENTED TO YOU. THANK YOU.

>> THE CHAIR: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? GOOD MORNING.

>> GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS PAUL DEFRANCO. I LIVE AT 35 VILLAGE WALK DRIVE.

MY COMMENTS WERE REALLY ABOUT ITEM NUMBER 3, I FELT THE NEED TO ACTUALLY ADDRESS ITEMS TWO MORE SPECIFIC.

ONE HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. BUT THE CONDITION OF THAT EVIDENCE IS AFFIRMATIVE NOT NEGATIVE.

YOU DON'T NOT APPROVE THAT TIMBER OPERATION IS GOING ON.

YOU PROVE THAT IT IS GOING ON. AND NO PROOF HAS BEEN PROVIDED.

IN FACT, THE STATUTE SAYS THAT THE ASSESSORS DETERMINATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT PROOF OF AN ONGOING FIVE-YEAR TIMBER OPERATION. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE SAME BUSINESS RECORDS OF A TIMBER OPERATION ONGOING FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS. THE OTHER THING IS AN AGREEMENT TO AN AGREEMENT IS MEANINGLESS. IT'S NOT A COMMITMENT TO FUND ANYTHING. IT'S AN AGREEMENT TO HAVE A MEETING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GREAT ADDITION, I THINK.

>> THE CHAIR: THANK YOU. >> 1122 VILLAGE GRAND DRIVE.

I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE DEFINITION OF PARCEL.

WE KEEP REFERRING TO THE TAX PARCEL, BUT THERE IS CASE LAW ON THIS. IT IS ORANGE COUNTY CASE LAW THAT STATED THAT THEY CANNOT USE TAX PARCELS TO DETERMINE LAND USE BOUNDARIES ONLY USED FOR THAT-- SORRY, I'M TRYING TO FIND MY NOTE, AND I CAN'T FIND IT. LACK CONTINUOUS COMMERCIALING A OUELLETURAL HUSBANDRY. WHEN THESE ARE PROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM THE CALCULATION, TRUETT WORKING AGRICULTURAL FOOTPRINT FAILS TO SATISFY THE CONTIGUOUS ACREAGE AND SURROUNDING PERMANENT RACIALLY MANDATED. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THE APPRAISER REALLY APPRAISED THIS PROPERTY? WAS IT IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS? WHERE IS THE APPRAISER'S EVIDENCE THAT EVERY ACRE OF THIS PARCEL COMPLIES WITH BONA FIDE AGRICULTURE WITHIN THE ENTIRE PERIMETER OF THE TAX PARCEL.

AGAIN, THE TAX PARCEL MEANS NOTHING.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO REFER TO THE TAX PARCEL BOUNDARY WHEN CREATING AN AGRICULTURE ENCLAVE. AND THE FACT THAT THEY KEEP REFERRING TO THE APPRAISER DECIDED IT IS.

MEANS NOTHING. FOR TAX PURPOSES IT DOES, BUT FOR AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE, THERE IS A HIGHER REQUIREMENT TO MEET THAN JUST THE APPRAISER APPRAISE THIS BOUNDARY AS SUCH.

[01:35:10]

EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING RELATED TO THE BUSINESS.

LIKE SHE SAID. SHOW ME A BUSINESS NAME, BUSINESS NUMBER. SHOW ME RECEIPTS.

AND THAT SCHU BE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS IS YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT IT TRULY WAS AGRICULTURALLY USE AND NOT JUST KEPT AS JUST TO SAY YOU HAVE A TAX BRACKET.

I URGE YOU TO DECLINE THIS BECAUSE YOU HAVE SETTING A HUGE PRECEDENCE. IT WILL BE REMEMBERED BY EVERY

RESIDENT. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE AT THIS TIME WITH PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2? OKAY.

SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> I DO WANT TO HEAR FROM DR. ASPLUND IF YOU DON'T MIND.

>> I DON'T MIND AT ALL. >> DO YOU HAVE A MINUTE TO COME

UP HERE. >> THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SCHOOL. WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS I DON'T WANT TO GET THIS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF WHAT OUR HEAR SOMETHING ABOUT, BUT THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT SCHOOL CONCURRENCY, AND HOW WE WOULD DEAL WITH THE NUMBERS GOING

FORWARD. >> OUR PAST HERE AT SA ST. JOHNS STUDENTS HAVE MOVED IN SO QUICKLY IT'S HARD TO SAVE ENOUGH MONEY WITHOUT A MORTGAGE ON THAT SCHOOL.

