[1. District 4 Public Hearing * MAJMOD 2026-07 Our Lady Star of the Sea PUD. Request for a Major Modification to the Our Lady Star of the Sea PUD (Ordinance 2011-30, as amended) to allow for the redevelopment of the administrative building, school, faith formation building and other uses on the campus of the existing Our Lady Star of the Sea Catholic Church, specifically located at 545 A1A N. The Ponte Vedra Zoning and Adjustment Board (PVZAB) heard this request at their regularly scheduled public hearing on August 3, 2026, and recommended approval with a vote of 6-0. ]

OKAY, SEEING NONE WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> WE WILL GO STRAIGHT TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1, QUASI-JUDICIAL AND SO I WILL ASK COMMISSIONER ARNOLD.

>> THANK YOU. I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY EMAIL FROM RESIDENTS OR STAFF I DID HAVE A CALL WITH SMITH AND THE FATHER

TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM. >> THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER. >> I HAVE ONE EMAIL I'M NOT SURE BUT I DID MEET WITH PASTOR ANDY AND MR. ROBINSON.

>> COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST. >> I HAVE NO RECORDS OF EMAILS OR PHONE CALLS FROM RESIDENTS OR STAFF BUT I DID MEET IN THE OFFICE WITH AVERY SMITH, VICTOR AND OUR STAFF WE DISCUSSED THE SITE LOCATION, THE GROWTH IN THE AREA AND THE NEED FOR AN

EXPANSION OF THE CHURCH. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH,

COMMISSIONER TAYLOR. >> I HAD NO EMAILS FROM RESIDENTS OR STAFF, I DID HAVE A MEETING IN THE OFFICE, THE

FATHER, VICTOR AND STAFF. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, I DID NOT HAVE EMAILS, I HAD A MEETING WITH ELLEN AVERY SMITH, AND THE FATHER. WITHOUT EXPERT YOU MAY BEGIN.

[02:05:02]

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR, FOR THE RECORD ELLEN AVERY SMITH, ROGERS TOWER 101 STONE PLACE HERE IN ST. AUGUSTINE.

YOU'VE ALREADY RECOGNIZED FATHER ANDY AND VICTOR AND SO THEY ARE HERE IN CASE WE NEED THEIR EXPERTISE IN CONSTRUCTION OR FAITH AND WE CAN ALL USE SOME OF THAT TODAY.

I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING HERE ON BEHALF OF THE DIOCESE OF SAINT AUGUSTINE WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS OUR LADY STAR OF THE SEA CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS LOCATED, YOU SEE THE LOCATION MAP UP ON THE SCREEN 541A1A NORTH.

THE CAMPUS HAS EXISTED FOR DECADES AND LOTS OF PEOPLE IN PONTE VEDRA ATTEND CHURCH THERE AS WELL AS SUNDAY SCHOOL AND OTHER ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.

THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY AS RESIDENTIAL C WHICH DOES ALLOW CHURCHES AS A MATTER OF RIGHT AND THEN THE ZONING IS PUD. ZONING HAS BEEN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND WE ARE SIMPLY HERE TODAY TO MODIFY THAT EXISTING PUD. SO AGAIN THE REASON WE ARE HERE IS THE PUD HAS A CAP ON THE NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET THAT ARE PERMITTED FOR EACH BUILDING. WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS TO BE ABLE FOR THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO REDEVELOP THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, THE EARLY LEARNING CENTER, THE FAITH FORMATION AND OTHER BUILDING ON THE EXISTING CAMPUS OF THE CHURCH.

AND SO AGAIN THERE ARE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FEET NOT ONLY FOR THIS NEW BUILDING WHICH THEY ARE HOPEFUL TO OPEN BY THE NEXT SCHOOL YEAR 27, 28 BUT ALSO IF THERE NEEDS TO BE AN ADDITION TO THE SANCTUARY OR THIS BUILDING IN THE FUTURE WE HAVE BUILT IN ENOUGH SQUARE FOOTAGE WHERE THE CHURCH DOES NOT HAVE TO COME THROUGH THIS SERIES OF PROCESSES IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THEIR VISION. HERE ARE THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS THAT WERE DONE, THEY WERE APPROVED BY THE PVZAB.

THE BUILDING IS QUITE LOVELY AS YOU CAN SEE FROM VARIOUS PERSPECTIVES, AND THEN HERE IS THE SITE PLAN THIS IS IN THE APPLICATION YOU CAN SEE THE NEW BUILDING THAT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE WATER, YOU CAN SEE IN THE CENTER OF THE BUILDING THE EXISTING SANCTUARY AND YOU CAN SEE ALL OF THAT SITE INFORMATION INCLUDING PARKING WHICH WILL BE PROVIDED OF COURSE ON THE CAMPUS. AND THEN AGAIN NO CHANGES IN SETBACKS, BUILDING HEIGHTS OR BUFFERS, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO EVEN WITH THE ADDITIONAL FUTURE SQUARE FEET IS AT 52%, WHICH IS 13% LOWER THAN IS ALLOWED IN THAT PVZAB THAT MAXIMUM OF 65%, AGAIN PARKING WILL BE SHARED BASED ON AN UPDATED PARKING ANALYSIS AND NO NEW WAIVERS TO THIS PUD ARE REQUESTED, IN FACT WE'RE TAKING ONE OUT BECAUSE THEY'RE STAYING BELOW THE 65% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.

AGAIN THEY HAVE APPROVED THIS ARCHITECTURE, THAT PVZAB SAID IN THIS VERY ROOM A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED TO THIS BOARD THAT YOU APPROVE THIS MODIFICATION APPLICATION AND SO WITH THAT BEING SAID WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU APPROVE THIS APPLICATION TODAY SO THAT VICTOR AND FATHER ANDY CAN START THE CONSTRUCTION TO MORROW.

SO THAT IS ALL AND WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU

MIGHT HAVE. >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?

>> LET'S GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT. >> AT THIS TIME WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1.

SEEING NONE WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> COMMISSIONER JOSEPH YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ENACT ORDINANCE 2026-27 APPROVING MHAMOD2026-07 OUR LADY STAR OF THE SEA PUD BASED UPON THE SIX FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND.

>> LET'S GO TO THE VOTE. AND THAT PASSES 50,

[3. Public Hearing * Public Hearing continued from August 19, 2026 - ENCERT 202601 N Palm Valley Rd. On August 19, 2026, the Board conducted a Public Hearing for application ENCERT 2026-01 N Palm Valley Rd. The Board moved to continue the public hearing and directed staff to review the northern boundary for compliance with section 163.3162 and .3164, Florida Statutes. The Application requests 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. ]

CONGRATULATIONS. [APPLAUSE]

>> WE WILL GO DIRECTLY TO NUMBED EXPERT ON THIS IS THAT RIGHT?

>> WE SWITCHED TO. >> WE WILL GO TO COMMISSIONER

ARNOLD. >> I'VE HAD APPROXIMATELY 600 EMAILS QUITE POSSIBLY MORE ON THIS ITEM, WE HAD THAT MEETING WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AS WELL AS HAVE SPOKEN WITH MISS

MELANIE SEVERAL TIMES. >> COMMISSIONER JOSEPH.

>> SO I HAVE HAD OVER -- 600, MINE SAYS 500 EMAILS, I HAVE HAD NO EMAILS FOR THE PROJECT THE ONLY THING WE HEARD WAS ONE GENTLEMAN THAT WAS HERE TODAY, IN THOSE EMAILS ARE ALL KINDS OF

[02:10:07]

PEOPLE, HOUSEWIVES, MOMS, DADS A LOT OF REALLY IMPORTANT PEOPLE THAT HAVE A LOT OF BRAINPOWER AND AFFECTD PARTIES ALSO, I HAVE HAD A CALL WITH CARRIE HERSCHEL, TOM GEORGE AND I MET WITH CHRIS HAROLD OF THE AUDUBON AND LET ME MAKE SURE I GET EVERYBODY. AND LEE OWENS.

AND MEETING WITH MIKE, MEETING WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF, MEETING WITH CARRIE GUSTAVSON, DAMIEN AND STAFF.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> I ROUGHLY 600 EMAILS, MIGHT BE 700 BY NOW, THEY KEEP COMING, MET WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR AND OUR STAFF TO DISCUSS THE PARAMETERS OF THIS APPLICATION, I'VE MET WITH CARRIE GUSTAFSON, JOSEPH, DAMIEN TO DISCUSS THEIR CONCERNS AND OBJECTIONS TO THE APPLICATION.

>> COMMISSIONER TAYLOR? >> I'VE HAD OVER 650 EMAILS, I HAD A MEETING WITH EDDIE KRAMER AND STAFF, MEETING WITH OUR ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF, MEETING WITH KELLY WEST AND MIKE ROBERTSON, MEETING WITH CARRIE GUSTAFSON, JOE, DAMIEN AND STAFF AND A MEETING WITH KIERAN HIRZEL AND NICOLE VALENTINE AND STAFF

AS WELL. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I'VE HAD 503 EMAILS OR MORE SO WE WILL GO WITH MORE MEETING WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF, MEETING WITH JOE WILCOX, I'VE MET WITH CARRIE GUSTAFSON, JOSEPH, DAMIEN AND STAFF.

I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE SO LET'S BEGIN. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

>> AS A POINT OF ORDER WE ARE THE APPLICANT.

>> YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. >> DO YOU GO FIRST?

>> SHE GOES FIRST. >> YES ACTUALLY I NEED TO USE

THE PODIUM, STORY. >> I WILL HOLLER AT YOU.

AND I CAN REMIND EVERYONE THAT WE ARE BACK FROM A CONTINUANCE OF SOMETHING THAT STARTED TWO WEEKS AGO, WE ARE CONTINUING THIS THIS HEARING SO YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

>> FOR THE RECORD ELLEN AVERY SMITH, AT 101 AND SAINT AUGUSTINE. I AM A FLORIDA BAR LICENSED ATTORNEY AND I'VE BEEN PRACTISING LAND USE AND REAL ESTATE LAW IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA SINCE 1997 SO YES, I AM AN EXPERT IN FLORIDA LAND USE LAW.

I WANT TO RAISE THE ISSUE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT IT SAYS THAT THE BOARD MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DIRECTED STAFF TO REVIEW THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 163.3162 AND .3164 FLORIDA STATUTES.

MR. CHAIR I WANT TO ASK IF STAFF HAS MADE THAT CONFIRMATION OR DETERMINATION AT THIS POINT BEFORE I PROCEED.

>> IS A GREAT QUESTION. MISS WEST?

>> I THINK MR. ROBINSON HAS COMMENTS ON THAT HE CAN ADDRESS

STAFF REVIEW. >> GOOD MORNING, SIR.

>> ROBINSON DIRECTOR OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT, STAFF DID RELOOK AT THE BOUNDARY FOR THIS APPLICATION, PARTICULARLY THE NORTHERN PARCEL WE HAD ASKED THE COUNTY SURVEYOR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR OF COREY BOWENS TO RERUN THAT BOUNDARY IN OTHER WORDS YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT WAS GIVEN ALONG WITH A MAP SKETCH AND DID CLOSE AND THAT'S THEIR TERMINOLOGY, IT MEETS AT THE END SO IT DID MEET IN OUR EYES THE DEFINITION OF THE PARCEL AND THEN IT CLOSED IT WAS AN

ACCURATE LEGAL DESCRIPTION. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND FOR MY PRESENTATION I AM LIMITING IT TO ONLY THE ISSUE AT HAND. SO GETTING INTO THE LAW, WE ARE DEALING WITH CHAPTER 163, 3164 FLORIDA STATUTES WHICH DEFINES A PARCEL OF LAND AS THE QUANTITY OF LAND CAPABLE OF BEING DESCRIBED WITH SUCH DEPTH -- DEAFNESS THAT ITS LOCATIONS AND BOUNDARIES MAY BE ESTABLISHED PIER WHICH IS DESIGNATED BY ITS OWNER OR DEVELOPER AS LAND TO BE USED OR DEVELOPED AS A UNIT OR WHICH HAS BEEN USED OR DEVELOPED AS UNIT.

IN OTHER WORDS FLORIDA, THIS DEFINITION ALLOWS THE OWNER TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFINE THE PARCEL OF LAND IN ANY MANNER PERMITTED BY LAW. THAT INCLUDES BY LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE HERE.

SO IN OUR APPLICATION PACKAGE AS EXHIBIT TWO WE HAVE THE SKETCH

[02:15:06]

AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PREPARED BY A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR.

THAT IS PAGE 1. HERE IS PAGE 2, HERE IS PAGE 3.

WITH A METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION PREPARED BY A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR. IT CONCLUDES 4462 ACRES ARE WITHIN THIS PROPERTY. THIS IS IMPORTANT AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE LAW BECAUSE WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW TODAY. AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. THERE IS THE TOWN VERSUS VISTA FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL WHICH IS OUR DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL THAT SAYS RELATED TO THE DEFINITION OF PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 163.3164 THE COURT HELD THAT A PROPERTY OWNER HAS THE RIGHT TO DESIGNATE WHICH PORTION OF HIS LAND CAN BE USED OR DEVELOPED. AND THIS CASE OF THIS BIR 47 PROPERTY THE OWNER HAS A SPECIFIC LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PORTION OF ITS LAND THAT IS SUBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION.

THAT IS HIS RIGHT UNDER FLORIDA LAW THAT APPLIES TO SAINT JOHNS COUNTY. THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. I HAVE HEARD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS EARLIER ABOUT THE ORANGE COUNTY CASE, ONE, ORANGE COUNTY IS NOT IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS JURISDICTION BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THIS IS AN EXCERPT FROM THE STAFF REPORT FROM WHITE PICKET NORTH PROPERTY ANALYSIS, IT CLEARLY SAYS THAT THAT APPLICATION IDENTIFIED TEN PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS TOTALING 1317 ACRES. THE APPLICANT GAVE PARCEL ID NUMBERS AND A MAP THAT TRIED TO CUT OUT SOME OTHER PROPERTY TO GET TO 1258 ACRES. THAT APPLICANT DID NOT PROVIDE A SPECIFIC LEGAL DESCRIPTION. IT ONLY PROVIDED PARCEL ID NUMBERS. SO THIS ANALYSIS IS DIFFERENT.

THAT APPLICANT DID NOT PROVIDE A METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION. IN THIS CASE WE HAVE PROVIDED A MEET AND BOUND LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND IN MY LEGAL OPINION OUR APPLICATION WITHOUT METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION COMPLIES WITH THIS REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW.

NOW WITH THAT BEING SAID I WILL BE QUIET BECAUSE WE ARE ONLY COMMENTING ON OUR ONE NARROW ISSUE, IF DURING PUBLIC COMMENT PEOPLE GO OUTSIDE OF THIS NARROW ISSUE THEN WE RESPECTFULLY RESERVE FULL REBUTTAL RIGHTS FOR ANY ITEMS THAT ARE BROUGHT UP BEYOND THIS FINITE ISSUE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?

COMMISSIONER JOSEPH. >> EXCUSE ME, I WAS WONDERING WHEN YOU SAY BOUNDARIES AND CRITERIA WHICH COMMISSIONER MURPHY ASKED A BOUNDARY IS DECIDED WHETHER THE HOUSE IS ALREADY ON IT, THE BOUNDARY WOULD CHANGE ACROSS FROM THE WATERWAY WHETHER THERE IS THE RIGHT PROPERTY WHERE THERE IS A BUILT STRUCTURE ACROSS THE WATERWAY THAT IS THE CRITERIA OF

A BOUNDARY. >> COMMISSIONER JOSEPH I. THINK YOU'RE MIXING AREAS OF THE LAW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, THE BOARD CONTINUED BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY AND I'M SORRY I NEED TO PUT MY STUFF BACK DOWN. SO, FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY AGAIN, WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOLELY IS WHETHER OR NOT THIS APPLICANT HAS THE RIGHT TO NOT INCLUDE THE ENTIRE PARCEL ID NUMBER. AND WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS BASED ON THIS CASE LAW FROM THIS PARTICULAR FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL THIS APPLICANT HAS EVERY LEGAL RIGHT TO PROVIDE A METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THIS PROPERTY, ABSOLUTELY. THAT IS THE ONLY ITEM THAT IS AT ISSUE AT THIS HEARING TODAY EVERYTHING ELSE WAS ADDRESSED AT THE LAST HEARING, WE HAD A FULL PUBLIC HEARING WE SPENT HOURS HERE IN PUBLIC COMMENT AND REBUTTAL AND SO WE ARE TRYING TO ONLY IDENTIFY AND RIGHT NOW SPEAK TO THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE THAT I'VE JUST SPOKE ABOUT. IF THE GENERAL PUBLIC OPENS UP TO A BROADER SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES OR FACTS WE

[02:20:04]

RESPECTFULLY REQUEST REBUTTAL RIGHTS TO ADDRESS ALL OF THOSE

SIDES. >> I FEEL THEY DID.

>> BUT THAT'S NOT THE NARROW FOCUS.

>> I'M CONCERNED. I FEEL LIKE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE FOR THAT. >> I WILL SAY FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE SO FAR I HAVE NOT HEARD CONFIDENCE SUBSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE THAT. >> ORDER PLAYS.

>> AND OUR PRESENATION AND OUR APPLICATION FROM THE LAST MEETING. AGAIN, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST REBUTTAL RIGHTS BECAUSE IF WE NEED TO WE WILL GO OVER OUR ENTIRE PRESENTATION AND THEN SOME AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> AGAIN, THAT IS YOUR OPINION AND I DO QUESTION YOUR OPINION.

THANK YOU. >> AND THAT'S FINE.

>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION. [APPLAUSE]

>> I HAVE A QUESTION CAN YOU PUT THE SKETCH BACK UP THERE PLEASE,

THANK YOU. >> I HAD A QUESTIONER -- A QUESTION ABOUT SEGMENT 37 BECAUSE YOU HAVE IT INCLUDING THE FULL UNIT BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A SEGMENT OF IT.

>> I'M SORRY COMMISSIONER I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT SEGMENTS.

>> PARCEL. >> SECTION 37? THAT IS A SECTION TOWNSHIP AND RANGE CALL SO THAT IS PART OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, THAT'S PART OF THE SKETCH OF DESCRIPTION THAT WAS PREPARED BY THE SURVEYOR.

THE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY LOCATED IN ALL OF SECTION SEVEN AND EIGHT AND THEN FRACTIONAL SECTIONS OF SECTIONS EIGHT AND 17 TOGETHER WITH PORTIONS OF SECTION SIX AND PORTIONS OF FRACTIONAL SECTIONS OF FIVE ., 20 AND 37, 38, 40 AND 48.

THAT'S PART OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THIS PARTICULAR

PIECE OF PROPERTY. >> REALLY IT SHOULD SAY PARTIAL.

CORRECT? FOR 37 NOT FULL.

>> THIS PROPERTY IS ONLY WITHIN -- I. DON'T WANT TO GO I AM NOT A LICENSED SURVEYOR BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION CAN INCLUDE PORTIOS OF SECTIONS THAT I WILL POINT YOU BACK TO AGAIN, THAT IS THE SKETCH THAT THE COMPANY'S, HERE

IS A LEGAL DESCRIPTION. >> THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AGAIN PREPARED BY A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR INCLUDES 4462 ACRES AND IT INCLUDES ALL OF SECTION SEVEN AND 18 AND THEN FRACTIONAL SHARES OF THOSE. THAT IS THE PROPER METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THIS 4462 ACRES.

QUESTION ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR STATEMENT WITH A PHOTO.

WASN'T THERE SOMEBODY THAT HAD -- IF SHE COULD PLEASE COME UP AND SHOW ME A PICTURE OF THAT A BIT BETTER, THANK YOU.

>> THAT IS AGAIN. >> I CAN'T SEE IT THOUGH PUT IT

UP. >> THAT IS THE AREA THAT SITS

RIGHT HERE. >> YOU MOVED HER SO QUICK I COULD NOT EVEN LOOK AT IT CAN WE LOOK AT IT PLEASE THANK YOU.

>> THAT IS THIS SECTION. >> THIRTY-SEVEN CORRECT IT LOOKS

LIKE IT'S BEEN REMOVED. >> AGAIN, IS NOT REMOVED FROM THE LAND COMMISSIONER IS NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE APPLICATION AND AGAIN I JUST WENT OVER WITH YOU CASE LAW, I WILL HAND THAT BACK TO YOU. CASE LAW, IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS AN APPLICANT, THE OWNER OF PROPERTY HAS THE RIGHT TO DEFINE HIS OR HER OWN PARCEL OF LAND. A COURT HAS HELD THAT AND SO AGAIN, THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THIS CASE THE TOWN VERSUS PERSIDA SPECIFICALLY SAYS WE CAN HAVE A METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION. THERE IS NOTHING THAT PRECLUDES THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY OWNER FROM CREATING A METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL AND NOT USING TAX PARCEL ID NUMBERS.

IS DONE ALL THE TIME. AND SO AGAIN, I'VE BEEN PRACTISING LAW IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOR 27 YEARS NOW PLUS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS ARE THE NORM, YOU WERE ALLOWED TO HAVE A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEY PROVIDE A LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND OBVIOUSLY FLORIDA COURTS UPHELD IN THIS JURISDICTION THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY OUR OWN

PARCEL OF LAND. >> OKAY, I THINK IT'S CONFUSING BECAUSE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHOULD SAY A PORTION OF IT.

>> THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS THE MEETS AND BOUNDS BUT WHAT IT'S SAYING IS BASICALLY ALL LAND IS SUBJECT -- A SUBJECT, A TOWNSHIP

[02:25:04]

AND A RANGE, THAT'S HOW IT'S SET UP.

THE SURVEYOR SIMPLY NOTING THAT THIS PROPERTY, THE METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT IS DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICATION IS WITHIN THOSE SECTIONS, TOWNSHIPS AND RANGES.

AND IF YOU NEED YOUR SURVEYOR COUNTY SURVEYOR TO COME UP AND TALK ABOUT SECTION TOWNSHIPS AND RANGES THEN HE IS HERE I SUPPOSE TO ANSWER WHATEVER QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

>> HAS 37 BEEN COURT -- CUT OFF FOR THE NEW BOUNDARY?

>> AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY THIS MORE SUCCINCTLY THAN WE ARE RELYING ON A METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT IS THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A TRIANGLE, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PARCEL ID NUMBERS IT IS THE METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT IS CLEARLY IDENTIFIED IN THE BOW LINES AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THIS PROPERTY.

THAT PERIMETER, THE BOW LINES MATCHES THIS METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION. EVERY APPLICATION I HAVE EVER BROUGHT BEFORE THIS BOARD HAS A METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION, IT IS A REQUIREMENT OF THIS LAW, IT'S A REQUIREMENT OF EVERY -- WHENEVER WE HAVE AN APPLICATION YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION SO EVERYONE KNOWS WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN ITS BOUNDARIES.

THAT IS JUST A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF LAND USE LAW IN THE STATE OF

FLORIDA. >> OKAY.

>> LET ME MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR. THE APPLICANT HAS THE RIGHT TO

DEFINE THEIR OWN BOUNDARIES. >> YES, SIR, ABSOLUTELY PURE.

>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL HAS

UPHELD THEIR ABILITY TO DO THAT? >> YES COMMISSIONER MURPHY BECAUSE THIS PARCEL OF LAND, THAT'S THE DEFINITION FROM SECTION 163.3164. AND THIS PARTICULAR CASE HANG ON, I'M SORRY TO KEEP SWITCHING SLIDES.

THE TOWN OF PONCE INLET WHICH IS THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL WHICH APPLIES TO THIS COUNTY SPECIFICALLY RULED THE COURT HELD THAT RELATED TO THE DEFINITION OF PORTION -- PARCEL OF LAND IN THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA, SECTION 163, THE COURT SAID THAT A PROPERTY OWNER HAS THE RIGHT TO DEFINE WHICH PORTION OF HIS LAND CAN BE USED OR DEVELOPED.

IT SAYS THAT RIGHT IN THIS CASE. RIGHT HERE.

SO THIS PROPERTY OWNER HAS THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO USE A METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND NOT JUST RELY ON PARCEL ID

NUMBERS FOR AN APPLICATION. >> THANK YOU.

>> I STILL HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE HOUSE ON THERE WHICH IS NOT AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE AS WELL AS I ASKED FOR A FORESTRY PERSON AT THE LAST MEETING AND I DID NOT GET ANY TRACTION ON THAT.

I JUST FEEL LIKE THIS IS GOING TO BE THE TEST CASE MOVING

FORWARD THAT'S THE EGG ENCLAVED. >> COMMISSIONER JOSEPH WE WERE GIVEN A VERY NARROW SCOPE THIS IS A ONE ISSUE HEARING, ONE ISSUE AND THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

IT SAYS THE BOARD MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DIRECTED STAFF TO REVIEW THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 163.3162 AND 163.3164, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT FOR THIS HEARING THAT'S ALL I AM ADDRESSING RIGHT NOW. IF IN PUBLIC COMMENT WE GO BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS HEARING THEN CERTAINLY WE RESERVE FULL REBUTTAL TO GO OVER OUR ENTIRE PRESENTATION OR WHATEVER IS RAISED BY THE PUBLIC OUTSIDE OF THE ONE ITEM THAT THIS HEARING IS SUPPOSED TO BE CONDUCTED ON. I'M MENTIONING THIS BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAD A FULL PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THIS BOARD.

WE GAVE A PRESENTATION, THERE WAS FULL PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE LAST HEARING ON AUGUST 19TH, EVERYBODY WANTED TO SPEAK IN THE PUBLIC AND HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO, YOUR BOARD ASKED QUESTIONS, YOU CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT, YOU TOOK VOTES AND THE ONLY THING THAT CAME OUT OF THIS BOARD WAS EMOTION, A VERY SPECIFIC MOTION TO LOOK AT THIS VERY SPECIFIC ISSUE.

AND THAT'S ALL WE ARE PREPARED -- WE ARE ADDRESSING RIGHT NOW.

IF PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE GO BEYOND THE BOARD ORDERS OF WHAT THE BOARD SAID IT WAS GOING TO CONSIDER TODAY THEN WE WILL BE PREPARED TO REBUT WHATEVER WE NEED TO REBUT BUT THE ISSUES THAT YOU ARE RAISING ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE RAISED AND I'M

[02:30:02]

ONLY POINTING THIS OUT BECAUSE. >> MA'AM.

>> IS OUR CLIENT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO HAVE A FAIR HEARING.

>> IT SEEMS TO BE OUR RIGHT THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE RUSHED IN THIS KIND OF AN ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU GUYS MAKE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON AND IT WILL HIT THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE BEACH WITH NO ROADS THAT GO TO ANYTHING AND IT'S SAD THAT WE ARE STILL SET ASIDE THIS IN 30 DAYS AND THAT'S NOT FAIR TO THE PUBLIC, IS NOT FAIR TO ME EITHER BECAUSE I'M REPRESENTING THESE PEOPLE AND YES, I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE FORESTRY, I REALLY DON'T KNOW IF YOU ACTUALLY DID THE AG LAND RIGHT, I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THE HOUSES PEOPLE ARE LIVING ON, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE USING OVER THE WATER. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, THE BOUNDARY DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. [APPLAUSE]

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: ORDER PLEASE.

>> MR. CHAIR WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE COMMISSIONER JOSEPH WE CONDUCTED A FULL PUBLIC HEARING AT THE LAST

MEETING A FULL PUBLIC HEARING. >> WHAT'S THE RUSH?

>> LET ME FINISH PLEASE BECAUSE I HAVE THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: PLEASE -- PLEASE SILENCE YOUR PHONES.

>> WE HAD A FULL PUBLIC HEARING, WE ALLOWED PUBLIC COMMENT, WE GAVE HER BOTTLE, THE BOARD ACTUALLY VOTED TO DENY AND THAT MOTION FAILED. AND SO THEN YOU HAD THE BOARD VOTED TO ADDRESS ONE ISSUE AND THAT IS THE ISSUE THAT I AM ADDRESSING RIGHT NOW AND THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE WITH A LIMITED SCOPE OF THIS HEARING IS REGARDING.

SO AGAIN, I'M JUST RAISING THESE BECAUSE MY CLIENT HAS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS HERE, WE ARE THE APPLICANT AND I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WE ARE HERE TO ADDRESS WHETHER OR NOT THIS PROPERTY MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE LAW THAT

ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY. >> I'M ASKING THOSE SAME

QUESTIONS. >> AGAIN, COMMISSIONER MURPHY.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: THANK YOU.

WE HAVE TWO MINUTE SPEAKERS AND LET ME JUST CAUTION YOU MISS ELLEN AVERY SMITH IS CORRECT, EVERYTHING YOU BRING UP WILL ALSO ALLOW HER TO REBUT SO BE SURE YOU WANT TO BRING THIS FORWARD BEFORE YOU DO. YOU HAVE -- YOU WANT TO SET 10 MINUTES? THERE'S SOMEONE ELSE FOR

10 MINUTES, WHO IS IT? >> MY NAME IS ALLISON WATSON I. RESIDE AT 58, I WAS AT WALMART PHARMACIES FOR A LONG TIME I CAN HANDLE HER COMING BACK TO ASK ME ADDITIONAL QUESTION. LUCKILY FOR ME I ACTUALLY AM HERE TO ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY TALK ABOUT THE BOUNDARY ISSUE.

A LOT OF WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY HAS BEEN SAID IN PIECES HERE AND THERE TODAY, IS GOING TO BE A BIT BORING FOR YOU BUT I HOPE THAT YOU WILL JUST FOLLOW ME AND LET ME TELL YOU THIS STORY PERHAPS THERE WILL BE SOME SLIGHT NUGGET OF NEW INFORMATION. I REALLY FEEL LIKE EVERYBODY THAT COMES TO WORK EVERY DAY TRULY TRIES TO DO A GOOD JOB, I AM NOT THE KIND OF PERSON THAT HAS CONSPIRACY THEORIES OF HOW RICH YOU WILL BE, YOU WILL BUY A BETTER SUIT IF HE WERE SUPER RICH. I'M JUST TEASING.

>> AMAZON. >> WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS AND I REALLY THINK THAT ONE THE COUNTY'S LEGAL COUNSEL APPROVED THIS THEY MISSED SOMETHING I THINK IT WAS JUST HUMAN ERROR AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT.

JUST TO REGURGITATE WHAT EVERYONE HAS HEARD ALREADY THAT THIS LAW CAPS THE AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE AT 4480 ACRES, THE PROPERTY IS 4568 ACRES. SO THE PROPERTY BEING THE BLACK LINES GOING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE OUTSIDE.

THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY HAD A PROBLEM THAT THEY NEEDED TO SOLVE BUT WHY DID THEY SOLVE IT JUST WITH THIS SPECIFIC LINE? ON JUNE 18TH THEY DID DRAW UP THAT NEW WHAT WE'RE CALLING A PAPER PARCEL AND I WILL SHARE SOME MORE COMMENTS ABOUT THAT BUT WHAT I WANT TO BE CLEAR IS THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE CONFORMING WITH THE LAW AND I THINK THAT WE WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PRECEDENT WHICH IS REALLY IMPORTANT HERE.

LET'S LOOK AT THEIR PAPER PARCEL.

YOU HAVE SEEN THIS ALREADY, WHAT THE WORD PARCEL MEANS WHATEVER THEY WANT IT TO MEAN THEN WHY DID THE SURVEYOR HAVE TO CALL IT PORTIONS OF A PARCEL? PORTIONS OF SECTIONS ON THIS LEGAL DOCUMENT? WHY DID THEY HAVE TO DO THAT IF PARCEL MEANS WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO MEAN AT ANY GIVEN TIME? DOESN'T THAT MEAN THAT THEY MADE A MISTAKE ON THEIR OWN SURVEY IF THEY'RE USING LANGUAGE THAT WASN'T REQUIRED? I WILL SAY THAT THIS IS NOT A SURVEY EVEN THOUGH THIS IS WHAT

[02:35:03]

THEY SUBMITTED, IS NOT A SURVEY AND MY NEXT PIECE IS THAT THE LAW REQUIRES THAT THE PARCEL NEEDED TO EXIST BY JANUARY FIRST 2025 AND THIS IS DATED JUNE 18TH 2026.

SO EVEN IF WE ACCEPT WHAT THEY ARE DETERMINING TO BE A PARCEL THEY DID NOT DO IT BY JANUARY FIRST 2025 SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO CALL OUT.

LET'S LOOK THROUGH THESE SCENARIOS.

THIS FIRST ONE, WE HAVE LAWS THERE'S OFTENTIMES LAYERS TO THE LAWS. IS NOT JUST THE ACREAGE IT'S ONCE YOU'VE SATISFIED THAT ACREAGE REQUIREMENT THEN YOU HAVE SOME OTHER THINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT, THERE'S SOME RULES ABOUT WHAT NEEDS TO SURROUND THIS PROPERTY AND I'M JUST GOING, FOR VERY GENERIC PURPOSES WE'RE GOING TO CALL THOSE THE EXTRA PERIMETER RULES. WHEN THEY PROPOSED THIS PAPER PARCEL BASED ON THIS JUNE 18TH SKETCH THEY WERE JUST BARELY ABLE -- THEY DID MEET THE ACREAGE REQUIREMENT AND THEY WERE JUST BARELY ABLE TO MEET THAT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENT AND THEY ALSO HAVE ANOTHER PASS ON ONE OF THE OTHER PERIMETR STIPULATIONS. WELL WHY THIS SLIVER? I'VE SEEN IT ONLINE COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE SAYING THAT THIS IS TOO EASY, THEY WILL JUST RESUBMIT AND THEY WILL REMOVE A PARCEL, THEY CAN'T DO THAT, IT WILL NOT WORK, THE MATH DOESN'T WORK. WE TALKED ABOUT THE ORANGE COUNTY PRECEDENT I WON'T TAKE A LOT OF TIME ON THAT.

I DO THINK PRECEDENT IS REALLY IMPORTANT AS SHE ALLUDED THAT THERE IS ANOTHER CASE THAT SHE'S REFERENCING SAYING, HEY, YOU REALLY HAVE TO TAKE WHATEVER PEOPLE WANT TO GIVE YOU TO DEFINE A PARCEL. I THINK THAT'S REALLY DANGEROUS BECAUSE WHATEVER DECISION YOU MAKE ON THIS WILL HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES DOWNSTREAM AND IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT PRECEDENTS AND WE'RE GOING TO SAY ORANGE COUNTY DOESN'T COUNT, OKAY I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY DON'T COUNT BUT OKAY IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY THAT ONLY WHAT SHE REFERENCED COUNTS, WELL WHAT ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT? WHEN THEY SAID A PARCEL IS A PARCEL AS A WHOLE YOU CANNOT SPLIT IT UP? I'M PUTTING THIS IN, I DON'T WANT TO WASTE TOO MUCH TIME ON IT BUT THAT'S A REFERENCE FOR YOU JUST TO NOTE THAT THERE ARE SOME OTHER PRECEDENTS AND THE SUPREME COURT DISAGREES ABOUT WHAT A PARCEL IS. AGAIN, I'M JUST A PHARMACIST I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THESE THINGS. LET'S TALK ABOUT NUMBER 2, GOING BACK TO THEIR MAP WHAT IF THEY DID NOT SLICE IT, WHAT IF THEY JUST GOT RID OF THAT ENTIRE PARCEL THAT THEY'RE? WELL NOW THE ACREAGE IS FINE BUT NOW THEY FAIL ONE OF THOSE PERIMETER TESTS. LET'S GO AROUND THEIR MAP CALCULUS DANCE AROUND IT WHAT IF WE JUST DROP PARCEL NUMBER 3, ANOTHER PROBLEM ACREAGE WORKS BUT NOW WE FAIL BOTH OF THOSE PERIMETER TESTS. PARCEL NUMBER 4 ARE YOU NOTICING A THEME HERE WIN IT DOESN'T MEET THE PERIMETER TEST.

AND SAME PARCEL FIVE, SCENARIO NUMBER 5, THAT'S ACTUALLY THE PARCEL IS LISTED AT THE TOP IN BLACK.

WE GET A FAILURE ON A PERIMETER TEST SO THIS ONE DOESN'T WORK.

THANK GOODNESS FOR ENGINEERS AND THE COMMUNITY THAT WILL RUN ALL THIS DATA FOR US. NUMBER 6, AGAIN WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH FAILING ONE OF THOSE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT RULES.

THIS IS A SUMMARY OF EVERYTHING THAT I JUST SHARED WITH YOU AND LET ME GO BACK QUICKLY. IF WE GO BACK WHY NOT TAKE SOME OF THESE INTERIOR ONES YOU GET THE SAME PROBLEM YOU HAVE PERIMETER PROBLEMS WITH THOSE. SO THESE ARE ALIGNED, IT REPRESENTS WHAT THEY SUBMITTED, WHERE THEY SUBMITTED IS THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN MAKE IT WORK. TO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE AND SIX ALIGNED WITH MADE UP SCENARIOS THAT I GAVE YOU, IT SHOWS YOU HOW THOSE FAIL AND THEN NUMBER 7 IS IF THEY CONSIDER ALL 21 LEGALLY DATED PARCELS THEY WOULD BE OVER THAT CAP.

THEY HAVE A PROBLEM. THIS LITTLE PIE WHICH IS THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN MAKE IT WORK. LET'S GO BACK TO THE LAW.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY? I'M NOT ANTI-DEVELOPMENT I. WAS BORN AND RAISED IN FLORIDA, I LOVE ALL THE PATHS, WE HAVE ENJOYED LIVING THERE SINCE 2018 EVEN THOUGH MY FAMILY LIVES RIGHT DOWN THE ROAD. I AM NOT ANTI-DEVELOPMENT, BUT I DO WANT THINGS TO FOLLOW THE LAW BECAUSE I AM AFRAID IF WE SAY YES TO THIS WHAT THIS MEANS DOWN THE ROAD.

IT THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES WHEN WE SAY YES TO SOMETHING AND THERE IS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION ABOUT HOW WE ARE DEFINING PARCEL, I THINK THAT'S THE REAL QUESTION HERE.

I TRULY BELIEVE THAT SAINT JOHNS COUNTY LEGAL COUNSEL MADE A MISTAKE. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE RUSHED, I DON'T KNOW HOW INVOLVED THEY GOT TO BE I FEEL FOR THEM, I KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO HAVE A TREMENDOUS WORKLOAD AND I JUST THINK THEY MADE A MISTAKE.

I THINK THAT TO DAY JUST BASED ON WHAT I'VE SHARED WITH YOU NOT

[02:40:01]

EVEN WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID I THINK THAT THAT'S ENOUGH TO SPEAK TO SOME OF THE REPLY EMAILS, I HAVE NOT EMAILED ANY OF YOU BUT I'VE SEEN THE REPLY EMAILS SAYING THAT REALLY UNLESS YOU GET NEW EVIDENCE YOU HAVE TO PROBABLY FOLLOW WHAT YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL IS SAYING, I DO BELIEVE YOU'VE GOT ENOUGH NEW EVIDENCE TO SAY MAYBE WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS AGAIN, MAYBE THIS NEEDS A BIT MORE TIME. THEY DID NOT SAY PARTIAL, IT'S PARCEL OR PARCELS AND IT ALSO HAS TO BE AS OF JANUARY 1ST 2025 SO JUNE 18TH 2026 IS A LITTLE LATE.

SO SUMMARY, I DO THINK THAT YOU HAVE TO ASK SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU HAVE ENOUGH TO VOTE YES ON THIS, I THINK YOU DO HAVE TO VOTE NO ON THIS BECAUSE I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY'VE MET THE CRITERIA.

ONE THING THAT'S INTERESTING THAT I WANT TO CALL OUT IS THAT THE SOUTH ATLANTIC SOFT MART INITIATIVE HAS IDENTIFIED A PORTION OF THIS, ABOUT A THIRD OF IT IS HIGH PRIORITY MARSHLAND THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTED THIS WAS INCLUDED IN THEIR APPLICATION, THEY'RE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THEY HAVE SOME REALLY IMPORTANT PROTECTED LAND AS PART OF THAT APPLICATION SO I WANT TO CALL THAT OUT. MAYBE YOU GUYS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE EAGLES AND TURTLES SO I'LL SKIP OVER THAT, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE FUNNY, IT'S REALLY NOT PERTINENT IF IT'S A LEGAL PROBLEM WE DON'T HAVE TO TALK ABOUT EAGLES WE CAN SEE THOSE ON ALASKAN CRUISES IF WE LOSE THEM ALL HERE.

FOR THE FOREST MANAGEMENT, I WASN'T GOING TO GO INTO THIS BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THERE WAS A PLAN THAT WAS DATED 2020 BUT IT'S 2026 AND THEY HAVE NOT SHOWN ANY PROOF OF LIVING UP TO THAT FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT THEY HAVE THAT SOME DETAILS HERE ON THAT. I HAVE SOME AERIAL PHOTOS OF THAT AND THEN WE CAN TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE PARCELS THAT ARE PART OF THAT FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN.

I WILL SAY THAT EVERY PARCEL, MAYBE THEY WILL MAKE UP THE DEFINITION OF WHAT THAT MEANS, EVERY PARCEL HAS TO MEET THE STATUTES ON THEIR OWN, THERE'S BEEN NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO SAY THAT THEY HAVE DONE SO PURE AND WHILE I KNOW THAT THAT IS NOT PERHAPS WHAT HE HE DISCUSSED I THOUGHT IT WAS PERTINENT TO ADD, I APPRECIATE YOU ENTERTAINING ME TODAY.

[APPLAUSE]

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: WE HAVE ONE MORE SPEAKER AND THEN

WE WILL GET TO BUSINESS. >> CAN I ASK HER A QUESTION NOW?

>> BEFORE YOU GO AWAY ALICE, ALICE.

I'M SORRY,. >> ALLISON.

>> ALLISON. >> COULD YOU GO BACK TO THAT FORESTRY INFORMATION THAT YOU HAD? BECAUSE IT WAS SO QUICK AND I FEEL LIKE IT WAS VERY RUSHED AND I KNOW IT WAS PROBABLY DUE TO THE TIME BUT I DID HAVE SOME

QUESTIONS ON THAT. >> YOU TELL ME WHERE YOU WOULD

LIKE TO BE. >> THE FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN WAS A COMPANY THAT'S NO LONGER ACTIVE IN THE STATE DATABASE, THEIR LICENSURE EXPIRED IN 2015 THE PLAN SHOWS TREES ON THE FAR EAST PARCEL WERE PLANTED IN 1968 THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE HARVESTED IN 2020 AND WE PLANTED IN 2021, NONE OF THAT HAS ACTUALLY OCCURRED. SO I DON'T KNOW, AGAIN, PHARMACIST ONLY BUT THAT TO ME SUGGESTS THAT PERHAPS THEY HAVE ANOTHER PATHWAY WHERE THEY DON'T EVEN MEET THE CRITERIA FOR BEING

AGRICULTURE. >> YOU'RE SAYING THOSE TREES WERE PLANTED IN 68? AND YOUR OPINION DO YOU THINK THOSE ARE THE SAME TREES THEY'RE?

>> I WOULD GUESS SO. >> I'VE HEARD FROM OTHERS WHEN THEY GO BACK THROUGH SO I WOULD LIKE THE ATTORNEY TO ADDRESS THAT, THAT IS VERY BIG CONCERN HERE AND ESPECIALLY THAT THERE WAS A PLAN AND IT HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED.

>> I DID NOT SEE ANY EVIDENCE, I WOULD -- IT WOULD BE WONDERFUL TO HEAR IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT I PERHAPS MISSED.

>> IT SHOWED IN 2020 OR 2021 THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE

CLEARED? >> CORRECT.

THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE CLEARED IN 2020 AND REPLANTED IN 2021, I COULD NOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT THAT HAS OCCURRED.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

DID THEY DO A CONTROLLED BURN? >> THAT I DON'T KNOW, I CAN TAKE THAT QUESTION BACK AND FOLLOW IT UP WITH AN EMAIL FOR YOU.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: THANK YOU, ANYONE ELSE?

OKAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> HELLO. >> GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS, MICHELLE, I AM A RESIDENT OF RIVERTOWN AND FIRST I HAVE TO SAY NEVER HAVE I BEEN SO PROUD TO BE A RESIDENT OF SAINT JOHNS COUNTY. [APPLAUSE]

>> TODAY IS ABOUT THE STATUTES SPECIFICALLY WHETHER THE NORTH HOLME VALLEY AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE ACTUALLY SATISFIES THE

[02:45:04]

STATUTORY DEFINITIONS AND THAT LEGISLATURE AND -- ENACTED HERE.

I WANT TO BEGIN WITH WHAT THIS BOARD ACTUALLY SAID LAST WEEK.

>> TO LOOK AT THE BOUNDARIES AGAIN I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A HARDER LOOK AT THE BOUNDARIES. I REALIZE THAT THIS WORK DONE IN HERE BUT THERE'S STILL SOME QUESTIONS I HAVE NOT MET OF WHAT'S ALLOWED AND WAS NOT ALLOWED.

THAT CUT OFF AT THE TOP I THINK IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO

CONSIDER. >> I THINK THERE'S A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS REGARDING THE BOUNDARIES, COULD THE COUNTY HAVE A THIRD PARTY COMPANY DO THAT? I UNDERSTAND THAT THE SURVEY HAD BEEN DONE BUT I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF WE HAD ANOTHER THIRD PARTY COMPANY DO IT.

>> I ASSUME THAT WE COULD. >> THE CHAIR HAS REQUESTED THE

STAFF LOOK AT THE BOUNDARIES. >> AN INDEPENDENT FORESTRY.

>> I'M CONVINCED WITH THE EVIDENCE THAT IT IS WHAT IT IS,

WE CAN LOOK ON THE MAP. >> I REALLY WANT TO LOOK AT THAT NORTHERN PARCEL I THINK IT WAS 6646I WANT TO LOOK AT THAT AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE MEETING THE STATUTE WITH THAT SPECIFIC PARCEL IS MY CONCERN BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY, I'LL TRY THAT AGAIN.

>> CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD TO COME BACK AND LOOK AT THE

BOUNDARY. >> YES.

>> YES. >> NOTICE IT'S THE ENTIRE

BOUNDARY. >> INDEPENDENT FORESTRY PERSON OR I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO WALK THERE.

>> SPEAKER-09: WE HAVE A CONTINUANCE TO SEPTEMBER FIRST AND THEN WE HAVE GIVEN DIRECTION TO STAFF TO LOOK AT THE BOUNDARY

ON THE NORTHERN PARCEL. >> IF I MAY NAME MR. CHAIR WE WILL DO OUR BEST, THE FULL SURVEY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT

BUT. >> YOU ASKED TO REVIEW THE BOUNDARIES NOT JUST THE NORTHERN BOUNDARIES AS STATED AT THE END, AS OF TODAY THOUGH NO RECORD EXISTS OF A REVISED BOUNDARY PARCEL BY PARCEL ANALYSIS, IS NOT ON THE RECORD HERE SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND REVIEW THE BOUNDARIES.

BUT FIRST I ALMOST FORGOT LET'S GO BACK TO THE LAW SPA -- REQUIRES THE PARCEL OR PARCELS HAVE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

IN ADDITION TO THAT PARAMETER TEST OF 75%, AT LEAST 50% HAS TO -- OF SUCH PARCEL OR PARCELS HAS TO BE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

MY QUESTION IS, IN THE RECORD WHERE PARCEL OR PARCELS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? BECAUSE WE HAVE 550 PAGES HERE BUT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OF WHAT PARCELS ARE BEING CONSIDERED FOR THAT 50% TESTED BOUNDARY, NOT ONE.

THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ANALYZED, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED, WE HAVE NO SEGMENT TABLES, NO -- NO EXPLANATION AND NO STATUTE AS TO HOW THOSE PARCELS ACTUALLY QUALIFY UNDER THIS.

SO THERE ARE FOUR QUESTIONS WE HAVE TO ADDRESS, NUMBER 1, WHICH SPECIFIC PARCEL OR PARCELS ON THE BOUNDARIES ARE BEING COUNTED? IS IT NOCATEE -- NOCATEE, PARCEL? WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THIS 550 PAGES. THAT IS THE UNIT THE LEGISLATURE CHOSE, THE LEGISLATURE, THE STATE, THEY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PARCEL AND PARCELS AND BOUNDARY ANALYSIS LET'S MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR. MY SECOND QUESTION IS WHAT EXISTING INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS ON THOSE SURROUNDING PARCELS AND THAT WHAT PERCENTAGE.

EACH PARCEL QUALIFIES AND I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PARCELS ON THE BOUNDARIES QUALIFY UNDER THE STATUTES UNDER THOSE QUALIFYING PARCELS COLLECTIVELY MEET THE REQUIRED PERCENTAGE? EXHIBIT EIGHT WHICH THE COUNTY, STAFF POINTED TO GIVES US A CONCLUSION BASED ON THE BOUNDARY, THE LINEAR FOOTAGE BUT NOT PARCEL BY PARCEL EVIDENCE AS STATED BY THE STATE.

AS WE LOOK ACROSS TO THAT EASTERN BOUNDARY, WE'VE GOT OUR ADJOINING PARCELS, WE CAN LOOK ACROSS THAT WATERWAY AS POINTED OUT AT THE LAST MEETING, FOR THOSE PARCELS TO BE CREDITED TOWARDS THE EXISTING BOUNDARY DEVELOPMENT CALCULATIONS THE RECORD HAS TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACROSS THAT ENTIRE LINEAR LINE.

THE APPLICANT ARGUES SEA WELLS OR DOCKS CONSTITUTE DEVELOPMENT, I DON'T DISAGREE, I'M A REAL ESTATE BROKER YOU'RE RIGHT THAT IS DEVELOPMENT BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT EXISTING

[02:50:01]

RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS.

AS WE CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THE EASTERN BOUNDARY YOU'VE GOT, THIS IS MY PARCEL BY PARCEL CALCULATION, NINE VACANT PARCELS, NO BUILDING VALUE, 1258 LINEAR FEET.

ONTO THE APPLICANT'S FOOTAGE METHODOLOGY THEY MAY REMAIN IN THE PERIMETER CALCULATION BUT ABSENT THE PARCELS SPECIFIC PROOF THEY SHOULD NOT BE QUALIFIED UNDER THE 50% TEST RULE. COMMISSIONERS AT THE STATUTE STATES THE PHRASE AGAIN, YOU GUESSED IT PARCEL OR PARCELS, THE QUESTION TO THE SOUTH IS DOES NOCATEE CONTAIN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHAT IS BEING ANALYZED HERE? THAT IDENTIFICATION IS NOT IN THE RECORD, WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE MAP, WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE TAX DISTRICT WHICH I HAVE UP HERE WHAT YOU CAN SEE IS A PINK TAX DISTRICT, THAT'S THE ONLY OFFICIAL COUNTY RECORD THAT I COULD FIND OF WHAT NOCATEE LOOKS LIKE BUT THIS IS NOT IN THE RECORD.

THIS IS NOT PART OF WHAT THEY HAVE TO FIND THERE IS NO DEFINITION OTHER PARCEL BEING IDENTIFIED.

BUT LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THAT PARCEL AND I WANT YOU TO ASK YOURSELVES SOME QUESTIONS. I'M NOT ARGUING THAT THIS IS NOT A BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY BY ANY MEANS, THESE PARCELS ARE ALL SEPARATELY PLATTED LEGAL PARCELS, MANY OF THEM ARE CLASSIFIED AS VACANT HOA COMMON AREAS, PRESERVE, WHAT IS THE TOTAL ACTUAL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THERE? I WANTED IN THE NUMBERS, I WANT THE CALCULATIONS, I WANT THE GUARDS WITH THEIR DATA TO SHOW ME HOW THAT IS 50% DEVELOPED AND I WANT THE STATUTE IN FLORIDA LAW THAT BACKS THEM UP.

WE DO NOT HAVE THAT IN THIS 550 PAGES, THEREFORE THIS RECORD IS INCOMPLETE. IT'S FRUSTRATING.

BEFORE PRINTING THIS APPLICATION THEY SHOULD SHOW THE PARCELS BEING COUNTED, THE EVIDENCE RELIED UPON FOR EACH AND THE METHODOLOGY BEHIND PRODUCING THEIR FINAL PERCENTAGE.

IF A PARCEL DEFINITION OTHER THAN A SEPARATELY PLATTED PARCELS IN THE PROPERTY -- APPRAISALS RECORD IS BEING USED THEN THE RECORD SHOULD IDENTIFY THE PARCEL OR PARCELS BEING ANALYZED, DEFINE THEIR BOUNDARIES, EXPLAIN WHY THE DEFINITION WAS USED IN CITE THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR DOING SO. THESE ARE NOT NEW REQUIREMENTS UNDER THIS, THESE ARE THE BASELINE REQUIREMENTS OF IT.

NONE OF IT IS IN THE RECORD, WITHOUT THEM THE COUNTY, THE PUBLIC, OR THE REVIEWING COURT CANNOT VERIFY ANY CALCULATIONS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE CALCULATIONS.

COMMISSIONERS, THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IS, WHERE IN THIS 550 PAGE RECORD IS THE REQUIRED PARCEL BY PARCEL ANALYSIS, THEY HAVE NOTS APPLIED IT TO US. THIS IS NOT ABOUT MY MATH OR THEIR MAP THOUGH I DO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR MATH.

THIS IS ABOUT A PARCEL BY PARCEL ANALYSIS OF -- TO ME TO 50% THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE LAW. REQUIRED IN THE STATUTE PEER BEFORE YOU VOTE I ASK THAT THE RECORD AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY IDENTIFY THE PARCELS, THE EVIDENCE, THE QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENT, THE AUTHORITY, THE METHODOLOGY BEHIND THE 50.72%, WITHOUT THAT SHOWING THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED AND AS OF TO DATE IT HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED. COMMISSIONERS IF YOU CHOOSE TO VOTE TODAY I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT YOU MUST DENY THE CERTIFICATION DUE TO AN INCOMPLETE RECORD.

THE RECORD BEFORE YOU DOES NOT ESTABLISH COMPLIANCE WITH 1.631634, THE 50.72% CONCLUSION IS NOT TIED TO IDENTIFIED PARCELS, PARCELS SPECIFIC EXISTING DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS, NO SEGMENT TABLES, NOTHING AND NO REPRODUCIBLE CALCULATIONS.

IF THAT ANALYSIS EXISTS PLEASE IDENTIFY WHERE IN THE RECORD I ASKED THE APPLICANT, AND BASED ON THAT I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU DENY TODAY. I SINCERELY THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME I DID HAVE ONE MORE LINE THAT I WANTED TO GET IN FROM ANOTHER WHO WAS NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK TODAY PERMISSION IS NOT CONSTRUCTION, ZONING IS NOT OCCUPANCY, EXISTING RESIDENTIAL, A POD LABEL IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE ADJACENT PARCELS ACROSS THE WATER NOR TO THE SOUTH AND USED TO EXIST IS NOT EXISTING AS OF JANUARY 1ST 2025. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND I WISH YOU THE BEST. [APPLAUSE]

>> I WILL LEAVE THE RECORD. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: WE WOULD GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT HAS NOT SPOKEN YET?

[02:55:01]

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: DID YOU SPEAK LAST TIME?

>> WE ONLY HAD THE TWO. IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE THAT HAS NOT SPOKEN YET ON THIS PLEASE COME FORWARD.

>> I THINK I REMEMBER YOU SAYING I AGREE.

YOU SPOKE EARLIER, WERE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT

AGAIN. >> HE DIDN'T SPEAK ON THIS.

>> YOU SPOKE ON THE WATER THAT WOULD BE USED ON THIS I DON'T

UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE. >> LET ME UP AND I'LL TELL YOU.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: COME ON UP AND TELL ME.

I'M SORRY TO MAKE IT SORRY I DID NOT MAKE IT FOR THAT MEETING, I HAD AN ACCIDENT AND I WAS BOUND TO THE RECLINER FOR 32 DAYS, NOW ONCE AGAIN I DON'T SEE HOW Y'ALL CAN PASS ANYTHING WITHOUT THE SAINT JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT'S LAWYER BEING HERE TO PROTECT OUR WATERS.

WE HAVE ALL THESE PUDS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN UTILIZED YET WHICH MEANS MORE WATER. I HAVE NOT SEEN A 20 YEAR PROJECTION SINCE I ASKED FOR ONE -- 18 YEARS AGO.

I MAY THEN RUN A SEWER AND WATER LINE ALL THE WAY TO JACKS JACKSONVILLE. AND THEY PAID THAT FOR THE WATER AND THE SEWER FOR 17 YEARS UNTIL THEY STARTED BUILDING MORE WELLS IN THE NORTHERN END OF THE COUNTY.

NOW THE COUNTY IS GETTING THAT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REVENUE TAXES AND ALL THAT, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT HOW MUCH MONEY WE'RE GOING TO GET FOR THE EXISTING PUDS AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO SUPPLY THE WATER. WHAT KIND OF EFFECT WILL IT HAVE ON EXISTING HOMES AND PEOPLE AND RECREATIONAL, EVERYTHING, I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN MAKE THE LARGEST DEVELOPMENT WE'VE EVER DONE BECAUSE I'VE BEEN DOING THIS SINCE THE 70S, COMING UP HERE HOW CAN WE DO THIS WITHOUT THE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS APPROVAL? THAT'S WHAT I JUST CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY WE DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OVER HERE ON THE SIDELINE AND I THINK EXCUSE ME. WE NEED TO HAVE THE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT DO A PROJECTION FOR AT LEAST 20 YEARS FOR THE EXISTING AND THE OUTSTANDING PUDS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED ALREADY BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE AND WHEN YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT REVERSE OSMOSIS YOU'RE GOING TO GET $600 WATER BILLS. AND WE WON'T BE ABLE TO GROW ANYTHING IN SAINT JOHNS COUNTY AGAIN BECAUSE THE SALINE WILL BE SO HIGH WE WON'T BE ABLE TO USE OUR AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES ANY MORE AND THAT TO ME IS 100% COMMON SENSE AND TO PROTECT EVERYBODY THAT'S ALREADY GETTING WATER FROM THE COUNTY AND THE CITY. OUR CITY WATER FIELD IS UP THERE ON MOX POND ROAD AND I ALSO APPROVED THAT THE COUNTY COULD NOT SUPPLY VALENCIA EITHER AND THEY HAD TO MOVE THEIR FIELDS.

I'M JUST TELLING Y'ALL YOU SAVE THE WATER.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: THANK YOU.

CAME IN AND SAID THE EXACT SAME THING.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A POINT THAT I GOT 21 SIGNATURES TODAY SO IF YOU DON'T ALLOW ME TO SPEAK AT LAST 5 MINUTES THEN YOU

ARE NOT ALLOWING DUE PROCESS. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: WAS

THAT SUBMITTED? >> YES, IT WAS, THE SAME TIME THAT THE OTHER ONES WERE SUBMITTED.

>> SO IT WAS YOU ASKED US WHO HAD SPOKE OF THE PREVIOUS PUBLIC

MEETING. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: YOU

ALREADY SPOKE IN? >> I HAVE ASSIGNED 21 ADDITIONAL

PEOPLE HAVE SIGNED. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: I APOLOGIZE BUT WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IS GOT SOMEONE TO SPEAK LAST TIME TO BE THE SPEAKER FOR YOU INSTEAD OF YOU COMING UP AND DOING THE SECOND TIME SPEWING THIS OMISSION.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: I WON'T ALLOW IT.

>> REQUESTED THAT YOU RESPOND TO US IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE OMISSION AND NO RESPONSE WAS PROVIDED SO I WAS NOT GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO FIND SOMEONE ELSE TO SPEAK AGAINST THOSE 21 SIGNATURES, I HAVE EMAIL PROOF TO SHOW THAT I WAS NOT PROVIDED ANSWERS. SO I BELIEVE THAT I SHOULD AT LEAST GIVE 5 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THOSE 21 SIGNATURES THAT I WORKED HARD TO GET AND WHO EXPECT DUE PROCESS ON THEIR

[03:00:04]

BEHALF TO DATE. [APPLAUSE]

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS FOR HOURS, I DON'T THINK ANYONE'S DUE PROCESS HAS BEEN VIOLATED

HERE,. >> TWENTY-ONE PEOPLE.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: THESE YOUNG MEN CAME UP TO SAY THE

SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN. >> I HAVE MORE EVIDENCE THAT HAS NOT BEEN PRESENTED AND THOSE 21 PEOPLE ARE DUE THEIR DUE

DILIGENCE AND THE DUE PROCESS. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY:

THANK YOU. >> IF HE WANTED TO CUT IT TO FIVE INSTEAD OF TEN BUT I WILL STAND HERE UNTIL SOMEONE TELLS

ME TO GO. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: YOU CAN STAND THERE ALL DAY, I'M OKAY WITH THAT I JUST NEED YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A PROCESS FOR THIS CALCIFIED YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO COME UP AND SPEAK.

>> TWENTY-ONE PEOPLE. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: 21 PEOPLE, THERE'S A PROCESS FOR THAT AM I INCORRECT IN THIS?

>> I WAS NOT INFORMED THAT I COULD NOT SPEAK TODAY, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED IF MY PAPERWORK WAS NOT SUFFICIENT.

>> I DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO INFORM EVERYONE IN THE COUNTY ABOUT WHETHER THEY CAN SPEAK OR NOT.

>> THROUGH THE CHAIR ALL I CAN TELL YOU IS WE DO HAVE THE SPEAKER, SHE SPOKE AT THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING AND SHE DID SPEAK DURING THE GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT.

TO DATE REGARDING THIS MATTER. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: HOW

MUCH DUE PROCESS DO YOU NEED? >> I'M ASKING FOR DUE PROCESS OF

THE 21 SIGNATURES I RECEIVED. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: IT IS

DENIED THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> YOU HAVE HER BOTTLE.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: I THOUGHT YOU HAD -- I. THOUGHT I HAD YOU DOWN AS SPEAKING. EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID IS I AGREE, THE FIRST THING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH WAS I AGREE.

YOU HAVE 3 MINUTES SO I'M NOT GOING TO LET YOU DO IT AGAIN

KHAKSARI. >> I SENT YOU A LETTER ABOUT IT I CAN DISCUSS WHAT TAKES PLACE IN THE CONTEXT.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: LISTEN, THIS IS OVER WITH, IT IS OVER, IT IS OVER. SO YOU CAN SIT DOWN, YOU CAN SIT DOWN OR WE WILL ASK YOU TO LEAVE ED, I APPRECIATE YOU BUT I HAVE A SPECIFIC RIGHT HERE SPOKE ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 22 WEEKS AGO.

SO NOW YOU DON'T GET ANOTHER TURN.

REBUTTAL. >> MR. CHAIR JUST ONE MOMENT I GOT TWO EXPERT TESTIMONY AFFIDAVITS THAT WERE SUBMITTED YESTERDAY AND I BROUGHT COPIES FOR THE BOARD IF YOU WILL

INDULGE ME FOR PASSING THEM OUT. >> I'VE NEVER USED THIS LAPTOP SO I APOLOGIZE I WILL START WITH THIS AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THAT

ONE. >> MR. CHAIR I APOLOGIZE I

[03:05:14]

APPRECIATE THE STAFF'S ASSISTANCE WITH THE AV EQUIPMENT. JUST FOR THE RECORD WHEN I PASSED OUT TO YOU WE WILL GO THROUGH AS WE GO THROUGH OUR POWERPOINTS, BUT ONE IS EXHIBIT 3.1 AFFIDAVIT OF BR4700 EG ENCLAVE PROPERTY BEING ADJACENT TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, IT IS SIGNED BY ME AND NOTARIZED BECAUSE THIS IS EXPERT TESTIMONY BY A FLORIDA LICENSED REAL ESTATE AND LAND USE LAWYER.

ALSO WE HAVE EXHIBIT 5.6 WHICH IS FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF CONTINUOUS USE FOR BONAFIDE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES BY JIM COLEMAN WHO IS THE PRESIDENT OF CALLAHAN TIMBER WHO WORKS ON THIS PROPERTY. WE WILL WALK THROUGH ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS AS WE GO ALONG. SO.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: YOU WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE.

>> AGAIN, JUST AS A REBUTTAL TO PUBLIC COMMENT THE AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE LAW IS WITHIN CHAPTER 163, 3164 OTHER FLORIDA STATUTES. THIS DEFINITION OF PARCEL OF LAND IS FROM THAT STATUTORY SECTION.

SO AGAIN I'M NOT GOING TO READ IT TO YOU AGAIN I'M JUST GOING TO REITERATE THAT THE OWNER OF A PROPERTY HAS THE ABSOLUTE LEGAL RIGHT TO PROVIDE A METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE PROPERTY. THE SKETCH AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR, IT IS EXHIBIT TWO IN YOUR APPLICATION PACKAGE. AND THAT 550 PLUS PAGE APPLICATION THAT IS IN THE RECORD FOR THIS ITEM.

SO, AGAIN IT'S AN EXHIBIT IN THE APPLICATION THE METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS 4462 ACRES, TOWN OF PONCE INLET, 50CA SAYS A PARCEL OF LAND AS DEFINED IN THIS SPECIFIC STATUTORY SECTION THE COURT HELD THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS THE RIGHT TO DESIGNATE WHICH PORTION OF HIS LAND THAT CAN BE USED FOR DEVELOPMENT AND SO IN THIS CASE IF YOU'RE USING A META BOUND LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT IS THE APPLICANT'S RIGHT UNDER THIS STATUTORY PROVISION.

AS UPHELD BY THE COURT. WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE DIFFERENTIATION BECAUSE IT ONLY USED PARCEL I.D. NUMBER WITH THE MAP, THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE 1258 ACRES THAT WAS SUBJECT TO THAT APPLICATION.

IT'S A DIFFERENT FACT PATTERN. NOW, WE WILL GO TO THE PERCENTAGES AND WE WILL GO TO OUR EXPERT PLANNER DON.

>> THANK YOU, FOR THE RECORD DON FULLERTON WITH PRIME E3901 JACKSONVILLE. I'VE BEEN PRACTISING LAND USE PLANNING AND DESIGN FOR OVER 40 YEARS.

SO THE GRAPHIC THAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN IS A NEW GRAPHIC AND

WE'RE HOPEFUL. >> MR. CHAIR WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE MR. FULLERTON UNDER OATH BUT NO ONE WHO SPOKE PREVIOUSLY WAS UNDER OATH INCLUDING THE PEOPLE WHO WERE DESIGNATED

REPRESENTATIVES. >> I TEND TO AGREE, WE HAVEN'T HAD TO SWEAR ANYONE IN. WE'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND DO

OVER EVERYBODY? >> YOU CAN'T SWEAR HIM IN AFTER

THE FACT? >> FOR THE STATE OF THAT NEW

THING WE CAN'T. >> GO AHEAD.

I'LL ALLOW IT. >> CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION? THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THE FORESTRY IS THAT ONLY 291 ACRES?

THAT'S IT? >> COMMISSIONER JOSEPH WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN THERE, WE WILL GET TO AGRICULTURE.

>> YOU HANDED IT TO ME SO I JUST LOOKED AT IT.

>> I UNDERSTAND, WE WILL GET THERE.

>> WE PREPARED TWO NEW GRAPHICS AND HOPEFULLY THEY WILL START TO HELP A LITTLE BIT EXPLAIN THE PERIMETER CALCULATIONS THAT ARE REALLY CORNERSTONE FOR THIS APPLICATION.

AND AS SHE MENTIONED BEFORE THE BASIS OF ALL THE INFORMATION IS A MAP OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION PREPARED BY A LICENSED MAPPER AND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, WE USE THEIR NUMBERS AND CALCULATIONS ON EVERYTHING. THE GRAPHIC YOU'RE LOOKING AT NOW SHOWS ON THE LEFT THEIR SURVEY, THE MAP THAT WAS PREPARED AND IS THERE TO SUPPORT THE 75% IN THAT 50% PERIMETER

[03:10:05]

DISTANCES. WHAT IS HIGHLIGHTED IS THE EAST, SOUTH AND WEST DIMENSIONS AND THAT STRAIGHT OFF THE MAP OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION. ON THE RIGHT IT SHOWS THE SAME THING FOR THE 50%, THE EAST PERIMETER AND THE SOUTH PERIMETER, YOU CAN SEE THOSE DIMENSIONS AT THE BOTTOM SPIN I'M SO SORRY CAN I INTERRUPT FOR ONE SECOND.

ARE YOU STATING YOUR OPINION OR ARE YOU STATING LAW?

>> I'M REFERENCING A MAP OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION PREPARED BY SURVEYOR. IS THE BASIS OF ALL MY PLANNING

WORK ON THE PROJECT. >> IT'S YOUR OPINION?

>> MR. FULLERTON IS -- HIS BIOGRAPHY AND CV ARE IN THE APPLICATION PACKAGE, HE'S AN EXPERT IN PLANNING IN FLORIDA LAW, IN FLORIDA AND SO THAT'S WHAT HE'S TESTIFYING ABOUT.

I WILL BE RESPONDING TO ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT FLORIDA LAW WHICH WE WILL GET TO IN JUST A MINUTE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY I'M AN ATTORNEY AND I'M LICENSED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

SO I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU ALLOW US TO GO THROUGH OUR PRESENTATION BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF MATERIAL TO COVER AND THEN WE CAN ANSWER WHATEVER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AS WE GO

>> THROUGH THE CHAIR CAN I ASK A QUESTION? WAS THIS IN YOUR PACKET THAT YOU GAVE US?

>> IT WAS SUBMITTED YESTERDAY, YES.

>> YESTERDAY? WE'RE SUPPOSED TO READ THROUGH THIS LIKE RIGHT NOW AND BE ABLE TO VOTE ON EVERYTHING ELSE WIN.

>> WE'RE GOING THROUGH IT WITH YOU AND BY THE WAY THERE'S BEEN

PLENTY. >> I NEVER TOOK SPEED READING

BUT. >> COMMISSIONER JOSEPH, IT'S A TWO PAGE AFFIDAVIT A LOT OF IT IS JUST COPIES OF PLATS.

>> BUT THE PUBLIC DOESN'T HAVE IT EITHER.

>> IT WAS SUBMITTED PUBLICLY YESTERDAY.

AND SO IT'S PART OF THE RECORD AT THIS HEARING.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: ORDER PLEASE.

>> WE NEED TO TRY TO GET THROUGH THIS.

CONTINUE PLEASE. >> THANK YOU.

AS I MENTIONED THAT MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS A BASIS AND THE FOUNDATION FOR ALL THE WORK THAT WAS FOUND THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THIS PARCEL COMPLIES WITH THE AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE REQUIREMENTS, LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

THE SECOND PAGE OF THE MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION ACTUALLY IDENTIFIES THE PERCENTAGES OF EACH OF THE PERIMETERS SO FOR EXAMPLE LET'S LOOK AT THE 75% CALCULATION IN PURPLE.

YOU CAN SEE THOSE DISTANCES, THE EAST, SOUTH AND WEST PERIMETERS AND ASSOCIATED PERCENTAGES AND THEY ADD UP TO 84.4%.

THOSE CALCULATIONS WERE DONE BY THE LICENSED SURVEYOR.

AND LIKEWISE FOR THE 50% CALCULATION YOU CAN SEE IN GREEN THE EAST PERIMETER AND THE SOUTH PERIMETER, THEY ADD UP TO THAT TOTAL DISTANCE AND THEN THERE'S A TOTAL PERCENTAGES FOR EAST AND TOTAL CALCULATION OF 50.88%. THIS IS A BASIS, AS YOU'RE AWARE OF A LOT OF THEM DEMONSTRATING HOW WE COMPLY WITH THE AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LEGISLATION. AND AGAIN THE LAST CALCULATION ON THE SURVEY WAS A MAP IS THE OVERALL PERIMETER.

THAT BECOMES THE DENOMINATOR FOR ALL THE CALCULATIONS AND AGAIN THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE SURVEYOR.

>> FOR THE RECORD MR. CHAIR ALL OF THIS IS BEING PROVIDED IN REBUTTAL TO PUBLIC COMMENT, WE'RE ALLOWED TO PUT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD. GOING TO THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ACT, THE DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENT AND I'M GOING THROUGH THIS BECAUSE I'M THE LAWYER AND I AM SPEAKING ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS AND THE LAW, IN CHAPTER 163.3164 THE DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENT HAS THE SAME MEANING AS IN CHAPTER 3.8404 AND WILL GET THERE TO THAT DEFINITION ON THE NEXT SLIDE.

SAME DEFINITION A PARCEL OF LAND WHICH WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT SO I WON'T READ IT TO YOU AGAIN. HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENT. THE DEFINITION AND THIS IS JUST AN EXCERPT BUT IT MEANS THE CARRYING OUT OF ANY BUILDING ACTIVITY OR MINING OPERATION, THE MAKING OF ANY MATERIAL AND THE USE OR APPEARANCE OF ANY STRUCTURAL OR LAND OR THE DIVIDING OF LAND INTO THREE OR MORE PARCELS.

AND SO THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE WHEN WE GO TO THE PLATTED LOTS ALONG THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND THIS GOES TO MY AFFIDAVIT WHICH I SIGNED EXHIBIT 3.1, WHICH I WILL PUT UP HERE, THE LOTS, WE WILL START WITH I'M FIRST, HERE IS NOCATEE BECAUSE IT'S ADDRESSED ON MY AFFIDAVIT FIRST.

ITEM NUMBER 3 IN MY AFFIDAVIT INCLUDES ATTACHMENTS ONE THROUGH FIVE OF THE FOLLOWING SUBDIVISION PLOTS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD OF SAINT JOHNS COUNTY.

RIVER LANDING AT NOCATEE PHASE TWO, 20-MILE NOCATEE PHASE 3B,

[03:15:01]

20-MILE NOCATEE PHASE 5B, 20-MILE AND NOCATEE PHASE 5C, 2E ONE. THOSE ARE ALL SHOWN IN COLOR CODED, YOU CAN SEE THE FIRST PAGES OF ALL THE PLOTS AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE ENTIRE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY THAT B. -- THE BR4700 PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO PLATTED PORTIONS OF NOCATEE MEANING SUBDIVIDED INTO THREE OR MORE PARCELS SO THOSE ARE DEVELOPED.

ALL THE COMPLETE COPIES OF ALL OF THOSE PLATS ARE IN THIS AFFIDAVIT. THEY CONSTITUTE DEVELOPMENT UNDER SECTION 380 .06 FLORIDA STATUTES.

>> THEY'RE NOT BUILT AND THEY'RE JUST LOT THUS DEVELOPED?

>> THE SOUTHERN PART OF NOCATEE IS BUILT.

>> THOSE HOUSES ON ALL OF THOSE. >> I'M GOING TO THE DEFINITION.

>> I HAVE TO ASK BECAUSE BY THE TIME YOU GET THROUGH THIS WHOLE

THING I NEED TO ASK. >> ANYWAY I'M GOING TO THE DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENT. GOING BACK TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT THE -- THE DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENT MEANS THE DIVISION OF LAND INTO THREE OR MORE PARCELS WHICH INCLUDES PLATTING, PLODDING IS THE PRIMARY WAY OF SUBDIVIDING LAND IN THIS AREA.

THE POINT IS THAT THE SUBDIVISION OF THE SOUTH -- THE NORTHERN PART OF NOCATEE THAT'S IMMEDIATE ADJACENT TO THE BR4700 PROPERTY IS DEVELOPMENT UNDER FLORIDA LAW.

THUS THE POINT OF THIS SLIDE AND THUS THE POINT OF THE AFFIDAVIT.

AND SO THEREFORE IT DOES COUNT TOWARDS THE CALCULATIONS OF THE PARAMETERS. GOING TO PAGE 2 OF MY AFFIDAVIT, WHICH AGAIN INCLUDES THE ATTACHMENT SIX THROUGH NINE WHICH ARE THE EAST COAST CANAL ESTATES PLATS WHICH WERE RECORDED A LONG TIME AGO IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS AND THEY SHARE THE LOTS ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF ROSCOE BOULEVARD.

AGAIN YOU CAN SEE IN THE VARIOUS COLOR CODED AREAS THE EAST COAST CANAL ESTATES, EAST COAST CANAL ESTATES FOUR, EAST COAST ESTATES NUMBER 1 AND THEN NUMBER 2 ALL THE WAY DOWN ROSCOE BOULEVARD THERE PLATTED LOTS AND THEY MEET AT NUMBER.

THEY DO CONSTITUTE DEVELOPMENT. I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT THERE IS A PUD FOR THE VIOLATION OF RESTAURANTS WHICH IS ALSO AGAIN IN THIS AFFIDAVIT AS ATTACHMENT TEN.

THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE AFFIDAVIT IS TO BRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE SURROUNDING AREA TO THE EAST AND TO THE SOUTH. ACCORDING TO FLORIDA LAW.

AND THEN I WILL CHANGE SCREENS FOR A MINUTE.

IF YOU CAN PUT. WE WILL NOT GO THROUGH OUR SPEWING EITHER THIS ONE UP THERE CHARACTER THE SAME PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. >> THIS WAS A POWERPOINT FROM THE LAST HEARING THAT WE WILL NOT GO THROUGH EVERY DETAIL OF.

FOR THE RECORD OUR ENTIRE APPLICATION PACKAGE AND THE STAFF REPORT THAT SAYS SPECIFICALLY THIS APPLICATION MEETS ALL CRITERIA -- APPLICABLE CRITERIA FLORIDA STATUTES FOR CERTIFICATION FOR AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE.

THEN AGAIN, COMMISSIONER JOSEPH WE TOLD YOU AT THE LAST MEETING THAT THIS APPLICANT WOULD AGREE TO 4462 UNITS ON THIS PROPERTY AND WE ARE STICKING WITH THAT AND SO NOT GOING TO THE SIX UNITS PER ACRE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN REQUESTED UNDER THE DENSITY PERMISSIONS UNDER THE LAW. I'M GOING TO JUST CLICK THROUGH SOME OF THIS, AGAIN SIX UNITS PER ACRE COULD HAVE BEEN REQUESTED IT WAS NOT, STAFF FINDS THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THIS REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW. WE HAVE TALKED -- WE ARE JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS QUICKLY AGAIN, MR. FULLERTON TESTIFIED TO THESE KHAKIS ARE EXPERT PLANNER FOR THIS PROJECT, HE TALKED ABOUT ALL OF THIS AT THE LAST HEARING.

AGAIN, ONE UNIT PER ACRE VERSUS SIX UNITS PER ACRE PERMITTED.

OWNERSHIP BY A SINGLE ENTITY, EVERYONE KEEPS TALKING ABOUT

[03:20:02]

JANUARY 1, 2025. THIS PROPERTY, THE DEED FOR THIS PROPERTY WHICH IS DATED BEFORE JANUARY FIRST 2025 IS IN THE APPLICATION PACKAGE. THAT IS THE KEY IS OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY. AND THERE IS A DEED THAT SHOWS THAT OWNERSHIP SO OUR ANALYSIS AND YOUR STAFF'S ANALYSIS CONCLUDE THAT THE STATUTORY CRITERIA HAS BEEN MET.

WITH RESPECT TO BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, I HAVE GIVEN YOU A NEW EXHIBIT 5.6 SO AGAIN WE PROVIDED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. WE'VE PROVIDED A TIMBER MANAGEMENT PLAN, A LETTER FROM EDDIE KRAMER, WE PROVIDED TIMBER SALES INFORMATION AND ALL OF THAT INFORMATION AND PROPERTY TAX CARDS AND THE APPLICATION PACKAGE.

NOW YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT AND REBUTTAL THERE IS A FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF CALLAHAN TIMBER JIM COLEMAN WHO WAS UNFORTUNATELY HAD A MEDICAL ISSUE AND COULD NOT BE HERE TODAY BUT WE DO HAVE ANOTHER PERSON WHO IS GOING TO COME UP IN A MINUTE, KEITH KELLY, AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT.

BUT I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT CALLAHAN TIMBER, LET'S READ THROUGH THIS CALLAHAN TIMBER FORESTERS PREPARED THE FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANS STATED FEBRUART ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE APPLICATION PACKAGE. THEY ARE ALREADY THERE.

HE HAS WORKED HERE SINCE 1982, IS BASED UPON HIS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. HE SAYS, AND NUMBER 6, THE BR4700 EGG ENCLAVE PROPERTY IN ITS ENTIRETY HAS BEEN A CONTINUOUS BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL USE AS DEFINED IN SECTION 193.461 FLORIDA STATUTES FOR A.

OF FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO JULY 12026 AND FOR A TOTAL OF MORE THAN 20 YEARS. THEN HE GOES ON TO SAY IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE SAINT JOHN'S BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HELD ON AUGUST 19TH 2026, A QUESTION WAS RAISED REGARDING THE USE OF THE PROPERTY WITH PARCEL ID NUMBER 05224.0000 291.15 ACRES ALONG THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY. WHICH IS LOCATED WITHIN THE BR4700 AG ENCLAVE PROPERTY. THE ICW FRONTAGE PARCEL AS THIS IS DEFINED IN THE AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN IN CONTINUOUS USE FOR BONAFIDE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AS DEFINED IN SECTION 193.461 FLORIDA STATUTES FOR A. OF FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO JULY 12026 AND FOR A TOTAL OF MORE THAN 20 YEARS.

ALSO WITH RESPECT TO ICW PARCEL, IS EXPRESSLY IDENTIFIED AND INCLUDED AS A HARDWOOD DRAIN AREA IN THE FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN. THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES/FLORIDA FOREST SERVICES PUBLISHES THE STATE SILVICULTURE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MANUAL. THOSE PRACTICES OR BMPS SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS AREAS ALONGSIDE STREAMS AND WATER BODIES SUCH AS THE ICW FRONTAGE PARCEL.

THEY CALL THEM SPECIAL MANAGEMENT ZONES OR'S M.

THEY RECOGNIZE SMZS AS NATURALLY VEGETATED FILTER STRIPS AND ALTHOUGH SELECTIVE TIMBER HARVESTING IS ALLOWED IN'S M Z'S THE BMPS PROVIDE RESTRICTIONS ON TIMBER HARVESTING AND OTHER SILVICULTURAL. NUMBER 10, THE OWNER OF THE BR4700 AG ENCLAVE PROPERTY HAS EMPLOYED THE BMPS AND THE TIMBER OPERATIONS IN THE BR4700 AG ENCLAVE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE ICW FRONTAGE PARCEL. THE ICW FRONTAGE PARCEL SERVES AS AN SMZ'S AN ELEMENT OF THE FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN IN TIMBER MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS OF THE BR4700 AG ENCLAVE PROPERTY. NUMBER 11, OTHER SENSITIVE AREAS INCLUDING WETLANDS ARE EXPRESSLY IDENTIFIED AND INCLUDED IN THE FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLANS. SPECIAL BMPS APPLY TO AND ARE EMPLOYED BY THE BR4700 IN ANY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY ALLOWED -- SILVICULTURAL ACTIVITY ALLOWED IN SENSITIVE AREAS.

SUCH SENSITIVE AREAS ARE AN ELEMENT OF THE FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLANS AND TIMBER MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS ON THE BR4700 AG ENCLAVE PROPERTY. CONSEQUENTLY THE ICW FRONTAGE PARCEL AND ITS USE AS AN SMZ'S PURSUANT TO THE FORESTRY

[03:25:04]

MANAGEMENT PLANS IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE USE OF THE BR4700 AG ENCLAVE PROPERTY FOR BONAFIDE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES.

AND AGAIN THIS IS SIGNED JAMES COLEMAN WHO IS THE PRESIDENT OF CALLAHAN TIMBER AND WORKS ACTIVELY ON THIS PROPERTY.

>> YOU ONLY HAVE 291 ACRES ON A 45-ACRE PIECE TO QUALIFY FOR AG

ENCLAVE? >> THAT IS THE ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED IN PUBLIC COMMENT LAST WEEK.

OR TWO WEEKS AGO. >> HAS OUR STAFF ASKED YOU FOR HOW MUCH AG ENCLAVE -- AGRICULTURAL LAND IS ON THE

PROPERTY WIN. >> YOU RAISED THE QUESTION AT

THE LAST HEARING. >> HOW MUCH IS TOTAL?

>> THE WHOLE PROPERTY, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS RIGHT HERE.

IT SAYS ON THE BOTTOM. >> I WITNESSED IT FOR --

FORESTRY PERSON. >> THE BR4700 AG ENCLAVE PROPERTY IN ITS ENTIRETY HAS BEEN IN CONTINUOUS USE FOR BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AS DEFINED IN SECTION 193.461 FLORIDA STATUTES FOR A. OF FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO JULY FIRST 2026 AND FOR A TOTAL OF MORE THAN 20 YEARS.

>> SO THIS WAS DONE ON AUGUST 28TH.

>> IT WAS DONE IN RESPONSE. >> IT SAYS AUGUST 28TH DOES OUR STAFF -- HAS OUR STAFF LOOKED AT THIS?

>> THIS IS EVIDENCE WE ARE PROVIDING IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT AND DOCUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC.

>> HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO THE STAFF AND WHO?

SPEWING COMMISSIONER JOSEPH. >> AM I ALLOWED TO ASK THAT

QUESTION WOW. >> WE ARE INTRODUCING THIS AS REBUTTAL EVIDENCE BECAUSE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE TODAY BROUGHT UP THE IDEA OF AG ENCLAVE, THEY OPENED THIS ITEM.

>> WHO HAVE YOU BEEN TALKING TO? >> I'M RESPONDING TO YOUR COMMENT. I SAID AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS HEARING, THAT WE WERE ONLY ADDRESSING THE ONE NARROW ISSUE OF THE NORTH PROPERTY BOUNDARY. THE PUBLIC OPENED THIS ITEM OF BONAFIDE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES DURING THEIR COMMENTS, THEY HAVE POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS, THEY'VE GIVEN THEIR OPINIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT EXPERTS IN TIMBER OR LAW ABOUT THESE ITEMS, AND SO WE ARE SIMPLY PROVIDING THESE AFFIDAVITS IN REBUTTAL A PUBLIC COMMENT WHICH WE ARE ALLOWED TO DO BY OUR DUE PROCESS

RIGHTS. >> WHICH EMPLOYEES HAVE YOU BEEN

WORKING ON WITH US WOW. >> WE HAVE NOT WORKED WITH ANY EMPLOYEES THESE ARE ON BEHALF OF OUR CLIENT.

>> IS MIKE ROBINSON AVAILABLE? >> WHO HAS BEEN LOOKING OVER THIS AND DOING THE RESEARCH BECAUSE YOU MADE YOUR COMMENT SAYING THAT THIS QUALIFIES AND WHATNOT.

>> WE HAD STAFF LOOK AT IT OF COURSE THEY PROVIDED A LETTER FROM EDDIE KRAMER WHO'S A PROPERTY APPRAISER, THE PROPERTY APPRAISER IS WHO WE GO TO AS THE EXPERTS TO DETERMINE AND THE AGRICULTURAL SPEW AND HIS WAS A WHOLE 400 ACRES, THAT'S WHERE MY CONFUSION IS ON THE BOUNDARIES. SO NOTHING MORE THAN THAT, WE DID NOT RESEARCH WHETHER THEY HAD BEEN USING IT AS FORESTRY OR

IF THEY GO TOGETHER WITH A LAW? >> NO WE RELY ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AS THE EXPERT ON THAT.

>> SPEAKER-08: MY UNDERSTANDING IS A PROPERTY APPRAISER DOES GO AND INSPECT EVERY YEAR ACCORDING TO EDDIE

KRAMER THEY DO. >> WE HAVE A LETTER FROM MR. KRAMER IN THE RECORD OF OUR ORIGINAL.

>> HOW MANY ACRES IS ACTUALLY AGRICULTURE?

>> 4462. >> WE ONLY HAVE ONE FOR 291

RIGHT NOW. >> THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS AFFIDAVIT SAYS. I THINK THAT THE POINT OF PROVIDING THE AFFIDAVIT IS WE'VE HAD MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

>> THANK YOU MIKE. >> RAISED QUESTIONS OF THE VALIDITY OF CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE AGRICULTURAL AREA.

THIS IS PROVIDED IN REBUTTAL TO THAT PUBLIC COMMENT WHICH WE ARE ALLOWED TO PROVIDE. IT DOES NOT TAKE AWAY THE FACT THAT WE HAVE AN EFFORT TO GO BACK TO THE POWERPOINT, IT DOES NOT TAKE AWAY THE FACT THAT WE HAVE 550 PAGES WORTH OF APPLICATION DOCUMENTS STILL IN THE PUBLIC RECORD.

THAT INCLUDES THE LETTER FROM MR. KRAMER, THAT INCLUDES PROPERTY CARDS, INCLUDES TIMBER MANAGEMENT PLANS AND IT INCLUDES

SALES, TIMBER SALES. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY REBUTTAL?

>> REALLY QUICKLY, AGAIN, STAFF NOTES THAT ALL THE PERIMETER

[03:30:02]

CALCULATIONS DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTES, I'M TRYING TO GO QUICKLY. AGAIN URBAN POPULATION DEMONSTRATES COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE STATUTES COUNTY POPULATION DEMONSTRATES COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE STATUTE, LISTED THE POWERPOINT FROM THE LAST HEARING.

THE STAFF REPORT CONCLUSION IS THAT THE APPLICATION APPEARS TO SATISFY BY THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE. THAT IS WHAT YOUR BOARD IS LEGALLY CHARGED TO DO -- TO DETERMINE.

AND SO GOING FORWARD, AS WE TALK ABOUT LAST TIME, THIS APPLICATION MEETS ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 163, 31624 A AND 163.31644 AS DOCUMENTED NOT ONLY BY OUR TEAM BUT SEPARATELY BY COUNTY STAFF. THE APPLICANT IS ONLY REQUESTING ONE UNIT PER ACRE OF THE 4400 MEANING 4462 UNITS NOT 26,000 UNITS THAT COULD BE AFFORDED BY THE DENSITY OF ADJACENT PARCELS.

TO REMIND THE BOARD AGAIN AND REMIND THE PUBLIC BECAUSE I HEARD THE PUBLIC ABOUT BALD EAGLES AND WETLANDS AND WATER AND ALL OF THAT, THIS IS NOT A CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL, THIS PROJECT STILL HAS TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS AND RULES AND REGULATIONS, DEVELOPMENT PLANNING WITH SAINT JOHNS COUNTY. AGREEMENT FOR CONCURRENCY WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD WITH THE COUNTY, WITH JEA.

RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMITS WITH THE COUNTY, WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, ONE OTHER GENTLEMAN TALKED ABOUT WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND ALL OF THAT, THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT PREEMPT THAT ISSUE.

ALL OF THOSE PERMITS FROM THE DISTRICT AND THE COURT ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED AS ARE UTILITY PERMITS WITH JEA AND DAP.

I ALSO IN WRAPPING UP I HAVE A COUPLE OF NOTES, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT BECAUSE ONE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC BROUGHT THIS UP THAT HANG ON, SORRY MR. CHAIR I HAVE TOO MANY PIECES OF PAPER UP HERE SPENT WE'VE ALLOWED EVERYBODY TO SPEAK TODAY I THINK MAYBE YOU CAN SPEAK TO. DON, DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL PARCELS ALONG ROSCO ROAD WHILE I'M FUMBLING

AROUND? >> DON FULLERTON HERE AGAIN, EVIDENTLY THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ON THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL PARCELS IN THAT WEST EAST PERIMETER LINE FRONTING THE WATER LINE, AND THOSE PARCELS PERIMETER CALCULATION TO DETERMINE THE PROPERTY EXCEEDS THAT 1000 RESIDENTS PER SQUARE MILE CALCULATION AND TO REFRESH EVERY ONE I READ IT FROM THAT LEGISLATION, IF THE SURROUNDING AREA EXCEEDS AUTHORIZED DENSITY OF 1000 RESIDENTS PER SQUARE MILE THEN THE PROJECT AG ENCLAVE CAN ACTUALLY EXCEED THE 1288 ACRES AND WE DO EXCEED THAT. IT'S AN IMPORTANT CALCULATION AND WE'VE MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT IT RANGES FROM 1500 RESIDENTS PER SQUARE MILE TO 1800 DEPENDING ON WHICH PERIMETER. I THINK THE PERIMETER THE COMMERCIAL WITHIN THAT RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION AND AS A PLANNER THROUGH THE YEARS THIS TYPE OF GROSS CALCULAIONS THE GROSS ACRES WITH THE DENSITY CALCULATIONS WHEN YOU DEAL PER SQUARE MILE AND THESE ARE METRIC CHARACTER INDICATORS RULE TYPE CHARACTERS, IT'S AN IMPORTANT CALCULATION AND THEY ALWAYS INCLUDE GROSS ACRES IN THAT CALCULATION EXCLUDING LARGE BODIES OF WATER. SO WE STAND BY THE CALCULATION IN THAT RESPECT HOWEVER WE DID LOOK AT WHETHER IF WE DID EXCLUDE IT WOULD IT IMPACT THE NUMBERS AT ALL? AND ELLEN IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO PUT THIS ON THE SCREEN.

THESE ARE THE FOUR PARCELS ALONG ROSCOE BOULEVARD, IT'S CURRENTLY COMMERCIAL LAND USE OR COMMERCIAL ZONING AND IN FACT IT'S ONE OF THE RESTAURANTS THAT ELLEN SPOKE OF.

YOU CAN SEE THE LINEAR FOOTAGE THERE OF EACH PARCEL AND THEN I WILL SHARE THIS AND YOU CAN SEE IF WE JUST DEDUCT THAT FROM THAT PERIMETER CALCULATION IT'S ABOUT 550 FEET AND IT DOES REDUCE THAT

[03:35:07]

EASTERN PERIMETER QUALIFYING DISTANCE A LITTLE BIT.

SO WE'RE GOING FROM 84.41% TO 83.47%.

SO CLEARLY WE STILL COMPLY WITH THAT 75% REQUIREMENT.

IT WAS A GOOD CHECK THOUGH, IT'S A GOOD THING TO LOOK AT JUST IN CASE BUT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE STILL WELL WITHIN THAT 75%.

>> MR. CHAIR WE ARE WRAPPING IT UP.

ONE OTHER THING THAT WAS MENTIONED IS THERE ARE TWO CARETAKER HOUSES ON THIS PROPERTY, OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE ACTUALLY HOUSING PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE FULL TIME, WHO MANAGE THIS TIMBERLAND. IF THERE IS A LIGHTNING STRIKE THEY CAN GO RESPOND TO A FOREST FIRE BEFORE IT GETS OUT OF CONTROL, THEY CAN KEEP TRESPASSERS OFF THE LAND AND ALL OF THAT. I WANT TO SAY, THIS IS AN EXCERPT FROM SECTION 193461 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS, I'M SORRY THE MAINTENANCE OF DWELLING ON PART OF THE LAND USE FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES DOES NOT IN AND OF ITSELF PRECLUDE AN AGRICULTURAL CLASSFICATION.

SO WE WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD ALSO JUST WRAPPING UP TO GO BACK TO THE POWERPOINT THANK YOU.

VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP. AGAIN, THE CONFIDENCE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A VERY COMPLETE APPLICATION PACKAGE THAT OUR TEAM'S LEGAL AND PLANNING VIEW AS EXPERTS MEETS ALL THE STATUTORY CRITERIA.

YOUR STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS APPLICATION MEETS ALL THIS APPLICABLE STATUTORY CRITERIA. YOUR DECISION HAS TO BE BASED ON CONFIDENCE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND THERE WERE JOKES MADE ABOUT BEING PHARMACIST OR BEING WHATEVER BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY EXPERTS THAT'S WHY WE GAVE YOU AFFIDAVITS THAT ARE NOTARIZED BECAUSE THEY ARE TESTIMONY, WE ARE HERE TESTIFYING AS LEGAL AND PLANNING EXPERTS AND SO YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE WEIGHT OF THIS COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INTO ACCOUNT WHEN AGAIN YOUR STAFF REPORT HAS COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND OUR DOCUMENTS ARE AS WELL SO WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU PLEASE APPROVE THE CERTIFICATION OF THIS APPLICATION UNDER THE

LAW. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>> CAN I MAKE A MOTION? >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

THE MATH -- THE MAP THAT YOU HAVE WITH THE PROPERTIES ON ROSCOE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU CALLED THEM.

THEY WERE LIKE FOUR AREAS? >> IT WAS IN THE OTHER

POWERPOINT. >> YOU BROKE THEM DOWN BY

SOMETHING, WAS IT ZONING? >> BY PLAT.

>> HAVE YOU LOOKED AT IT BY PARCEL BY PARCEL? WHERE IS A MAP? THAT IS PARCEL BY PARCEL.

>> COMMISSIONER TAYLOR, ON THIS, ON ROSCOE BOULEVARD, THIS IS A MAP THAT DON, AND HIS FIRM PREPARED AND IT'S A SUMMARY OF THE PLATS. IN MY AFFIDAVIT THAT I PREPARED AND I'VE BEEN REVIEWING PLATS FOR YEARS, IN THIS EXHIBIT 3.1, COPIES OF ALL OF THOSE EAST COAST CANAL ESTATES ARE INCLUDED IN THEM. WE HAVE GIVEN YOU ALL THE COPIES OF EVERY PAGE OF THE REFERENCE PLATS FOR NOCATEE AND COPIES OF ALL OTHER REFERENCE PLOTS OF EAST COAST CANAL ESTATES ARE IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT I PROVIDED TO YOU EARLIER.

THAT'S WHY IT'S SO THICK IT HAS COPIES OF THE PLATS.

BUT YOU KNOW WE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPED PARCEL ALONG THAT BOUNDARY BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL PLOTTED.

>> YOU HAVE A MAP, YOU BROKE IT DOWN BY EVERY PARCEL.

>> EVERY PLAT. THAT'S THE WAY YOU SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY AND SO THE PLATS, THE RECORDED PLATS THAT ARE IN THIS APPLICATION -- IN THIS AFFIDAVIT SHOW INDIVIDUALLY PLATTED PLOTS AND WHEN YOU BUY A LOT FOR EXAMPLE YOU BUY THE LOT FIVE OF THE PLAT OF EAST CANAL ESTATES OR WHATEVER.

I'M SURE WHEN YOU AND YOUR FAMILY BOUGHT YOUR HOME YOU BOUGHT AN PLAT LOT AND IT'S THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF IT IS BASED ON THE MAP BOOK PAGE Y OTHER PUBLIC RECORDS OF SAINT

JOHNS COUNTY. >> IT'S CONFUSING BECAUSE THE

[03:40:02]

LAW SAYS PARCEL. >> THE DEFINITION.

>> THE LAW THE STATUTORY DEFINITION AGAIN I THINK WE'RE GETTING CONFUSED ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF PARCEL FOR THE OVERALL MEANS AND BOUNDS FOR THE APPLICATION THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION ITSELF AND THEN WE'RE TRYING TO PROVE THAT THIS SLIDE, THE PERIMETER, THE PROPERTIES ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY ARE DEVELOPED. IT'S A DIFFERENT LEGAL ANALYSIS THAN WHETHER OR NOT THIS PROPERTY OWNER IS ALLOWED TO PROVIDE A METER BOUND LEGAL DESCRIPTION UNDER THE DEFINITION OF PARCEL OR PARCEL OF LAND IN CHAPTER 163.3164.

THE TWO DIFFERENT LEGAL ANALYSIS IS.

>> OKAY. AND WHEN YOU LOOK ACROSS THE INTRACOASTAL THERE ARE NINE PARCELS THAT HAVE ZERO BUILDINGS OR ANYTHING, THEY ARE NOT BUILT OUT AT ALL NINE PARCELS.

>> THEY HAVE SEAWALLS AND THEY'RE ALL PLATTED.

GOING BACK TO THE DEFINITION IN THE STATUTE OF PARCEL OF LAND, OR I'M SORRY OF DEVELOPMENT, IT TALKS ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND INTO THREE OR MORE PARCELS, RIGHT HERE.

SO FOR DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS A DIFFERENT DEFINITION THAN PARCEL OF LAND. THE DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENT IS THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND INTO THREE OR MORE PARCELS.

SO JUST BECAUSE A PLATTED LOT IS EMPTY DOESN'T MEAN IT HAS NOT BEEN SUBDIVIDED AND UNDER THIS DEFINITION THAT IS DEVELOPMENT.

PLUS A LOT OF THESE LOTS HAVE BULKHEADS AND HAVE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS OR WHAT'S CONTAINED IN THE HOMES AND THE HOMES HAVE BEEN TORN DOWN FOR WHATEVER REASON.

SOME OF THEM SERVE AS DRAINAGE FOR THE SUBDIVISIONS AND SO THEY

ARE SUBDIVISION TRACTS. >> BUT THE STATUTE REQUIRES THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT BY THAT JANUARY 12025 DATE AND THERE ARE NINE PARCELS THAT DO NOT HAVE DEVELOPMENT.

>> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT COMMISSIONER TAYLOR BY THE DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENT AGAIN, CHAPTER 163.3164 REFERS TO THIS SECTION OF THE STATUTES, 3804 FOR THE DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENT. DIVIDING OF LAND INTO THREE PARCELS, A SUBDIVISION PLAT IS A DIVIDING OF LAND.

ALL OF THOSE LOTS ALONG THE INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY ARE ALL PLATTED. THEY ARE ALL RECORDED PLATS.

UNITS ONE TO FOUR OF EAST COAST ESTATES.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM IS PLATTED.

THEN YOU HAVE THE VALLEY SLOPE RESTAURANT WHICH IS ZONED PUD AND HAS A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

WE ANALYZED ALL OF THESE LOTS AND AGAIN THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS MY EVIDENCE THAT WE PREPARED THIS AFFIDAVIT, ALL THE PLOTS ARE ATTACHED, I SIGNED THIS, IT'S NOTARIZED, THIS IS MY TESTIMONY IN MY FULL FORM IN THE PUBLIC RECORD OF THIS HEARING.

>> LET ME CONFIRM SO YOU ARE STATING THAT THOSE NINE LOTS THAT DON'T HAVE ANY DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE A SEAWALL.

>> THEY ARE DEVELOPMENT, THE PLATTED OF THE LOTS MEANS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED. ONCE YOU PLAT A LOT UNDER THE STATUTORY DEFINITION YOU HAVE DIVIDED THE LAND INTO THREE PARCELS. IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD YOU LIVE ON A LOT THAT HAS A HOUSE YOUR LOT HAS BEEN PLATTED.

EVEN BEFORE THERE'S A HOUSE THERE ONCE THAT LOT IS PLATTED THAT IS A SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND, IT'S REQUIRED UNDER FLORIDA STATUTES THAT YOU HAVE TO PLATTED -- PLAT -- THE PLATTED CONSTITUTES DEVELOPMENT. I'M RUNNING OUT OF STEAM SORRY.

>> CAN I MAKE A MOTION? >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: NOT JUST THE I TO. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU SO MUCH MISS SMITH, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, IS THERE ANY WAY, IS IT PROPER FOR ME TO MAKE A MOTION BEFORE WE MAKE THE MOTION? THAT HAS TO DO WITH SOMETHING ELSE? CAN I SLIP SOMETHING IN?

>> I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME TO DO.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: LET ME DO THIS.

COMMISSION, LET ME GO TO YOU NEXT AND BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR MOTION LET ME COME BACK TO IT GO AHEAD YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

[03:45:01]

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR, I WANT TO OFFER UP SOME THOUGHTS BASED ON THE EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WE'VE HEARD AND THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED.

I'M HEARING YOU I HEARD THE SPEAKER SAID THAT YOU WANT TO SPEND YOUR TAX DOLLARS IN LAWSUITS AND I HEARD THAT AND I'VE HEARD MANY SPEAKERS SAY THAT YOU WANT US UP HERE FIGHTING FOR YOU AND I'VE HEARD THAT AS WELL, LISTENING AND HEARING IT TAKING NOTES, I HAVE A RECORD OF FIGHTING FOR THIS COMMUNITY, TIME AND TIME AGAIN IN 2022 OR MAYBE IT WAS EARLY 2023, IT WAS SARAH ARNOLD WHO MADE THE MOTION TO HOLD GRAND OAKS IN DEFAULT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

FOR THEIR INABILITY OR THEIR REFUSAL TO WIDEN 3 MILES OF STATE ROAD 16. WE HELD THEM IN DEFAULT HENRY DEANE VOTED FOR THAT, I VOTED FOR THAT AND THE COMMISSIONER JOSEPH JOINT COMMISSIONER ARNOLD'S LEADERSHIP IN VOTING FOR THAT DEFAULT THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

SO BECAUSE WE HELD THEM ACCOUNTABLE THEY SUED US WE WON THAT LAWSUIT. THEY APPEALED THAT DECISION AND WE WON THE APPEAL. VERY PROUD HOLDING THAT DEVELOPER ACCOUNTABLE WE THEN WENT TO THE DEVELOPER AT BEACHWALK AND WE SAID IF YOU DON'T COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WE WILL DO THE SAME THING TO YOU.

THE DEVELOPER A BEACHWALK HAS RUN AFOUL OF THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MANY TIMES AND MANY TIMES WE'VE HELD THEM ACCOUNTABLE THEY CAME INTO COMPLIANCE AND THEY AVOIDED LOSING A LAWSUIT TO SAINT JOHN'S COUNTY BECAUSE OUR BOARD WAS NOT PUTTING UP WITH THAT NONSENSE.

WE ARE BEING SUED BY AT LEAST FOUR SEPARATE DEVELOPERS FOR DENYING DEVELOPMENTS I HAVE BEEN ON THE DENYING SIDE OF EACH ONE OF THOSE VOTES ROBINSON IS ONE OF THOSE LAWSUITS AND WHILE WE WON THE STATE CASE WE STILL HAVE THE FEDERAL CASE THAT'S PENDING SO LET'S NOT SPIKE THE FOOTBALL AND CELEBRATE TOO SOON.

ON THE ROBINSON TRACT. I VOTED TO DENY MANY PROJECTS ALL OVER THIS COUNTY INCLUDING ANYTHING THAT WOULD ENCROACH INTO OUR AGRICULTURAL LANDS TRYING TO PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF OUR COMMUNITY. I HAVE CHASED AWAY DEVELOPMENT FROM FRUIT COVE I HAVE DENIED ALMOST EVERYTHING NEAR WATSON ROAD AND STATE ROAD 16 ALL IN AN EFFORT TO PROTECT CHARACTER AND NOT OVERWHELM OUR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, I'M NOT AFRAID OF A FIGHT, I'M NOT UP HERE DOING FAVORS FOR DEVELOPERS BUT I'M ALSO NOT GOING TO CAST MY VOTE SIMPLY TO GET AROUND APPLAUSE. I'M GOING TO GO WHERE THE FACTS LEAD ME AND THAT'S HOW I'VE ALWAYS MADE MY DECISIONS AND THAT'S WHAT I'M COMMITTED TO TODAY, A JUDGE CANNOT BE PRO PLAINTIFF ANY MORE THAN HE CAN BE PRO DEFENDANT, A JUDGE NEEDS TO BE PRO EVIDENCE AS DOES A JURY.

OUR STAFF, THE SAME STAFF THAT TOLD THREE OTHER APPLICANTS THAT THEIR APPLICATIONS DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE HAS SAID TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT THIS ONE DOES.

I DON'T LIKE IT I LIVE HERE AS WELL, I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL BUT THAT'S WHAT OUR EXPERT STAFF HAS TOLD ME TIME AND TIME AGAIN. WE CONTINUE TO ON AUGUST 19TH JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE SURE OKAY CAN WE PLEASE PUT EVERYTHING UNDER A MICROSCOPE STAPH, WE ARE BEGGING YOU LOOK AT THIS THINK THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION, LOOK AT THAT THING THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION, PLEASE PLACE IT UNDER A MICROSCOPE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE SURE THAT THIS IS IN WITH THIS STATE LAW FOR WHICH WE HAVE A VERY NARROW SET OF CRITERIA THAT WE ARE EVEN ALLOWED TO CONSIDER PEER UNLIKE THE OTHER REZONING APPLICATIONS THAT I'VE HAD THE ABILITY TO VOTE NO ON AND DEFEND THAT DECISION IN COURT I AM VERY PROUD OF MY RECORD.

BUT I'M NOT GOING TO HAUL OFF HEADLONG -- HEADLONG INTO A BRICK WALL WHEN THE CORRECT SOLUTION IS TO BUILD A DOOR THROUGH THE WALL, IS NOT SMART TO CRACK YOUR HEAD OPEN ON THE BRICK WALL. THE FACTS PRESENTED TODAY, THE REBUTTAL OF THE ATTORNEY STANDING BEFORE US TODAY IT'S REALLY A VERY CLEAR DECISION, IS NOT EVEN CLOSE IF YOU'RE JUST CONSIDERING THE FACTS. NOW I UNDERSTAND IF YOUR GOAL HERE IS TO GET AROUND -- ROUND OF APPLAUSE THAT'S A DIFFERENT DECISION BUT IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING THE FACTS TO ITS CONCLUSION THEN I WILL VOTE TO CERTIFY THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT

THE FACTS TELL ME TO DO. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

AND LISTENING TO YOUR PRESENTATION TWO WEEKS AGO AND TODAY ONE OF THE THINGS I HAVE COME TO UNDERSTAND IS YOU KNOW WHAT THE APPLICATION ASKS FOR AND YOU GUYS HAVE GIVEN IT THE CHALLENGE THAT I AM FACED WITH THOUGH IS THAT NOBODY WANTS THIS, NOBODY WANTS TO CERTIFY THAT PARTICULAR PLOT OF LAND AS AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE. SO A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO I WAS

[03:50:07]

THINKING MAYBE DEFENSE WAS THE BEST WAY TO PLAY BUT ONE OF THE CHALLENGES I HAVE FACED IS SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO SAY WHAT THE HECK AND YOU HAVE TO FIGHT FOR YOUR PEOPLE SO WHAT I WOULD LOVE TO DO IS I WOULD LOVE TO ASK FOR I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DIRECT OUR LEGAL TEAM TO FIND A WAY TO GO AND FIGHT FOR US WHATEVER THAT LOOKS LIKE WHETHER IT'S GOING TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LAW OR. [APPLAUSE]

>> THAT WASN'T FOR. [APPLAUSE] YOU KNOW MY FEELINGS ABOUT THE APPLAUSE BUT I TRULY FEEL LIKE THE APPLICANT AGAIN FACTUALLY ACCORDING TO AG ENCLAVE LAWS HAS MET THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF BUT I DON'T LIKE THE LAW AND I THINK THAT SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO STAND UP AND WE HAVE TO TAKE A LEAD IN FIGHTING THIS AND SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO

DO JUST THAT FOR US. >> CHAIR, I WOULD RATHER MAKE A MOTION IF YOU DON'T MIND FOR MY DISTRICT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE AGRICULTURAL APPLICATION I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS A COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THEY MET THE PERIMETER CRITERIA.

>> I WILL SECOND THAT. [APPLAUSE]

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: LET'S GO BACK TO THE MOTION THAT I

MADE. >> IS NOT ON THE TABLE.

>> THAT SECOND. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: SO WE

DON'T WANT TO FIGHT IT? >> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE

TABLE, SIR? >> I THOUGHT I MADE A MOTION, IS THERE NO SECOND ON MY MOTION? THERE'S NOT ONE YET, SO THERE'S NO SECOND FOR MY MOTION, OKAY WELL THEN THAT FAILS.

YOU HAVE MADE A MOTION AND YOU HAVE A SECOND.

LET'S VOTE. >> THAT FAILS 3-2.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO FIGHT FOR US AGAINST 686, DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION?

>> I WILL SECOND IT. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND, DISCUSSION?

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR, CAN WE PLEASE DEFINE WHAT FIGHTING FOR US MEANS AND WHAT THAT WOULD ENTAIL IN TERMS OF COST AND

RESOURCES AND SPECIFICS? >> THAT'S THE CHALLENGE THAT WE FACE CORRECT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE COST IS.

THE COST OF DOING NOTHING MEANS THAT WE STAND TO, WE HAVE THREE MORE IN THE PIPE, WE HAVE THREE MORE THAT WILL COME, WE HAVE A YEAR AND A HALF FOR PEOPLE TO TURN THE APPLICATIONS IN AND I THINK WE NEED TO FIGHT IT AT THE SOURCE, THE RESPONSE TO THAT WOULD BE TO SEEK AN INJUNCTION AGAINST 686 UNTIL WE UNDERSTAND

THE VIABILITY OF IT. >> I LIKE THAT IDEA.

>> OR WHATEVER THE LEGAL TEAM FEELS IS THE BEST RESPONSE FOR US IN OUR COUNTY. I THINK WE NEED TO FIGHT, I THINK WE NEED TO JUST FIGHT FOR IT.

[APPLAUSE] >> THE BOARD IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION ABOUT GOING FORWARD WITH THAT MOTION.

>> ARE WE DENYING THIS? >> NO, DID NOT PASS.

>> NOTHING'S BEEN DONE YET. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: IN MY OPINION THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE CRITERIA OF THE LAW, THE PROBLEM IS THAT I DON'T LIKE THE LAW I THINK THE LAW PRIMARILY IS FLAWED AND I THINK WE NEED TO TRY TO GO ON THE OFFENSE ABOUT TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PROTECT OUR LANDS BECAUSE UNDER THE LAW THEY'VE MET THEIR CRITERIA AS FAR AS IN MY

OPINION. >> A NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT WE ARE MORE DEFENSIVE AND FOR US TO BE DEFENSIVE WE NEED TO DENY AND THEN BE DEFENSIVE AND NUMBER OF THEM HAVE SAID THAT SO I RECOMMEND.

BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE A CREDIBLE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO WHY

THEY DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA. >> I WOULD LIKE A JUDGE TO DETERMINE ABOUT, WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE PLATTING BUT LET'S HAVE A JUDGE LOOK AT THAT. IF THAT'S AN ACTUAL BUILDING ON THERE. I THINK THAT'S UP TO INTERPRETATION, WE ARE IN UNCHARTED TERRITORY AND.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: I THINK WE FACE A LOT OF UNKNOWNS

[03:55:01]

GOING THAT DIRECTION BECAUSE LOOK, I'VE GIVEN IT A LOT OF THOUGHT, WE'VE TALKED FOR HOURS AND HOURS ABOUT HOW DO WE PROTECT OUR PEOPLE HOW WE PROTECT OUR LANDS, WE'RE TAKING STEPS TO BRING TO THE -- FOR THEM TO TAX THEMSELVES SO WE CAN HAVE MONEY TO PUT THE LAND IN CONSERVATION OR GET DEVELOPMENT EASEMENTS SO WE CAN DOUBLE OUR MONEY AND WE CAN BRING MORE LAND INTO IT. THE LAW CLEARLY STATES THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPLY AND IF THEY CHECK ALL THE BOXES I WOULD LOVE TO FIND AN APPLICATION THAT DOESN'T CHECK ALL THE BOXES SO WE CAN TEST THAT DEFENSIVE MEASURE BUT I DON'T SEE IT HERE SO MY QUESTION GOING FORWARD IS DO WE ROLL OVER, I DON'T THINK

WE SHOULD ROLL OVER. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY THAT'S THE THING, IF YOU DENY THIS CASE THEN WE HAVE INSURANCE THAT COVERS OUR FIGHT BUT RIGHT NOW THE TAXPAYER COVERS OUR FIGHT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW FOR SURE THEY'VE MET ALL THOSE THINGS? IT'S ONE SIDED.

OUR PEOPLE OVER HERE THAT WORK DON'T KNOW.

>> IS NOT ONE SIDED, THEY'VE BROUGHT THIS APPLICATION TO OUR

STAFF AND I TRUST OUR STAFF. >> THEY DON'T HAVE TIME TO LOOK

AT THE LEGALITIES OF THAT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE OUTSIDE

COUNSEL LOOK AT IT. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY:

COMMISSIONER ARNOLD. >> I DO WANT SOME CLARIFICATIONS FOR OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO GO FIGHT THIS ARE WE TALKING MAKING IT A LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT POTENTIALLY FILING AN INJUNCTION, WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE DOING BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT BEFORE WE

MOVE FORWARD. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: I WAS, I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE COST AS WELL BUT WHAT I REALIZE IS THAT PEOPLE WANT US TO FIGHT FOR THEM AND IF IT COSTS A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY I GET IT I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE PLACE TO TRY TO DETERMINE ABOUT HOW MUCH IT WOULD COST, I DON'T THINK WE COULD DO THAT, MY EMOTION WAS THAT WE FILE AN INJUNCTION OR WHATEVER PATH LEGAL PATH FORWARD THAT WE HAVE TO PUT A STOP TO THE BILL, THE APPLICATION SPECIFICALLY THIS SPECIFIC APPLICATION I THINK THE APPLICANT MET THE REQUIREMENT FOR THIS. I JUST DON'T LIKE THE BILL AND I THINK WE'VE ONLY GOT A COUPLE OF CHOICES, WE CAN DENY THIS APPLICATION THAT'S OBVIOUSLY MET ALL THE CRITERIA.

[APPLAUSE] AND WE SET OURSELVES UP FOR.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: WE CAN'T MAKE A MOTION OF A DECISION ABOUT THIS WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS WE NEED TO GO FORWARD AND FIGHT THE BILL, THE LAW WE NEED TO GO AND FIND A WAY TO FIGHT THE LAW BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS MET IN MY OPINION HAS MET THE REQUIREMENTS. EVEN THOUGH I DON'T LIKE IT EVEN

THOUGH I DON'T LIKE IT. >> I CAN'T HEAR YOU, SORRY.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: YOU JUST HAVE TO GET CLOSER.

>> THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW IS WHETHER OR NOT THE COUNTY SHOULD ENGAGE OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO SEEK INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST THIS BILL, WE SHOULD RESOLVE THAT MOTION FIRST BEFORE TAKING ADDITIONAL STEPS.

>> BEFORE I VOTE, NO CHANCE THAT YOU WILL RECONSIDER THE

APPLICATION BEING DENIED? >> I DON'T KNOW HOW TO RECONSIDER AN APPLICANT THAT HAS ESSENTIALLY MET ALL THE

REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW. >> WE'VE HEARD A NUMBER.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR, THROUGH THE CHAIR YOU GOT SOME THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS AT THE LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT FILING AN INJUNCTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE HAD STANDING TO FILE THE INJUNCTION, COULD YOU PLEASE REFRESH MY MEMORY BASED ON SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS YOU HAD WITH OUTSIDE COUNSEL?

>> OUTSIDE COUNSEL WE COMMUNICATED WITH DID SAY THAT THEY THOUGHT IT WOULD BE AN UPHILL FIGHT IF WE WERE THE ONES THAT FILED FOR THE INJUNCTION THEY INDICATED THAT IN ORDER TO DO THAT JURISDICTION WOULD BE APPROPRIATELY ON THE COUNTY.

AS COMMISSIONER TAYLOR STATED, THEY ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT FROM A STRATEGY STANDPOINT WHICH AGAIN I DID NOT PREFER TO DISCUSS IN PUBLIC THEY WOULD PREFER TO DEFEND IN

SAINT JOHNS COUNTY PIER. >> MY CONCERN IS DO WE HAVE STANDING TO FILE AN INJUNCTION IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO MAKE A LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY, I COULD FULLY SUPPORT THAT

[04:00:04]

FILING AN INJUNCTION IS PROBABLY NOT SOMETHING I'M GOING TO SUPPORT. IS COSTLY AND IS NOT PRODUCTIVE.

>> UNLESS SOMEONE IS I ASSUME YOU WOULD TURN THIS DOWN IF WE DON'T HAVE A THIRD IS NOT GOING TO GO ANYWHERE AND THE ONLY OTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION.

>> WE DON'T HAVE A THIRD? >> I DON'T THINK SO.

COMMISSIONER MURPHY WILL NOT SUPPORT TURNING DOWN THE APPLICATION. SO IT'S WE SUPPORT THIS MOTION.

>> I REALLY CAN'T CHANGE MY MIND NOW, THANK YOU VERY MUCH

APPRECIATE IT. >> WHAT ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT

IT? >> I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT IT SINCE A LAW WAS PASSED BUT IT DOESN'T ABSOLVE ME OF THE RESPONSIBILITY TO FOLLOW THE LAW.

THAT'S THE CHALLENGE WE HAVE, THAT'S A CHALLENGE THAT THE STATE HAS BUT WE COULD DO THAT BUT THEN WE WOULD LOSE AND IT

WOULD BE A MOOT POINT. >> BUT LAWS ARE ALWAYS CHALLENGED SPEWING AND THEN THEY COULD COME BACK AND SAY WELL WE OFFERED 1 ACRE NOW THEY CAN COME BACK AND SAY JUDGE WE WANT SIX PER ACRE AND NOW THEY GET 24,000 INSTEAD OF 4000 SO TAKING IT TO THIS NEXT LOGICAL CONCLUSION WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT'S BEST

FOR THIS AND FOR OUR COUNTY. >> MR. CHAIRMAN.

CAN WE VOTE ON THE MOTION FOR INJUNCTION.

>> I JUST WANT TO VOTE ON THE MOTION IF THERE'S NO OPPORTUNITY

FOR YOU TO CHANGE YOUR MIND. >> WE'VE ALREADY VOTED CAN WE GO

BACK AND VOTE AGAIN. >> I DID NOT MAKE THIS FULL

MOTION RIGHT HERE. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR CORRECT YOU

HAD A MOTION TO DENY. >> BUT MY REASONING.

>> THROUGH THE CHAIR YOU HAD A MOTION TO DENY, IT WAS SECONDED, THERE IS A VOTE TO. THAT MOTION FAILED.

YOU'RE CURRENTLY ON A MOTION REGARDING ENGAGED OUTSIDE COUNSEL YOU WILL NEED TO DISPOSE OF THAT MOTION BUT THAT YOU WILL NEED TO HAVE AN AFFIRMATIVE MOTION ON THE APPLICATION.

>> CALL THE QUESTION. >> QUESTION HAS BEEN CALLED, DO WE NEED TO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT? IS IT YES OR NO?

>> WHY NOT? >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: LET'S HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT BUT UNDERSTAND THIS DO NOT COME UP AND REPEAT THE SAME THING, THIS IS STRICTLY ON WHETHER WE SHOULD ENGAGE OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO FIGHT SENATE BILL 686.

DON'T COME UP HERE AND SAY IT'S ABOUT WATER OR ANYTHING ELSE, IT'S NOT ABOUT THAT IT'S ABOUT THIS ONE THING.

>> I WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO REOPEN OUR REBUTTAL HEARING IN CASE PEOPLE DO NOT FOLLOW YOUR

DIRECTIONS. >> I UNDERSTAND THANK YOU.

>> YOUR 3 MINUTES. >> I THINK YOUR HESITANCY TO DAY SUGGESTS THAT YOU'RE NOT FULLY COMFORTABLE WITH JUST ACCEPTING HER INTERPRETATION OF WHAT PARCEL MEANS IT'S INTERESTING

PARCEL IS CLEARLY SUPPORTED. >> WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER. >> I'M GETTING THERE.

>> WHEN WE CAN COMFORTABLY AND CONFIDENTLY JUST DENY THEIR APPLICATION THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO BE THE ONES PURSUING THAT LEGAL PATHWAY THAT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT.

INSTEAD LET THE DAVIS FAMILY FUND THAT, DO NEITHER APPLICATION WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DISCUSS THAT.

>> I OBJECT TO THE COMMENT. >> YOU CAN'T OBJECT TO ME BECAUSE I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY I DON'T HAVE A VALID OPINION I'M JUST A PERSON. YOU CAN OBJECT TO ME.

>> SHE CAN OBJECT TO ME AND I CAN OBJECT TO YOU SO JUST KEEP THIS TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING AB ABOUT.

>> THE PUBLIC IS NOT ASKING YOU TO FIGHT A BATTLE THAT WE DON'T THINK YOU CAN WIN, THIS IS ALREADY AN ESTABLISHED WE'RE ASKING YOU TO APPLY THE LAW AND THIS ENTIRE CONVERSATION COMES DOWN TO WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF PARCEL, WHAT ACCEPTABLE.

>> DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO% WITH PARCEL, IT'S EVERYTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO FIGHT THIS DO WE WANT TO FIGHT AND DO AN INJUNCTION THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE THE BOARD.

>> I THINK THAT YOU CAN STILL REASONABLY SAY THAT YOU ARE ALSO NOT AN ATTORNEY SO THAT YOU CAN DENY THEIR APPLICATION AND TO NOT GO FORWARD WITH THE TALLAHASSEE PLAN INSTEAD I

THINK. >> DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON HERE BUT YOU CONTINUE TO GO BACK TO THE SAME THING, I

[04:05:01]

REALLY DON'T WANT TO ARGUE WITH YOU BUT JUST KEEP IT TO WHAT

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> I DO NOT THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A WISE USE OF OUR DOLLARS TO TRY TO FIGHT THE ESTABLISHED STATE BILL AS IT IS TODAY IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU? THAT IS NOT A GOOD USE OF OUR ENERGY HERE A DIFFERENT WAY THAT YOU COULD DO THIS IS REALLY PRESS -- HIM OFF AND SAY NO TO THE APPLICATION AND LET THEM TAKE IT INTO COURT AND OUR INSURANCE CAN COVER SOME SUPPORT THERE WHY WOULD WE NOT EMPLOY THOSE? [APPLAUSE]

>> I'LL TAKE YOUR SILENCE AS CONSIDERATION I THINK IT'S A FAIR POINT. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE APPLICATION AS IS I DO THINK SHE HAD A NICE

PRESENTATION BUT. >> LET'S GO BACK AND TRY NOT TO CONVINCE ME ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE.

>> FAIR ENOUGH. I THINK THE CONVENIENT INTERPRETATION OF WHAT PARCEL IS AND DIFFERENT PLACES SHOULD BE DENIED AND LET ME JUST BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS.

>> I DON'T LIKE THE LAW BUT THE LAW IS A LAW, LIKE I DON'T LIKE SUPER SPEEDER LAWS BUT IF I GO 130 I'M GOING TO GO TO JAIL EVEN THOUGH I DON'T LIKE IT, IT'S AND IT'S SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD SPEND YOUR TAX DOLLARS TO FIGHT THIS

OR NOT THAT'S THE QUESTION. >> HELLO, THANK YOU.

AM I ALLOWED TO ASK YOU GUYS QUESTIONS IN MY TIME OR I JUST

HAVE TO STATE MY OPINION. >> SPEAKER-08: YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'LL GET AN ANSWER.

>> IF YOU WERE TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS INJUNCTION AND TRIED TO TAKE IT TO TALLAHASSEE, TRY TO COMBAT THE NEW AGRICULTURAL LAW THAT IS CHANGED THE REZONING AND HOW PEOPLE CAN GO ABOUT FAST TRACK AND DEVELOPMENT, AND AT THE SAME TIME WE'VE GIVEN APPROVAL TO THIS DEVELOPMENT, WHAT IS THE BUFFER IN BETWEEN THAT KEEPS THEM FROM DEVELOPMENT, HOW LONG ARE THEY ON HOLD, IS THERE ANOTHER PROCESS OR ANOTHER COURT PROCEEDING TO DENY THEIR APPLICATION IF YOU WENT TO

TALLAHASSEE? >> IF WE CAN GET AN INJUNCTION,

IT PUTS EVERYTHING ON HOLD. >> SO IF YOU VOTE.

>> BUT UNDERSTAND THAT EVEN IF THEY ARE GIVEN THEIR APPLICATIONS THEIR APPLICATION STATUS IS APPROVED, THERE IS YEARS BEFORE ANYBODY CAN TURN A SHOVEL BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO MEET ALL THE CRITERIA THAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, WATER MANAGEMENT, SCHOOLS, UTILITIES, ALL OF THAT TIME TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING WITH

THIS LAW. >> AND THE PRIMARY REASON FOR NOT JUST GIVING A DENIAL IS BECAUSE THERE IS POTENTIAL THAT THEY COULD IN TURN SUE Y'ALL IF YOU GUYS GIVE A DENIAL BECAUSE THE APPLICATION WAS SUFFICIENT AND RIGHT NOW JUST FOR CLARIFICATION YOU GUYS ARE IN THAT POINT WHERE BUT FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN FROM WHAT THE PEOPLE HAVE BROUGHT EVIDENCE WISE IT DOES SEEM LIKE THERE ARE SOME GAPS, THERE'S NO POSSIBLE WAY

THAT YOU GUYS CAN. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: WE

CAN'T DISCUSS THAT. >> OKAY.

YOU CAN SAY YES SPEND MY MONEY OR DON'T SPEND MY MONEY.

I'M NOT A LAWYER I'M NOT A DEVELOPER I'M NOT COUNTY COMMISSIONER I HAVEN'T RESEARCHED AS MUCH AS THE OTHER PEOPLE HERE BUT I DO WANT TO SAY SAINT JOHNS COUNTY WE DO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO STAND OUT WITH FLORIDA AND BE REMEMBERED AS A COUNTY THAT REALLY PROTECTS OUR ENVIRONMENT AND GOES THE EXTRA MILE THAT IS NOT AFRAID OF LAWSUITS, I THINK ALL OTHER RESIDENTS HERE WOULD RATHER THEIR TAX DOLLARS GO TO PRESERVING WHAT LITTLE LAND WE HAVE LEFT, WE DON'T WANT TO BE SEEN AS ORLANDO WE WANT TO BE REMEMBERED AS BEAUTIFUL WATERWAYS, BEAUTIFUL TRACTS OF LAND, THAT'S WHAT MAKES US VERY SPECIAL THAT'S WHAT SETS US APART FROM JACKSONVILLE AND ORLANDO. YES, I REALLY HOPE THAT YOU GUYS CAN MAKE A DECISION THAT PROTECTS SAINT JOHNS COUNTY

THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY:

THANK YOU. >> CLAY AND COMMISSIONERS, ONE THING IS WHEN YOU ALL ARE DOING YOUR BOUNDARY LINES WHICH INCLUDES THE WHOLE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY BASICALLY WHEN THEY BUILD RIVER LANDING THEY SPECIFICALLY PULLED ROSCOE

BOULEVARD OUT. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: DE WANTS TO SPEND YOUR MONEY TO FIGHT THIS OR NOT WOW.

>> YES, I DO WANT YOU TO SPEND THE MONEY.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: THERE YOU GO THAT'S WHAT I NEED.

>> CLAY, WE TALKED THE OTHER DAY I EMAILED YOU YOU WERE THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT EMAILED ME BACK AND YOU SAID THERE'S SIX PROBLEMS WITH THIS THING WE CAN PUT IT UP THERE AND WE CAN READ IT

TOGETHER CALCULATE SIX ISSUES. >> THERE'S BEEN NO FORESTRY CUT OUT OF THAT, 33 YEARS ACROSS THERE.

>> WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT WE'RE TALKING WHETHER YOU WANT US TO SPEND YOUR MONEY TO GO FORWARD WITH THE LAWSUIT.

>> I WANT YOU TO DENY THEM BUT LET THEM THEIR SPEND THEIR

[04:10:03]

MONEY. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: THAT'S ALREADY PASSED. WE ALREADY VOTED ON THAT.

>> CLAY, YOU REALLY LET US DOWN I'LL TELL YOU THAT SPOON I DID NOT WRITE THE LAW, I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW.

I HAVE ZERO REASON TO DENY IT THAT'S THE PROBLEM HERE.

>> SINCE YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE MONEY, WE WANT YOU TO SPEND THE MONEY TO LOOK AHEAD AND START BUYING UP THE REMAINING DEALS START PUTTING MONEY ASIDE NOW, YOU KNOW WHAT'S LEFT YOU KNOW WHAT'S LEFT. TAKE AWAY ALL THESE PEOPLE AND ALL THESE PEOPLE AND YOU COULD HAVE MADE A DEAL WITH THE DAVIS

FAMILY. >> I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A DEAL

WITH THE DAVIS FAMILY,. >> IF YOU TAKE AWAY ALL THE MONEY THAT'S BEEN SPENT SO FAR FOR ALL HER PRESENTATION, THE HOURS OF WORK, THE YEARS OF PUTTING TOGETHER A FORESTRY PLAN WHICH THE TREES WERE GETTING OUT OF HAND THAT IS, WE WILL HAVE TO STOP THIS. I'M SORRY I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COMMISSIONER TO START MAKING A PLAN TO ACQUIRE LANDS.

>> AND WE HAVE. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: YES,

MA'AM,. >> SPEND THE MONEY OR NOT SPEND

THE MONEY? >> I'M NOT A LAWYER, I'M NOT A COMMISSIONER SO I TRIED TO TAKE THE IDEA AND THE FACT THAT YOU GUYS ARE IN A VERY HARD POSITION AND I THINK THE POSITION THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW SEEMS BLACK OR WHITE, IT'S VOTE YES OR NO BUT FOR ME PERSONALLY I DO BELIEVE IN PARADOXES AND I JUST WANT TO SAY I DO APPRECIATE AND RESPECT THE FACT THAT WE COULD EITHER VOTE NO ON THIS AND HAVE IT BE DONE OR I SEE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO AND THE FACT THAT IT IS THE LAW AND IT MIGHT ABIDE BY THE LAW OR NOT BUT INSTEAD OF TRYING TO GO ON THIS CASE I WOULD SAY YES, I DO SUPPORT YOUR DECISION I SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING BECAUSE IF WE DO DECIDE TO SPEND OUR MONEY TO FIGHT THE LOT ITSELF I DO AGREE IF THAT DOES PUT A STOP TO THIS SPECIFIC SMALL CASE AND MANY OTHER SMALL CASES NOT JUST WHAT SAINT JOHNS COUNTY IS DEALING WITH BUT MANY OTHER COUNTIES AS WELL AND I SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU, I DO

SUPPORT IT. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

>> I DID WANT CLARIFICATION FROM OUR ATTORNEY ON AN INJUNCTION BECAUSE I HAVE ASKED THIS, EVEN IF WE GO FORWARD WITH AN INJUNCTION, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROJECT TODAY CORRECT? WE CAN'T GO BACK RIGHT?

>> WE WON'T KNOW UNTIL A COURT RENDERS AN ORDER SO I CAN'T TELL YOU RIGHT NOW WHETHER AN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WOULD BE RETROACTIVE I CAN TELL YOU THAT THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT PLED, THAT SOMETHING OUTSIDE COUNSEL WOULD ASK THE COURTS FOR BUT THERE'S NOT A GUARANTEE THAT IT GOES BACKWARDS.

>> OKAY. >> HANG ON JUST A SECOND,.

>> I KEEP PUSHING THAT BUTTON FOR YOU.

>> TECHNICALLY THOUGH THEY HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED YET BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DO THE POSITIVE SPIRIT THERE HAS TO BE AN AFFIRMATIVE MOTION, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED YET AT THIS POINT WE ARE IN LIMBO THE BOARD NEEDS TO MAKE AN AFFIRMATIVE -- AFFIRMATIVE VOTE IF, FOR SOME REASON, THE BOARD CHOOSES NOT TO AND 90 DAYS EXPIRES THEN THEY GET CERTIFICATION BY DEFAULT.

>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO DECIDE TODAY AND YOU HAVE UNTIL THE END OF THE MONTH IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, HE'S GOT A LOT OF EXPERTISE IN THIS AREA AND I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES, AND AND I THINK I WOULD CALL YOUR ATTENTION AND ASK COUNSEL TO WALK YOU THROUGH FLORIDA STATUTE 70.51 AND I SAW THE MOST BRILLIANT USE OF THAT STATUTE BY SIDNEY FRANKLIN AT THE UPCHURCH LAW FIRM A FEW YEARS AGO, SAID YES SAINT AUGUSTINE RIGHTLY DENIED, PLEASE DON'T TALK WHEN I'M TALKING, RIGHTLY DENIED AN APPLICATION TO DESTROY AN 1880 HISTORIC BUILDING FOR DEMOLITION. THE LAWYER REQUESTED 70.51 MEDIATION AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE BLOG I CALL IT THE HOLY THURSDAY AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE PARTIES MET TOGETHER WITH A VERY SKILLED MEDIATOR FROM JACKSONVILLE FROM THE FLORIDA BAR HE WAS A LAWYER WHO SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTED BAILEY BUT HE GOT THE PARTIES TOGETHER IN A ROOM AND IT TOOK 90 -- ABOUT SIX OR 78 HOURS IN THE BACK ROOM AT SAINT AUGUSTINE AND THE CASE WAS RESOLVED IN A NEGOTIATION. AND I THINK IF ONE OF YOU IS DESIGNATED TO REPRESENT THE COUNTY AND MEET WITH THE DAVIDSONS AND THEIR LAWYERS AND YOUR LAWYERS I THINK YOU CAN HAVE A DEAL. YOU CAN HAVE SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY CAN LIVE WITH AND SAY LIKE MY MOTHER WOULD SAY SAVE

[04:15:02]

YOUR MONEY. ISN'T THAT THE GOAL? SAID THE ANSWER ISN'T TO OR DON'T SUE, THE ANSWER ISN'T SPEND MONEY OR DON'T SPEND MONEY, YOU WILL SPEND MONEY BUT I THINK YOU WILL GET A RESOLUTION THROUGH THIS BRILLIANT STATUTE THAT SIDNEY FRANKLIN BACK IN THE DAY WHEN HE WAS WORKING FOR THE FLORIDA BAR BUT FLORIDA STATUTE 70.51 ENDS THE METHOD OF RESOLVING A LAND USE ZONING ISSUE SO I WOULD SAY TAKE YOUR TIME, DON'T DECIDE TODAY, ASK FOR BRIEFING FROM THE COUNCIL AND CITIZENS WHO SPOKE AND ASKED FOR THEM TO FILE BRIEFS, AND TAKE THE TIME, LESS NOT RESTLESS -- RUSH THIS.

NO NEED TO GO AND DECIDE SOMETHING TODAY.

>> THANK YOU, BUT REMEMBER WHEN YOU ASK PEOPLE NOT TO SPEAK WHEN YOU'RE SPEAKING THEN YOU HAVE TO GIVE THE SAME RESPECT BACK.

>> THANK YOU. >> STATE MY NAME AGAIN?

>> CAREY HARRIS I'VE ALREADY PROVIDED MY ADDRESS.

>> TO SPEND OR NOT TO SPEND, TO SPEND? WE ALREADY KNOW THEY WILL HAVE UNLIMITED FUNDS TO SPEND, AS RESIDENT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO FILE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI REGARDLESS OF THE DECISION TODAY BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY BROKEN OUR DUE PROCESS LAWS AND THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.

SO THAT WOULD REQUIRE ME TO SPEND ALSO AS RESIDENTS IF YOU APPROVE IT WE CAN FILE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WITHIN 30 DAYS, 30 DAY LIMIT PEOPLE, TO PUT A STOP TO THIS DEVELOPMENT TO HAVE A JUDGE REVIEW IF HE MADE THE RIGHT DECISION AND EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED IS ALL I NEED TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

THAT'S A JUDGE JUDGING YOU AND WHAT YOU DECIDED.

>> THAT MEANS US RESIDENTS DON'T HAVE TO PAY.

I DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS THAT THEY HAVE, THE COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE THE FUNDS THAT THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE MORE THAN ME BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALL OF US PUTTING INTO THOSE FUNDS.

SO PERSONALLY, THIS IS JUST ME I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR ANYBODY ELSE, I WANT YOU TO SPEND THE MONEY TO FIGHT THE LAW BECAUSE YOU'RE FIGHTING IT ON BEHALF OF NOT THESE RESIDENTS YOU'RE FIGHTING IT ON BEHALF OF THE WHOLE STATE.

I KNOW FROM -- I. KNOW YOU KNOW THAT.

EVERY OTHER COUNTY IS WATCHING THIS WITH BATED BREATH WONDERING WHAT YOU WILL DO FOR THEM. SO IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DO A NO ANSWER FOR ME AND FOR EVERYBODY ELSE WHO IS FIGHTING THIS APPLICATION AT LEAST FIGHT FOR THE REST OF THE STATE IN REGARDS TO THE LAW BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE FUNDS FOR IT BUT WE DON'T. AND I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE WHO SPOKE TODAY, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND STAYING AWAKE AND YOU HAVE GREAT LEGAL COUNSEL BUT EVERY GREAT LAWYER KNOWS THERE ARE HOLES EVERY GOOD LAWYER KNOWS THEIR FLAWS BUT EVERY GREAT LAWYER FIXES THOSE FLAWS IN THEIR APPLICATION.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

MR. MURPHY, I PROBABLY SHOULD COME MORE OFTEN TO THESE MEETINGS BECAUSE I'M WITNESSING AMERICAN ACTION, I'M IN THIS COUNTRY FOR 35 YEARS BUT TODAY YOU ALL WARMED MY HEART AND MAKE ME FEEL LIKE THE DECISION I MADE 35 YEARS IN THE COUNTRY WITH THE RIGHT ONE. I WANT TO JUST SAY THIS FIRST.

SECONDLY, I WANT YOU TO SPEND THE MONEY.

I WOULD RATHER YOU SPEND THE MONEY FIGHTING THEM BY DENYING AND FIGHTING THE MONEY BY THE LAW BECAUSE THEY WILL MOVE THE WHOLE CASE TO TALLAHASSEE WE CANNOT CONTROL WHAT THE JUDGES IN TALLAHASSEE WILL DO BUT WE CAN ACTUALLY DO THAT BY WORKING TO SPEND THE MONEY. WE ACTUALLY TRIED TO COLLECT SOME MONEY TO HAVE LAWYERS, WE% COULD NOT AFFORD IT AS A COMMUNITY. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE SOME LAWYERS, THEY ARE HERE. WE WANT YOU TO FIGHT FOR US AND WE WILL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES, EVEN IF THE COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE THE MONEY, WE WILL TRY TO RAISE THE MONEY, WE WILL TRY TO DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO WORK WITH YOU AND I AM VERY, VERY THANKFUL FOR ALL OF YOU. I WANT YOU TO SPEND THE MONEY BUT I WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY FIGHTING THEM THAN TRYING TO CHANGE THE LAW BECAUSE THAT'S WAY MUCH BIGGER TO TAKE.

[04:20:05]

THANK YOU SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE YOU.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU.

AND FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE FIGHTING FOR WHAT EVERYONE THINKS YOU'RE FIGHTING FOR, I THINK YOU'RE FIGHTING FOR THE POWER THAT IS -- HAS BEEN VESTED IN THAT SEAT YOU'RE SITTING IN. AND IN THAT SEAT AND IN THAT SEAT AND I THINK THAT IF YOU DON'T FIGHT FOR IT WE ALL LOSE.

>> CHRIS FARRELL, ST. AUGUSTINE. I DO NOT HAVE A GOOD BREAKFAST SO THIS IS GOING TO BE FAST. YOU'VE ALREADY HAD THE VOTE AND FAILED TO DENY THAT YOU HAVE 30 DAYS ON WHICH TO DECIDE IF YOU'RE GOING TO PASS THIS ONE. I THINK AT LEAST TODAY IRRESPECTIVE OF THAT TODAY IT WOULD BE GOOD TO ASK THE COUNTY STAFF AND ATTORNEYS TO LOOK AT WHAT YOUR OPTIONS ARE IN MORE DETAIL. WE HEARD THE INITIAL REPORT THAT FIGHTING DID NOT WOULD BE BETTER THAN GOING AFTER IT BUT AT THIS POINT AT LEAST LOOKING AT OUR OPTIONS WHAT DO WE THINK THE OPTIONS ARE FOR ADDRESSING 686, MAY BE GETTING AN INJUNCTION, TAKE SOME TIME, HAVE THEM LAY OUT A PLAN FOR YOU -- A FEW POSSIBLE OPTIONS CALCULATE THAT MIGHT COST IN TIME AND RESOURCES FROM THE COUNTY BUT AS A COUNTY RESIDENT AND YOU CAN TELL EVERYBODY IS HERE TO SUPPORT STRENGTHENING SAINT JOHNS COUNTY MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE LAND CONSERVATION, MAKING SURE WE HAVE RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT SO I'M DEFINITELY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT AND I HOPE NOTHING SERIOUS HAPPENED TO THE FUNDS COMING IN THROUGH PROPERTY TAXES TO THE COUNTY SO THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO FIGHT THESE ISSUES ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF SAINT

JOHNS COUNTY MOVING FORWARD. >> THANK YOU.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME IS CHRIS FARLOWE, AGAIN AND I JUST WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THE DECISIONS THAT YOU MAKE TODAY MAY NOT AFFECT US TODAY AND THE NEXT YEAR BUT IT WILL AFFECT US 20 YEARS FROM NOW 30 YEARS FROM NOW.

I LIVE IN A COMMUNITY THAT WAS DESIGNED IN 2011 AND WE ARE SEEING THE RAMIFICATIONS OF SOME OF THE DESIGNS THAT WERE PUT IN BACK THEN, WE'RE SEEING THEM NOW BECAUSE OF THE OVERGROWTH THAT HAPPENED DURING COVID. I REALLY NEED YOU TO HEAR ME OUT, WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPING AND DEVELOPING BUT IT'S TRULY AFFECTING US. WHETHER IT BE SCHOOLS WHETHER IT BE THE ROADS THAT WE HAVE TO PROVIDE, MY WORRIES, -- LIBRARIES AND PARKS. DECISIONS WE MAKE TODAY MAY NOT AFFECT US IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY: DOES THAT MEAN SPEND THE MONEY OR

DON'T SPEND THE MONEY WOW. >> I WANT YOU TO FIGHT FOR US

WHATEVER THAT LOOKS LIKE. >> THANK YOU.

[APPLAUSE] >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> I'M A RESIDENT OF 20-MILE, I DO NOT PLAN TO SPEAK TODAY BUT I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCESS.

I'VE SERVED ON THE JURY, AM A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND TODAY I GET TO SEE THE WORK OF A COMMISSION.

I WOULD ASK YOU TO PURSUE THE INJUNCTION TODAY, I SAY THAT AS A MANAGER OF A LARGE ENGINEERING COMPANY YOU WILL SPEND THE MONEY, I FEEL CONFIDENT ON THAT ON EXTRA SCHOOLS, SCHOOLS ARE STRAINED, OUR CHILDREN ALREADY FELT THAT STRAIN AND I CAN TELL YOU AS I HAVE AN IN HOUSE ATTORNEY THAT IS VERY QUALIFIED THAT YOU CAN ALWAYS HAVE ANOTHER OPINION.

AND TODAY I ASK YOU TO PURSUE THE INJUNCTION AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO HEAR THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE, THANK YOU.

[APPLAUSE] >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> HELLO I'M SUZANNA I. CAME A FEW WEEKS AGO AND ASKED TO GIVE TO FILE THE INJUNCTION AND I REALLY THINK THAT'S THE ONLY OPTION THAT WE HAVE. SO THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE? COME ON UP IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE WE HAVE THREE MICROPHONES.

>> SO TECHNICALLY WE COULD DO BOTH RIGHT?

>> YOU MADE WHAT? >> BOTH DENY THEM AND DO THE

INJUNCTION AT THE SAME TIME? >> YOU COULD.

>> THANK YOU. >> THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF

[04:25:05]

THINGS DISCUSSED TODAY AND I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN ANY OF IT BUT IF YOU HAVE A CONTINUANCE AND YOU HAVE THE TIME TO LOOK AT THE DEFENSIVE OPTION OF BEING SUED, DENYING AND BEING SUED OR THE INJUNCTION OR BOTH, YOU HAVE TIME TO GO BACK TO YOUR EXPERTS AND WEIGH OUT THE COST, THE TIMELINES AND EVERYTHING ELSE, YOU HAVE THAT TIME, YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY.

OR YOU HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION TO DENY AND GO ONE WAY OR WHATEVER. RIGHT? TAKE THE TIME. GET SOME MORE EXPERT LEGAL OPINIONS ON YOUR STRATEGY AND HOW THAT MONEY WOULD BE SPENT AND WHAT THAT TIMELINE WOULD LOOK LIKE.

THAT'S IT. >> THANK YOU.

>> MAPLE PEREZ AT 300 DRIVE. ON THAT TWO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THE FIRST ONE IS YOU DENY AND THEN FIGHT THE LOCAL FIGHT, YOU WERE HIRED TO MAKE LOCAL DECISIONS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF RESIDENTS AND OUR COUNTY SO THAT'S THE FIRST FIGHT AND OBVIOUSLY TO FOLLOW THE LAW MR. MURPHY AND THEN THE SECOND OPTION IS WHETHER WE SPEND MONEY IN TALLAHASSEE TO FIGHT THIS LEGISLATION, I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE THE APPROACH IN TERMS OF -- IN TERMS OF REVERSING THIS DECISION THAT YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE TODAY, ONLY BECAUSE TALLAHASSEE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AFTER THE ELECTION, DATA CENTERS, DEVELOPMENT, ALL THESE DIFFERENT THINGS HAPPENING WE CANNOT HAVE THE DECISION THAT WE WOULD LIKE FROM OUR LEGISLATURE OR THE VOTE THERE TO DO THAT SO I THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE A LOCAL DECISION, YOU ARE HERE TO MAKE DECISIONS ON LOCAL ISSUES AND I SHOULD BE TO DENY THE

APPLICATION. >> THANK YOU.

>> COME ON UP IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE WE HAVE THREE MIKES.

>> THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, 2465, I ALWAYS GET SO NERVOUS TALKING IN FRONT OF THIS MICROPHONE I MADE A LIVING TALKING IN FRONT OF MICROPHONES AND THIS ONE FREAKS ME OUT. I JUST WANT TO SAY IF I THINK MOST PEOPLE HERE AGREE, MOST PEOPLE THAT YOU ALL REPRESENT THAT IF WE CAN DELAY THIS AND DO THAT LEGALLY AND NOT HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY I THINK THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO DO, I THINK THAT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS AND IF WE'RE NOT BREAKING ANY LAWS DOING THAT LET'S DO THAT, I'M GOING TO GET OFF THIS MICROPHONE IT SCARES ME. [APPLAUSE]

>> ANYONE ELSE BEFORE WE WRAP UP PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? OKAY SEEING NONE WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> BACK TO BOARD. WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND TO PURSUE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST 686 ON THE BOARD, ANY MORE COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? SPOON I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY ONE THING SPEWING I AGREE WITH MANY OTHER RESIDENTS THAT THINK WE SHOULD PAUSE THINGS FOR A LITTLE BIT THAT WE DON'T NEED TO

HAVE A DECISION TODAY. >> ABOUT? AN INJUNCTION? OKAY.

I DON'T MIND WAITING BUT WE CAN'T WAIT TOO LONG, WE'VE GOT A LINE OF AG ENCLAVE APPLICATIONS IN THE SYSTEM THAT WE NEED TO.

>> I THINK WE SHOULD TALK TO OUR ATTORNEYS A BIT MORE, REACH OUT TO SOME OTHERS WHICH ROUTE WE WANT TO GO.

>> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING? ISN'T THAT GOOD STAFF TO FIND US A PATH FORWARD WHATEVER THAT IS? I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.

>> COMMISSIONER TAYLOR YOU CAN DO BOTH TODAY.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ABOUT MOVING FORWARD OFFENSIVELY ABOUT 686 SO YES VOTE SAYS WE WOULD LIKE TO TO SEEK AN INJUNCTION OR WHATEVER THAT IS, WHATEVER THAT IS OR NOT.

LET'S VOTE. THAT PASSES 3-2 TO GET LEGAL TO SEEK AN INJUNCTION AGAINST 686. [APPLAUSE]

[04:30:01]

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

>> I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AG ENCLAVE CERTIFICATION INSERT 202-0601 UPON FINDING THAT BASED UPON THE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE RECORD THE APPLICATION DEMONSTRATES THE SUBJECT PARCEL SATISFIED STATUTORY DEFINITION OF AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE CONTAINED IN SECTION 163.3164 SUBSECTION OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 163.316 TO, SUBSECTION FOUR A OF THE

FLORIDA STATUTES. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION? LET'S VOTE. AND THAT FAILS 3-2, THERE'S NO ACTION ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2. LET'S GO TO.

[2. Presentation of St. Johns County’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). The Clerk of the Circuit and County Comptroller’s Office recently published the County’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the Fiscal Year ending on September 30, 2025. The ACFR is prepared in accordance with Sections 218.32 and 218.39, Florida Statutes, and requires acceptance from the Board of County Commissioners. The County received an unmodified opinion on the fair presentation of its financial statements. The Board should accept the FY 2025 ACFR as audited by Forvis Mazars, the County’s auditing firm. This presentation will allow the Board the opportunity for further discussion with the auditors. The ACFR and SAS 114 letter are available on the Clerk’s website: https://stjohnsclerk.com/comprehensive_annual_financial_report/. ]

[APPLAUSE] >> COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2 WHICH IS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3 NOW.

THAT WOULD BE THE CLERK. >> HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED?

>> HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED? >> CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS GOOD AFTERNOON NOTHING LIKE A CLEAN AUDIT TO BRING PEOPLE BACK TOGETHER, SO EXCITED TO BE WITH YOU TODAY I'M JOINED WITH OUR COUNTY AUDITOR TO PRESENT THE AUDIT FINDINGS,.

>> THANK YOU, GOOD AFTERNOON. >> FOLKS WE STILL HAVE BUSINESS TO DO IF YOU WOULD JUST KEEP IT DOWN WHILE YOU LEAVE PLEASE.

LET'S SEE HOW THAT WORKS, THAT DIDN'T WORK AT ALL.

>> APPRECIATED. VERY BRIEFLY I WANTED TO PRESENT SOME OTHER HIGHLIGHTS FOR THE AUDIT FOR THE COUNTY FISCALLY IN SEPTEMBER 302025, WE HAD A REQUIRED COMMUNICATION LETTER IN YOUR PACKET WHICH GOES OVER RESPONSIBILITIES AS AS THE AUDITOR AS WELL AS MANAGEMENT AND MAINTAINING APPROPRIATE INTERNAL CONTROLS, IT ALSO IDENTIFIES THERE WAS A NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARD THAT RELATED COMPENSATED ABSENCES.

ADDITIONALLY THERE ARE NO AUDIT ADJUSTMENTS AND I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT BECAUSE THAT INDICATES GOOD INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING FOR THE COUNTY THAT THEY IDENTIFIED ALL THE NUMBERS THAT NEED TO BE ADJUSTED FOR THINGS TO BE FAIRLY STATED IN A GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES.

OUR DELIVERABLES FOR THE AUDIT WORK, THE OPINION LEVELS YOU'LL FIND YOU'LL FIND OUR OPINION ON THE OFFICIAL STATEMENTS PAGES FOUR THROUGH SIX THAT WAS UNMODIFIED WHICH IS A CLEAN OPINION AS A CLERK PATTY MENTIONED AND THEN YOU WILL FIND ADDITIONAL REPORTS AT THE END OF THE DOCUMENT OF THE REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROLS THAT WERE FINANCIAL REPORTING AS WELL AS REPORTS RELATED TO MAJOR FEDERAL AND STATE GRANTS.

AND THOSE WERE ALSO CLEAN REPORTS.

AND THEN LASTLY TO, REPORTS REQUIRED BY THE FLORIDA AUDITOR GENERAL ONE THE MANAGEMENT LETTER, I DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THERE WAS A PRIOR YEAR COMMENT ON BUILDING PERMITS, FUND BALANCE THAT WAS RESOLVED BY THE COUNTY DURING THE YEARS WE WERE ABLE TO REMOVE THAT FINDING AND THEN ALSO A REPORT RELATED TO COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTMENT POLICY AND E911 FEES AND THAT WAS A CLEAN REPORT.

THE FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS, I WON'T GO INTO THESE IN GREAT DETAIL OTHER THAN JUST TO HIGHLIGHT THE COUNTY DID HAVE AN INCREASE IN GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES AND BUSINESS TYPE ACTIVITIES IN THAT POSITION VERY POSITIVE FINANCIAL RESULTS THERE WAS A GENERAL FUND AND AN INCREASE IN 25 MILLION IN FUND BALANCE AND THE UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE WHICH WAS THE DISCRETIONARY FUND BALANCE OF THE COUNTY ALSO INCREASED.

IF IT'S 36.7% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURES WHICH IS VERY GOOD LIQUIDITY RATIO. FROM A BUDGETARY PERSPECTIVE, THE COUNTY WAS ALSO IN WAS BUDGETED SO A POSITIVE SURPLUS AS IT RELATES TO WHAT WAS PROJECTED TO SPEND OF 55 MILLION. AND THE PROPRIETARY FUNDS ALSO ARE DOING WELL AS IT RELATES TO THAT POSITION.

SOLID WASTE DID HAVE A DECREASE IN OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR BUT THAT I UNDERSTAND IS BEING ADDRESSED THROUGH SUBSEQUENT YEAR RATES. RELATED TO THAT THOSE ARE MY PREPARED COMMENTS BUT THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION TO CLERK PATTY AND THE STAFFER AND THE FINANCE TEAM AT THE CLERK'S OFFICE FOR THEIR

[04:35:01]

COOPERATION. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? OKAY, WITH NONE WE WILL GO

STRAIGHT TO PUBLIC COMMENT. >> AT THIS TIME WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3.

SEEING NONE WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> BACK TO THE BOARD, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30TH 2025 AS BY THE COUNTIES INDICATED.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION.

>> SECOND. >> LET'S HAVE US VOTE.

AND THAT PASSES 5-0. WE WILL

[4. District 2 Public Hearing * SUPMAJ 2026-09 Colee Cove Tower. Request for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Section 2.03.26 of the Land Development Code, to allow for the construction of a 199-foot monopole tower and support facility within the Open Rural (OR) zoning, located on an unaddressed parcel on County Road 13 North, approximately 0.60 miles south of Joe Ashton Road (Parcel ID 013240-0010). The Planning and Zoning Agency (PZA) heard this request at their regularly scheduled public hearing on July 23, 2026. Public comment was largely opposed, citing loss of tree screening after tree harvesting, impact on the Scenic Highway, wetland and fire/water service concerns, and negative impact on adjacent property owners including reduced property value and setback concerns. Agency discussion covered compatibility, coverage gaps, coverage over agricultural lands, buffers, and FAA lighting. The Agency recommended denial with a vote of 5-2. Support of the denial was made by members Perkins, Hilsenbeck, Green, Spiegel, and Labanowski. Dissenting votes were made by Matovina and Olson. ]

[5. District 5 Public Hearing * REZ 2026-06 STA Cabinet Depot Warehouse Showroom. REZ 2026-06 STA Cabinet Depot Warehouse Showroom, request to rezone approximately 0.77 acres of land from Residential, Mobile Home (RMH) to Commercial Warehouse (CW), specifically located at 106 and 110 Ronald Road. This request was heard before the Planning and Zoning agency at their regularly scheduled public hearing on Thursday, August 6th. The agency voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the request with the condition that car wash, auto oil change facilities, and tire service centers would not be allowed. Since the PZA hearing, the applicant has included additional conditions to the Rezoning that limits the allowed uses on the property. ]

>> BACK IN SESSION, GO RIGHT TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR. IF I COULD TALK ABOUT QUASI

JUDICIAL. >> ISN'T THAT BEING CONTINUED? >> COMMISSIONER ARNOLD.

>> THIS IS CONTINUED. >> APPLICANT REQUESTED TO CONTINUE TO TIME AND DATE

CERTAIN, SO -- >> OH, YEAH, I MEANT TO SAY FIVE.

>> I RECEIVED E-MAIL AND DID NOT TAKE MEETINGS ON THIS, I HAVE A PAMPHLET LEFT ON MY DESK

THIS MORNING. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. >> COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST.

>> RECORD OF ONE E-MAIL, SAME PACKET COMMISSIONER ARNOLD REFERRED TO.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER TAYLOR? >> SAME, MULTIPLE E-MAIL AND

RECEIVED THIS PACKET, AS WELL. >> I CAN'T FIND IT, I'VE HAD E-MAIL AND I MET WITH THE OPPO OPPOSITION, LAURIE WILSON AND STAFF.

>> OKAY, DID A SITE VISIT AT ONE E-MAIL WITH LAURIE WILSON AND STAFF WHO WAS OPPOSED TO IT.

WITH THAT EX PARTE, YOU NOW HAVE THE FLOOR. >> MY NAME IS DYLAN JABS, MY

WIFE KATRINA. >> PULL THAT TO YOU. >> WE ARE OWNERS OF STA CABINET DEPOT WAREHOUSE SHOWROOM, I'M UP HERE PRESENTING MY ENGINEER IS STILL FISHING IN THE KEYS.

>> THAT IS IMPORTANT. >> YEAH. MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY BUSINESS.

ANY ANYWAYS -- >> THIS IS VERY INFORMAL, IT IS

ALL GOOD, RELAX AND -- >> I'M A TERRIBLE PUBLIC SPEAKER.

>> YOU ARE DOING GREAT. THERE IS NO PRESSURE, WE ARE REGULAR PEOPLE HANGING OUT.

>> SO I'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR NINE YEARS, 16, SIMILAR SIZE BUILDING.

>> COULD YOU SPEAK INTO THE MIC BETTER. >> I'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS NINE YEARS, (INAUDIBLE) 16 AND THEY SOLD MY BUILDING I'VE BEEN RENTING OUT OF NOWHERE AND TWO DAYS LATER THE OWNER IS LIKE, WHEN CAN YOU BE OUT? I AM LIKE, I WAS SUPPOSED TO BUY THIS BUILDING, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? LUCKILY I OWN THIS PROPERTY WHERE WE ARE PROPOSING TO REZONE. I HAD DIFFERENT INTENTION, DUE

TO, ISES THIS IS WHY WE'RE HERE. >> LOCAL BUSINESS FOR EIGHT YEARS, WE ARE A CABINET SHOWROOM, DESIGN OF KITCHEN AND SERVING ST. AUGUSTINE FOR YEARS, VERY LOW TRAFFIC IMPACTS BUSINESS, ONE OR TWO APPOINTMENTS FOR WEEK, THREE PARKING SPOTS, WE GET ONE TO TWO DELIVERIES TO HOLD CABINETRY AND DO DESIGN WHICH IS APPOINTMENT-BASED.

HERE IS LOCATION. >> THIS IS THE PROPERTY, IT IS OFF U.S. 1 WE'RE TRYING TO REZONE, IT IS MOBILE HOME RESIDENTIAL AND I OWN THAT AND TWO ACRE LAKE BEHIND THERE.

I'M AWARE OF THE THREE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO THE EAST AND PARTY STARTED BEFORE THIS, PUT UP SIX-FOOT PRIVACY FENCE FOR THE CLEARED LAND AND RESPECTFUL TO COMMUNITY AND

NEIGHBORHOOD. >> INTENTION FOR THE MASONRY WALL.

>> JUST ON THE LAST PLANNING AND ZONING, THEY ARE ASKING FOR SIX-FOOT MASONRY WALL ON THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE, WHICH I'M FINE WITH DOING, JUST HAVE TO TAKE DOWN MY FENCE WE PUT UP.

[04:40:03]

>> WE DISCUSSED DOING THAT BEFORE WE START CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL.

>> SAYS YOU CAN SEE WEST SIDE, THAT IS COMMERCIAL GENERAL. IF I COULD DO COMMERCIAL GENERAL, WHICH CONDITION OF BUSINESS THERE, I WOULD HAVE, BUT BECAUSE OF THE FACT I HAVE SHOWROOM DESIGN SHOWROOM AREA THAT HAD TO PUT ME IN COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE SECTOR.

SO SORRY FOR MY TERMINOLOGY, I'M NOT MY ENGINEER. >> JUST THE LOCATION MAP.

>> FUTURE USE IN THAT AREA IS MIXED USE, AS YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THERE, EVERYTHING, RIGHT ON U.S.

1 WHERE 312 CONNECTION IS COMING IN. IT IS ALL COMMERCIAL GOING TO BE

THERE SOON. >> YEAH, THAT. >> THAT IS MIXED USE WE'RE ON.

THIS IS PROPOSED SITE PLAN THAT WE SUBMITTED, WE HAVE OUR 30-FOOT BUFFER.

THE DRY POND SWELL FOR WATER RETENTION, THERE IS EXISTING FOUR-CAR GARAGE BACK ON THE NORTH SIDE THAT IS NOT PART OF THIS, JUST FOR PERSONAL USE. THE SITE PLAN CHANGED BECAUSE OF THAT POOL, THAT IS NEXT TO THE GARAGE, WHICH I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WAS PUT IN THE '70S, THAT WAS REMOVED AND THAT WILL BE WHERE DRY POND EXTENDED FURTHER. I DON'T HAVE UPDATED PLANS

BECAUSE BOB IS FISHING. >> THE BUILDING IS FACING WEST, NO EXIT TOWARD THE RESIDENTIAL, THERE IS DEDICATED ACCESS, WE'LL NOT BE GOING IN AND OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE'RE A SMALL BUSINESS, VERY LITTLE TRAFFIC, BUT WHAT IS WILL BE BEGINNING OF ROAD.

WE HAVE LIGHTNING AND EVERYTHING TO PROTECT, IF ANYONE PROTECTS THEIR NEIGHBOR AND HELPS, THIS

GUY HERE. HE'S IN IT FOR THE OTHER GUY. >> I OWN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THIS AREA, THAT AFFECTS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. I THINK THIS IS GOOD IMPROVEMENT, IT WAS ABANDONED MOBILE HOMES WE'RE TAKING DOWN. I COULD PUT THREE MOBILE HOMES THERE AND HAVE 24 CARS COMING IN AND OUT ON DAILY BASIS, THAT WOULD BE MORE THAN I WOULD DO IN TWO WEEKS ON MY BUSINESS. THE WAY WE HAVE THIS PLANNED FOR FIRE AND ALL THAT STUFF AND ALL THE GARAGE AND WINDOW STUFF FACES WEST TOWARD U.S. 1, WHICH IS COMMERCIAL LAND, THEY HAVE SOME KIND OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR, SO I PUT THE WAY I DESIGN THE SHAPE OF THIS IS WITH A SHED ROOF TO BE LOW SIDE FACING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO CREATE MORE OF A BUFFER ALONG WITH

LANDSCAPE THAT I HAVE GOING THERE. >> AND PREVIOUS.

>> PRIVACY AND BLOCKING NOISE FROM U.S. 1, LIKE PROPERTY THERE HAS MORE NOISE POLLUTION THAN A BUILDING BLOCKING IT. SO I TAKE EVERYTHING INTO CONSIDERATION AND BE RESPECTFUL

OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> THIS IS JUST A SUMMARY OF T THAT, WE'RE TRYING TO CHANGE IT TO BE COMMERCIAL. AND LAST MEETING WE HAD WITH ZONING, THEY HAD MADE A SUGGESTION FOR FOUR TO FIVE CONDITIONS BECAUSE A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERN IS THAT LATER DOWN THE ROAD SAY WE DID SELL IT, WHICH WE DON'T SELL ANYTHING IN OUR HOUSE, WE'LL HOLD ON TO THAT. IF WE WERE TO OR SOME OTHER BUSINESS TRYING TO RENT IT, WE DID FIVE CONDITION AND WENT UP TO 78 CONDITIONS SO THEY CANNOT BE THOSE BUSINESSES. WE ONLY KEPT 13 OF THEM, THESE ARE ONES -- ELIMINATE.

>> BEYOND FIVE THEY ASKED FOR PZA, I SPOKE WITH ABRIELLE GEEST AND SUGGESTED I DO A LOT MORE TO MAKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD MORE CONFIDENT IN THIS THAT SOMETHING ELSE IS NOT GOING TO GO THERE.

WAY THAT BUILDING IS DESIGNED, I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER COMPANY WOULD WORK PROPERLY, THERE IS NOT ANY PARKING. I DON'T SEE THAT BEING FUNCTIONAL FOR ANY OTHER KIND OF BUSINESS BUT MINE. ANYWAYS, I KEPT A FEW OF THEM. ONLY REASON I KEPT 13 OR 10 OR WHATEVER IS BECAUSE I WILL BE GETTING BANK FINANCING ON THIS, SO IF IT IS LIMITED TO ONE BUSINESS, I THINK AN APPRAISER OR BANK WILL BE LIKE IF WE HOLD NOTE AND ONLY OF USE FOR ONE THING, ONLY ONE CABINET COMPANY CAN APPLY FOR THIS. SO IF I WANT TO -- IF I WENT

[04:45:06]

BANKRUPTCY, THAT SECURES THEIR LIEN AND HELP WITH APPRAISAL VALUATION.

I WAS SELECTIVE ON THE ONES THAT ARE LIKE WHICH ARE THESE. >> STUFF THAT IS NOT --

>> MEDICAL OFFICE, MINIWAREHOUSE, INDOOR STORAGE, LIKE VERY LOW-IMPACT BUSINESSES, THAT IS NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING BUT THOSE WERE THE -- WE WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND TO LIMIT CONDITION

FOR THIS. >> YEAH. >> BASICALLY WE JUST ARE TRYING TO KEEP OUR BUSINESS GOING AND HELP SERVE THIS COMMUNITY AND WE HAD THIS PROPERTY AND NOW WE PUT IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE AND WANT TO BUILD THIS NEW BUILDING AND HAVE MANY RESIDENTS IN ST. AUGUSTINE AND THIS GUY WILL HELP ANYBODY WITH ANYTHING AND WE'LL RESPECT EVERYBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD

AND HOPEFULLY GET IT ALL GOOD. >> YEAH, LIKE I SAID, OWNING LONG-TERM RE RENTAL PROPERTY TH

ARE -- NOT TRYING TO HURT MY INVESTMENT PROPERTY, AS WELL. >> HOPE YOU GUYS WILL CONSIDER.

>> TRYING TO THINK WHAT ELSE? >> DO YOU GUYS HAVE QUESTIONS? >> I DO.

>> THAT IS MY JOB. >> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE BEEN HERE FOUR HOURS.

>> TRUST ME -- >> NERVOUS, I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY.

>> YOU ARE GOOD. >> COMMISSIONER. >> YES, I DO APPRECIATE YOU S SENDING LETTER OF SUPPORT AND E-MAIL THAT SUPPORTED THIS.

WHAT SIZE WAREHOUSE ARE YOU LOOKING AT AND HOW TALL WILL IT BE?

>> SO DOES THAT COME UP? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN ZOOM IN ON THAT.

SO IT IS BECAUSE OF SHAPE OF THR FROM RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL IT WORK WITH THE FIRE, TO MAKE- EVERYTHING, THIS IS ONLY WAY IT CAN BE DONE ON THIS SHAPED PROPERTY WITHOUT CHANGING VARIANCES AND STUFF, IT IS 45 BY 140, 6000 SQUARE FEET. HEIGHT ON THE WEST SIDE FOR U.S.

1 IS 26 FEET AND THE EAST SIDE WHERE RESIDENTIAL IS 21. NO WINDOWS OR ANYTHING ON THAT SIDE WITH GUTTERS, COLLECTING WATER, THE PARKING LOT HAS CURVATURE AND SLOPES INTO THAT PLUME THAT GOES INTO THE DRY POND. WE HAVE 22 TREES GOING ON THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE THERE. LITTLE BIT ABOVE AND BEYOND TO CREATE MORE BUFFERING TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. H

HERE, THAT'S BASICALLY -- >> IT IS NOT TO SCALE OR ANYTHING.

>> YEAH, THAT IS LIKE -- I DID ON MY COMPUTER ON MY KITCHEN CAD PROGRAM.

BUT KIND OF LIKE THAT, REASON I HAD TO DO 26 HIGH ON ONE SIDE IS BECAUSE WITH OFF LOADING CABINET MATERIAL WE DON'T BUILD THEM OR MANUFACTURE THEM, WE ORDER THEM AND THEY ARE STACKED ON PALETTE HEIGHT. I NEED TO HAVE RACKS TO COME WITH FORK LIFT TO STAGE IT.

I WANT TO KEEP ONE SIDE LOW AND NOT DO PEAK ROOF, MORE PRIVACY BUFFER FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT GIVES IT MORE FRONTAGE FOR U.S. 1 FOR LIKE WHEN WE GET TO THE POINT SIGNAGE ON THE TALLER

SIDE. >> GREAT. THANK YOU.

THAT'S IT. >> ANYONE ELSE? >> YES.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> I MET WITH THE PERSON WHO WAS BEHIND THIS AND IT IS GOING TO BE LIKE A WALL, THAT -- FRANKLY, SHE HAS A -- NOT SEWER, BUT SEPTIC TANK RIGHT UP THERE, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN DO TREES AS BUFFER AND I'M NERVOUS CHANGING RESIDENTIAL TO -- YOU HAVE WHOLE FRONTAGE OF U.S. 1 THAT IS COMMERCIAL, THIS IS SUB TO IT AND A ROAD WOULD HAVE BROKEN UP COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL. I'M CONCERNED PUTTING THIS NEXT TO THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS, I DON'T THINK I'M COMFORTABLE WITH IT.

>> ONE OF THE LOTS, TWO OF THE LOTS WE, LAURIE AND THE OTHER ONE, MOBILE HOME, NOT SURE HOW THEY WILL BE ABLE TO PUT A MOBILE HOME ON THE THIRD ONE, IT IS CORNER, I LOOKED AT THAT PROPERTY AND I HAVE A HARD TIME, I'VE DONE THIS WITH ST. JOHN'S, HARD TIME BELIEVING THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DO REPLACEMENT MOBILE HOME THERE WITH NEW CODE. NOT SURE IF PERSON THAT BOUGHT

[04:50:06]

THAT UNDERSTANDS IT. WITH LAURIE, BEFORE THAT IS ALL WOODS AND I SPENT 15,000 CLEARING THESE, THEY HAD SOME KIND OF BUG INFESTATION IN THE PINES HER BACKYARD USED TO BE DANGEROUS TREES BEFORE, SO I WENT AND DID THAT, PUT A PRIVACY FENCE AND STUFF TO BE

RESPECTFUL, DID NOT ASK FOR MONEY FOR ANYONE. >> I GET THAT, SOME DAY THAT WILL BE ZONED COMMERCIAL AND YOU WILL NOT BE ON IT, GOD KNOWS WHAT COULD BE THERE.

I'M NERVOUS ABOUT CHANGING RESIDENTIAL. >> THAT IS WHY I LIMITED

CONDITIONS SO MUCH. >> IT SAID BAR ON THERE, I MEAN --

>> ONLY REASON, I CAN TAKE THAT OFF IF YOU WANT ME TO. I WANTED TO KEEP A FEW --

>> I DON'T THINK -- >> WE CAN TAKE THAT OFF, IF YOU WANT.

I WANT TO KEEP A COUPLE JUST FOR APPRAISAL VALUE FOR BANK LENDING.

>> IF YOU DON'T DO YOUR CABINET SHOP, I MEAN, YOU CAN -- I'M NERVOUS, I'M SORRY, IF IT WERE MY RESIDENT AFTER 20 YEARS IT WOULD BE A LOT TO HAVE A WALL IN FRONT OF MY BECOMEYARD.

>> SHE HAS A BACKYARD AND 30 FOOT BUFFER. >> THERE IS MASONRY WALL I WAS ASKED BY PZA I HAVE TO PUT UP, I WILL HAVE THAT AND THE SWELL 30-FOOT BUFFER WITH TREES.

>> CAN YOU DO THAT NEAR A SEPTIC TANK? >> YEAH, YOUR SEPTIC TANK, ST.

JOHN'S BUILDING CODE YOUR SEPTIC TANK CAN'T BE SO FAR FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, UNLESS HER SEPTIC

TANK IS ON MY PROPERTY LINE. >> THEN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY MESSED UP, THAT IS NOT ALLOWED.

>> WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL, IF A TREE CAN'T GO IN THAT LOCATION. >> I TOOK OUT TREES ON THEIR PROPERTY, BECAUSE WE WERE THERE TAKING TREES OUT WITH DEAN AND LAURIE, I DID NOT ASK ANYTHING OF IT, TAKING TREES OUT AND THOSE TREES ARE ON HER PROPERTY LINE, SHE WAS NOT WORRIED ABOUT THOSE, I DON'T SEE HOW TREES ON MY PROPERTY LINE 15 FEET AWAY WOULD HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THAT.

AND I TOOK OUT ENTIRE FOREST BEHIND THERE. IF IT DID NOT AFFECT SEPTIC TANK THEN I DON'T SEE HOW IT COULD NOW. THOSE TREES ARE 150 FEET TALL.

>> ARE YOU LEAVING MATURE TREES? GOING TO PLANT TREES?

ARE THERE TREES ALREADY? >> I HAVE A FEW TREES THAT FIT THE TREE CREDIT AMOUNT THAT ARE THERE BY THAT EXISTING GARAGE, TREES WE'RE BRINGING IN REQUIRED BY BUILDING DEPARTMENT, RIGHT HERE TO HELP BUFF ER THAT PROPERTY LINE SO WE HAVE RED CEDAR, LIVE OAK AND MAGNOLIA? MAGNOLIAS, I HAVE 22 TREES GOING THERE. AND I'M LIKE WE CAN OFFSET IT MORE, IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, TAKE IT FURTHER AWAY.

I WISH MY ENGINEER WAS HERE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, IF THAT IS SOMETHING YOU WANT ME TO DO, MOVE IT 10 FEET AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE IF THAT IS ALLOWED BY COUNTY, HAPPY TO DO THAT.

I DON'T THINK A DRY SWELL WILL AFFECT LIVE OAKS. AND I'VE ALWAYS BEEN KSHSZ ABOUT WATER RETENTION EVEN BEFORE THIS PROJECT WAS A THOUGHT. AND SLIPPED AWAY FROM THEIR HOUSES AND PUT NEW MOBILE HOME NEXT TO LAURIE, TO THE NORTH OF HER AND THERE WAS ABANDONED TRAILER FOR 10 OR 20 YEARS, NOW SHE HAS A NEW TRAILER, I'VE IMPROVED THAT AREA A LOT.

I DID NOT HAVE INTENTION OF DOING THIS UNTIL I GOT KICKED OUT OF MY BUSIILDING AND MY BUSINESS HAS BEEN SHUT DOWN AND I HAVE A MONTH TO GO TO OPEN BACK UP.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTION? >> LET'S GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT. >> THIS TIME WE WILL TAKE

PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE. >> LAURIE WILSON, 130 RONALD ROAD, RESIDENT OF RONALD ROAD, I'VE LIVED THERE 30 YEARS, 22 YEARS ON MY LOT.

[04:55:04]

AS DYLAN JABS MENTIONED, I SHARE BOUNDARY LINE WITH ONE OF THE THREE SUBJECT LOTS HE'S PROPOSING TO REZONE. DURING THE PZA MEETING AND I CAN'T SAY THAT IT IS SWAYED ANYONE'S DECISION, I THINK IT MADE THEM FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE. I LISTENED TO THE MEETING AND WENT BACK AND LISTENED AGAIN TO CONFIRM WHAT I HAD HEARD AND I WANT TO MAKE A POINT THAT HILSENBECK STATED APPLICANT HAD VESTED INTEREST BECAUSE THEY LIVED CLOSE, WHICH THEY MISUNDERSTOOD, RENTAL PROPERTY TO NORTH THEY THOUGHT WAS THEIR RESI RESIDENCE. SPIEGEL STATED SHE SEEMED TO LEAN LIKE IN FAVOR OF BECAUSE THEY CAN ACCOMMODATE MORE APPOINTMENT-ONLY SHOWING-ONLY APPOINTMENT BECAUSE THEY LIVE CLOSE. AGAIN, REITERATING APPLICANTS DO NOT LIVE NEAR BY.

THEY LIVE IN TREASURE BEACH, THEY HAVE A RENTAL PROPERTY NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

IT IS NORTH OF THE EXISTING COMM COMMERCIAL.

ONE OTHER CONCERN THAT I BROUGHT UP DURING THE PZA MEETING, THE THREE LOTS PROPOSED REZONED IS 110 RONALD ROAD AND 106 RONALD ROAD. 10 110 HAD A MOBILE HOME AND RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, SIX MOBILE HOMES THERE WHEN I PURCHASED MY PROPERTY.

REZONING 2008-15 INCLUDED 110 RONALD ROAD. AT THAT TIME, BOARD FELT COMPELLED TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS EQUAL TRANSITION BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE OF THE 30-FOOT EASEMENT THAT SEPARATE THE TWO PROPERTIES.

SO THAT BOARD DECIDED TO APPROVE IT BASED ON THAT CONDITION AND DUE TO THE CONFIGURATION OF THE PROPERTIES NOW HE'S PROPOSING, ON PAPER THAT EASEMENT APPEARS TO BELONG TO NORTH DIXIE VILLAGE, AN ENTITY NEITHER ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER OWNS. I'VE HAD ISSUES DURING PRIOR CONSTRUCTION IN THE BACKYARD. AND TO PLANT A 10 -FOOT CANOPY TREE IS NOT ADVISABLE.

IT IS 15 FEET FROM MY PROPERTY LINE. SO BASED ON SCHEME ATTICS, I'D LIKE TO SHOW THIS, WHAT DYLAN JABS, THIS IS WHAT MY BACKYARD VIEW BECOMES WITH 40 FOOT 360

SQUAREFOOT WAREHOUSE WITH NO WINDOWS, THAT IS MY VIEW. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> HI, I'M CINDY BRUCE. I AM A RESIDENT HERE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY, I LIVE OFF PINE CIRCLE WEST, WHICH IS ON U.S. 1 FROM RONALD ROAD, IT WOULD BE VENETIAN YOU WOULD TURN TO GO TO PINE CIRCLE WEST. LAURIE MENTIONED A FEW THINGS I WANT TO TALK ABOUT.

BECAUSE I OWN 140 RONALD ROAD, WHICH IS -- HUH? WHICH WHAT DID I DO? I'M RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO LAURIE, I OWN THAT PROPERTY IF YOU LOOK AT HER PROPERTY TO THE RIGHT, YOU LOOK AT BACK, TO THE LEFT. IT IS ON THE LAKE THERE, THE POND.

I AM VERY MUCH FOR THIS. I THINK IT WILL BE A GREAT IMPROVEMENT, NICE BUFFER FOR US, THERE IS THREE MOBILE HOME LOTS WHICH ARE MAYBE ONLY TWO BECAUSE THE ONE IS A TEAR DOWN SOMEBODY JUST PURCHASED, SO LIKE DYLAN JABS SAID WE DON'T KNOW IF ANOTHER MOBILE HOME CAN BE PUT ON THERE OR WOULD HAVE TO BE A TINY HOME OR SOMETHING ELSE, WHATEVER, OR NOTHING.

ANYHOW, I LIKE THE FACT THAT THEY WOULD BE A BUFFER TO WHATEVER TRULY IS COMMERCIAL IT

[05:00:06]

IS GOING TO BE GOING ON TO THE PROPERTY IN FRONT OF US ON U.S. 1.

WE KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN, SOMETHING IS GOING TO GO THERE AND IT MAY NOT MAKE US ALL HAPPY. I THINK THIS WOULD BE A WONDERFUL BUFFER FOR THAT POSSIBILITY IN THE FUTURE AND PROBABLY NEAR FUTURE SOMETHING WILL GO IN THAT WE WOULD RATHER NOT LIVE RIGHT BEHIND. SO WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

SO YES, I WANTED TO POINT OUT ANOTHER CONCERN WAS THAT LAURIE HAS IS ABOUT SOMETHING WAREHOUSE STYLE THING THAT BUTTS UP TO OUR PROPERTIES HERE, WHICH I'M ONE OF THEM.

ON PINE CIRCLE WEST, AND YOU HAVE NORTH ONE DRIVE, IT IS THE NEXT VENETIAN, TURN PINE CIRCLE WEST AND WHERE I LIVE THERE ARE TWO HOMES THAT THE BUTT UP TO WAREHOUSES AND I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE ROAD, THERE IS THE ANTIQUE MALL THERE AND THAT ROAD THAT THE ANTIQUE MALL IS ON THAT GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN ALMOST, WELL, DOWN TO TWO HOMES THAT ARE ON PINE CIRCLE WEST AND

IT HAS BEEN THERE FOREVER, SO -- >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENT AT THIS TIME? AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE?

OKAY, SEEING NONE, CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. >> COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. LOOKING AT ZONING MAP AND ONE THING REQUIRED TO CONSIDER IS COMPATIBLE. THIS BUTT IS COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE, IT HAS WAREHOUSE TO NORTH, INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE TO THE SOUTH. I THINK THE LAST WOMAN WHO MADE PUBLIC COMMENT, I THINK YOU SAID WHAT I WAS THINKING AS I WAS REVIEWING THE ZONING MAP, COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE IS ZONED AND COMING EVENTUALLY, IT IS MATTER OF TIME WHEN SOMETHING HAS ENTITLEMENT, YOU GET SOMETHING INTENSIVE DEVELOP PRETTY QUICKLY.

OUTSIDE SCOPE OF WHAT WE'RE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO CONSIDER LIKE COMPATIBILITY, YOU GUYS ARE THE AMERICAN DREAM, SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, PROVIDING A PRODUCT HIGHLY DESIRABLE AND NEEDED IN THIS COMMUNITY. YOU MAKE OUR COMMUNITY A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE BY VIRTUE OF TAKING FINANCIAL RISK REQUIRED TO GO INTO SMALL BUSINESS AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW I SEE THAT AND APPRECIATE IT. NOTHING IS GUARANTEED WHEN YOU TAKE A RISK, TAKE OUT LOANS, MORTGAGE YOUR HOUSE IN HOPES PEOPLE WILL WALK THROUGH THE DOOR AND USE YOUR SERVICES.

I ADMIRE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AND WHAT YOU DO. I THINK IT IS COMPATIBLE AND SEE YOU MADE 78 CONCESSIONS, YOU SEE YOU TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR IN THE COMMUNITY, CAN'T MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY ALL THE TIME. LORD KNOWS, I'VE TRIED AND FAILED, WILL NEVER MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY. I COMMEND YOU FOR WHAT YOU ARE

DOING AND WILL VOTE YES BASED ON EVIDENCE PRESENTED HERE. >> THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE

THAT. >> ANYONE ELSE FROM BOARD? >> SO ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR LAURIE, WHICH LAURIE, YOU KNOW I'VE ALWAYS LIKED YOU A LOT, FOR THAT, HER DIAGRAM OR CAD THING SHOWING BACK OF BUILDING, I DON'T THINK THAT IS TO SCALE ON IT BUT IT DID NOT HAVE ANY TREES, LOOKED LIKE ONE BIG WAREHOUSE, THE TREES HELP MAKE THAT BACK OF WAREHOUSE NOT LOOK LIKE A PLAIN PIECE OF METAL. AND THEN IF POSSIBLE, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A THING OR NOT, MY ENGINEER IS NOT HERE, IF LAURIE, IF YOU WANTED TO, CAN I REMOVE A TREE OR NOT PUT --

CHANGE PLACEMENT OF TREES TO NOT HAVE HER CONCERNED ABOUT SEPTIC? >> GREAT QUESTION, MIKE, WOULD YOU CARE TO COMMENT? WE HAVE MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR HERE WITH US.

I KNOW HE LOVES COMING DOWN HERE TO -- STAFF, WONDERFUL. >> I KNOW A LITTLE BIT, NOT

ENOUGH. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, ABRIELLE GEEST WITH PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT, I WANT TO NOTE IN THE BUFFERING STANDARDS THIS IS 30 C BUFFER WHICH DOES REQUIRE A

[05:05:03]

ROW OF EVERGREEN CANOPY TREES, NOT SPACED MORE THAN 20 FEET APART AND PLANTED WITHIN 10 FEET OF PROPERTY LINE. THESE WOULD BE WORKED AT COMMERCIAL PLAN STAGE APPLICANT

NEED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE FOR COMMERCIAL PLAN. >> WOULD IT HELP IF I DID THEY ARE ASKING FOR CONCRETE WALL, MASONRY WALL, IF I DID A DEEPER FOOTER IN THAT AREA TO BE LIKE A

ROOT BLOCK? >> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE ENGINEERING OF A CONCRETE WALL.

>> I'M JUST TRYING, IF I WENT IN THE 70 FOOT SECTION OF HER B BACKYARD WENT DOWN THREE FOOT IN THAT AREA TO PROTECT FROM ANY RO

ROOTS -- >> LOOK INTO IT. >> OKAY.

>> I JUST HAVE A QUESTION, CLEARLY FROM HER DIAGRAM THERE WASN'T ONE TREE THERE.

MATURE TREES ARE CLEAR CUT? ARE THEY GONE? ANY TREES?

>> THE TREES ARE GONE, THEY WERE MASSIVE, BEHIND HER PART, IT WAS, THEY ARE GONE, THEY HAD LIKE SOME KIND OF BEATLE BUG OR WHATEVER AND THEY WERE VERY DANGEROUS AND LEANING TOWARD LAURIE'S HOUSE. BIG PINE TREE AND HAD THAT BEATLE THEY CARRY.

I CAN TALK TO THE COUNTY TO GET PERMISSION TO REMOVE THOSE BECAUSE OF THAT.

AND THEN I FILLED IT IN SO IT WASN'T A SWAMP, THEY HAD TO TAKE ALL THE STUMPS OUT.

>> PERFECT, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I THINK THAT EXTRA 10 FEET

WOULD -- >> EVEN IF WE SPACED THEM, 20-FOOT GAP BETWEEN THE TWO, DO

IT NOT NEXT TO HER SEPTIC. >> WHEREVR THAT SEPTIC IS, IF I SPACE THE GAP --

>> THAT WILL BE UP TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. >> WE'LL ASK THEM.

>> LAURIE, GET IN TOUCH WITH THEM. >> MOTION TO ENACT OR 2026-28 APPROVING 2026-06, FTA CABINET DEPOT WAREHOUSE SHOWROOM BASED UPON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AND

TWO CONDITION AS PROVIDED IN STAFF REPORT. >> I SECOND THAT MOTION.

>> LET'S VOTE. >> OKAY, PASSES 4-1. CONGRATULATION SAYS.

[6. Public Hearing * CPA(SS) 2025-11 Moseley Property. Request for a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation of approximately 16 acres of land from Rural/Silviculture (R/S) to Residential-A (RES-A) with a text amendment limiting the property to a maximum one (1) single-family dwelling unit; located at an unaddressed parcel north of County Road 208 and east of County Road 13 N. The Planning and Zoning Agency (PZA) heard this request at their regularly scheduled public hearing on August 6, 2026, and recommended approval with a vote of 6-0. ]

[7. District 2 Public Hearing * NZVAR 2025-24 Moseley Property. Request for a Non-Zoning Variance to Section 6.04.07.B.2.a of the Land Development Code regarding access easement requirements.]

>> THANK YOU. >> MOVE TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX.

AND LET'S SEE, SIX IS NOT QUASI JUDICIAL, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR SIR, MA'AM.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I HAD MORNING DOWN THERE, WE MADE IT TO AFTERNOON.

THIS IS MY WIFE BETH, ELIZABETH IS HER NAME, RICHARD MOSELY. WE ARE HERE SEEKING -- LET'S SEE. WE ARE OWNERS OF 16.3 ACRES LOCATED BEHIND 1016 COUNTY ROAD 13 IN ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, SEEKING THE CHANGE TO LAND USE THROUGH SMALL-SCALE COMPT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM CIVILIANS TO RESIDENTIAL A SO WE CAN BUILD ON IT.

WE HAVE LIVED IN FLORIDA PANHANDLE ALL OUR LIVES. IN 2003 WE HAD A SON WEIGHING 1 POUND 7 OUNCES WHICH LEFT HIM BLIND. HEARING WHAT GOOD SCHOOLS WE STARTED LOOKING AT PROPERTY HERE AND PURCHASED ORIGINAL TRACT, 20 ACRES ON THE WALL THERE IN 2006, WE LIVED AND SENT OUR KIDS TO SCHOOL. AFTER SETTLING IN, WE REALIZE THE INTEREST RATE PAYING WAS VERY HIGH, WE STARTED LOOKING AT REFINANCING IN 2007.

THE APPRAISAL FROM BANK HAD DIFFICULTY FINDING COMPARABLE SALES, COULD NOT FIND SALES FOR 20 ACRES AND TWO HOUSES. BASICALLY THE LOAN OFFICER HELPED US CONSTRUCT LOAN SUGGESTING ORDER FOR US TO FIND TO BE BROKEN DOWN INTO A SMALLER SCALE OF ACREAGE WITH HOUSES AND RIVER FRONT. THEY WOULD HAVE MULTIPLE COMPS FOR REFINANCING NEEDS.

THAT IS HOW WE ENDED UP WITH LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF FOUR ACRES IN FRONT AND SIX ACRES IN THE BACK. THE DIVISION -- PROPERTY REQUESTING LAND CHANGE ON

[05:10:52]

CLEARED BETWEEN 1975 AND 1980 LEAVING ONLY BIG PRETTY OAK TREES STILL THERE TODAY AS SEEN IN WETLAND DELINEATION ON SITE CONDITION. GET HERE, STUCK.

THERE WE GO. PREVIOUSLY ON THIS PROPERTY THERE WAS ABOUT 12 ACRES OF IRRIGATION, SPRINKLER HEADS, GROUND COVER, BLACK PLASTIC PIPE AND THOUSANDS OF PLASTIC POTS, IT WAS A NURSERY THAT WAS ABANDONED IN THE LATE '90S, ALL THIS INFORMATION APPEAR IN WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT. IT GIVES US 11 PLUS ACRES OF UPLAND AND FIVE ACRES OF WETLANDS. THE PROPERTY ALREADY HAS POWER, WATER, SANDY SOIL SUITABLE FOR SEPTIC TANK. THERE IS PROPERTIES THAT IS CLEARING OF THE PROPERTY RIGHT THERE. AND THAT IS WHERE THEY PUT THE NURSERY IN WITH THE ROAD AND ROWS IN IT. AND THE CONTINGENT COMPARABLE PROPERTY ON SOUTHWEST CORNER CONSIST OF 8.8 ACRES TRACT HAS SET PRECEDENCE FOR WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE WITH THREE OTHER IN SAME VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY WAS CIVILIANS AND CHANGED TO RESIDENTIAL A. SILVICULTURE AND CHANGED TO RESIDENTIAL A.

MISSING ONE. THERE IT IS. THE SURROUNDING LAND HAVE THREE LOTS THAT HAS NOT BEEN BUILT ON BY SHOWN BY ARROWS UP THERE, REST OF THE LOTS HAVE HOMES.

WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL REUSE OF SURROUNDING AREA, GOOD SIZE PIECE OF PROPERTY YOU COULD HAVE PROBABLY THREE OR FOUR HOMES ON IT WITH EQUAL SIZE SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY. THAT IS WHAT BRINGS US HERE TODAY TO SEEKING APPROVAL TO CHANGE FROM SILVICULTURE TO RESIDENTIAL A. ASKING FOR ONE HOUSE ON THE

PROPERTY. >> GOOD DEAL, ANYTHING ELSE? >> THAT IS PRETTY MUCH --

>> THAT IS ALL SIX. >> QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? >> I JUST HAVE ONE.

DO YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY? >> THAT IS ON NUMBER SIX.

>> THAT IS WHAT YOU JUST SAID, RIGHT? >> YES.

THAT ALL, PUBLIC COMMENT? >> CHAIR, TWO ITEMS INVOLVE THIS PROPERTY, THE CURRENT ITEM YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU AND NONZONING VARIANCE ITEM SIX. YOU CAN HEAR THEM BOTH AND HAVE TO VOTE SEPARATELY. SEVEN IS NON-COININGZONING. THAT IS ACCESS.

>> LET'S GO TO SEVEN. >> OKAY. >> IF YOU CAN.

>> TAKE ME A MINUTE. OKAY. WHEN WE PURCHASED THE 20 ACRES

[05:15:16]

ORIGINAL DRIVEWAY SHOWN HERE COMES OFF 13 -- HOW DO YOU DO THAT? THE DRIVEWAY CAME IN ON 13. RIGHT HERE. IT WENT AROUND TO THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND ACCESSED BACK OF THE PROPERTY THROUGH HERE AND AREA UNDERNEATH THE NURSERY AND ALL. THAT IS HOW THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY DRIVEWAY WORKED.

THIS IS PROBABY A LITTLE BETTER IF WE CLICK THAT TO SEE. NINE FOOT WIDE ORIGINAL DRIVEWAY SHOWN HERE AND THE DRIVEWAY WAS MAIN INGRESS AND EGRESS, THIS IS WHAT WE USED TO ACCESS PROPERTY WHILE WE LIVED THERE. IN 2007, WE DID REFINANCING WITH BANK AND SHOWED NEW SURVEY.

WHICH IS THAT ONE. THAT SHOWS NEW SURVEY DID IN 2007, WHICH IN REFINANCING HE DRAWN EASEMENT OFF ON THE SIDE TO INCLUDE AREA THAT WAS ENTERING WITH TO BEGIN WITH OVER ON THE SIDE KEEPING IT FROM GOING THROUGH THE HOUSES AND ALL THAT.

BEFORE WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY WE KNEW POWER WAS COMING FROM THE BACK AND HAD RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE POWER TO COME IN OUR REAL ESTATE LADY CHEYENNE PASETI LOOKED INTO HAVING TO USE IT FOR ACCESS, CHEYENNE THROUGH RESEARCH OF THE COUNTY AND ALL FOUND NO RECORDED ACCESS TO BACK OF THE PROPERTY AND STATED IT WAS FLORIDA POWER EASEMENT RIGHT AWAY.

EVEN AFTER WE NO LONGER OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR NINE OR 10 YEARS WE WERE USING EXISTING DRIVEWAY OFF 13 TO ACCESS BACK OF THE PROPERTY. JUST RECENTLY WE FOUND OUT RECENTLY THE 20-FOOT EASEMENT, SURVEYOR DREW IN DID NOT MEET COUNTY REQUIREMENTS FOR IT.

THE DRIVEWAY SAYS THAT CAN WE GO TO THIS NOW? THE DRIVEWAYS, HOW DO YOU GET -- HOW DO YOU GET THE PICTURE THERE? JUST SET IT THERE?

IT IS NOT COMING UP. THERE WE GO. >> SLIDE IT AROUND FOR ME, THERE YOU GO. THIS WOULD BE A BETTER DRAWING, THIS IS BLOWN UP OF SURVEY THAT SHOWS HOW EASEMENT CAME IN. WHAT WE DID, MOVE THIS SECTION, THIS IS WHAT WE DID.

WE HAVE LETTERS FROM CHEYENNE BEFORE WE EVEN BOUGHT THE PROPERTY STATING SHE SEARCHED THIS OUT AND THERE WAS NO EASEMENT IN THE BACK, ALL WE DID EVER WAS USE FRONT EASEMENT IN

AND OUT OF THE PROPERTY. LET'S SEE. >> CHEYENNE IS A REAL

SWEETHEART, ISN'T SHE? >> THIS IS EXISTING PROPERTY THERE.

>> WHERE WOULD NEW EASEMENT BE FROM THERE? >> HERE BETWEEN THIS BARN.

>> OKAY. >> AND BUILDING RIGHT HERE, RIGHT DOWN THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. SO THIS EASEMENT HERE GOES IN AND IT IS NINE FOOT WIDE AND ACCESS TO TWO HOUSES. THIS ONE HERE, PROBABLY TOM PROBABLY KNOWS BETTER 25 FEET BETWEEN FENCE AND BARN THERE THAT GOES THROUGH THE BACK. COMING OUT AFTER PZA MEETING, I

[05:20:05]

ACTUALLY TOOK A PICTURE OF THAT. YOU CAN SEE THE EASEMENT WOULD BE RIGHT DOWN THROUGH THERE.

AND THE NEIGHBORING DRIVEWAY PRETTY MUCH LOOK THE SAME BESIDE THE TWO HOUSES, THEY ARE JUST SMALL DRIVEWAY, YOU KNOW, WE JUST WOULDN'T WANT NOTHING BECAUSE EASEMENT FOR THE UTILITIES COME IN THE BACK. NO OVERHEAD POWERLINES NO UNDERGROUND UTILITY JUST A DRIVEWAY TO THE HOUSE IS ALL IT IS GOING TO BE. SO WIDTH SHOULD BE PLENTY GOOD.

THIS IS JUST NEIGHBORING DRIVEWAY AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT SHOWS SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS ALL WE REALLY NEED AS FAR AS GETTING IN AND OUT EGRESS, ALL THAT WITHIN A MILE OF THE HOUSES. WE REPORTED THE EASEMENT. IN -- IT IS RIGHT THERE.

IN FIVE OF '16 RECORDED THE EASEMENT AND WERE TOLD WHEN WE FIRST DRAWED THE EASEMENT IN, THERE WAS NO REASON TO RECORD IT. WE HAD NO INTENTION OF GETTING RID OF THE PROPERTY. WE HAD ACCESS THROUGH THE YARD TO THE BACK OF IT THAT WE ALWAYS USED. HAD WE GO TO GET RID OF PROPERTY THEY SAID IT WOULD NEED TO BE RECORDED TO ACCESS BACK. THAT IS WHAT WE DID. AND TOM, MY NEIGHBOR, HE'S SAYING I DID IT ILLEGAL, IN THE RESEARCH, WE WENT TO THE POWER COMPANY AND WE HAD THEM RESEARCH IT OUT AFTER CHEYENNE SAID WE DID NOT HAVE EASEMENT BACK THERE, HE SAID WE ALREADY HAD EASEMENT. WE RESEARCHED IT AND SAID ONLY EASEMENT ON THAT PROPERTY WAS ONE I RECORDED AND THIS IS FROM TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY STATE TITLE.

RIGHT THERE. AND THEN AFTER GETTING RESEARCH, HE SAID THAT WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO A RECORDING ON THE PROPERTY. BUT IN THE STATUTE OF 704.09, CREATION OF EASEMENTS, IT SAYS, YEAH. RIGHT HERE, IN RESEARCH OF THE EASEMENT STATES THAT IF OWNER SUCCESSFULLY DRAFTS EASEMENT, SIGNS BEFORE TWO WITNESSES AND NOTARY, CORRECTLY RECORD IT IN OFFICIAL RECORD IT IS LEGAL, VALID AND BINDING UNDER FLORIDA LAW. IN REAL ESTATE IS THIS IS EASEMENT BY EXPRESSED GRANT.

SAME PERSON OWN BOTH PIECES OF LAND AT SAME TIME, ONCE DOCUMENT IS RECORDED, ENTERED INTO PUBLIC TITLE FOR BOTH PARCELS, IT RUNS WITH LAND. EASEMENT ATTACHING ITSELF TO THE REAL ESTATE, NOT THE OWNER. IF EITHER PARCEL IS SOLD FUTURE OWNER AND FRONT PARCEL MUST HONOR THE DRIVEWAY SPACE AND NEW OWNER TO USE IN THE BACK PARCEL RETAIN THE RIGHT LEGAL RIGHT TO USE IT. THAT IS 7049. AND 7041, BASICALLY IS THE UNITY OF TITLE. IT IS TWO OR MORE CONCURRENT PARCELS WERE ONCE A SINGLE PARCEL OWNED BY SINGLE PERSON, BASICALLY SAYING THAT THE MOTHER TRACT WE OWN BOTH PIECES, IF THE DIVISION WAS MADE OFF MOTHER TRACT FOR A PIECE OF PROPERTY IN THE BACK, THAT THE MOTHER TRACT IS ENTITLED TO GIVE ACCESS TO THE PIECE IN THE BACK. AND THAT IS 7041.

[05:25:05]

SO WE ARE ASKING FOR REVISION TO BE ABLE TO USE 20 FOOT BECAUSE WE COME TO THE COURTHOUSE OR COMPLEX HERE TO GET IT DONE, WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT OR WHATEVER, BASICALLY WE BOUGHT THE MOTHER TRACT AND THE FOUR ACRES WE DIVIDED, WE BOUGHT IT DOWN HERE TO THE ABSTRACT OFFICE MAYBE OR RECORDING OFFICE, WHEREVER, AND THEY ACTUAL LY SHOWED US HOW TO DO IT.

WE HAD TO GO TO GET THE SURVEY SHOWING THAT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION BASICALLY FOR RECORDING AND WE WENT AND DONE THAT AND RECORDED IT. RIGHT THERE ON THE PLAN SHOWN IT WAS A 20-FOOT INGRESS AND E EGRESS ENTER IN AND OUT, HAD NO IDEA NINE YEARS LATER, WE PAID 25% DOWN FOR THIS PROPERTY, PAID NINE OR 10 YEARS ON IT AND TURNED AROUND AND SIGNED IT RIGHT BACK OVER TO THE BANK BECAUSE THAT WAS PROBABLY OUR BEST WAY OUT BECAUSE WE WERE FINANCIALLY STRAPPED. SO THE BANK HAD NO PROBLEM AND THE SIGNATURE, NO CLOSING, NO FORECLOSURE, THERE WAS NOTHING LIKE THAT, IT WAS JUST HANDED RIGHT BACK TO THEM AND I'M THINKING THAT ALL THAT WAS DONE LEG LEGALLY I'M ASKING BLESSINGS OF

THE COMMISSION HERE TO ALLOW ME T USE IT. >> OKAY.

ANYTHING ELSE? >> THAT IS ALL. >> QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?

WE NEED PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM SEVEN. >> NC EX PARTE, IF ANY ON

NONVARIANCE. >> YOU ARE WAY AHEAD OF ME. >> I HAVE NONE.

>> COMMISSIONER JOSEPH? >> NO. >> ROGERS?

>> NONE. >> TAYLOR? >> NONE.

>> I HAVE NONE. >> YOU CAN STAND THERE FOR A SECOND, IF YOU WANT TO.

PUBLIC COMMENT? >> YES, WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER

SEVEN. >> COME ON UP. >> YOU HAVE TO COME THIS WAY.

>> OKAY. NOW YOU CAN GIVE IT TO HIM. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, TOM BELL, I AM THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT MY PROPERTY IS BEING DISCUSSED ABOUT. SO THERE IS AN EASEMENT AND IN THE BACK.

I UNDERSTAND THAT FPL EASEMENT. WILL THIS SHOW? >> IS UH-HUH.

>> LOOKS LIKE AN EASEMENT TO ME. LOOK LIKE AN ESTABLISHED ROAD THAT HAS BEEN THERE SINCE POWER WAS PUT IN THERE GOSH KNOWS WHEN '70S, MAYBE, '60S, MAYBE EARLIER, HOWEVER, IT RUNS OFF HIGHWAY 208. I HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH OF ENTRY WAYS TO IT AND IT ACTUALLY RUNS DIRECTLY INTO MR. MOSELY'S PROPERTY, WHICH HE RECENTLY PUT, THERE USED TO BE A GATE BACK THERE. I HAVE NOT BEEN BACK THERE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS BECAUSE IT IS NOT MY PROPERTY AND I DON'T TRESPASS, THAT GATES HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, HE'S MOVED HEAVY EQUIPMENT IN THERE OVER THE YEARS, HE HAD A TRACK HOE IN THERE. AM I ON THE CLOCK? I NEED TO MOVE ALONG, ANYWAY, LET ME TAKE THAT AWAY. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS NOT ONLY EASEMENT ACROSS MY PROPERTY, IT IS MY FRONT YARD AND I DID NOT MOW THERE BECAUSE I WANTED YOU TO SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE UNMAINTAINED. THAT WILL GROW UP PROBABLY TO THREE OR FOUR FEET HIGH WITHIN FIVE OR SIX MONTHS, I HAVE MAINTAINED MY PROPERTY FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS, I MOW IT LIKE TWICE A WEEK IN SUMMERTIME BECAUSE IT GROWS UP SO FAST. MR. MOSELY HAS NEVER MAINTAINED

[05:30:04]

THE PROPERTY AND HE ACTUALLY DOES NOT HAVE AN ENTRYWAY FROM HIGHWAY 13 BECAUSE HE IS SO FAR OFFSET ON HIS APRON ON THE 20-FOOT LINE. NOT ONLY THAT, AS IT GOES BACK INTO TOWARD HIS PROPERTY, HE NEVER ACTUALLY, HE GAVE HIMSELF AN EASEMENT ON PAPER AND DREW IT IN IN 2007, NEVER DEVELOPED THE EASEMENT. THERE ARE TREES RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF HIS PROPOSED EASEMENT THAT HAVE TO COME OUT IN ORDER FOR HIM TO HAVE A ROAD IN THERE.

AND IT IS NOT GOING TO QUALIFY FOR FIRE TRUCKS, COUNTY, IF ANYBODY HAS TO GO BACK THERE FOR EMERGENCY USE. IT IS NOT DOABLE. HE TALKED ABOUT COMING IN AND CUTTING THESE DOWN BEFORE WE HAD A PROBLEM OVER THIS. BUT --

>> OKAY, THANK YOU, YOUR TIME. >> I'M DONE? THAT'S IT.

THAT IS WHAT I GET, HUH? >> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE FOR COMMENT AT

THIS TIME, COME ON UP. >> OKAY. >> I'M NOT GOING TO SHOW ANYTHING, JACKIE STAT STARNES, NEXT DOOR TO MR. BELL'S PROPERTY.

THE EASEMENT WILL COME INTO MY HO HOUSE, HEADLIGHTS IN MY HOUSE.

WE FOUND OUT THEY WERE LOSING THE PROPERTY. FOR YEARS WE THOUGHT HE WAS LAND LOCKED, HE GOES IN THROUGH THE BACK ROAD. 2-1/2 YEARS AGO HE WAS CLEARING PROPERTY, BROUGHT HEAVY EQUIPMENT BACK THERE, WITHOUT PERMITS AND WAS CLEARING AND MESSING WITH WETLAND AND ALL THAT AND GIVING HIMSELF EASEMENT TO THE RIVER, HE WAS CUTTING STUFF ON MY PROPERTY AND WHEN I CALLED HIM, HE SAID, HE'S PRETTY SURE HE WAS ON HIS PROPERTY AND HE WAS GOING TO BUILD A DOCK OVER THERE. I HAVE ISSUE WITH ALL OF IT, A DOCK RIGHT UP AGAINST MY DOCK AND I'M NOT HAPPY ABOUT HAVE BEING LIKE A DRIVEWAY WITH EVERYTHING COMING RIGHT BY MY HOUSE. SO TO ME, IT LOOKS LIKE HE WANTED SINCE HE LOST PROPERTY ON THE RIVER, HE IS TRYING TO KEEP PROPERTY ON THE RIVER BY SAYING HE'S LAND LOCKED WHEN HE USES THAT EASEMENT ALL THE TIME BACK THERE ON 208.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO, IF I NEED TO LOOK UP MORE STUFF LIKE THAT.

HE IS ONLY ONE I SEE USING THAT ROAD. HE GOES BACK THERE ALL THE TIME.

IT IS RUINING OUR PROPERTY AT SAME TIME INCREASING HIS VALUE. NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TRAFFIC GOING BETWEEN OUR YARD WHICH IS SO PRETTY AND NATURAL OUT THERE AND I'M GOING TO HAVE CARS.

I'M HOPING TO STOP IT. THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WITH PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN? OKAY. SEEING NONE, CLOSE PUBLIC

COMMENT. >> OKAY, I'M LOOKING ON THE -- >> CAN WE SPEAK AGAIN?

>> YOU CAN CERTAINLY COME BACK UP IF YOU WANT TO. >> I'M LOOKING ON THE PURCHASE

WEBSITE, I DON'T SEE AN EASEMENT ANYWHERE. >> IT IS ON TOM BELL'S

PROPERTY. >> NO, NO, I MEAN FROM THE BACK.

>> THERE IS NO EASEMENT FROM THE BACK. AND WE'VE NEVER USED EASEMENT IN THE BACK FOR NINE OR 10 YEARS WE COME FROM THE FRONT. ONLY TIME IS WHEN TOM BLOCKED IT WITH TRAILER AND LOGS AND WE COULDN'T GET THROUGH THERE AND BELIEVE ME --

>> HOW DO YOU GET ACCESS BACK THERE. >> IT LOOKS REALLY GOOD

COMPARED TO WHAT WE HAD TO GO THROUGH TO GET TO THE BACK. >> HOW DO YOU GET ACCESS

THROUGH THE FRONT? >> LET'S SEE. DO YOU GO DOWN THE DRIVEWAY?

>> YOU CAN SEE -- >> OLD DRIVEWAY -- >> ON 13.

>> YEP. >> OLD DRIVEWAY COME IN RIGHT HERE DOWN THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE. THIS SECTION MOVED OVER AND THIS IS 13, THE EASEMENT RUNS DOWN

THROUGH 16 ACRES STARTS HERE. >> OKAY. >> YEAH, WE GOT A LOCAL CONTRACTOR TO DO THE -- AND TOM IS RIGHT, IT IS NOT EXACTLY CENTERED UP TOLD TO PUT ON PROPERTY LINE TO THE BACK BECAUSE WE HAD THE 20 FOOT. WHERE IS THE ONE TO SHOWS BY THE

[05:35:10]

BARN. THIS IS ONE MORE PHOTO SOMEWHERE.

YES. THIS PHOTO SHOWS A PRETTY GOOD SHOT.

THAT IS ONE HE'S TALKING ABOUT. YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THERE, THAT IS THE DRUMS THAT ENTER BACK OF IT IS -- INTO OUR PROPERTY. EASEMENT WILL BE RIGHT DOWN THROUGH HERE.

>> YES, 20 FOOT FROM PROPERTY LINE? >> 20 FOOT FROM PROPERTY LINE.

>> OKAY. >> AFTER HE BLOCKED US OFF, THIS WAS DONE AFTER DOLWARD, WE HAVE BEEN TOLD WHOLE TIME WE COULD NOT USE BACK PIECE OF THE PROPERTY.

THIS LADY I THINK IS ONE OF THE OLDEST TITLE SEARCH COMPANIES IN ST. AUGUSTEENINE RESEARCHED IT AND SAID YOU DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO BACK, ALL YOU HAVE IS ONE YOU RECORDED IN THE FRONT.

>> OKAY. >> OKAY, BACK TO THE BORDER FOR MOTION.

>> MOTION TO ENACT OR NANCE 2026-APPROVING COMP SMALL SCALE MOSELY PROPERTY BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT WITH TEXT AMENDMENT PROVIDED IN STAFF REPORT.

>> THANK YOU, MOTION AND SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND. >> OKAY, LET'S VOTE. AND THAT PASSES 4-1, THANK YOU,

CONGRATULATIONS. >> GO ON TO AGENDA ITEM SEVEN --

>> THAT WOULD BE BOTH -- >> NEXT ONE. MOTION TO APPROVE NONZONING VARIANCE MOSELY PROPERTY REQUEST FOR NONZONIG VARIANCE TO SECTION 6.04 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING ACCESS EASEMENT REQUIREMENT BASED ON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT

AND FOUR CONDITION PROVIDED IN STAFF REPORT. >> MOTION AND SECOND, LET'S

VOTE. THAT PASSES 4-1, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[8. District 3 Public Hearing * REZ 2026-09 6241 A1A South. Request to rezone approximately 0.23 acres of land, located at 6241 A1A South, from Commercial Neighborhood [CN] to Residential, Manufactured/Mobile Home or Single Family [RMH(S)]. This request was heard by the Planning and Zoning Agency at their regularly scheduled public hearing on Thursday, August 6th, and was recommended for approval by a vote of 60. ]

>> SEE HOW EASY THAT WAS? >> FIRST TIME I EVER SECOND T

TIME -- EVER DID A POWERPOINT IN MY LIFE. >> COMMISSIONER ARNOLD, E

EX PARTE. >> NONE TO REPORT. >> COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST?

>> NONE. >> TAYLOR? >> NONE.

>> I HAVE NONE. >> AM I GOING? >> I DON'T KNOW.

>> I THOUGHT YOU WERE LOOKING, IT IS MY TURN, RIGHT? >> YES, SIR.

>> HOPE THIS WILL BE FASTEST OF THE DAY. THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY ON STAFF OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY THAT HELPED ME GET THROUGH AND PERSON WHO GAVE TIP TO WATCH ON TV FOR MAJORITY OF THE DAY TO COME JUST BEFORE I CAME OVER HERE, ANYBODY WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THAT, WATCH TV FIRST, I RESPECT ALL THE TIME YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO WHAT YOU HAVE TODAY.

MY STUFF IS EASY, TAKE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL LOT ON THE BEACH ST. AUGUSTINE AND TURN INTO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. IT IS SIMPLE, EASY TO DO, MAJORITY OF PROPERTY IS ON THE EAST SIDE OR COMMERCIAL CONDOS AND MAJORITY ON WEST SIDE OF A1A ARE BASICALLY RESIDENTIAL WHICH FIT NEIGHBORHOOD AND HIGHEST BEST USE OF THAT PROPERTY TO TURN INTO RESIDENTIAL LOT.

NO PLAN FOR IT RIGHT NOW, AFTER TALKING TO REALTORS AND STUFF, THEY SAID THAT IS THE BEST THING TO DO, TURN TO RESIDENTIAL. I HAD NO IDEA WHEN I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, THAT IS WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO, NOW I AM. EASY FOR YOU GUYS TO SAY PUT THE VOTE UP THERE, CLICK, CLICK, I AM OUT OF HERE AND YOU CAN GO HOME MAYBE. THAT'S IT FOR THE DAY.

ANY QUESTIONS? >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BO

BOARD? >> NOPE. >> THERE IS THE LOT, RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL ON OTHER SIDE, RESIDENTIAL ALONG THE BACK.

>> I DON'T SEE ANY REASON IT WAS NOT ZONED THAT WAY, NO QUESTION SA.

[05:40:01]

PUBLIC COMMENT? >> WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.

SEEING NONE CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. >> OKAY, LET ME MAKE A MOTION ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. MOTION TO ENACT THE ORDINANCE. BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT

[9. District 2 NZVAR 2026-08 West Augustine Health & Wellness Sign. Request for a Non-Zoning Variance to Section 3.11.11.C of the Land Development Code to allow for a new monument sign height of 16 feet in lieu of the required 15 feet maximum height and width of 8 feet 4 inches in lieu of the required 4 feet maximum width located within the West Augustine Neighborhood Commercial (WANC) sub-area within the West Augustine Overlay, specifically located at 110 N Brevard Street. ]

PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> SECOND. >> A MOTION AND SECOND.

LET'S VOTE. THAT PASSES 5-0, GREAT JOB, THAT WAS FASTEST OF THE DAY.

>> THERE YOU GO, THANKS, EVERYBODY. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NINE.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR, COMMISSION.

MY NAME IS GERALD CHESTER, I AM CONSULTANT FOR CENTRAL -- WEST AUGUSTINE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION. >> CANKIRLI.

SCHRODER >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME IS GERALD CHESTER, 1300 DUVAL STREET, ST. AUGUSTINE FLORIDA. PRESENTING THE NON-ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION REQUEST ON BEHALF OF MR. JOE WHITE, PRESIDENT FOR THE C.D.C. AND FOR SPECIFICALLY THE GREG AND LYDIA WHITE HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER, FORMERLY THE

WEST AUGUSTINE HEALTH CENTER. >> IS THAT LYDIA AND GREG

WHITE? >> OK.

JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET THE RIGHT NAMES FIRST.

>> SORRY. OK.

>> WE HAVE NO EXPORTE >> I HAVE NONE.

>> NONE. >> I HAVE NONE.

>> I HAVE NONE. GO AHEAD.

CHESTER, YOU STILL GOT THE FLOOR.

>> SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON WEST KING STREET.

IT'S 110 BROVARD STREET. THAT IS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

SUBJECT PROTECT IS RESIDENTIAL, "D," ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. ADJACENT PROPERTIES WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA ALSO DESIGNATED RESIDENTIAL "D." AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

THE ZONING MAP, IDENTIFIES THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREAS THAT ARE DESIGNATED TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL AND RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILIES ARE THREE ZONING DISTRICT.

OTHER ZONING DESIGNATION INCLUDE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. ON MAP FIVE, WHICH IS THE WEST AUGUSTINE OVERLEA MAP, DISTRICT WAS CREATED TO PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND USES IN THAT AREA TO BEGIN TO SIMULATE A BLIGHTED AREA. MOST OF YOU KNOW THAT AREA IN WEST US A GUN TEEN, THERE ARE EXPANDED USES AND OPPORTUNITIES BUT THERE ARE LIMITATIONS RELATING TO SIGNAGE IN THE AREA. I BELIEVE IT IS RELATED TO IN

[05:45:05]

PART THE RESIDENTIAL FUTURE USE BECAUSE THERE IS LIMITATION WITH WITH REGARDS TO THE WIDTH AND HEIGHT.

GENERALLY THE SIGN WE PROPOSE GIVEN THE SIGHT, SCALE, BIDDING WOULDN'T BE LIMITED IN GENERAL -- IN THE GENERAL ZONING PERSPECTIVE. GENERAL ZONING PERSPECTIVE.

THE PURPOSE AGAIN IS TO REMOVE BLIGHT CONDITIONS AND IMPROVE LIVING CONDITIONS AND IMPROVE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AND ADVANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. HIGHLIGHT OF THE AREA ITSELF.

LOOKING DOWN ON IT. THAT AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 1.02 ACRES AND PROPOSED NONYUMENT SIGN WILL BE LOCATED JUST OFF OF KING STREET, KING STREET IS THE DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING. AND ON SLIDE 7, WE ARE LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENT VIEWS OF THE BUILDING.

VIEW ONE IS A VIEW LOOKING TOWARD DOWN ST. LOU GUS TIN.

VIEW TWO IS A VIEW LOOKING FOR THE CORNER OF WHAT'S THAT? -- BACK TO HOME STREET AND VIEW THREE IS THE FRONTAGE.

WHAT WE HAVE IS A DRIVE BY. PROPOSING TO LOOK AT THE TRAVELLING SPACE, TRAVELLING EAST TOWARD DOWNTOWN.

OFF OF KING STREET AT 35 MILES PER HOUR.

AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE, DRIVING BACK FROM HOME BOULEVARD. THAT IS THE NORMAL FLOW IN WHICH SPEED PLOWS THROUGHOUT T FLOW -- FLOWS THROUGHOUT THAT AREA.

SLIDE NINE IS THE SITE PLAN. WHICH YOU SEE IN RED ON THE SEE THE PLAN IS WHERE THE SIGN IS LOCATED.

AND WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS A SIGN THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO BE ABOUT 16 FEET IN HEIGHT, 8 FEET.FOUR INCHES WIDE AND PROPORTIONATE WITH THE BUILDING AND DESIGN BUT IT IS LARGER THAN WHAT EXPECTS THAT SIGNAGE WILL BE SHOWN LATER DIRECTLY IN THE PRESENTATION. THIS IS THE SIGN THAT WE HAVE DESIGNED. IT MATCHES THE BUILDING.

I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS SO THAT -- WE HAVE A SIGN THAT DEVELOPED TO MATCH THE BUILDING.

AND THIS PARTICULAR SIGN DOES JUST THAT.

WITH THE RED ROOF, MATCHING THE RED ROOF, TILES, ALUMINUM TILE ON THE BUILDING AND COLOR AND STONE.

GO BACK ONE. U WANTED TO IDENTIFY BEFORE YOU THE SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACTS.

THIS IS NECESSARY. WE HAD TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE AND

[05:50:02]

I THINK IT IS CONSISTENT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

THE PUBLIC CONSIDERATION, THE REQUEST FOR THE NON-ZONING VARIANCE HAS BEEN FULLY CONSIDERED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH LEGAL NOTICE, DUALLY PUBLISHED AS REQUIRED WHICH WE PARTICIPATED IN. DIFFICULTY OF COMPLIANCE, THEY ARE PRACTICAL IN CARRYING OUT THE DISTRICT LETTER OF THE REGULATIONS. BECAUSE OF THE SKILL THAT SCARBOROUGH -- SCALE LIMITATION OF THE SIGN.

THEN NOT BASED ON REDUCED COST, THE NINE ZONE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT BASED EXCLUSIVELY ON OUR DESIRE TO REDUCE THE COST.

IT'S MORE FOR THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE SIGN.

THAT'S THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION.

AS YOU'VE SEEN DRIVING DOWN THAT ROAD AT 35, WHICH IS THE TYPICAL TRAFFIC PATTERN, TRAFFIC SPEED, IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE A SIGN THAT'S TOO SMALL IN SCALE TO IT HAD TO BE BY THE AT RIGHT SCALE AND HIRED A PROFESSIONAL SIGN COMPANY THAT WILL BE SEEN AT SPEED GOING THROUGH THAT AREA.

NO PUBLIC HAZARD. THE PROPOSED NON-ZONING VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE CONGESTION ON SURROUNDING PUBLIC STREETS. THE DANGER OF FIRE OR OTHER HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC, NO LOSS OF CHARACTER VALUE, THE PROPOSED NON-ZONER VAGUEIANS WILL NOT DIMINISH PROPERTY VALUE NOR AT ERR THE SPECIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA SURROUNDING SITES. THE HARMONY WITH THE CODE INTENT, EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED NON-ZONING VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE CODE AND THE SPECIFIC INTENT OF THE RELEVANCE SUBJECT AREAS OF CODE.

THEN IN THE EFFECTIVELY VIEWABLE, THE COPY, THE FACE, THE MESSAGE IS NOT EFFECTIVELY VIEWABLE FROM THE NEAREST ROAD OF THE STREET RIGHT AWAY. AS IT IS I GUESS LAID OUT IN THE CODE THAT GOETTSCHS WHAT HAPPENS WITH SIGNAGE IN THE OVERLY DISTRICT. SO WE ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN SEED THE SIGN PROPERLY.

THEN NO PUBLIC OBJECTIONS. WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY OBJECTIONS FROM ANY OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS SURROUNDING THE AREA.

WE HAVE HAD SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT.

REQUIRED NON-ZONING VARIOUS FIND.

CARRY OUT THE STRICT LET OVER THE REGULATION.

THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT BASED EXCLUSIONLY A DESIRE TO REDUCE THE COST OF DEVELOPING THE SITE.

THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE CONGESTION ON SURROUNDING STREETS.

THE DANGER OF FIRE AND OTHER HAZARDS TO THE PUBLIC, THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY COMMISSION PROPERTY VALUES AGAIN NOR ALTER ESSENTIAL CHARACTER IN THE AREA SURROUNDING THE SITE. THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY AGAIN WITH THE GENERAL INTENT OF THIS CODE AND SPECIFICALLY INTENT OF THE RELEVANT SUBJECT AREA.

AREAS OF THE CODE, RATHER. THE REQUESTED SIGN PROVIDE IDENTIFICATION FOR MULTIPLE HEALTH SERVICE.

TENANTS, RESPONDS TO THE SITE SPECIFIC VIEWING AND RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRAINTS. DOES NOT CHANGE THE USES, INTENSITY, ACCESS PARKING OR NEIGHBORHOOD CORKEDER.

IT ADVANCED THE WEST REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSE.

SO OUR REQUEST TODAY IS THAT WE PRETTY MUCH ASK THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING VARIANCE 2026 -- 08 SUBJECT TO FINAL SIGN PERMIT AND SIGHT VISIBILITY COMPLIANCE. THANK YOU.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? OK. PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> THIS TIME WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM

NUMBER NINE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS VICKY PEPPER.

I LIVE ON HARBOR VISTA AND REPRESENTING MYSELF AND THE COMMUNITY ADVOCATE FOR RACIAL EQUITY.

CARES PURPOSE TO SERVE BLACK PAN AN UNDER SERVED COMMUNITIES IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY BY IDENTIFYING RESOURCES IN

[05:55:03]

INCLUDING FUNDING SOURCES AND CONNECTING THEM WITH COMMUNITY NEEDS IDENTIFIED BY COMMUNITY LEADERS.

CARE STARTED EARLY ON IN THE PANDEMIC AND I BELIEVE THE SECOND COMMUNITY LEADER THAT WE MET WITH AS PART OF OUR JOURNEY TO EDUCATE OURSELVES ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY, WAS THE INOFFICIAL MAY YOU OF WEST US A GUS TIN GREG WHITE AND WE LEARNED THAT THE HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER HAD BEEN A DREAM OF HIS FOR YEARS. AND SO FROM ITS VERY INSECEPTI, CARE HAS BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF THE HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER.

WE WERE SO THRILLED TO SEE THE DREAM COME TO FRUITION, PROVIDING ACCESS TO HEALTH AND WELLNESS FACILITIES FOR UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES IS REALLY PART OF BUILDING BELOVED COMMUNITY WHICH IS WHY CARE EXISTED.

WE ARE TRYING TO BUILD BELOVED COMMUNITY HERE IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY AND LETTING THE COMMUNITY KNOW WHAT IMPORTANT HEALTH AND WELLNESS SERVICES ARE NOW AVAILABLE, SEEMS LIKE VERY SENSIBLE THING TO DO. I THINK GERALD POINTED OUT, THIS MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE COUNTY, THE SIGN IS IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING RIGHT ON WEST KING STREET.

OUR HOPES TO HAVE WEST KING AS THE MAN THOROUGHFARE AND BRING OTHER BUSINESSES IN. I SEE NO REASON NOT TO APPROVE THIS. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU PLEASE DO SO. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE AT THIS TIME IN PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA NUMBER NINE? OK. GOT ONE MORE COMING.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> ED SLEIGHEN. I SUPPORT THE VARIANCE.

WE MOVED HERE NOVEMBER 5, 1999, LONG TIME COME.

VERY PROUD OF WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

THIS IS PROVIDING HEALING AND I'M IN FOR THE SENSE OF THE WORD AND FOR HEALTH. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH AND I

SUPPORT IT. >> THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NINE? SEEING NONE WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> MOTION? YES, MA'AM.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE NON-ZONE VARIANCE 20-08 BASED ON EIGHT FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO FIVE CONDITIONS WITHIN THE

STAFF REPORT. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE SEVERAL SECONDS. LET'S VOTE.

THAT PASSES 5-0. CONGRATULATIONS.

[10. Public Hearing * Amending the Comprehensive Plan for Wellhead Protection -- First Reading -- Hearing Only. Since the original St. Johns County Land Development Code in 1999 and Comprehensive Plan, significant technological and regulatory advancements have been made related to wellhead protection. Based on increased density in the County and its need for future well sites, SJCUD proposes to reduce burdens and restrictions by bringing the County Comp Plan and Land Development code into compliance with State law and alignment with current best practices. This is the first reading and public hearing of the proposed Comp Plan Amendment. If approved to proceed through the public hearing process, the Comp Plan Amendment will be sent to the State for recommendations. It is anticipated that the second reading of the ordinance would be scheduled for public hearing at the October 20th Board meeting. This is a second attempt to Amend the Comprehensive Plan in Compliance with Senate Bill 2025-180, the original was heard and transmitted March 24, 2026. More clarification was added and confusing language removed to make it clear this is intended not to conflict with SB 25-180 and be more restrictive or burdensome. ]

A THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> NUMBER TEN. >> TEN.

UESTIONS IF YOU NEED IT. ELECTION TAYLOR DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON WELL HEADED PROTECTION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.

SO IF YOU HAVE ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS, NEIL AND GORDON ARE HERE TO ANSWER. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON WHAT WE CHANGING I HAVE GOT THAT UP AND THESE ARE THE

PROPOSED MOTION. >> ANY QUESTIONS ARE FROM THE BOARD? GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> WE WILL MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TEN.

SEEING NOUN WE WILL CLOSE. >> MAKE A MOTION, 26-01, TO THE

STATE FOR REVIEW. >> SECOND.

>> LET'S VOTE. AND THAT PASSES 5-0.

[11. Consider appointment to the Cultural Resource Review Board. Currently, there are (2) vacancies on the Cultural Resource Review Board (CRRB). These vacancies are due to a resignation of Walter O'Kon and an expired term of Christine Newman. Both vacancies were placed and ran for approximately 3 months. Please find for your review and consideration a recommendation letter from the CRRB and (9) applications; Monica Bermudez, Dist. 1, Iliana Abreu, Dist. 2, Brian Clark, Dist. 2, Katherine Eodice, Dist. 2, Ashley Sumners, Dist. 2, Shasta Ware, Dist. 2, Seth Wingate, Dist. 2, Diane Solomon, Dist. 4. and Lee Newsom, Dist. 5. The at-large vacancy has been readvertised for additional applications. ]

THANK YOU SO MUCH. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11.

SHELBY ROMERO SENIOR ASSISTANT. >> THIS FOR IS CULTURAL

[06:00:03]

RESOURCE VIEW BOARD. TWO VACANCIES, ARE DUE TO RESIGNATION AND TO AN EXPIRED TERM.

BOTH WERE PLACE AND RAN FOR APPROXIMATELY THREE MONTHS.

REVIEW FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION A RECOMMENDATION LETTER AND WE DID RECEIVE NINE APPLICATIONS. I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT WE RECEIVED A RECOMMENDATION LETTER FROM THE C.R.A.D. FOR JUST DISTRICT FIVE REPRESENTATIVE POSITION SO DID RE-ADVERTISE FOR THE AT LARGE POSITION.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?

>> NO. PUBLIC PUBLIC COMMENT? LOOKS LIKE THE CULTURAL REVIEW BOARD SENT IN A LETTER. RECOMMENDING THAT DR. LNEWSOM E APPOINTED. GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11.

COME ON UP. GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> LESLIE KEYS. WORKED WITH CHRIS NEWMAN TO NOMINATE LEE NEWSOM. WE ARE FORTUNATE.

SHE IS A REMARKABLE WORLD RENOUN RENOUNCED ARCHAEOLOGIST. SHE WAS BROUGHT ON BOARD BY NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TO TEST THE BEARD HAIR THEY FOUND USING TWO WATERPROOF THE SHIP. NOT KIDDING.

ANYWAY SHE RECEIVED AN MCARTHUR FELLOWSHIP.

GLAD TO HAVE HER BACK IN FLORIDA.

SHE VOLUNTEERS WITH THE ARCHAEOLOGY LAB.

HOPE THAT YOU ARE HAPPY WITH THIS.

>> THANKS SO MUCH. ANYONE ELSE? PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS TIME, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11.

SEEING NONE WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COME MEN.

>> FORWARD FOR A RECOMMENDATION?

>> PREPARED TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION.

>> MOTION TO APPOINT LEE NEWSOME FOR FOUR-YEAR TERM SCHEDULED TO EXPIRE ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2030.

>> SECOND THAT. OK WE HAVE MOTION TO SECOND.

VOTE? OK.

LEE NEWSOME IS THE NEW DISTRICT FIVE REP FOR THE CULTURAL RESOURCE REVIEW BOARD, CONGRATULATIONS.

[12. Appointment to the Tourist Development Council. Currently, there is (1) vacancy for an Owner or operator or non-accommodation position on the Tourist Development Council due to the expired term. A vacancy ad was placed and ran for (5) months. Please see a recommendation letter from the TDC and (11) applications; Anthony Harp, (Dist. 1), Brian Clark, (Dist. 2), Ashley Sumners (Dist. 2), Seth Wingate, (Dist. 2), Nicole Boudreaux (Dist. 4), Diane Solomon, (Dist. 4), Bunyamin Cankirli (Dist. 5), Rebecca Gallardo, (Dist. 5), Lacey Hillard (Dist. 5), Peter McGoldrick (Dist. 5), Regina Phillips (Dist. 5). ]

OK. >> THANK YOU.

>> ITEM NUMBER 12. >> FOR THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, THERE IS ONE VACANT SEAT FOR OWNER OPERATOR OF A NON-ACCOMMODATION POSITION, AND THIS VACANCY RAN FOR FIVE MONTHS. AND WE DID RECEIVE 11 APPLICANTS BUT T.T.C. RECOMMENDED TO REAPPOINT

REGINA PHILLIPS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANY QUESTIONS ARE THE BOARD? GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 12.

SEEING NONE. WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> MOTION TO REAPPOINT REGINA PHILLIPS TO FOUR-YEAR TERM, SET TO EXPIRE JULY 2030. MOTION TO SECOND.

LET'S VOTE. THAT PASSES 5-0.

[13. FY 2027 Budget Workshop. This 2026 Session, the Florida Legislature put forward items that will impact Florida county budgets. First, it passed House Joint Resolution 1F, which puts Amendment 3 on the ballot for the November 3, 2026 election. If voters approve the ballot language, homestead exemptions would increase, homeowners would pay less property tax, and governments will receive less property taxes to provide local services. Second, the Legislature passed a separate law that puts tight limits on how cities and counties are allowed to calculate the highest tax rate (millage rate) they can charge. On Thursday, September 3, 2026, the Board of County Commissioners will vote on tentative millage rates and a tentative budget for the 2027 fiscal year. Before that vote, staff will educate the Commission to provide a clearer picture of three things: where the County stands financially, the Commission’s options for 2027 millage rates, and how many Commissioners have to vote yes to approve a rate. The Commission also needs to understand what happens to the County's revenue if Amendment 3 passes in November. ]

CONGRATULATIONS. TO MS. REGINA GAIL PHILLIPS.

GO TO ITEM NUMBER 13. WOULD YOU HAVE THE FLOOR?

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR, MURPHY AND COMMISSIONER.

WADE SCHRODER. HERE THIS AFTERNOON TO TALK ABOUT TWO REALLY IMPORTNT TOPICS AS WE GET THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS HERE. GOING TO DISCUSS GIVEN THE OVER VIEW OF THE F.Y.27 TENTATIVE BUDGET AS IT STAND RIGHT NOW.

WE DO HAVE A REQUIRED EVENING PUBLIC HEARING ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 501 IN THE AUDITORIUM.

WE WILL ASK THE COMMISSION TO TENTATIVELY ADOPT, NOT FINAL, TWO PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED FOR BUDGETED OPTION BUT TENTATIVELY ADOPT THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 MILLAGE RATE AND BUDGET.

SO KIND OF WITH THAT AS A PRELUDE TO THAT, AND PART OF THE OVER VIEW OF THE BUDGET, AND PROPERTY TAX REFORM, WANTED TO SEE TODAY IF THE COMMISSION HAD ANY FEEDBACK PRIOR TO GETTING INTO THAT SEPTEMBER 3 HEARING, ON MILLAGE RATES SPECIFICALLY. WITH THAT, I WILL BEGIN WITH THE 2027 BUDGET. THIS SLIDE HERE IS REALLY JUST A REPEAT OF WHAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET.

[06:05:03]

NO CHANGES FROM FISCAL YEAR 2026 AS YOU RECALL.

IN 2026, THAT BUDGET DID REDUCE MILLAGE RATING 7 MILLION DOLLAR OVERALL REDUCTION IN PROPERTY TAXES THERE.

INCLUDED ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY RESO RESERVES FOR THE GENERAL FUND. STARTING THE PROCESS FOR BUILDING EMERGENCY RESERVE IN TRANSPORTATION TRUST FUND AND FIRE DISTRICT FUND TO BE MORE RESILIENT WITH ANY EMERGENCIES HURRICANES OR OTHERWISE. WE HAVE NEW FACILITIES COMING ON LINE. COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, THE BOARD APPROVED BORROWING FOR ADDITIONAL PARKS, LIBRARIES, SHERIFF OFFICE FACILITIES, THOSE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH THE CRONSTRUCTION PROCESS.