YOU ARE BUILDING THAT FAST YOU HAVE TO BORROW DOLLARS TO BUILD THEM. THAT WOULD PROBABLY REQUIRE US TO BORROW BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE TO BUILD MORE SCHOOLS WITH THAT MANY STUDENTS COMING ON-BOARD. I CAN TELL YOU THAT IN THIS PAST YEAR. HAS COME TO ABOUT 1% THIS YEAR.

SOME OF THE SCHOOLS THAT WE THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO BUILD IN OUR FIVE YEAR PLAN, WE HAVE DECIDED WE AREN'T GOING TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE WANT TO SEE HOW THINGS SHAKE OUT.

BUT WE THINK WITH SAVING OVER THE LAST YEAR-AND-A-HALF AND NOT BUILDING AS MANY SCHOOLS, WE'RE THINKING WE WON'T HAVE AS MANY SCHOOLS, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO SAVE ENOUGH MONEY.

WE MAY NOT HAVE TO HAVE A MORTGAGE ON THIS HIGH SCHOOL WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE FOR US.

THAT $100 MILLION WE WON'T HAVE TO BORROW, BUT IF WE DO FIND THAT WE'RE HAVING TO BUILD TWO OR THREE SCHOOLS EVERY YEAR LIKE WE HAVE BEEN. YOU HAVE TO BORROW THAT WILL IMPACT THE TAXPAYERS FOR SURE. WE ALWAYS HAVE TO BORROW THAT OTHER TWO THIRDS OR USE WHAT WE CAN.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING

UP HERE. >> THANK YOU.

>> SO THESE AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVES HAVE BEEN A PARTICULARLY INCREDIBLE STRUGGLE FOR ALL OF US BECAUSE WE BOTH CAME UNDER THE AUSPICES OR ALL OF US KIND OF CAME TO THE BOARD KNOWING THAT WE HAVE GROWTH FATIGUE.

SAINT PST. JOHNS COUNTY SPECIFIY HAS GROWTH FATIGUE.

WE LOOK AT THESE ENCLAVES AS A PRE-EMPTION FROM THE STATE, AND I'M NOT HAPPY. I'M NOT HAPPY WITH THEM AT ALL.

BUT WHAT I DISCOVEREDSIDE WHEN YOU GET INTO THIS POSITION WHETHER I'M HAPPY OR NOT IS NOT THE DECIDING ISSUE.

DEBT SIDING IS WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY.

I'M NOT HAPPY ABOUT SUPER SPEEDER LAWS BECAUSE I CAN'T GO 100 MILES AN HOUR ANYMORE, BUT BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS.

IF I GO OVER 100 MILES AN HOUR, I'M GOING TO BE ARRESTED AND PUT IN JAIL. BECAUSE THAT IS THE LAW.

I'M A BIG BELIEVER IN. THAT I'VE BEEN OF SUPPORTER OF LAW AND LAW AND ORDER. I THINK WE'RE A NATION OF LAWS.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR TO US REMEMBER THAT.

EVEN THOUGH I AM NOT HAPPY ABOUT THE GROWTH IN THIS COUNTY, I'M

[01:40:03]

NOT HAPPY ABOUT ANY OF IT, I FIND OURSELF PUT BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE.

WE ARE BOUND BY THE LAW. WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY.

DID THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. THE STAFF THINK THEY DO, AND SO I DON'T LEGALLY THE WAY IS WRITTEN I DON'T SEE A NAIL TO HANG MY HAT ON. I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. BUT I CAN'T.

SO I CAN'T THINK OF A LEGAL REASON TO VOTE TO DENY.

THIS I JUST CAN'T. I WE CAN GO TO COURT BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING TO DEFEND. BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE WAY THE LAW IS WRITTEN, OUR HANDS ARE TIED.

STATE HAS PRE-EMPTED US AGAIN AND HERE WE ARE.

DO I HAVE A RE RE BUTTLE FROM TE APPLICANT?

>> I WILL BE VERY BRIEF. I DID WANT TO POINT OUT IN 193.461 SUBSECTION 1. PROPERTY APPRAISER SHALL ON AN ANNUAL BASIS CLASSIFY FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ALL LANDS WITHIN THE COUNTY AS EITHER AGRICULTURAL OR NONAGRICULTURAL WHICH MEANS THAT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER IS DOING THIS DETERMINATION ON A YEARLY BASIS TO MAKE SURE THESE PROPERTIES ARE BEING USED FOR A BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE AND THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THAT STEP BY STEP ANALYSIS THAT IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE PROPERTY APPRAISER HAS MADE THAT DETERMINATION THAT IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT IT IS BEING USED FOR A BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL PROCESS BECAUSE IT MADE THAT DETERMINATION IN BOTH ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY AUTHORITY AS A CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER.

THE LAST POINT WAS JUST ON THE NOTE ABOUT PARSE YERLS OR PARCELLS OF LAND WITH HOW IT'S DEFINED IN STATUTE.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE A PARCEL I.D. NUMBER FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T USE A PROPERTY I.D.

NUMBER FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER BECAUSE IT MEETS THAT STATUTORY DEFINITION OF A PARCEL OF LAND.

AND WITH THAT, IF THERE ARE ANY MORE QUESTINS, I'M HAPPY TO

ANSWER. >> I'VE BEEN DRIVING BY THIS PROPERTY FOR 50 YEARS. ENCERTIFICATE IS INY THE COMPANT DOES THAIVMENT KNOW THE GUY THAT-- I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DESIGNATION. I JUST HAVE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE GROWTH. I REALLY DO.

THIS IS IMPORTANT TO THE COUNTY. WE NEED A BREAK.

AND UNFORTUNATELY I CAN'T LEGAL I WILL GIVE OUR COUNTY A BREAK.

AND IT'S REALLY CONFLICTING. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ANYTHING ELSE?

YES, SIR. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AT THE RISK OF BEING ACCUSED OF BULLYING KEALEY WEST, I'M GOING TO ASK HER ANOTHER QUESTION. HAS THE STAFF DONE THEIR JOB TO ENSURE THAT THIS APPLICATION HAS MET THE REQUIREMENT FOR AG

OPERATIONS ON THIS PARCEL. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR TO COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST, I BELIEVE THEY HAVE, THE STAFF WHEN WE ORIGINALLY TOOK THIS ON, THE STATUTE DIRECTS US TO LOOK AT 193.461. SINCE THAT IS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE PROPERTY APPRAISER WE MET WITH MR. KRAMER AND I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER TAYLOR ALSO MET TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERINSTITUTE ANALYSIS THAT WENT INTO CLASSIFYING PROPERTIES AS AGRICULTURE AND THE DEFINITION OF BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND USES. SO WE MET WITH HIM AND HIS STAFF AND WALKED THROUGH THE ANALYSIS THEY GO THROUGH.

AFTER THAT MEETING AND SEEING THE CLASSIFICATIONS, WE WERE

[01:45:03]

COMFORTABLE WITH THE DETERMINATIONS.

>> THANK YOU, MS. WEST. >> OKAY.

ANYTHING ELSE FROM ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT.

I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE CERTIFICATION 2,026.01. BASED UPON EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE RECORD, THE APPLICANT DEMONSTRATES THAT IS SATISFIES THE AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 163.164 SUB4. FLORIDA START OUTS IN THE CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION IS 63.3162 FLORIDA STATUTES. OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION. SECOND?

LET'S VOTE. >> YES.

[3. Public Hearing * ENCERT 2026-01 N Palm Valley Rd. Application for Agricultural Enclave Certification pursuant to Sections 163.3162 and 163.3164, Florida Statutes. This certification request includes approximately 4,462 acres. The subject property is located North of Nocatee Parkway, west of the Intracoastal Waterway, and east of the Duval County line.]

>> THAT PASSES 3-2. LET'S MOVE ON TO NUMBER 3.

COMMISSIONER ARNOLD IF YOU WOULD START US OFF.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. IT'S THE SAME AS THE OTHERS.

200 E-MAILS AND A MEETING WITH OUR STAFF AND COUNTY

ADMINISTRATOR. >> THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER JOSEPH? >> SORRY.

THAT IS MY FAULT. LET ME GET.

>> THAT OVER 200 E-MAILS MEETING WITH MIKE ROVERSON, MEETING WITH THE ADMAIN STRAITER AND OUR TEAM.

TERRY GUSTAFSSON, JOE MCINERNEY, DAMIEN KOKIO AND TEAM. I SPOKE TO MY PERSONAL ATTORNEY.

>> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE RECORD OF 225 E-MAILS OR MORE. MET WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR AND OUR STAFF. MET WITH KERRY GUST GUS, JOSEPH MCINERNEY. DAMIEN-- KOSEO AND OUR STAFF.

WE DISCUSSED THE SITE PLAN, THE APPLICATION, WE DISCUSSED THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS. I ALSO MET WITH MIKEY WHITE, AND WE DISCUSSED THE APPLICATION, THE CRITERIA THAT IS REQUIRED.

THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY.