Oct 20, 2026 Board of County Commissioners

BACK TO YOU. >> THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT JUST MOVING ON, I'LL JUST CLOSE WITH A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I THINK WARRANT FURTHER DISCUSSION AND DESERVE OUR ATTENTION. IS JUST THE COUPLE OF MORE OF IMPACT CASES. LIKE I SAID EVERY ONE OF THESE CASE THERE'S A VICTIM AND SUSPECT HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

BEFORE I SAY THAT, THOUGH, I ALMOST FORGOT YESTERDAY WHEN OUR STATE ATTORNEY HEARD THAT I WAS COMING HERE HE CALLED ME.

AND UNFORTUNATELY HAD A CONFLICT AND HE COULDN'T BE HERE BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE I EXPRESS TO Y'ALL WHAT HIS THOUGHTINGS WERE AND I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT BASED ON MY CONVERSATION WITH HIM HE 100% SUPPORTS THE USE OF THIS TECHNOLOGY BY THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY'S SHERIFF'S OFFICE HE AND HIS COLLEAGUES AND ACROSS THE STATE FEEL THE SAME WAY. HE SAID THERE'S NEVER BEEN A MORE TRANSFORMAL TOOL THAT HAS HELD SUSPECTS ACCOUNTABLE.

AND I HAVE TO AGREE. HE ALSO HAS CONFIDENCE THAT WE WILL USE IT RESPONSIBLY AND TO TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER HE HAS NO ISSUE AND WE'VE DONE IT BEFORE THAT IF WE HAVE A MISDWHRIEWS RISES TO A CRIMINAL LEVEL, HE WILL REVIEW IT AND IF A PROSECUTION IS APPROPRIATE HE WILL DO IT.

WE HAVE HELD OUR PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE.

WE HAVE FIRED PEOPLE. WE HAVE ARRESTED PEOPLE.

PROBABLY A HALF A DOZEN IN THE LAST YEAR.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S ANY PROFESSION THAT HOLDS PEOPLE MORE ACCOUNTABLE THAN LAW ENFORCEMENT.

SO I JUST THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS WORTH MENTIONING.

GOING INTO -- THE CASES, THE CASE EXAMPLES.

AND I BRING THREE. BECAUSE WE DID TALK LAST TIME ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE BELIEVE FLOCK PREVENTED CRIME.

RIGHT? AND I KNOW THAT'S A PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT I'M NOT TRYING TO DISAGREE WITH YOU BUT I WANT TO GIVE EVERYBODY SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.

SOME YEARS AGO, IN THE NORTH END OF THE COUNTY PROBABLY AROUND 9:00 OR 10:00 AT NIGHT WE RECEIVED AN LPR HIT FROM A STOLE VEHICLE SOUTHBOUND ON U.S. 1 ON THE COUNTY LINE.

OUR DEPUTIES IMMEDIATELY GOT AN ALERT, THEY SWARMED THE AREA AND THEY FOUND THAT VEHICLE PARKED IN THE GATE STAGE OF U.S. 1 THEY MADE CONTACT, AND IMMEDIATELY EVERYBODY IN THE VEHICLE FLED.

WE GAVE CHASE, GUNSHOT WAS FIRED, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO CATCH HIM. MOMENTS LATER A STOLEN VEHICLE LEFT THE COUNTY AND THEY GOT PICKED UP IN ANOTHER STOLEN

[02:05:01]

VEHICLE AND LEFT. TRAGICALLY UNFORTUNATELY WE LEARNED THAT SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE TWO WEEKS LATER WENT TO JACKSONVILLE AND ROBBED A GATE STATION AND MURDERED THE CLERK.

NOW I WISH WE COULD HAVE STOPPED IT THAT NIGHT BUT THERE'S NO DOUBT IN ANY MIND WE DISRUPTED SOMETHING VERY SERIOUS THAT WAS ABOUT IT TO HAPPEN THAT STOLEN CAR WAS FULL OF GUNS.

SO THEY WEREN'T DOWN HERE FOR ANY OTHER REASON TO DO US HARM.

THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY ABOUT THAT. SO THE SECOND CASE I'LL BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION IS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE STARTING A POTENTIAL HOMICIDE PREVENTION COUPLE OF YEARS AGO WE LEARNED THERE WAS A DOMESTIC SPHIEWT GOING ON IN A GENTLEMEN FROM SARASOTA SAYING HE WAS GOING TO MURDER HIS GIRLFRIEND AND KILL HIMSELF.

WE LEARNED THAT INFORMATION WE HIGHLIGHTED HIS VEHICLE SHORT TIME LATER PULLING OFF OF I-95 ON THE 207 AND WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE VICTIM'S HOUSE. FORTUNATELY WE WERE ABLE TO DO A TRAFFIC STOP AND DURING THAT TRAFFIC STOP HE HAD FIVE GUNS IN THE CAR HE WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY.

I WOULD SAY WE PREVENTED A CRIME AND WE PROBABLY SAVED TWO LIVES.

THAT'S FACTS. THAT'S NOT CONJECTURE THAT'S NOT THEORETICAL. THE LAST CASE I'M GOING BRING US IS AN ARMED BANK ROBBERY THAT HAPPENED ON FRIDAY, AND WITH ME I'LL HAVE SHAYDA HILLMAN SHE WAS A VICTIM OF THAT BANK ROBBERY ON OCTOBER 2ND, POWELL WHERE IS MY PICTURE? ON OCTOBER 2ND THIS SUSPECT IN THIS CASE ROBBED A -- PAWN STORE IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION.

HE WASN'T CAUGHT. ON OCTOBER 15TH, HE TOOK THAT SAME ASSAULT RIFLE IN THAT DISGUISE AND WENT TO ANOTHER PAWNSHOP AND ANOTHER JURISDICTION AND WAS NOT CAUGHT.

ON FRIDAY, FOUR DAYS AGO, HE BROUGHT THAT BUSINESS TO ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND PUT THAT GUN IN HER FACE.

WE CAUGHT HIM IN 15 MINUTES BECAUSE OF THAT TECHNOLOGY YOU CAN SAY WHAT YOU WANT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO HAVE THIS TECHNOLOGY IN THIS COMMUNITY.

BUT I'M HERE TO TELL YOU IT MAKES US MORE SAFE.

100%. AND I'M NOT -- I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. I'LL CLOSE WITH THIS, WE ALL HAVE VERY IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITIES.

AND I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THE ELECTED OFFICIALS AND YOU GUYS ARE WILLING TO DO THIS BECAUSE YOU TAKE A LOT OF CRAP FOR DECISIONS YOU HAVING TO MAKE.

DECISIONS ON BUDGETS AND ROADS AND GROWTH AND OUR ENVIRONMENT, ALL SUPERCONSEQUENTIAL ALL SUPERIMPORTANT.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU, IT PALES IN COMPARISON TO THE DECISIONS AND THE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE BURDENS THAT FALL UPON US TO PROTECT THIS COMMUNITY. AND I JUST WANT TO BE REAL CAREFUL WHEN WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS FOR EACH OTHER THAT WE RESPECT EACH OTHER'S ROLES IT'S IMPORTANT.

SO CLOSING REMARKS, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND WILLINGNESS TO CONSIDER THE INFORMATION PRESENTED TODAY.

I HOPE WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE RECOGNIZES IMPORTANCE OF BALANCING SAFETY, INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE I, AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY.

SHERIFF HARDWICK IS LISTED CONCERNS AND HAS POLICIES OVERSIGHT AND TRANSPARENCY, WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT WE CAN ADAPT, REMAIN ACCOUNTABLE, AND CONTINUE TO PROTECT AND SERVE OUR CITIZENS. AT THE HEART OF THIS DISCUSSION IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT ISSUE. AND THAT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY OF THE DULY ELECTED SHERIFF TO MAKE OPERATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CITIZEN WHO IS MADE THEM AND SHERIFF HARDWICK IS ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY FOR THEIR SAFETY WITH THAT RESPONSIBILITY MUST COME THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE WHICH LAWFUL INVESTIGATIVE TOOLS ARE NECESSARY TO FULFILL CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES DUTIES WIH SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATE LIMITATIONS AND OVERSIGHT.

WE RESPECT THE AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE BOARD JUST AS WE BELIEVE THE INDEPENDENT CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SHERIFF DESERVES EQUAL RESPECT.

OUR POSITION IS NOT THAT LPR TECHNOLOGY SHOULD OPERATE WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS OR ACCOUNTABILITY IT'S THAT THE SHERIFF SHOULD MAKE LAWFUL DECISIONS REGARDING RESPONSIBLE USE. THE EXAMPLES SHARED TODAY DEMONSTRATE THAT THIS TECHNOLOGY IS MORE THAN A CONVENIENCE.

IT'S AN INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCE THAT CAN PREVENT VIOLENT CRIME POTENTIAL VICTIMS AND POTENTIALLY TSAY LIVES.

ULTIMATELY I ASK THAT ANY DECISION EFFECTING THIS TECHNOLOGY BE GROUNDED IN VERIFIED FACTS, APPLICABLE LAW, DEMONSTRATE PUBLIC SAFETY NEEDS, AND MUTUAL RESPECT FOR OUR RESPECTIVE RESPONSIBILITIES. WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE TO CHOOSE

[02:10:03]

BETWEEN PROTECTING A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF OUR SOCIAL SOCIAL CITIZENS AND PROTECTING THEIR LIVES WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO BOTH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, YOUR CONSIDERATION AND CONTINUED SAFETY TO ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

>> THIS WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO CLAP I WANT TO JUST SAY -- [APPLAUSE] THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. IT'S A BIG DEAL THAT YOU'RE HERE, AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.

I KNOW THAT THAT CAN BE VERY TRAUMATIC AND WE THANK, I'M NOT GOING TO PUT A CAMERA BUT I WANT TO INVADE YOUR PRIVACY BUT I

WANT TO SAY THANK YOU WE GET IT. >> THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE YOU'RE SO BRAVE -- THANK YOU FOR STANDING UP.

>> YES. IT'S HUGE SO THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ALL RIGHT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD BEFORE WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT? LET'S GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

ARE WE READY FOR POTENTIAL MEANT?

>> OKAY. AT THIS TIME WE'LL TAKE --

>> I'M SORRY. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR TO THE VICE CHAIR I WANT TO MAKE YOU AWARE YOU HAVE ONE DESIGNATED SPEAKER AND MS. DEBORAH CAMPBELL, FIVE MINUTES.

>> DEBORAH CAMPBELL. COME ON YOU CAN DO YOUR FIVE MINUTES FIRST IF YOU WILL. THANK YOU, WE'LL PUT FIVE, YEP WE'VE GOT FIVE MINUTE ON THE BOARD.

YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. >> THANK YOU.

I SO I ACTUALLY HAVE A WHOLE SPEECH PLANNED BUT IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU GUYS I ACTUALLY WANT TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE SAID UP HERE BECAUSE WHILE I -- AND THESE GENTLEMEN KNOW I DO APPRECIATE THEM.

WE'VE HAD PRIVATE MEETINGS AADORE HIM WE'VE HAD GOOD CONVERSATIONS BUT THE THINGS I WANT TO RECOGNIZE AND POINTS OUT FACIAL RECOGNITION. SENATOR HAD THAT CONGRESSIONAL HEARING WHERE FLOCK ADMITTED IN AN E-MAIL TO HOLWAY THAT FACIAL RECOGNITION WAS A CAPABILITY OF THE FLOCK CAMERA.

IT MAY NOT BE UTILIZED ALL OF THE TIME BUT IT IS A CAPABILITY, IN FACT, ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS ON THIS BOARD ALSO ADMITTED THAT TO ME THE VERY FIRST I SPOKE WITH HER.

SO I DO KNOW THAT IS A THING. ALPR CONNECTS THE TECHNOLOGY IN HOW IT DOESN'T GO IN OR SHARE WITH ANYTHING.

BUT IT DOES AUTOMATICALLY CONNECT TO LEXUS A VIRTUAL CRIME CENTER THAT GATHERS ALL OF THE DATA IT IS DATA THAT LEXUS BUYS FROM PHONE COMPANIES, UTILITY COMPANIES, AND GATHERS IT ALL IN ONE HUB AND THEN SENDS IT OUT TO OTHER CENTERS.

SO THIS DATA IS NOT JUST SENT HERE.

IT ACTUALLY DOES SPREAD OUT. AM I INCORRECT IN SAYING THAT?

>> NO. >> I'M CORRECT.

THANK YOU. >> NO I'M NOT --

OKAY WHAT IS -- >> FLOCK IS NOT CONNECT TO

ACCURATE -- >> SO IT DOESN'T GET INTEGRATEDDED INTO THAT. I'LL HAVE TO LOOK IN ANY INFORMATION THANK YOU AGAIN SORRY.

SO FLOCK DATA HAS BEEN BREACHED MANY TIMES.

MANY TIMES BEN JORDAN HAS PROVEN THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

LET ME FIND MY ACTUAL STATISTICS ON THIS.

WHERE IS IT? LET'S SEE -- I HAVE A LONG LIST OF IT ACTUALLY.

I KNOW 1.6 MILLION FOLLOWS SHARED THEY HACKED INTO A FLOCK CAMERA ITSELF AND WE'RE ABLE TO ACCESS 1.6 MILLION IMAGES, 52,000 CARS, AND BEN JORDAN DID THAT FREELY YES.

RECORDS LEAKED A SECURITY RESEARCH GROUP PHYSICALLY DISMANTLED A STANDARD FLOCK ROAD UNIT EXTRACTED IT IT IS UNENCRYPTED KEY AND SUCCESSFULLY BYPASSING NETWORK SECURITY TO HAVERS 1.6 MILLION VEHICLE IMAGES UNIQUE VEHICLE LOGS AND 27,000 VIDEO CLIPS. BEN JORDAN ALSO EXPOSED A FLOCK LEFT 70 ACTIVE POLICE OPERATED CAMERAS STREAMING LIVE TO THE OPEN INTERNET WITH ZERO PASSWORD PROTECTION ANY WEB USER WOULD VIEW LIVE FEEDS SCROLL THROUGH A HISTORICAL ARCHIVE OF CITIZENS MOVEMENTS AND GAIN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMISSIONS TO DELETE AND RECORD FOOTAGE. DARK WEB STARLING TALKED ABOUT THIS SECURITY AUDIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MASTER PASSWORDS HARD CODED INTO THE PUBLIC FACINGS APPLICATION SOURCE CODE CONS QENGTLY AT LEAST 35 LAW ENFORCEMENT LOG-IN CREDENTIALS HAVE BEEN FOUND ACTIVELY ON THE DARK WEB SO I DO WANT -- I DO WANT TO STICK TO THE FACTS THERE ARE FACTS SHOWING THAT THIS DATA HAS BEEN BREACHED. IT HAS BEEN LEAKED OUT.

AND IT IS EASY TO BREACH. SO THERE ARE FEW THINGS HERE THAT WE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE AT LEAST.

SO THERE'S THAT. AS FROM MY SPEECH I REALLY I DON'T HAVE THE TIME NOW, BUT I DO WANT TO CITE A FEW THINGS IN

[02:15:01]

OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW HERE IN FLORIDA.

SEE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW HERE IN FLORIDA IS ACTUALLY MUCH STRICTER IN REGARDS TO PRIVACY. AND WHAT THAT MEANS TO US, SO WE -- HOLD ON.

WHEN WE CHALLENGE AGENCIES WILL TELL YOU WHAT IT IS A PRICE OF MODERN PROGRESS THEY WILL ARGUE THAT IF YOU STEP OUTSIDE YOUR FRONT DOOR ON TO A PUBLIC STREET YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY BUT OUR STATE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT LEAVE PRIVACY UP FOR DEBATE MORE DOES IT RELEGATE IT TO AN IMPLIED AFTERTHOUGHT ARTICLE 1 SECTION THREE STATES EXPLICITLY AND I QUOTE, EVERY NATURAL PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE AND FREE FROM GOVERNMENT INTRUSION INTO A PERSON'S PRIVATE LIFE THAT IS PRETTY CLEAR. IT'S PRETTY CLEAR.

AND THEN WE'LL GO ON TO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? RIGHT, WHAT IS PRIVATE? BUT THEY ACTUALLY THANS IN A SUPREME COURT CASE. LET'S SEE, STATE VERSUS 40 THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CLARIFIED THAT A PERSON POSSESSES A REASONABLE DID MIGHT BE ANOTHER ONE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY WHATEVER SOCIETY RECOGNIZES IS JUSTIFIED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES JUST BECAUSE YOU DRIVE DOWN A ROAD TO GO TO CHURCH HAVE THE A DOCTOR OR BUY GROCERIES DOESN'T GIVE A STATE CHECK TO BUILD A DIGITAL NET ANYWAYS THERE ARE A FEW OTHER LAWS IN REGARDS TO THIS. WE SHALL LOOK INTO CONSTITUTIONAL LAW HERE IN FLORIDA.

IT DOES COVER IT. THANK YOU GUYS.

>> THANK YOU. >> GOOD MORNING.

>> GOOD MORNING MY NAME IS NICOLE COUNTY CITIZEN OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY. I SERVED IN THE U.S. AIR FORCE FOR 20 YEARS. I WAS A PROGRAM MANAGER FOR THE AVIATION COMMAND AND CONTROL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS SUPPORTING U.S. CENTCOM I MANAGE THE PROGRAM AND I UNDERSTAND DATA IS INTEGRATED INTO INTELLIGENCE INCLUDING THE PATTERN OF LIFE INTELLIGENCE SUPPORTING THE MILITARY KILL CHAIN. THIS IS WHY THREE WORDS IN OUR COUNTY'S OWN SURVEILLANCE FUNDING PROPOSAL DEMANDING YOUR ATTENTION. PATTERN OF LIFE NOT STOLEN VEHICLES, PATTERN OF LIFE, IDENTIFYING WHERE AMERICANS WORK, WORSHIP, AND TRAVEL AND LIVE RECONSTRUCTING THEIR DAILY ROUTINES AND MILITARY OPERATIONS, KILL CHAIN FOLLOWS, FIND, FIX, TRACK AND TARGET AND ENGAGE ASSESS, FLOCK COLLECTS VEHICLE IDENTIFICATIONS, TIME STAMPS AND HISTORICAL MOVEMENTS, FINE FIX AND TRACK. THIS IS TARGETING RELEVANT INTELLIGENCE ABOUT INNOCENT AMERICANS.

CHINA, RUSSIA, AND OTHER FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES RECOGNIZE SUCH STRATEGIC VALUE AND REVEAL SENSITIVE LOCATION AND RELATIONSHIPS INVOLVING MILITARY PERSONNEL, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND THEIR FAMILIES. WHY IS OUR GOVERNMENT ACCUMULATING INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE VALUABLE TO AMERICA'S ADVERSARIES AND WHO ULTIMATELY CONTROLS IT? FLOCK IS A PRIVATELY HELD VENTURE CAPITAL BACKED CORPORATION WITH FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIPS IN THE INTERNATIONAL MARKET. FLOCK ALSO USES AWS GOVERNMENT CLOUD FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS HAVE OBTAINED FLOCK RECORDS THROUGH DIRECT ACCESS POINTS. LOCAL AGENCY SERVERS AND -- IMMIGRATION SHARING. OUR SHERIFF'S OFFICE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED HISTORICAL SHARING AND PARTICIPATES IN THE FEDERALLY SUPPORTED HIDTA INTELLIGENCE NETWORK ENDING DIRECT ACCESS DOES NOT ERASE RECORDS ALREADY TRANSFERRED ELSEWHERE. RECEIVED OUR INFORMATION WHO RETAINS COPIES AND WHO INDEPENDENTLY AUDITED THINGINGS NONGOVERNMENTAL CORPORATIONS NONGOVERNMENT, WHO AUDITS FLOCK? NO ONE. THAT'S THE DANGER.

THE DANGER IS THE FLOCK SERVERS. WHY DO THEY HAVE ACCESS? WHERE ARE THEY STORED? ARE THEY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA YOU CAN SEE THE DOD NETWORK WHO AUDITS FLOCK? THEN WE ARE OFFERED A DECLARATION FROM FLOCK SAFETY CHIEF OFFICER DAN HEALY CORPORATION ATTORNEY ASSURING US THAT FLOCK DOES NOT SELL CUSTOMER DATA A CORPORATE DECLARATION IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.

WE ARE NOT ASKING WHETHER FLOCK SELLS OUR INFORMATION.

WE ARE ASKING WHO AUTHORIZED IT. THE COLLECTION IN THE FIRST PLACE. MY ANCESTORS FOUGHT FOR THE REVOLUTION AND WE WILL NOT PUT UP WITH THIS.

[APPLAUSE] >> I WANT TO REMIND YOU IF YOU'RE GOING DISTURB THE NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE HOLD IT TO A MINIMUM AND GIVE IT TO THE NEXT SPEAKER.

[02:20:01]

>> GOOD MORNING MY NAME IS TONIA I'M RESIDENT AT 315 ADDISON COURT IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. 32259.

I GOT INVOLVED LOOKING AT FLOCK BECAUSE I'VE BEEN IN FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES FOR OVER 35 YEARS.

SO I UNDERSTAND THESE CONTRACTS AND WHAT I WAS MOST INTERESTED IN IS UNDERSTANDING THE CONTRACTUAL PROCESS THAT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE WENT THROUGH AND WHO WAS NEGOTIATING THESE IN SO THERE'S ONE ASPECT OF IT WHICH IS THE LEGAL SIDE AND THAT'S LOOKING AT LEGAL HOW DO YOU DO IT? IS THIS RIGHT, THERE'S ANOTHER SIDE OF UNDERSTANDING A BUSINESS. AND IT'S UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS BEHIND SOME OF THESE STRUCTURES. SO I HAVE FOR YOU WHAT I DID WAS I DID A DISCREPANCY DOCUMENT BETWEEN YOUR POLICY 41.35 VERSUS THE FLOCK CONTRACTS. I WILL PROVIDE THIS FOR YOU SO THAT YOUR TEAM, LEGAL TEAMS READ THROUGH IT ONE POINT THAT --

>> EXCUSE ME CAN WE ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT.

IT IS REALLY HARD TO READ THAT. >> OKAY.

I'M JUST ASKING FOR THE STAFF TO -- OKAY. SORRY.

>> NUMBER FOUR I THINK THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO CALL OUT, POLICY SECTION 4.2 GIVES FLOCK A IRREVOCABLE AGENCY DATA AS AGGREGATED DATA ALLOWS USE FOR OTHER FLOCK OFFERINGS DATA FROM PRIVATE NON-AGENCY AND USERS SHARED OWNERSHIP AND NOT SOLELY ST. JOHNS SHERIFF'S OFFICE. SO RIGHT THERE THAT'S JUST KIND OF HID ABOUT STUFF THAT GOES INTO THE CONTRACTS.

I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING I LOVE OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT AND OUR SHERIFFS AND ALL OF THOSE THAT ARE THERE.

THIS ISN'T THEIR JOB. THEIR JOB IS TO BE OUT THERE TO BE REALLY HELPING THE COMMUNITY AND SO, WHAT HAPPENS IS, THESE TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES COME MANY, AND WE'RE NOT PREPARED.

WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT PEOPLE SETTING THERE TO DO THE NEGOTIATION TO READ THROUGH THAT UNDERSTAND AND HAVE THE BACKGROUND IN HISTORY. SO IT IS NOT THEIR FAULT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING. BUT WHEN YOU START TO GOES THROUGH AND READ SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING HERE.

THIS DOES REQUIRE AUDIT AND HIS POLICY BUT IT'S NOT AUDIT FOR ANYTHING THAT TOUCHES OUTSIDE. LOTS OF THESE COMPANIES ARE INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGIES UNDERNEATH THE SURFACE.

SO IT'S LABELED AS FLOCK BUT THERE'S THIRD PARTY INTI SO ALLOWING ACCESS TO DATA SO I'LL SHARE THIS WITH YOU AND ONE OTHER THING I HAVE FOR YOU IS OUTLINE WITH HIGHLIGHTING.

THIS REALLY SHOWS YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN END THE CONTRACT.

NUMBER ONE HOW YOU CAN END IT. HOW YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO END IT AS ALSO -- THE FACT THAT THEY CANNOT CHANGE BECAUSE THEY'RE ON A LEASE THEY'RE DOING A CONTRACT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME I THINK THE INITIAL TERM WAS FIVE YEARS AND THAT WAS AUTORENEWED AFTER FIVE YEARS BUT THEY'VE DONE TWO, A COUPLE OF OF THE EXTENSIONS SO THIS JUST GIVES YOU THE INFORMATION SO YOU CAN LOOK AT IT CONSIDER IT AND UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN TURN IT AS WELL. SO I'LL GIVE THESE TO YOU.

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

>> AND YOU'RE GOING TO SHARE THAT OR YOU HAVE AN E-MAIL?

>> I HAVE COPY OF THE CONTRACTS PRINTED AND I'LL SHARE WITH THE

FOLKS OVER HERE. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS FORREST BAILEY JOINED BY MY WIFE STACEY I PROMISE YOU WE'LL KEEP OUR COMMENTS UNDER THREE MINUTES WE'RE NOT GOING TO TRY TO DOUBLE UP HERE. WE HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY FOR 13 YEARS PRESENTLY RESIDE DRIVE, SORRY, AND WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY LOVED AND ENJOYED OUR COMMUNITY AND SAW ALL OF THE GOOD IT HAS TO OFFER, AND RAISING OUR FAMILY HERE OVER THE FIRST NINE YEARS WE SAW A VIEW OF THIS COUNTY LIKE MOST FAMILY DOS. ON MAY 9TH, 1921 THAT CHANGED WHEN WE WERE TOUCHED UPON EVIL THAT RERARELY SEE AND OUR DAUGHTER TRISTAN WAS MURDERED AND IT'S WITH THAT BACK DROP THAT I WANT TO GIVE YOU A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT VIEW ON WHAT THIS TECHNOLOGY CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE OF.

THERE ARE VERY VALID POINTS THAT ARE BEING RAISED AND I THINK WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S THE RIGHT COMPANY, WHAT'S THE RIGHT ACCESS, WHAT'S THE RIGHT CONTROLS.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT ON THE DAY WHEN MY DAUGHTER WAS MISSING, AND WE WERE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW CAN SHE JUST BE BROUGHT HOME? THAT WAS THE FIRST DAY I EVER LEARNED ABOUT LICENSE PLATE READERS.

AND KNOWING THAT THAT WAS A TOOL AVAILABLE TO OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT IF MY DAUGHTER WAS WITH SOMEONE THAT THEY POTENTIALLY COULD BE FOUND GAVE ME HOPE. WHEN I SEE THESE AMBER ALERTS WHEN I SEE THE SILVER ALERTS, I THINK THAT THIS TECHNOLOGY GIVES PEOPLE HOPE THAT THEIR LOVED ONES WILL COME HOME.

UNFORTUNATELY, THAT DAY THAT WAS NOT OUR STORY.

AND STHAINS SINCE THAT TIME I'VE GOTTEN TO KNOW MANY OF THE MEN

[02:25:03]

AND WOMEN OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE BETTER AND I'VE GOTTEN TO KNOW MANY OF YOU BETTER AND I CAN TELL YOU I CAN'T BELIEVE THERE COULD BE A BETTER COMMUNITY TO BE RAISING FAMILIES IN THAN HERE. BUT YET THE THREATS STILL OCCUR.

IT WAS ONLY THIS PAST YEAR WHERE MY WIFE AND MY DAUGHTER HE IS THEIR LIFE THREATEN THERE WAS SOMEONE FROM MARYLAN STOCKING US, THREATENING TO ILL CAN US AND WE HAD TO GET INJUNCTION AGAINST HER. FORTUNATELY, WITH THE INVESTIGATION THAT WAS DONE, AND WITH THE PROSECUTION THAT WAS DONE, SHE PLED GUILTY TO FOUR COUNTS OF FELONNY AGGRAVATED STOCKING. THE THING THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW IS WHEN THAT HAPPENED, HAVING LICENSE PLATE READERS THAT POTENTIALLY COULD SAVE MY FAMILY INCASE SHE CAME CLOSE GAVE ME PEACE OF MIND. AND SO I WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH THIS. WE STARTED TODAY BY RECOGNIZING THE WONDERFUL PEOPLE OF THE BETTY GRIFFIN CENTER ALL WORK THEY'RE DONE AND THINK OF POTENTIALLY SAVING THEM, AND BUY YOURSELF TIME. COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST YOU INITIALLY TOLD ME ABOUT HAVING GRACE.

I PRAY THAT YOU ALL TAKE THE GRACE TO HAVE TIME TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS. THANK YOU.

>>>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

AND TO -- [APPLAUSE] I JUST WANT TO MEANT TO MR. AND MRS. BAILEY BECAUSE OUR HEARTS

BREAK FOR YOU. >> DEEPEST CONDOLENCES.

>> I AGREE. THREE, FOUR LIVED IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY SINCE NOVEMBER, 1999 AND I WANT TO APPLAUD ALL Y'ALL INCLUDING BAILEYS MAKES YOUR HEART WEEP.

SO I FIRST 1939 I LIVED IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

I WAS A VICTIM OF AN ARMED ROBBERY, A PISTOL WAS POINTED AT MY FOREHEAD AND GUY SAID GIVE ME YOUR MONEY.

GIVE ME YOUR MONEY AT FIRST I'M THINKING THIS WAS HOMELESS.

NO THEY REALLY WANTED MY MONEY AND I HAD JUST BEEN TO THE ATM AND WE WERE GOING TO -- THROUGH THE HOLIDAY WEEKEND.

AND THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE NO FLOCK CAMERAS IN SIGHT. THEY SAW THESE THREE GUYS RUNNING. THEY PICKED HIM UP GOT TWO OF THE THREE GUYS. MOST ROBBERIES ARE NOT SOLVED IN D.C.. THIS ONE WAS AND I WAS SO IMPRESSED WITH THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE BECAUSE THEY HAD THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE NOTE THESE THREE DUDES ARE RUNNING.

THEY GOT THEM WENT TO FEDERAL COURT, AND TWO OF THEM INCLUDING 15-YEAR-OLD EL DORADO WILLIAMS WENT TO PRISON A THIRD GOT AWAY.

THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT WE NEED GOOD TECHNOLOGY AND GOOD OFFICERS AND MY HEART WEEPS WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE FACT 141 OFFICERS OF THE U.S. CAPITOL POLICE WERE PARDONED BY THE MAN WHO CALLS HIMSELF PRESIDENT. ANYWAY I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO SHERMAN GARY FORMER MAYOR OF ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH ENDORSED ME MAYOR WHEN HE WAS MAYOR, HAD A RULE THAT I THINK Y'ALL SHOULD ADOPT. ANY TIME ANYBODY CAME TO A ST. AUGUSTINE CITY COMMISSION MEETING AND THEY ASKED AN ACTUAL QUESTION TO A NON-AGENDA COMMENT HE MADE SURE HAY GOT ANSWERS.

I DON'T LIKE WHAT SKIP COLE SAID ABOUT THIS NOT BEING A DEBATE.

THIS IS A DEMOCRACY LAST TIME I CHECKED AND IT ISN'T A DEBATE AND WE WILL DEBATE FLOCK CAMERAS AND WE WILL BE HEARD AND I LOVE WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS SAID AND I TOTALLY AGREE WITH WHAT BEN FRANKLIN SAID. ABOUT TRADING A LITTLE SECURITY FOR LIBERTY AIN'T RIGHT. AND WE DON'T DELEGATE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT MAKING THOSE DECISIONS.

WE DELEGATE TO COURTS, AND TO LEGISLATURES AND TO THIS BODY AND I THANK COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST AND ARNOLD EVERYBODY ELSE WHO ASKED QUESTIONS. I WANT TO BE AN FBI AGENT WHEN I WAS A LITTLE BOY AND STATE LAW SCHOOL I WENT TO INTERVIEW WITH THE FBI AND REPLACEMENT CONFERENCE AND THEY TOOK ONE LOOK AT MY GLASSES THEY SAID SORRY SON BECAUSE OF YOUR EYESIGHT YOU CAN'T DO THAT AND I LEARNED FROM THE ST. AUGUSTINE POLICE THAT, ACTUALLY THEY CHANGED RULE A YEAR LATER.

I COULD HAVE HAD A V.A. BUSTED CROOKED CONGRESSMAN OR SOMETHING WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD THING TO DO.

BUT ANYWAY, I DISAGREE WITH THE PROPOSITION THIS IS NOT A DEBATE AND WE HAD TWO MAYORS ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH AND CITY -- THERE'S NO DIALOGUE HERE THERE'S DIALOGUE HERE.

THANKS TO Y'ALL. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. >> THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING BRIAN SEYMOUR, CIRCLE, TO THE BAILEYS MY HEART GOES OUT TO YOU.

I HAD 11 AND A HALF YEARS AGO MY COUSIN WAS MURDERED PRETTY

[02:30:02]

VIOLENTLY IT WAS ONLY THROUGH CC TV FOOTAGE THEY WERE ABLE TO CATCH A PERPETRATOR AND PUT HIM IN JAIL.

BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CC TV HERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THESE AREN'T THIS ISN'T POLICE OWNED CAMERAS OR BUSINESS OWNED CAMERAS THAT THE POLICE ARE USING.

THESE ARE -- THESE ARE MASSIVE ORGANIZATION, GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE STEALING OUR INFORMATION AND THEN THE POLICE ARE USING OUR TAX DOLLARS TO BUY THAT INFORMATION BACK. SO IT'S OUR MONEY BEING USED TO BUYBACK INFORMATION THAT WAS TAKEN FROM US WITHOUT OUR CONSENT AND WITHOUT ANY KIND OF OVERSIGHT, AND WHAT'S THE BIG PICTURE? WHAT'S THE END GAME OF ALL OF THIS? IF THESE ALGORITHMS CAN SENDING AN ALERT TO POLICE THAT SOME -- HOT LIST CAR PASSED BY, CERTAINLY THESE ALGORITHMS CAN ALSO CHANGE OTHER ONES AND ZEROS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, IN THIS NETWORK THAT'S GOING TO BE EVENTUALLY CONNECTED TO OUR SMART CARS AND CONNECTED TO OUR BANK ACCOUNTS. SO I'M GOING OFFROADING AND I DRIVE MY CAR THROUGH A PUDDLE AND MY LICENSE PLATE IS OBSCURE AND CAMERA CAN'T READ IT SHUTS MY CAR DOWN OR FREEZES MY CAR OR CONTACT MISEMPLOYER SAYS MY CAR IS NOT UP TO SNUFF OR WHATEVER.

THESE ARE NO CRIMINAL CHARGES. THERE'S NO INDICTMENTS THERE'S NO JUDGES. THERE'S NO JURIES.

THIS IS JUST A NETWORK WHOSE EYES AND EARS INSTALLED QUOTE UNQUOTE FOR MY PROTECTION AND BRAIN IS A DATA CENTER THAT CONSUMES LAND WATER ENERGY AND PRODUCES NOTHING.

IT CANNOT KEEP US SAFE. WE BUILD THESE SYSTEMS WE FEED THEM EVERYTHING THERE'S TO KNOW ABOUT HUMAN HISTORY, BEHAVIOR, PSYCHOLOGY OUR BOOKS ALL OF OUR HUMAN KNOWLEDGE IT STUDY OURS MOVEMENTS AND BUILD PROFILES ABOUT OUR LIVES WE GIVE IT THE KEYS TO OUR MOST SENSITIVE MILITARY SECRETS AND TRADE TO MURDER OTHER HUMANS AS EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE.

SO I ASK AGAIN WHERE IS THIS GOING? WHAT IS THE THE BENEFIT? THANK YOU.

[APPLAUSE] >> GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS CHRISTINE HUMPHRIES IN FLORIDA TO OPPOSE FLOCK CAMERAS AND IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND REMOVED FROM STATE ROADS HOW MANY ARE STILL UP AND TRACKING MOVEMENTS OF ST. JOHNS ON COUNTY ROADS AND SIDE STREETS. WHY ARE FLOCK POLES AT 206 AND 207? IS SHERIFF HARDWICK WAITING IN THE THE ELECTION OF A NEW GOVERNOR TO REATTACH THE CAMERAS? THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS OF% OUR COUNTY INDEED OF THIS VERY REPUBLIC DO NOT COME FROM THE OFFICE BUT RATHER FROM OUR CREATE TORE.

FLOCK CAMERAS VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY FOUND IN THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT READS RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO SECURE, BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSE PAPERS AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE BUT POTENTIAL PROBABLE CAUSE SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED IN THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE CEASED.

BE SECURE IN THEIR EFFECTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES, MEANS THAT WE THE PEOPLE AND OUR VEHICLES SHOULD NOT BE TRACKED AND MONITORED FOR NO REASON SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED EVERY CAPTURE OF A PLATE, A DENT, A STICKER ON A WINDOW OR BUMPER IS VIOLATION AGAINST THE FREE MOVEMENT OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTY. AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE. THE SHERIFF OFFICE TRACKS AND CAPTURE AND EXAMS COMES AND GOINGS OF CITIZENS WITH NO WARRANTS OR PROBABLE CAUSE. POUNDSERS USE THE WORD PARTICULARLY AND DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED.

THERE IS NOTHING PARTICULARLY ABOUT FLOCK AND SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS. THEY ARE A GENERAL DRAGNET A POOL OF ALL OF OUR DATA GATHERED AND STORED THEY'RE UNLAWFUL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THESE CAMERAS VIOLATE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION WHICH STATES NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. THE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS VIOLATE OUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY OUR LIBERTY OF MOVEMENT IS COMPROMISED AND VIOLATED WHEN WE ARE BEING TRACKED FROM POINT A TO POINT B ACROSS OUR COUNTY. ADDITIONALLY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT STATES, SHALL IMPORTANT PROPERTY TAKEN WITHOUT USE FOR COMPENSATION FLOCK MONITORS MOVEMENTS ACROSS THE COUNTY ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY, OUR VEHICLES ARE BEING TRACKED AND USED FOR DATA COLLECTION. THIS INFORMATION IS SOLD TO DATA GATHERING COMPANIES AND USED FOR ENTITIES TO PAY FLOCK FOR.

PEOPLE OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY ARE NOT COMPENSATED AS THEIR DATA IS BEING SOLD. IN CONCLUSION ASKING THE BOARD TO PERMANENTLY REMOVE ANY AND ALL SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS AND DEFLOCK ST. JOHNS COUNTY. THANK YOU.

[APPLAUSE] >> THANK YOU.

[02:35:03]

GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING.

I'M BECK. AS MENTIONED EARLIER DAD OF OLIVIA, FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS NOW I'VE CALLED A ST. JOHNS COUNTY MY HOME I'M A RESIDENT IN RIVER TOWN.

AND WE MOVED HERE BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENCES NOT JUST BECAUSE THE AWESOME SCHOOL SYSTEM WE HAVE. BUT WE ALSO HAVE AWESOME SECURITY HERE. YOU KNOW, THERE WERE NO UNSOLVED MURDERS SINCE 2017 WHEN LICENSE PLATE READERS WENT LIVE.

A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE ABOUT TO JUSTICE AND MISSING PEOPLE WERE TAKEN HOME. AND THAT'S NOT JUST STATISTICS.

YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE SOMEBODY'S DAUGHTER, SOMEBODY'S FATHER, AND HOPEFULLY YOU KNOW THIS TECHNOLOGY AND I'M A LITTLE BIT EMOTIONAL WILL CONTINUE BECAUSE I'M A FATHER OF GIRLS.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S LIKELY. I'VE ALSO WORKED AT THE TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES LIKE MICROSOFT, INTERNET, SO I KNOW A THING OR TWO ABOUT PRIVACY ALSO TECHNOLOGY SO I UNDERSTAND THE PRIVACY CONCERNS AND I TAKE THOSE SERIOUSLY.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE YOU KNOW, THAT THERE ARE WORTH STANDARDS LIKE NATIONALLY ST. JOHNS COUNTY EVERYTHING IS DELETED IN 30 DAYS.

NO FACIAL RECOGNITION. IT'S PURE LICENSE PLATE.

IF I COMPARE THAT WITH WHAT PROBABLY EVERYBODY HAS HERE YOU KNOW HIS CELL PHONE, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT PROBABLY TALKING HERE THROUGH THE MICROPHONE I'M GOING TO GIVE ADDS ON FACEBOOK AND THERE'S NO GOVERNESS NO PLACE THERE. SO I DO NOT TAKE THAT LIGHTLY AND WE ARE NOT IN A SURVEILLANCE STATE.

BUT THERE ISES PAPER TRAIL. SO SHOULD THERE BE A PRIVACY CONCERNS. YES.

SHOULD THERE BE AUDITS YES. SHOULD THERE HAD BE VERY STRICT RULES IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO YOU MISSED MISUSE AND ABUSE, YES. TOTALLY.

AND I THINK ST. JOHNS COUNTY IS ALREADY LEADING DEATH CHARGE, YOU KNOW, WHAT SHOULD BE ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL.

SO HERE'S MY ASK DO NOT REVOKE, REGULATE, RIGHT THOSE CONDITIONS INTO THE PERMIT MAKE THEM PERMANENT.

PUBLISH THE AUDITS BUT DO NOT TAKE AWAY THAT HELPS MAKE THIS COUNTY THE EXCEPTION IN FLORIDA INSTEAD OF THE RULE.

KEEP ST. JOHNS THE PLACE OUR FAMILIES MOVED HERE FOR.

>> THANK YOU. >> GOOD MORNING.

>> HI EVERYONE. SHAWN CARTER LANE, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. AND I DO HEAR THE ARGUMENT.

I'M IN TECH AS WELL AND I HEAR THE ARGUMENT AROUND THE PRIVACY THAT WE'VE GIVEN UP JUST BY HAVING A PHONE JUST BY HAVING FACEBOOK. THERE'S ONE KEY DIFFERENCE THAT FACEBOOK CAN'T ARREST YOU FOR ANY INFRACTION THAT THEY DEEM.

CANNOT -- INKAITION THAT DIDN'T COME ACROSS CLEARLY. SORRY.

AND IN REGARDS TO FLOCK NEVER BEING HACKED AND TOUTING IT ON THE ALWS THERE'S A HACK JUST -- WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS.

BILLIONS OF GOVERNMENTAL RECORDS HAVE BEEN EXPOSED.

PROBABLY EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THIS ROOM HAS HAD THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER EXPOSED BY THIS HACK.

THERE'S ALMOST NO PRESS NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT IT IT'S BECAUSE THE STATE ACTORS THAT CAN HACK INTO THESE SYSTEMS CAN HACK INTO ANY SYSTEM. IT IS LITERALLY OPEN FOR ANYONE.

SO THE QUESTION IS, DO WE WANT TO GIVE THAT DATA IN THE FIRST PLACE? IT'S OUT THERE.

SOMEONE IS GOING TO GRAB IT SOMEONE IS GOING TO USE IT.

AND I'LL GO BACK TO A COUPLE OF POINTS.

ONE IS AROUND THERE'S A STATEMENT NOW THAT THEY PUT ON THE TRANSPARENCY SITE THAT COURTS ACROSS THE U.S. HAVE HELD THAT ALPR USE IS CONSTITUTIONAL. THAT IS A TRUTHFUL STATEMENT.

HOWEVER, ANYONE OF US WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN A SECOND AMENDMENT KNOW THAT IT TOOK 92 YEARS FOR JUDGES TO FINALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.

SIMPLY BECAUSE JUDGES ARE COWARDS AND DO NOT SAY THAT SOMETHING IS CONSTITUTIONAL DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AND THEN WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF EMOTIONAL APPEALS AROUND THE VICTIMS, AND I DO COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND IT. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN I'M ADVOCATING FOR IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO LIMIT WHAT OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN DO, AND THAT WE DO SOMETIMES PAY A PRICE FOR LIVING AS FREE MEN IN SOCIETIES. BUT I ALSO WANT TO CONTEND ONE ITEM THAT WAS BROUGHT UP EARLIER TOO AROUND THE FACT THAT OUR

[02:40:01]

DEPUTIES ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO USE THEIR DISCRETION IF YOU GET FALSELY ACCUSE OF SOMETHING HERE.

AND THAT'S THE REAL DANGER. IS THAT -- WE KNOW THAT THESE CAMERAS WILL TAG CARS WITH THE INCORRECT LICENSE PLATE. IF GOD FORBID I GO THROUGH A FLOCKED CRAM AND TAGS LONG PLATE AND I HAVE POLICE PULLED UP BEHIND ME THE PROBLEM IS WE HAVE A LOT OF DEPUTIES THAT ARE ONLY EVER WORKED WITH THIS TECHNOLOGY.

THEY ARE GOBBING TO SEE THAT THERE WAS 100% VALID HIT ON MY TRUCK, AND THEY ARE GOING TO BE PULLED OUT, GUNS DRAWN, AND VERY SUSPICIOUS. IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF CONVINCING TO UNDO THAT. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[APPLAUSE] GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS I'M RYAN ROBINSON I LIVE AND WORK IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY I WANT TO MENTION HOW TOUGH IT IS FOR WORKING CLASS PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY APPEAR HERE. HOLDING IMPORTANT MEETINGS LIKE WHERE THE PUBLIC ARE SUPPOSEDLY SUPPOSED TO QAIG IN FEELS LIKE IT IS DESIGNED TO LOCK OUT THE WORKING PEOPLE WHO ARE PAYING THE BILLS BUT THIS IS A LITTLE BIT TOO IMPORTANT TO SILT OUT BUT ACROSS LATELY ACROSS FLORIDA THE TITTED IS TURNING AGAINST AUTOMATED MASS VIOLATION. WE KNOW THAT F D.O.T. FROM STATES RIGHTS OF WAY AND NEIGHBORS COUNTIES ARE PULLING THE PLUG, SO TO SPEAK, BUT RIGHT HERE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY THE DAILY MOVEMENTS OF INNOCENT CITIZENS CONTINUE TO BE QUIETLY CATALOGED. THESE SURVEILLANCE VENDERS MARKET THEIR TECHNOLOGY AS INFALLIBLE AND INDISPENSABLE TOOLS AS THEY HIDE BEHIND DATA SHARING LOOPHOLES.

BUT IF WE'RE BEING HONEST ABOUT WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON HERE THE DATA THAT IS COLLECT STD EXCEPTIONALLY VALUABLE.

PRIVATE TECH CORPORATIONS ARE PACKAGING POOLING AND COMMODIFYING OUR MOVEMENTS INTO MASSIVE INTEGRATED NETWORKS, AND MARKETING THEM TO GOVERNMENT BUYERS AND PRIVATE ENTITIES THIS MEANS THAT DAILY LIVES OF THESE TAXPAYERS HERE ARE BEING TURNED INTO A CORPORATE MONETIZED ASSET WITHOUT ANYONE'S CONSENT.

AND WHAT HAPPENS WHENEVER ALGORITHMS REPLACE POLICE WORK AND LINDSAY 23-YEAR-OLD PALM COAST RESIDENT WHO BECAUSE OF AN AUTOMATED, READER FALSELY FLAGGED HER VEHICLE SHE WAS PULLED OVER FOR A FELONY HIT-AND-RUN.

THAT WAS RESULTED IN HER BEING ACCUSE OF A TRIPLE HOMICIDE THAT SHE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH. NOW, DESPITE THERE BEING ZERO EVIDENCE TO LINK HER TO A CRIME SHE SPENT 13 DAYS IN JAIL.

FOUR OF WHICH SHE WAS IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, SHE FEARED THAT HER LIFE WAS OVER COMPLETELY.

AND THIS WAS ALL DUE TO A FALSE READING.

NOUS WHEN THESE NETWORKS MAP OUR PATTERN I HAVE LIFE WHERE WE WORSHIP WHEREBY WHERE WE SEEK MEDICAL CARE AND KIDS GO TO HANG OUT. IT CREATES A GOLD MINE FOR HACKERS AND FOR CREEPS REALLY -- TURNS EVERY COMMUTER INTO A SUSPECT. OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR SHERIFF KNOW THAT TRUE PUBLIC SAFETY RELIES ON TRUST AND HUMAN POLICING. NOT A DIGITAL DRAGNET.

SO COMMISSIONERS YOU HOLD SOME UNIQUE ABILITIES TO STOP THIS.

YOU CAN DENY BUDGET FUNDS FOR SURVEILLANCE SUBSCRIPTIONS AND DATA CONTRACTS BAN MOUNTING HARDWARE ON POLES AND BLOCK THOSE WITH AUTOMATED TRACKING AND SO LET'S TRY TO SEE PAST THE CORPORATE MARKETING STRATEGIES AND WORK TOGETHER TO KEEP ST. JOHNS COUNTY SAFE. FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE AND FREE.

>> GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING.

STARLING I SPENT 12 YEARSS A GREEN BURET BUILT PATTERN LIFE ANALYST AND RAN A SCHOOLHOUSE THAT ACTUALLY TAUGHT IT I AGREE WITH MOST EVERY RESIDENT HERE TODAY.

I'M HERE TO OFFER A DIFFERENT LENS AGAIN, ALPR TECH HAS CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY FLOCK PATENT HAS A NETWORK THAT CLASSIFIES PEOPLE BY SEX, RACE, HEIGHT, AND WEIGHT SEARCHES STORED FOOTAGE FOR FACE RECOGNITION POINTS TO TRACK A PERSON ON CAMERAS BUILT FOR REAL TIME SOFTWARE UPDATES.

THAT IS THE INTENT IN FLOCK'S OWN WORDS.

THE PLAN WAS NEVER JUST PLATE READERS, IT SAYS DATA LETS HIM DEVELOP A PATTERN OF LIFE TO POTENTIALLY IDENTIFY HOME AND WORK LOCATIONS. THAT'S INTELLIGENCE TARGETING LANGUAGE. IT DOES HELP SOLVE SOME CRIME FASTER. BUT THE CRIMES STILL HAPPEN ALMOST ZERO THAT EFFECT ON THE CRIME RATE.

HERE'S THE SCARIER PART SECTION 4.2 GIVES FLOCK USE, REPRODUCE MODIFY, INDISTRICT THIS COUNTY'S DATA IN ITS SURVIVES THE CONTRACT. SO THAT SHERIFF'S RETENTION SETTING DOESN'T RESENT WHAT FLOCK KEEPS AND CAN DISTRICT THAT DATA FEEDS NEW CAPABILITIES DEVELOPMENT, ON FLOCK'S SERVERS.

NOT ON THE POLES. THE NEWEST OS INVESTIGATE FIND

[02:45:01]

PERSONS ASSOCIATES FOR MOVEMENT PATTERNS ALONE.

WHAT YOU PERMIT TODAY IS NOT WHAT YOU'LL HAVE IN THREE YEARS.

ITS EXISTENCE AS A WHOLE IS A MASSIVE NATIONAL SECURITY VULNERABILITIES. START WITH WHO LIVES HERE% SPECIAL OPERATIONS, MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS, THEIR FAMILIES, AND EVEN THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BUILT NAVY E2 DELTA HAWKEYE IN ST. AUGUSTINE AND WORKERS HAD CLEARANCE FILESES OF 21 MILLION AMERICANS NAMES, ADDRESSES, RELATIVES, DOES CHINA WANT TO KNOW WHERE ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE GO EVERY DAY? ABSOLUTELY.

WHY? BECAUSE IT TURNS ALL OF THAT OTHER STOLEN DATA INTO TARGETABLE AND LEVERAGABLE DATA.

THAT IS WHAT THIS ARCHIVE HANDS OUR ADVERSARIES AT LEAST 35 FLOCK LOG-INS HAVE BEEN STOLE AND ACCOUNTS FOR SALE ON RUSSIAN CRIMINAL FORUMS RIGHT NOW. THOSE ARE ONLY THE ONES WE KNOW ABOUT IT. MY POINT, DOWN RANGE, WE WEIGHED EVERY OPERATION SECOND AND THIRD ORDER AFFECTS BECAUSE OF TACTICAL WIN CAN BE A STRATEGIC LOSS.

THE TACTICAL WIN HERE IS SOMETIMES CRIMES GET SOLVED FASTER THE STRATEGIC LOSS IS THE PRIVACY OF EVERYONE WHO DRIVES HERE, THE SAFETY OF EVERYONE WHO SERVE THIS IS COUNTRY, AND IN INTELLIGENCE ARCHIVE NOBODY IN THIS ROOM CONTROLS.

THE SHERIFF SOLVED CRIMES BEFORE CLOCKS, BEFORE FLOCK WE'LL SOLVE THEM AFTER DENY ALPR ON COUNTIES INSTEAD OF REMOVAL DATE AFTER ÚTODAY NO ONE CAN SAY THIS RISK WAS UNKNOWN.

>> THANK YOU. >> GOOD MORNING.

>> GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS MY NAME IS JASON DAVIS ST. JOHNS PROPERTY OWNER AND BUSINESS OWNER.

REGARDING THE JUSTIFICATION OR LACK THEREOF FOR ALPR CAMERAS TRACKING AND RECORDINGS MOVEMENTS OF TAXPAYERS NOT SUSPECTED OF A CRIME, WE'VE HEARD THE LAW ENFORCEMENT'S EXCUSE ME WE'VE HEARD THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSPECTIVE ON THIS DEBATE FROM THIS BOARD AND FROM SHERIFF HARDWICK AND HIS REPRESENTATIVES. THE SHERIFF OFFICE PERMIT EVE IS UNDERSTANDABLE. I DON'T KNOW IF THE POSITIVES OF THIS ALPR TECHNOLOGY HAVE MASS VIOLATION OF PERPETUITY WHERE THE PUBLIC'S LEGITIMATE AND CONSTITUTIONALLAL PRIVACY CONCERNS BUT I DO UNDERSTAND WHY THIS SHERIFF OFFICE FEELS THE WAY IT DOES. BUT NO ONE ON THIS BOARD WAS ELECTED FOR THEIR PERSPECTIVE AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER REGARDLESS OF THEIR INDIVIDUAL BACKGROUNDS.

YOU ARE ALL ELECTED TO REPRESENT YOUR CONSTITUENTS AND YOUR CONSTITUENTS HAVE BEEN VERY CLEAR THAT WE WANT ALL ALPR REMOVED FROM ALL COUNTY RIGHT OF WAYS.

SO FAR, OUR GREAT GOVERNOR HAS LISTENED TO HIS CONSTITUENTS WHO AMONG YOU ON THIS BOARD WILL REPRESENT YOUR CONSTITUENTS ON THIS MATTER? AS CONSERVATIVES WE BELIEVE IN SMALLER LIMITED GOVERNMENT AND FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

NOT MASK GOVERNMENT VIOLATION AND OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING.

TAXPAYERS DON'T GET TO PUT IN A REQUEST FOR A BIGGER BUDGE.

WE HAVE TO LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS AND PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE FUNDED BY TAXPAYERS. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION READS AS FOLLOWS, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN PERSONS HOUSES, PAPERS AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED AND NO WARRANT SHALL ISSUE BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION.

AND IN PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE CEASED. OATH OR AFFIRMATION, PRESUMABLY THE OATH YOU ALL TOOK READS AS FOLLOWS, I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT I'LL SUPPORT AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

THAT I'M DULY QUALIFIED TO HOLD OFFICE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE AND I WILL WELL IN FAITHFULLY PERFORM THE DUTIES AFT OFFICE OF WHICH I'M ABOUT TO ENTER.

SO HELP ME GOD. THANK YOU.

[APPLAUSE] >> CAYLEE MASTERS ST. JOHNS COUNTY. I KNOW IT'S BEEN A PRETTY SERIOUS DAY TODAY. I ALSO WAS A LITTLE UPSET ABOUT SOME OF THE MISINFORMATION THAT WAS STATED UP HERE.

THERE WAS A UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEARCHESES, THAT METH DEALER WAS 19 KILOS OF METH WAS HER CHARGES WERE DROPPED.

SO THAT'S MORE DRUGS ON OUR STREET THAT'S ANOTHER CRIMINAL WHO WAS JUST LET FREE BECAUSE OF SEARCH WASN'T CONSTITUTIONAL.

ON A LIGHTER NOTE, I HAVE WRITTEN SOME NURSERY RIMES FOR OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS OF THE SURVEILLANCE STATES SO I WANT TO READ THOSE FIRST START WITH FLOCKY HAD A LITTLE CAM.

EVERYWHERE THE FLOCK CAMS GO, FLOCK CAMS GO EVERYWHERE THAT FLOCK CAMS GO, THEY'RE WATCHING CARS GO BY.

I ALSO HAVE THE ITSY BITSY FLOCK CAM.

SAT UPON A POLE WAVING ALL OF THE LICENSE PLATES AS ALL OF THE CARS WOULD ROLL. DOWN CAME A MINIVAN THE CAMERA TOOK A PEEK IT STAYED SO QUICKLY EVER BE THE END OF THE WEEK.

I ALSO HAVE HARDWICK LOVES ME. FLOCK CAMS WATCHY THIS I KNOW,

[02:50:02]

EVERYWHERE I DRIVE AND GO. ON THE POLES UP IN THE SKY, SNAPPING PLATES AS CARS ROLL BY. YES, HARDWICK SEES MORE.

YES HARDWICK SEES ME. I ALSO HAVE HICKORY DICKORY FLOCK. SAT ON THE POLE WITH A HAWK A CHEVY DROVE BY A QUARTER TO THREE.

CLICK WNGT THE CRAM WE'VE GOT YOUR SUV.

HICKORY DICKORY DARE YOU WENT TO WAL-MART THE STORE THAT LICENSE PLATE HAS BEEN SCANNED TEN TIME MRS..

HICKORY DICKORY THERE GOES YOUR PLATE ON THE LICENSE NOW THE WHOLE DARN NEIGHBORHOOD KNOWS IT WAS YOU.

FLOCKY UP HIGH PEEPS PAST THE CARS THAT PASS BY YOU CAN RUN AND HIDE BUT THAT CAMERA HAS A VIEW OF YOUR BACKSIDE.

>> GOOD MORNING. THAT WAS INTERESTING.

ALEXANDRIA DAVIS. GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS I'M HERE AGAIN BECAUSE OVER 30 DAYS HAVE PASSED SINCE THE SHERIFF WOULD SIT DOWN TO DISCUSS FLOCK CAMERAS.

APPARENTLY THAT DISCUSSION NEVER HAPPENED.

PROMISING MEETING JUST TO LET THE CLOCK RUN OUT IS NOT GOVERNORRING BUT DISMISSING CONSTITUENTS RATHER THAN HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH THE COMMUNITIES I EXPECTED MORE ESPECIALLY FROM LEADERSHIP ON THIS BOARD THAT I'VE KNOWN FOR OVER A DECADE. IT IS FAR BEYOND DISAPPOINTING TO SEE SOMEONE I'VE KNOWN FOR SO LONG BECOME ANOTHER POLITICIAN WHO REFUSES TO LISTEN TO HIS OWN CONSTITUENTS.

THREELS MOST OF YOU SAY YOU'RE CHRISTIANS BUT SCRIPTURE SAY THEY'RE SERVANTS OF GOD MINISTERS ACT FOR THE GOOD OF THE PUBLIC UPHOLDING JUSTICE AND TRUST THAT IS A HIGH CALLING THAT REQUIRES INTEGRITY, HUE MILLIONTY AND TRANSPARENCY NOT BRUSHING ASIDE THE SOCIAL SECURITY WHO IS ENTRUSTED YOU ALL WITH OFFICE. WE ARE NOT HERE ASKING TO BE LESS SAFE. WE ARE ASKING FOR SAFETY MEASURES THAT RESPECT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

FLOCK CRAMS OCTAVELY UNNECESSARY TO KEEP US SAFE AND I SAY THAT AS SOMEONE SW PLENTY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IN MY OWN FAMILY.

MILLIONS OF MURDERS ARE SOLVED WITHOUT THE USE OF FLOCK.

AND THEY DON'T JUST TRACK CRIMINALS BUT EVERYONE.

EVEN LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS GOING ABOUT THEIR DAILY LIVES.

LAW-ABIDING TAXPAYERS SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO BY DEFAULT THE MONEY WE EARN SHOULD BE SPENT HOW WE PLEASE AND AS OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE OUR VOICES.

FURTHER MORE WE'RE CON SANG THELY TOLD WE IMMEDIATE FLOCK BECAUSE IT CATCHES CRIMINALS AND AUTOMATES ENFORCEMENT.

BUT IF FLOCK IS REALLY DOING ALL THAT HEAVY LIFTING WHY ARE YOU ASKING FOR MORE DEPUTIES AND HIGHER LAW ENFORCEMENT BUDGETS? WHY ARE TAXPAYERS PAYING TWICE ONCE FOR ANNUAL SOFTWARE SUBSCRIPTIONS AND AGAIN FOR EXPANDED STAFFING? THOSE DOLLAR US KOWT SPENT FAR BETTER FOR EXAMPLE, ST. JOHNS COUNTY HAS A GREAT SCHOOL SYSTEM FOR HAVING SPENT YEARS IN THE SCHOOLS MYSELF I KNOW WE CAN DO MUCH BETTER.

OUR KIDS DESERVE TOP ACADEMIC RESOURCES AND THEY DESERVE TO GROW UP WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENTS RECORDING THEIR EVERY MOVES BEFORE THEY CAN EVEN VOTE. INVESTING IN OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR YOUTH OUR FUTURE, IS FAR SUBSCRIPTIONS WITHOUT PUBLIC CONSENT THE BURDEN IS SO PROVE THAT GOVERNMENT IS EFFECTIVE AND ACCOUNTABLE FOR FAILURE AS STOP AVOIDING THIS CONVERSATION SIT DOWN AND OPEN DIALOGUE AND PROTECT BOTH OUR SAFETY AND OUR RIGHTS. I GREATLY APPRECIATE MR. WHITEHURST AND ARNOLD FOR STANDING UP FOR WHAT WE ACTUALLY WANT WE THE PEOPLE AND I HOPE THE REST OF YOU CAN LEARN TO FOLLOW THEIR EXAMPLE. THANK YOU.

[APPLAUSE] >> GOOD MORNING.

>> GOOD MORNING MELISSA DAVIS TAXPAYER FOR THE RECORD I DON'T LIVE IN FEAR. I LIVE IN FAITH AND IN REALITY.

I WAS ONE OF THE MANY THAT SPOKE AGAINST FLOCK SURVEILLANCE HERE ON SEPTEMBER 15. FOR MONTHS PEOPLE HAVE BEEN COMING AND SPEAKING, AGAIN, THE ALPR, HOWEVER, BECAUSE SEVERAL OF YOU AND THE SHERIFF LIKE THEM THEY'RE AUTOMATICALLY DISMISSED AS IF YOU KNOW WHAT'S BETTER FOR US I DON'T TO BE TOLD I'M WRONG AND MY FEELINGS ARE NO VALUABLE BY THOSE OF THE TAXPAYERS.

WHAT I WANT IS REPRESENTATIVES THAT ACTUALLY REPRESENT THEIR CONSTITUENTS AND MORE IMPORTANTLY THE CONSTITUTION.

BOTH COMMISSIONERS ARNOLD AND WHITEHURST WERE LISTENING AND CHRISTIAN WAS SPEAKING FOR ALL OF HIS CONSTITUENTS AND YOU SILENCED HIM WITH A SURPRISE THAT NEVER MATERIALIZED.

WAS THAT THE PLAN ALL ALONG THROW A BONE AND STOP THE DIALOGUE? REMEMBER AT THE MEETING YOU SAID OUR CONCERNS WERE VALID. AND WE WERE GOING TO DISCUSS IT BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING. INSTEAD OF STICKING TO YOUR WORD, OR DOING YOUR JOB OR BEING VOICE OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS WE WERE PASS IF ID WITH AN EMPTY PROMISE.

WHILE YOU RAN INTERFERENCE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, WE THE TAXPAYERS ARE NO LONGER PAYING YOU TO BE AN OFFICER.

YOU'RE BEING PAID TO BE THE VOICE OF YOUR DISTRICT.

DISTRACTING US WILL NOT MAKE US FORGET OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS ARE

[02:55:03]

BEING VIOLATED AND ALL OF THE YOU ARE VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION. DO YOU REMEMBER YOUR OATHS? THOSE ARE A PROMISE TO CITIZENS UNDER GOD.

YOUR OATH IS TO SERVE AND PROTECT.

BY CONTINUING THE CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE YOU CANNOT INVESTIGATE WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE INCASE THERE'S ANY CONFUSION, I BROUGHT POCKET CONSTITUTIONS FOR EVERYONE BECAUSE WE ALL SHOULD CARRY THEM DAILY.

YOU ARE ACTUALLY VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION.

NOT TO MENTION ANY RECORDED FOOTAGE THOSE CRAMS OBTAIN ARE PROPERTY OF THE MANUFACTURE AND OUT OF LOCAL HANDS.

IT IS NAIVE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OR ANYONE TO ASSUME THEY KNOW WHAT'S ACTUALLY BEING OBTAINED BY THE MANUFACTURE OR HOW LONG IT'S BEING KEPT OR CATALOGED IT'S ALL NEATLY STORED AND NOW EASILY SEARCHABLE FOR ANYONE IN THE WORLD TO ACCESS FOR THEIR OWN POSSIBLE EVIL. USAGE BEYOND LAW ENFORCEMENT -- HANDING ENEMIES DETAILED DATA SHOWING WHERE AND WHEN TO STRIKE IS NOT SERVING NOR IS IT PROTECTING.

WE ARE ALL CALLED TO SERVE GOD COUNTRY AND CONSTITUTION.

ANY FATE BUT SUBMISSION AND I DID RECEIVE A TICKET FOR OUR FAMILY DID FOR OUR VEHICLE. THAT WAS NOT OUR VEHICLE, IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE OUR VEHICLE BUT WE GOT THE TICKET AND IT TOOK US HOURS TO SORT THAT OUT. AND ALSO IN 1922 MY GRANNY WAS BORN AND SHE WAS KIDNAPPED AT SIX OR 7 AND TAKEN OUT OF THE COUNTY, AND SHE WAS FOUND BECAUSE OF ACTUAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. AND I COULD GO ON FOR DAYS WITH OTHER EXAMPLES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CASES THAT WERE INVOLVED WITHOUT CRAMS. CAMERAS.

>> I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE TICKET YOU RECEIVED WHAT WAS THE

TICKET FOR? >> TELEVISION A TICKET FOR BEING IN TAMPA ON A BRIDGE AND DO YOUR WHAT IT WAS? THE TICKET WAS FOR -- SPEEDING OR VIOLATION --

IT WAS SPEEDING? >> RUNNING A RED LIGHT.

IT WAS FOR RUNNING A RED LIGHT AND IT WAS --

>> RUNNING A RED LIGHT IN TAMPA. AND WHERE WERE YOU?

>> WERE YOU IN TAMPA? >> NO, MA'AM I CAN'T AFFORD VACATIONS. [LAUGHTER]

>> OKAY. >> BUT YEAH WE WERE NOWHERE NEAR THAT AND WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE SHEET IT WAS TERRIBLE BUT IT WAS A GRAY SUV OF SOME SORT AND I DRIVE A BIG WHITE VEHICLE SO THERE WAS -- I MEAN, IT WAS OFF.

LIKE AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, ALL I HAD TO DO WAS LOOK AT THE ACTUAL TAG THEY WERE CHARGING FOR MAKE AND MODEL AND THEY COULD SEE IT WAS NOT WHAT I DRIVE. AND IT TOOK US HOURS TO STRAIGHTEN THAT OUT. WHICH IS RIDICULOUS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT -- WE'RE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY NOT GUILTY UNTIL YOU CAN PROVE YOU'RE INNOCENT.

SO IT'S A PROBLEM. [APPLAUSE]

>> THANK YOU. >> CONSTITUTIONS OVER HERE --

>> COULD I -- GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> GOOD MORNING. >> NATIONAL FOR HOTEL OFF OSCAR -- THAT'S HA-HA -- I LIVE IN ANN TAYLOR HERE TODAY WITH SERGEANT CIVILLY GOOSE AND PRIVATE CITIZEN AND WE ARE -- A CLOWN AND NICE ENCOURAGEMENT OFFICER THAT'S NATIONAL REBEL CLOWN ENCOURAGEMENT OFFICERS.

TODAY I APPROACH YOU ON BEHALF OF GENERAL LED GENERAL PRIVACY GENERAL SECURITY VERSUS SURVEILLANCE, GENERAL OVERREACH GENERAL A.I. ERRORS. GENERAL KEEP AMERICA FREE.

GENERAL FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS, GENERAL THE BUCK STOPS HERE. THE MINISTER AND MANY PRIVATE CITIZENS. TODAY HERE TO ISSUE NICE CITATIONS AND SOME EDUCATIONAL TOOLS HERE.

AS THIS CUSTOMARY I'LL BEGIN WITH A PRAYER FOR PATRONS OF ANYONE THAT'S EVER MADE A MISTAKE MAINLY EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US OH HOLY ST. STUPID HELP US TO SEE WHERE WE'VE BEEN WRONG AND HELP US TO MAKE IT RIGHT. AMEN.

NOW FOR NICE CITATIONS TODAY, WE RECOGNIZE THE ENTIRE COUNCIL ALL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WHO I'M SO HAPPY TO SEE AFTER TODAY AND ALL OF THE CITIZENS OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

WE'VE BEEN IN THIS -- WONDERFUL CONVERSATION WHICH IS VERY DIFFICULT. I WANT TO COMMEND EVERYONE FOR LISTENING DEEPLY FOR DOING SUCH GREAT RESEARCH FOR THE POLICE, FOR LISTENING, AND MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO HELP US ALL FEEL SAFER AND FOR EVERYBODY PARTICIPATING.

AND NOW FOR THE TOOLS EXHIBIT A TICKETS SEALED FOR YOUR SAFETY.

THE C FLOCK SAYS WE MUST COMPROMISE OUR FREEDOM FOR OUR SAFETY BUT HOW FREE ARE WE IN THE SOCIETY WHERE WE KNOW THAT

[03:00:02]

WE'RE ALL BEING WATCHED? ALPR'S ARE NOT THE END GAME OF FLOCK OR THEIR SURVEILLANCE STATE THEY ARE A PRESENCE DENT.

THERE'S A WISH TO CREATE SMART THERE A WISH TO CREATE SMART CITY THAT ARE AI MONITORED ALL THE TIME FOR THE SAKE OF EFFICIENCY BUT WE KNOW THIS CAN BE WEAPONIZED AGAINST FREE SPEECH. EXHIBIT B, THE PANOPTICON CITY, BRANTON A CAGE. WE NEED TO IMPLEMENT AI TECH WIDELY TO KEEP UP WITH CHINA BUT A CHINESE SPOKESMAN SAID WE NEED TO STOP ARGUING ABOUT AI BECAUSE IT ONLY SLOWS DOWN GLOBAL AI GOVERNANCE. GLOBAL AI GOVERNANCE CALCULATE THINK ABOUT THAT. THAT VISION IS THE PATH TO TYRANNY. EXHIBIT C, THE BUCK STOPS HERE.

WE DON'T NEED TO WAIT FOR THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE OR THE SUPREME COURT TO TELL US WHAT IS RIGHT BEFORE OUR VERY EYES.

THIS TECHNOLOGY GOES AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION, LET'S DIVEST A BIT TODAY. THANK YOU.

[APPLAUSE] >> GOOD AFTERNOON, I AM KELLY, I LIVE IN CENTRAL FLORIDA. THIS IS NOT WHY I CAME HERE TODAY. I FELT LIKE I NEEDED TO COME UP AND SAY A FEW WORDS. WE LIVE IN A TECHNOLOGY AGE, WE DO, WE HAVE A CELL PHONE, WE ARE TRACKED, WE GO INTO STORES.

THERE ARE MAIN THINGS THAT TRACK US, IT'S FREEDOM WE GIVE UP.

I BELIEVE BY CAPTURING LICENSE PLATE TAGS IT'S GOOD AND IT CAN BE USED HAVE VOTED FOR PROUDLY N FACT EVERY BUDGET ITEM THEY

[03:11:46]

ASKED FOR DURING MY SIX YEARS ON THIS BOARD PROUDLY, MY POSITION

[03:11:52]

ON LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS NEVER CHANGED SINCE THE DAY I WAS RUNNING FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONER BACK IN 2020 BECAUSE IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT DEPARTMENT FOR OUR QUALITY OF LIFE HERE AT SAINT JOHNS COUNTY. WITHOUT LAW ENFORCEMENT BEING STRONG AND WELL FUNDED AND HAVING THE TOOLS THEY NEED TO KEEP US SAFE, NOTHING ELSE ABOUT SAINT JOHNS COUNTY THAT WE ALL LOVE WORKS. I WOULD HOPE THAT EVERY PERSON THAT CAME TO SPEAK, EVERYBODY IN THE AUDITORIUM, EVERYBODY HEARING THE SOUND OF MY VOICE SUPPORTS LAW ENFORCEMENT.

I DON'T DO THIS AS A PRO-LAW ENFORCEMENT VERSUS ANTI-LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUE ALTHOUGH IT'S BEEN POSITIONED THAT WAY AT TIMES. I ADMIRE SKIP BILL BAILEY AND TREY EDENFIELD AND KEVIN CRONIN AND LARRY DURDEN AND GEORGE HARRIGAN BACK THERE AND MANY OTHERS ... ON THEM I CAN KEEP GOING. I ADMIRE THEM AND I RESPECT WHAT THEY DO AND I APPRECIATE THEIR SERVICE BECAUSE SINCE 1999, I'VE BENEFITED FROM THE SAFETY THAT THOSE MEN AND WOMEN HAVE PROVIDED. MY DAUGHTERS HAVE BEEN AFFORDED FROM THE SAFETY THEY PROVIDED. IF I DIDN'T THINK MY FAMILY WAS SAFE HERE, NOTHING ELSE IS MORE IMPORTANT TO ME AND MY WIFE COURTNEY THAN THE SAFETY OF OUR TWO LITTLE GIRLS.

I TRUST THE SAINT JOHNS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE I TRUST THE PROFESSIONALISM AND I TRUST THEIR HEART FOR KEEPING US SAFE WITHIN THE RULES THAT THE LAW PROVIDES.

I THINK THEY HAVE RESPECT FOR OUR PRIVACY, I REALLY DO.

I DON'T HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT THE SAINT JOHNS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE. WITH THAT SAID I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF MY CONCERNS WHICH I DON'T THINK THERE'S THE MASSIVE GULF BETWEEN THOSE WHO HAVE QUESTIONS WHO HAVE RAISED HERE ABOUT THE PODIUM ABOUT A LPRS AND BY THOSE WHO SUPPORT THEM. I'M GOING TO TRY TO MAKE MY CASE FOR THAT. THE SHERIFF RECENTLY SPOKE AT A CONFERENCE HERE LOCALLY AND THE COMMISSIONER TAYLOR WERE IN ATTENDANCE FOR THAT PRESENTATION AND DURING THE PRESENTATION, THE CHEF OF CLAY COUNTY PULLED DOWN HER ALPR COUNTY RIGHT OF WAYS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT ISSUED HIS ORDER AND SHE SAID DURING THE PRESENTATION THAT THE ALPS ARE VALUABLE TOOL FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT. SHE SAID IT'S A FORCE FOR GOOD.

SHE SAID SHE SUPPORTS THE A LPRS AND SHE HOPES TO GET THEM BACK SOON BUT THIS IS THE SUBTLE DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THIS ISSUE IS STILL THE SUBTLETIES AND SHADES OF GRAY AND NUANCE.

HERE'S WHAT MICHELE SAID. THE TOOLS WE USE TO CATCH BAD GUYS IS NOT THE ONLY CONSIDERATION WHEN IT COMES TO THIS TECHNOLOGY BUT THERE'S OTHER THINGS TO CONSIDER LIKE THE SITES, HOW EFFECTIVE IT IS AND HELPING US CATCH THE BAD GUYS. OVER A MONTH AGO THE SHERIFF SAID LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS EMERGE FROM GUARDING PRIVACY, DATA SHARING, GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT, FUTURE REGULATION OF THIS TECHNOLOGY. THE DIRECTOR CALLED FROM THE

[03:15:01]

ANGELES COUNTY TO THE PODIUM TODAY AND SAID THERE ARE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY.

WE ARE NOT FAR APART, THIS IS NOT A PRO LAW ENFORCEMENT VERSUS ANTI-LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW THE PEOPLE CHOOSE TO BE GOVERNED AND I THINK POST 911 WE GIVE THE GOVERNMENT A MANDATE TO KEEP US SAFE BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

WE WERE SCARED TO DEATH, BEING ATTACKED BY TERRORISTS AND WE SAID WHATEVER IT TAKES TO STOP THE BAD GUYS GO STOP THE BAD GUYS. I THINK THE LAST FIVE TO SIX YEARS THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF A PUSHBACK BY PEOPLE SAYING TO WHAT EXTENT DO WE WANT TO BE GOVERNED? BY TECHNOLOGY. NEW TECHNOLOGY REQUIRES NEW DISCUSSION WHICH IS WHY I'M REALLY PROUD OF THE DISCUSSION WE'RE HAVING DURING THIS AGENDA ITEM TODAY.

THE DIRECTOR MENTIONED RESPECTING THEIR PROFESSION, I HOPE I MADE MYSELF CLEAR, NOT ONLY RESPECTED BUT I AM GRATEFUL FOR IT AND I ADMIRE DEEPLY. HERE'S WHAT PUTS US AS POLICY MAKERS IN THE TOUGH POSITION. SAINT JOHNS COUNTY IS OUT OF LINE WITH GOVERNOR, WITH ALMOST EVERY SHERIFF OF NORTHEAST FLORIDA, AGAIN NOT ANTIVERSUS PRO LAW ENFORCEMENT WE HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT PHILOSOPHY VERSUS OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT PHILOSOPHY, THEY'RE NOT ALL UNIFIED AND IT PUTS US IN A TOUGH POSITION. WE HAVE MANY NEW STORIES EMERGING FEATURING MUG SHOTS LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHO DIDN'T DO THE RIGHT THING WITH THIS TECHNOLOGY.

MAYBE IT WAS TOO MUCH, MAYBE IT WAS THE ONE BAD APPLE IN THE BUNCH BUT THERE'S THE NEW STORIES ARE DEMEANING WE CONFRONT THIS ISSUE AND WE HAVE TWO COURT CASES THAT HAPPENED THIS YEAR CATEGORYUNITED STATES VERSUS KYLE WHICH WAS RULED ON OCTOBER THE 1ST. NEITHER OF WHICH I THOUGHT AN LPRS. THEY DON'T MAKE THEM ILLEGAL BUT THEY RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY BY WHICH WE CAN USE THE POWERS TO REGULATE OR ENFORCE THE LAW.

AGAIN I THINK WE'RE ALL VERY CLOSE ON THIS ISSUE BUT I AM IN FAVOR OF REVOKING, EVEN IF TEMPORARILY, THE RIGHT OF WAY PERMITS UNTIL WE HAVE A DECISION FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE THAT HELPS US BETTER GUARDRAILS ON THIS TECHNOLOGY.

SO THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS THAT'S WHERE I STAND, I WOULD WELCOME

THE SPECIAL REPORT. >> THANK YOU.

[APPLAUSE] >> I AGREE, I DON'T THINK BOTH SIDES ARE THAT FAR APART AS WELL.

I DO HAVE -- FIRST OFF I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR -- I DON'T KNOW WHO CAN ANSWER BUT ARE THESE CAMERAS -- ARE THEY FOR SPEEDING TICKETS? IT'S A BIT CONFUSING BECAUSE --

>> SIMPLE ANSWER IS NO, AND THERE NEVER WILL.

IT'S A SEPARATION BETWEEN ALL THE CAMERAS.

>> SO THAT WAS NOT A LICENCE PLATE READER THAT WAS USED.

>> I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO MONETISE IT.

TALKING TO THE POINT ABOUT THE ERRONEOUS RATES OR WHATEVER, OBVIOUSLY WITH ANY TECHNOLOGY THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN WHERE IF THE VEHICLE TAG IS INSTRUCTED AND THE ANGLE IN WHICH THE PHOTOGRAPH IS TAKEN THE SPEED AT WHICH THE VEHICLE IS TRAVELING, A MULTITUDE OF THINGS, I NEED EVERYBODY TO REMEMBER THAT BEFORE DEPUTY CAN TAKE ANY ACTION AND MAYBE -- FACTS MATTER. HE'S GONE INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED WHAT HE'S LOOKING SO ALL THESE CASES OF PEOPLE BEING PULLED OVER AT GUNPOINT AND ALL THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE.

IN FACT I'LL MAKE THE OPPOSITE ARGUMENT, COMMISSIONER MURPHY UNDERSTAND THIS. BEFORE THIS TECHNOLOGY IF WE HAD A BANK ROBBERY ON 210 THE SUSPECT FLED IN A WHITE PICKUP TRUCK, WE WOULD SWARM THIS VEHICLE WITH DEPUTY SHERIFFS.

EVERY SINGLE WHITE PICKUP TRUCK IN THAT AREA WILL GET PULLED OVER AT GUNPOINT. THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN ANYMORE.

THAT HAPPENS WE HAVE A TAG VEHICLE INFORMATION, IDENTIFIES IT, RELEASES IT AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR ONE VEHICLE.

THAT'S A -- I JUST DON'T WANT PEOPLE O BE ABLE TO SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT AS IF IT'S TRUE, NO MATTER HOW LOUD OR WHAT YOU SAY, I'M NOT SAYING I DISAGREE WITH EVERYBODY BUT THESE FACTS DO MATTER OF WHAT WE USE AS TECHNOLOGY.

>> THANK YOU. MY OTHER QUESTION IS THAT IT SEEMS THERE ARE DIFFERENT OPINIONS TO HOW MANY CAMERAS ARE EVEN INVOLVED. WE HEARD -- YOU SHOWED IN YOUR OPINION THERE'S 45 CAMERAS IN THERE'S 89 CAMERAS.

THAT'S ALMOST DOUBLE. SO IT'S A BIT CONCERNING THAT WE ARE SO FAR OFF EVEN AS TO HOW MANY CAMERAS ARE IN OUR COUNTY.

SO THAT ALONE IS VERY CONCERNING.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT.

[03:20:03]

>> IT WASN'T AN OPINION, IT WAS INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED BASED ON OUR RIGHT OF WAY ANALYSIS.

THE 23 APPLICATIONS OR THE ONES THAT CAME IN BETWEEN 2022 AND TODAY SO THAT THERE'S A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS AS THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE STATED THEY'VE BEEN IN PLACE FOR MORE THAN TEN YEARS.

SO THERE COULD BE ONES THAT CAME IN ONLINE PRIOR TO THAT ONE REQUEST COULD ALSO BE TWO CAMERAS OR MULTIPLE CAMERAS AS

WELL. >> DOES EVERY CAMERA NEED A

PERMIT? >> IT'S THE SPACE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE INDIVIDUAL CAMERA.

THAT'S WHAT THE PERMIT IS FOR. >> GREAT, THANK YOU.

ALSO I'M A BIT CONFUSED BECAUSE WE HEARD THINGS ABOUT THE FACIAL RECOGNITION, IT'S CAPABLE OF DOING THAT.

DO WE HAVE CAMERAS IN OUR COUNTY CURRENTLY THAT ARE DOING FACIAL

RECOGNITION? >> THE LP AYE AS I UNDERSTAND IT OFFICIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY. THE WAY WE HAVE IN POSITION ARE NOT EVEN THE POSITION TO CAPTURE PEOPLE'S FACES SO IT'S --

>> DO WE HAVE CAMERAS THAT DO THAT?

>> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. I WOULD SAY -- CAMERAS THAT DO HAVE FACIAL RECOGNITION CAPABILITIES.

WE DON'T HAVE THOSE. WE HAVE A WHOLE SUITE OF

PRODUCTS. >> ANYBODY ELSE?

>> THANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOR COMING OUT TODAY. YOU GUYS KNOW -- I THINK THIS -- WHOLE BOARD SUPPORTED YOU GUYS FOR AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER.

BY NO MEANS I WANT TO TAKE AWAY ANY SORT OF TOOL THAT'S GOING TO HELP YOU GUYS BE MORE EFFECTIVE IN KEEPING O US SAFE.

I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE SAFEGUARDS.

I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF US TEMPORARILY REMOVING THE ONES THAT ARE IN THE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAYS WHILE ALSO MAKING IT A LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY FOR THIS BOARD MOVING FORWARD TO WORK WITH OUR INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS TEAM, OUR LEGAL STAFF, OUR LOBBYISTS, WHOEVER THOSE MAY BE IN THE FUTURE AND OUR LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION AS WELL AS THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO ALL WORK TOGETHER TOWARDS PERHAPS MAKING THIS A PROGRAM THAT NOT ONLY PROTECTS OUR CITIZENS BUT ALSO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

I THINK IT'S PROBABLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO PUT A PAUSE ON IT RIGHT NOW WHILE WE WORK TOWARDS A SOLUTION AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THIS BOARD AND THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND ALL OF THE PLAYERS IN THE GAME TO COME TO THE TABLE TO SEE IF WE CAN FIND A SOLUTION.

IN THE MEANTIME, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO STAND WITH THE GOVERNOR ON THIS ONE AND I THINK THEY NEED TO COME DOWN AT THE ONEIDA COUNTY RUDDER PLACE WHETHER IT'S SEPARATELY OR PERMANENT BASED ON

WHAT THE LEGISLATURE DECIDES. >> THANK YOU.

WE WILL TRY THAT IF YOU LIKE. >> FIRST OF ALL, I'M NEVER IN FAVOR OF DEFENDING THE PLACE AT ALL, AND I'VE BEEN STOPPED BY FLOCK CAMERA IN WALDO AND THE GUY JUST CAME UP TO ME AND THEY SAID YOU'RE NOT WRONG CAN'T YOU CAN'T DRIVE BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALS. MY NAME IS ON HERE AND HE GOES I DIDN'T SEE IT, SEE YOU. VERY PROFESSIONAL, GOOD LOOKING, I MOVED ON AND WE BOTH HAVE A STYLE CAR, HE WAS ARRESTED.

HE'S ON PROBATION RIGHT NOW, HE HAS A PICTURE -- I HAVE A CAMERA IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD SO HE DOESN'T COME NEAR MY FAMILY AND MY DAUGHTER AND MY HUSBAND AT THE TIME.

I THINK IT'S GREAT. 95 CAN'T GO TO MIAMI, IF CARTELS OR -- THEY'RE LOVING THE GUYS, THEY CAN GO UP 95 ALL THE WAY TO OUR COUNTRY WITH CHILDREN AND DRUGS AND THEY'RE LOVING THIS.

FRANKLY, I WAS STANDING AT MY ELECTION AND THIS GUY CAME UP TO ME AND HE WAS FILMING ME WITH HIS CAMERA AND NOW THAT FILMING IS ON A PAY WALL ON YOUTUBE WHERE YOU GUYS CAN ALL PAY TO WATCH IT AND I'M NOT MAKING A DIME OUT OF IT BUT THE GUY IS.

SO THESE CAMERAS ARE MORE INSIDIOUS THAN THE FLOCK CAMERAS AND I LOVE THAT YOU GUYS NOW HAVE BOUNDARIES.

I THINK YOU HEARD THE COMMUNITY. I THINK YOU'RE IN THE MIDDLE GROUND, I THINK IT'S WONDERFUL, I WOULD NEVER DEFEND YOU GUYS.

THIS IS RADICAL AND I'M SORRY, I HEAR EVERYONE OUT THERE BUT THE TOOTHPASTE IS OUT OF THE TUBE, WE'RE FILMING EVERYWHERE FROM

[03:25:02]

THE TOLLS TO THE RED LIGHT CAMERAS, THE FUTURE AS THIS, LET'S TRY TO MAKE SAFEGUARDS, THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING RIGHT NOW AND I DON'T WANT ONE PERSON NOT TO GET -- THAT PERSON THAT ALMOST GOT AWAY WITH THE GUN IN HER FACE, THAT CHANGES HER LIFE FOREVER AND THANK GOD YOU GOT HIM AND TO THINK YOUR KID IS MISSING AND YOU CAN'T FIND THE KID, I'M NOT GOING TO JEOPARDISE ONE CHILD OR PERSON IN THIS COUNTY BECAUSE YOU'RE 350,000 PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTY AND I'M RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS FOR EVERYONE OF THIS COUNTY.

I AM SORRY, I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE UP ON ONE PERSON.

I AM NOT FOR ANY OF THIS BUT THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU

GUYS DO. >> THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER.

>> I WANTED TO CLARIFY, THE COMMISSIONER SAID IT WAS RADICAL TO REMOVE THE CAMERAS, THE LPRS. DO YOU BELIEVE THE GOVERNOR IS

RADICAL. >> I DO.

>> DO YOU THINK THE SHERIFF IS RADICAL? I WANT YOU TO BE CONSISTENT WHO YOU'RE APPLYING THE TERMINOLOGY TO. YOU MAKE THE DECISION TO REMOVE

THE COUNTY'S RADICAL. >> OR IN CHARGE OF SAINT JOHNS COUNTY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN TAMPA OR ANYWHERE ELSE BUT I AM THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER OF SAINT JOHNS COUNTY AND I'M DOING THE BEST I CAN TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF SAINT JOHNS COUNTY AND I'M SURE LEGISLATION IN THE FUTURE IS COMING DOWN BUT I DON'T WANT TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR THESE CRIMINALS TO KNOW NOT TO COME INTO SAINT JOHNS COUNTY.

>> DO YOU WANT TO APOLOGISE FOR USING THAT TERM?

>> IT'S NOT A LOT TO ASK INTELLECTUALLY CONSISTENT, YOU WANT TO APPLY THE TERM RADICAL TO SOME THAT YOU CALLED THE GOVERNOR RADICAL. I WANT TO MAKE SURE --

>> I DON'T THINK INTELLECTUALLY CONSISTENT IS A REQUIREMENT OF THIS JOB. [LAUGHING] [APPLAUSE] I WANT TO MAKE SURE -- YOU GOT

THAT? >> CAN WE AGREE ON THAT?

>> NO, I DON'T THINK SO. >> THE REALITY IS SOMETIMES YOU'RE NOT INTELLECTUALLY CONSISTENT, IT'S PART OF BEING HUMAN AND WHO WE ARE SO YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

>> YOU KEEP INTERRUPTING ME. I'M ASKING -- I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT RADICAL IS A TERM THAT IS APPLIED TO ANYBODY WHO BELIEVES WE SHOULD REMOVE ALPR FROM COUNTY RIGHTS OF WAY.

DO WE AGREE? NO COMMENT?

>> THE DECISION TO FOLLOW CAMERAS COULD BE CONSIDERED HERETICAL WITHOUT CALLING THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE IT RADICAL.

>> THEIR CITY COUNCIL'S, THEIR SHERIFFS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AND OUR GOVERNOR HAS PULLED THE ALPR.

I THINK THAT'S AN INCENDIARY TERM THAT SHOULD NOT BE USED OR

WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. >> THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? >> MY TURN.

BACK IN THE DAY WHEN WE HAD COVERED BUSH COVERED WAGONS, IF THEY COVERED THE WAGON -- IT'S AN AWFUL ANALOGY.

WHEN A BOLO CAME OUT WE SIT ON THE SIDE AND LOOK FOR THE WHITE TRUCK AND WE STOPPED EVERY WHITE TRUCK THAT CAME BACK AT GUNPOINT BECAUSE THAT'S HOW WE DID IT BACK THEN.

WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT ANYMORE.

I SAW A VIDEO OF AN OFFICER LOOKING FOR A ROBBERY SUSPECT ON THE INTERSTATE STOPPING EVERY CAR THAT MATCHED THE DESCRIPTION UNTIL HE HAD THE RIGHT ONE AND WALKED DOWN AND SHOT ME.

THE REASON HE DROPPED BECAUSE HE STOPPED SEVERAL CARS THAT WAS SIMILAR AND HE LOST HIS LIFE BECAUSE OF THAT.

I GOT EMAILS THAT SAY PROTECT ME BY SUPPORTING THE SHERIFFS AND THE LICENSE PLATE READERS. SOME PEOPLE ALREADY INTERVIEWED MINE CHARACTER BY SAYING THAT I DON'T LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE THAT I FOR SOME REASON I HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION THAT I DON'T CARE. AND THAT COULDN'T BE FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT I DISAGREE WITH ONE GROUP ON AL PEARCE AND AGREE WITH ANOTHER GROUP IS -- SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS BEING ANTI-DEMOCRATIC IN THIS CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

I WAS NOT ELECTED TO DO THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY, THAT'S A DEMOCRACY AND WE'RE NOT A DEMOCRACY.

I WAS GIVEN THE RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THE HOMEWORK TO PRAY TO GOD FOR WISDOM AND MAKE A CHOICE FOR THESE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE COUNTY, ALL 350,000 AND IN MY OPINION AND WITH MY

[03:30:04]

EXPERIENCE, THIS IS THE BEST TECHNOLOGY WE CAN POSSIBLY HAVE AND I WOULD SUPPORT CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FLOCK IS NOT TAKING YOUR DATA AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE ANSWERS BUT I CANNOT SUPPORT SUSPENDING THE USE OF LICENSE PLATE READERS WHILE WE DETERMINE THAT, I'M OKAY WITH SAYING WE NEED A TIME FRAME, 30 DAYS, 60 DAYS TO COME BACK WITH A DECISION ABOUT HOW WE PROTECT OUR DATA.

BUT I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF PUTTING FOUR CAMERAS, TAKING THEM OFF THE POLLS AND PUTTING THEM IN THE WAREHOUSE WHILE CRIMINALS KNOW OKAY SAINT JOHN COUNTY IS FINE.

THE CONVERSATIONS I HAD WITH OTHER SHERIFFS AROUND THAT SAID THEY FELT SOME OF THEM ON THE PERSONAL LEVEL AS IT WAS A BIT OF A REACTION AND THEY WERE REGRETTING THEIR DECISIONS TO PULL ON THEIR CAMERAS AND THEY'RE LOOKING FOR TWO DISCUSSIONS TO WHERE THEY CAN GET THEM BACK UP BECAUSE THERE'S -- IT'S AN EFFECTIVE TOOL AND I FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT THIS, I WOULD NOT SUPPORT I MEAN AT THIS TIME WITHOUT MAKING SURE WE HAVE A TIMELINE, A TIMELINE TO COME BACK WITH THE ANSWERS AND WHO'S USING IT THAT'S MY FEELINGS. AND UNLESS -- I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERNS, ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO SPEAK, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A SLIGHT ADJOURNMENT

HERE YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. >> I WANT TO MAKE THIS MOTION FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE RECORD. IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO FAIL BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE THE MOTION TO REVOKE PERMITS FOR LPRS ON A

COUNTY RIGHT OF WAYS. >> OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION.

>> I SECOND THAT. >> TOM CAN I SPLIT THE VOTE AND LET'S VOTE. THAT PASSES 3-2.

[APPLAUSE] THAT PASSES, WILL HAVE TO SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AT A LATER TIME.

WE WILL SEE YOU BACK ALL RIGHT.

[2. Public Hearing * ENCERT 2026-10 Adler Creek. Agricultural Enclave under Sections 163.3162 and 163.3164, Florida Statutes as amended by Chapter 2026-34, Laws of Florida. This certification request is identified as ENCERT 2026-10 Agricultural Enclave Certification (Adler Creek) and includes approximately 594.42 acres. The subject property is located east of Pacetti Road and the Grand Lakes development, west of Future CR 2209 right of way.]

WE ARE BACK IN SESSION, IT IS TEN AFTER, LET'S GET ROLLING ON

ITEM NUMBER 2. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR I WANT TO

CLARIFY -- >> FOLKS WILL GET THE MEETING STARTED BACK SO LET'S HAVE THAT PLACE.

>> SEEING THE AGENDA ITEM TO, YOU WON'T BE HEARING THAT ITEM

[3. Public Hearing * ENCERT 2026-11 Carter Road Associates. Application for Agricultural Enclave Certification, pursuant to Sections 163.3162 and 163.3164, Chapter 2026-34, Florida Statutes. This certification request includes approximately 200.75 acres of land. The subject property is located at the northern end of Carter Road, to the west of Thompson Bailey Road.]

TODAY. >> OKAY, THE ITEM NUMBER 2 HAS BEEN PULLED. STRAIGHT TO AGENDA ITEM NUM NUMBER 3. COME ON UP GUYS.

GOOD AFTERNOON. >> SHOULD WE DO EX-PARTE

DISCLOSURES? >> NOT A BAD IDEA.

>> ITEM NUMBER 3, LET'S GO WITH COMMISSIONER ARNOLD.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I HAD 14 EMAILS FOR THIS ITEM SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS ENCLAVE. ALSO HAD A MEETING IN THE OFFICE WITH BROCK AND CHRIS TO DISCUSS THE HISTORY OF THE APPLICATION AS WELL AS THEY'RE COMING ON THE ON CAPE LAW.

>> THANK YOU. >> 15 OR MORE EMAILS WITH THIS ITEM AND ALSO MEETING WITH BRAD WESTER, CHRISTIAN AND THE TEAM.

>> COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST. >> AWARE OF 13 EMAILS FOR THIS ACT ENCLAVE ITEM, ALSO HAD A MEETING IN THE OFFICE WITH

ANOTHER STAFF. >> COMMISSIONER TAYLOR.

>> I HAD A RECORD OF AT LEAST TEN EMAILS ON THIS.

MEETING WITH BRAD CHARACTER FLOYD AND KRISTEN.

>> ALSO A, ALSO HAD 11 EMAILS FOR THIS SPECIFIC ITEM.

YOU KNOW I HAVE THE FOUR. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, I AM KRISTEN,

[03:35:06]

ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ASSOCIATE L. LLP.

WE HAVE A SLIDE SHOW PRESENTATION.

>> THERE YOU GO. >> THANK YOU.

WE GOT IT. THANK YOU.

I'M A FLORIDA ATTORNEY AND WE'RE JOINED HERE TODAY BY BRAD.

>> I AM BRAD, VICE PRESIDENT OF LAND USE PLANNING.

>> THANK YOU. WE'RE HERE TODAY ON 2026-11, I MENTIONED CARTER ROAD ASSOCIATES IS THE APPLICANT.

THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY IS 200 ACRES AND IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY AS NATURAL ENCLAVE PURSUANT TO SECTION 163.3162 AND 163.164 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES AS THOSE WERE AMENDED IN 2026. WE SUBMIT OUR APPLICATION ON SEPTEMBER FIRST, WE RECEIVED A STAFF REPORT ON OCTOBER FIRST.

>> WE WILL TAKE JUST A MINUTE. TOM, CAN YOU HELP ME OUT?

IT'S USUALLY JOHNNY ON THE SPOT. >> TOM HELPED ME OUT A COUPLE

TIMES YES. >> THERE WE GO.

>> THANK YOU. >> JUST SHIFTED THE BATTERIES.

>> THANK YOU. THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THIS APPLICATION FOR THIS HEARING OUR APPLICATION FOR AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE, MENTIONING SEPTEMBER FIRST 2026 INCLUDING THE TWO SCHEDULES OUT OF THE NINE AND MATERIALS MADE PART THEREOF. AS WELL AS THE SAINT JOHN'S COUNTY AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE CERTIFICATION REPORT DELIVERED TO THE APPLICANT OCTOBER FIRST 2026 BY THE STAFF.

ALSO THINGS THAT WERE MOVED TO EVIDENCE AS EVIDENCE AND PLACED INTO THE RECORD BY THIS REFERENCE.

THIS IS -- BRIEFLY I KNOW YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THESE BUT BRIEFLY, THE AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE BECAME EFFECTIVE ON JULY FIRST 2026. IT AMENDED THE DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE IN SECTION 163.3164 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES AS WELL AS THE PROCESS FOR CERTIFYING THE PROPERTY AS AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE PURSUANT TO 163.3162.

AS YOU ALL KNOW THOSE THINGS WERE IN THE STATUTE CHARACTERISTIC CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MODIFIED AS OF 2026.

THE PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFIED PARCELS PARCELS MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT SECTION 163.3164.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH BRIEFLY, IT'S THE NEXT FROM THE STAFF REPORT TO FRAME THIS ISSUE AND IF YOU BEAR WITH ME READ IT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S USEFUL FOR ALL OF US TO RECOGNISE WHAT STAGE IN THE MULTI-STAGE PROCESS WE'RE AT.

THE CERTIFICATION OF AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE CONSTITUTES A DETERMINATION ONLY THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SATISFIES THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE UNDER SECTION 163.31644 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES AND THE APPLICABLE CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF 163.3162 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES. CERTIFICATION DOESN'T APPROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, IT'S NOT A REZONING, IT DOESN'T APPROVE DEVELOPMENT ORDER IT DOESN'T APPROVE A SITE PLAN, DOESN'T AUTHORISE DEVELOPMENT. ANY SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION REMAIN SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES REQUIREMENTS AS WELL, AND THE STAFF REPORT PAGE 4.

THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THIS SITE, 200.75 ACRES.

IT IS EAST OF 95 AND NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD 214.

YOU CAN SEE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS LOCATION ON THE MAP THAT

[03:40:05]

THIS PROPERTY IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ACTION WAS DESIGNED FOR.

IT'S A REMNANT PIECE OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY THAT IS BORDERED ON ALMOST EVERY SIDE BY A DEVELOPMENT.

VERY CLOSELY BY DEVELOPMENT, AND SO AS WE WALK THROUGH THE CRITERIA FOR AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE, I THINK YOU'LL NOTICE THE METRICS WHERE THERE'S A MEASUREMENT THAT IS REQUIRED, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY TYPICALLY EXCEEDS THOSE MEASURES BY A WIDE MARGIN. I DON'T THINK IT'S A COINCIDENCE I THINK IT'S BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF PROPERTY THAT THE ACT CONTEMPLATED.

REMNANT AGRICULTURAL SURROUNDED BY DEVELOPMENT ALREADY.

AND I THINK YOU'LL SEE YOUR STAFF AGREES BASED ON THE -- THE STAFF REPORT, THE CONCLUSION BASED ON THE APPLICATION MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE INFORMATION REVIEWED BY COUNTY STAFF, THE APPLICATION APPEARS TO SATISFY THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE CONTAINED IN THE RELEVANT FLORIDA STA STATUTES.

SO ONE OF THE FIRST STEPS IN THE ANALYSIS IS LOOKING AT THE SURROUNDING DENSITY AND WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS SATISFIED THE CRITERIA, AND FOR THIS QUESTION, I WANT TO ASK MR. WOOSTER DO YOU PLEASE TALK TO US ABOUT THE SURROUNDING DENSITY.

BEFORE YOU DO THAT, IF YOU COULD PLEASE -- DO YOU NEED THIS? IF YOU COULD PLEASE JUST FOR THE RECORD SHARE A BIT ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE, YOUR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, YOUR FAMILIARITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE LAND USE REGULATIONS HERE AND YOUR EXPERIENCE ON SAINT JOHNS COUNTY, THAT WOULD BE

GREAT. >> YES.

I'M A 30-YEAR PROFESSIONAL LAND USE PLANNER DEGREED CURRENTLY THE VICE PRESIDENT OF LAND USE AND PLANNING AS MENTIONED AT MY LAW FIRM. I HAVE STATE AND LOCAL EXPERIENCE I PREVIOUSLY HELD A TOP SECRET CLEARANCE WITH A PRIVATE FIRM FOR MILITARY AND GOVERNMENT PLANNING.

MAJORITY OF MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTING LANDOWNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS FOR LAND USE.

20 PLUS YEARS HAVE BEEN IN SAINT JOHNS COUNTY FOR LAND USE AND ZONING MATTERS. I'M ALSO A COURT CERTIFIED EXPERT WITNESS FOR LAND USE AND SITE SUITABILITY MATTERS AND FINALLY ENDORSEMENT OF ALL THAT I SERVED IN AN APPOINTED POSITION ON UPON A VIDEO OVERLAYING BOARD FOR A TERRORIST FOR PUBLIC OFFICE AND SERVED TWO TERMS BACK-TO-BACK ON THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES IN THE PONTE VEDRA MUNICIPAL SERVICE DISTRICT AND

CHAIRMAN TWICE. >> FSIN INTERRUPT YOU FOR ONE MOMENT -- I DON'T THINK THE WITNESSES FOR THIS HERE HAVE BEEN SWORN. WOULD YOU MIND IF WE SWEAR IN

THE WITNESSES? >> NO, I DON'T MIND AT ALL.

CAN YOU SWEAR IN THE WITNESSES. >> ANYONE HERE TO TESTIFY ON THIS MATTER IF YOU CAN STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE US THE

TRUTH AND THE ONLY TRUTH. >> I DO.

>> THANK YOU. SORRY FOR THE INTERRUPTION.

>> TARGET LAND USE IN THE CITY RELATED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS WITH THE AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE PROVISIONS, THIS SITE WILL SHOW GRAPHICALLY IN A MAP HERE SHORTLY, SURROUNDED BY NORMALLY RESIDENTIAL C, SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL B AND ALSO MIXED USE DISTRICT AS YOU KNOW FROM SITTING ON THIS BOARD AND IN THE CASE, THE CELLS UP TO 13 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

YOU CAN SEE THERE HIGHLIGHTED AS YOU SCROLL THROUGH THIS.

IT WILL SHOW THAT GRAPHICALLY BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY WHAT WE ARE DOING IS SELF OFFERING 1.5 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING PER ACRE WITH THIS PROVISION. THE AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE SPECIFIC REGARDING OWNERSHIP, ALSO TALKS ABOUT THE PARCELS LOCATED IN OTHER CORPORATE ST. JOHNS COUNTY ARE TO BE DEVELOPED, MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T SLIDE -- MISS THE SLIDE HERE.

>> LET'S GO BACK FOR JUST A MOMENT TO WALK THROUGH THIS HERE MR. WESTER, IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT THE STAFF HAVE DONE IS WALK THROUGH EACH PERIMETER PROPERTY AND EVALUATE FIRST THE FUTURE LAND USE AND THEN THE NEXT THROW DOWN THE ZONING AND THEN ESTABLISH BASED ON THAT THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DENSITY FOR EACH PARCEL SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY.

DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >> CORRECT.

RESIDENTIAL SEEING GRAPHICALLY -- IT ALLOWS UNITS PER ACRE AND

[03:45:01]

RESIDENTIAL B WHICH IS TWO UNITS PER ACRE AND OF COURSE AS MENTIONED MIXED USE WHICH IS THE 13 UNITS PER ACRE AND PER THE AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE PROVISIONS AND WHEN STAFF IS REVIEWING THIS, THEY'RE INHERENTLY GO TO WHAT IS CALLED THE THEORETICAL MAXIMUM, WHAT COULD THIS LAND HOLD BASED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THEORY FOR FUTURE MAP AND IN THIS CASE IT'S 13 UNITS PER ACRE WHICH AS YOU SEE IS 2609 UNITS BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY THAT LAND COULD HOLD THAT MANY UNITS.

I THINK WE HAVE SEEN OTHERS AND THEIR TESTIMONY DESCRIBE THAT AS WELL BUT AGAIN, WE'RE ALSO SELF PROFFERING 1.5 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS PER ACRE AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WE ARE IN WHOLLY WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE WHICH ALLOWS UP TO SIX DWELLING

UNITS PER ACRE. >> THANK YOU.

I THINK WE TOUCHED ON THIS BRIEFLY SO MOVING ON FROM THE DECENCY ANALYSIS TO THE CRITERIA A THROUGH F UNDER THE DEFINITION OF AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE, THE FIRST CONDITION IS THAT THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN UNINCORPORATED COUNTY AND THIS UNDEVELOPED AND CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE ENTITY.

THE THREE PARCELS THAT MAKE UP THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE IN FACT UNDEVELOPED AND THEY'RE OWNED BY CARTER ROAD ASSOCIATES LLP AS OF JANUARY 1ST 2025, WE SUBMITTED THE DEEDS FOR THE PROPERTIES TO ESTABLISH THAT WE PRESENTED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE OWNER TO SUPPORT THAT AND THE STAFF HAS AGREED WITH THAT AND FOUND THAT THEY ARE UNDEVELOPED, INCORPORATED IN SAINT JOHNS COUNTY AND THAT THEY WERE OWNED BY A SINGLE ENTITY CARTER ASSOCIATES LLP AS OF JANUARY 1ST 2025.

SO STAFF FOUND AND THE APPLICANT AGREES THAT THE CONDITION HAS BEEN MET. THE SECOND CONDITION CRITERIA IS BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL USE PARCEL OF PARCELS MUST HAVE BEEN A CONTINUOUS USE OF BONAFIDE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AS DEFINED BY SECTION 193.461 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS BEFORE THE DATE OF AN AMENDMENT OR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. ONCE AGAIN, THE STAFF HAS EVALUATED WHAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND THOSE WERE AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE OWNER TESTIFYING TO THE AGRICULTURAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S GOT TERM RECORDS DATING TO 2017 AND THEN STAFF SEPARATELY ACCORDING TO THE STAFF REPORT INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISAL THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO A BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL USE CLASSIFICATION FROM 2015 TO 2025. SO STAFF MADE A FINDING THAT BASED ON THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED AND STAFF'S EVALUATION THE APPLICATION DEMONSTRATES COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CONDITION AS WELL. KIND OF KEEPING WITH THIS COMMENT THAT I MADE AT THE BEGINNING THAT WHERE THERE'S A METRIC THERE'S APPLICANT IS ABLE TO MEET IT OR EXCEED IT BY A WIDE MARGIN, ONLY REQUIRED TO PRODUCE FIVE YEARS, BUT WE WANTED TO REALLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THIS IS A TRUE PARCEL SO WE SUBMITTED WELL OVER FIVE YEARS OF RECORDS TO ESTABLISH THAT BONAFIDE AGRICULTURAL USE. SO THE NEXT CONDITION OR NEXT REQUIREMENT DIDN'T COME UP. THERE WE GO.

THERE ARE MULTIPLE DIFFERENT PATHWAYS THAT AN APPLICANT CAN TRY TO UTILISE TO MEET THE NEXT CRITERIA IN SUBSECTION C FOUR.

WE WILL LOOK AT THAT FOR C TWO AND THIS REQUIRES THAT A PARCEL OR PARCELS DON'T EXCEED 700 ACRES AND ARE SURROUNDED ON AT LEAST 50% OF THEIR PYRAMID OR BY PROPERTY DESIGNATED ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO BE DEVELOPED FOR INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AND THE PARCELS OR PARCELS ARE SURROUNDED ON AT LEAST 50% OF THE PERIMETER BY PARCEL PARCEL BETWEEN URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT AREA OR LINE.

BELOW YOU'LL SEE THIS DEFINING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY STATUS BY THE AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE QUALIFICATION CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION. YOU HEARD THERE WERE KIND OF THREE ELEMENTS TO THIS SIZE AND THEN 250% MEASUREMENTS.

SO THE FIRST SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 200.75 ACRES IS SUPPORTED BY THE SURVEYORS AFFIDAVIT WE SUBMITTED AS WELL AS THE SURVEY SPECIAL PURPOSE MAP FOR THIS PURPOSE AND THEN FOR THE NEXT TWO CRITERIA I'LL ASK OUR EXPERT MR. WESTER TO PROVIDE SOME TESTIMONY.

>> THANK YOU. >> BRAD WESTER, THE FUTURE LAND

[03:50:07]

USE IS ONE OF THE ELEMENTS WE DIVE INTO IN TERMS OF THE CRITERIA AND HOW DOES THE SITE JUDGE IN CONCERT WITH NOT ONLY WHAT DOES IT OCCUPY AS IN TERMS OF FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORY BUT ALSO WHAT'S SURROUNDING IT. THAT SETS THE TONE FOR THE DENSITY THAT WILL BE UTILISED ON THIS PROPERTY.

IN THIS CASE WE KNOW WHERE 200.75 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES.

YOU CAN SEE ON THIS MAP WE'RE HOLDING WITHIN RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE AND IT'S A LAND USE MAP TAKEN FROM SAINT JOHNS COUNTY'S GIS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE BUT IN THE STAFF REPORT IT ALSO MENTIONED WE'RE HOLDING WITHIN RESIDENTIAL LAND USE UP TO $6 PER ACRE. GENERALLY MEANING IS A CONDITIONAL USE, AND THEN WE ALSO ON THE NORTH SIDE THERE'S THE MIXED USE DISTRICT. PUT THAT IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CHART WE SHOULD HAVE PREVIOUSLY -- THE MIXED USE ESSENTIALLY BECOMES THE CARRYING CAPACITY IN TERMS OF WHAT THIS PROPERTY COULD YIELD THEORETICALLY IN TERMS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

COULD NEVER ACTUALLY YIELD 2600 PLUS UNITS, YOU COULDN'T FIT THEM ON THE PROPERTY DIMENSIONALLY, IT WOULDN'T WORK BUT AS YOU SEE WE SEE 1.5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE WHICH IS ACTUALLY LESS THAN THE THE RENT ESSENTIAL BE TO OUR WEST.

AND YOU SEE THERE AT LEAST 50% OF THE PROPERTIES DESIGNATED FOR HIM TO BE DEVELOPED FOR INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AND OF COURSE STAFF DIRECTLY FROM STAFF REPORT, 100% SURROUNDED BY PARCELS DESIGNATED IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS LAND TO BE DEVELOPED AGAIN FOR INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL AND WE HAVE SHOWN THAT.

>> CONTINUE, IS THE URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT AREA RELYING IN SAINT JOHNS COUNTY'S CASE, THE DEVELOPMENT AREA.

THIS ONE AGAIN, AT LEAST 50% OF THE PERIMETER BY PARCEL WITHIN AN URBAN DISTRICT AREA OR LINE, ADDITIONALLY STAFFS CONFIRM THAT 100% OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PERIMETER IS ADJACENT TO PARCELS THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE COUNTY'S DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE LOCATION MAP, EVERYTHING IS SHOWN IN THAT REDDISH COLOR THAT'S ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AREA OR DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY OR DEVELOPMENT AREA DISTRICT OR URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT.

THAT'S EVERYTHING THAT IS OUTSIDE THE RULES CULTURE OR AI CATEGORIES. REGARDING INFRASTRUCTURE, DO YOU

>> YES. >> AS A SEPARATE ANALYSIS FROM WHETHER THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN AN URBAN SERVICE AREA DISTRICT OR LINE, THERE'S AN ANALYSIS OF WHETHER -- AND THIS IS A SUBSECTION 4D, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ITSELF HAS PUBLIC SERVICES, OR SCHEDULE AND THE CIE TO BE PROVIDED OR CAN BE PROVIDED BY AN ALTERNATE PROVIDER, OR WHETHER THE APPLICANT OFFERS INTO A BINDING AGREEMENT TO PAY FOR CONSTRUCT OR CONTRIBUTE LAND FOR ITS PROPORTIONATE SHARES SUCH IMPROVEMENTS. IN THIS CASE, ON THIS STAFF, PERFORMED THE REVIEW AND SUGGESTED THAT ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ARE NOT PRESENTLY AVAILABLE HOWEVER THE APPLICANT HAS OFFERED TO ENTER INTO A BINDING AGREEMENT TO PAY FOR CONSTRUCT OR CONTRIBUTE LAND FOR THE PROPORTION CHAIR OF THE IMPROVEMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTORY SECTION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW. SO, YOU KNOW, I IMAGINE THIS IS COMPLETELY TRUE BUT I IMAGINE THE DENSITY EVALUATION IS 1.5 UNITS PER ACRE INSTEAD OF 2600 TOTAL UNITS.

THOSE NUMBERS MIGHT BE A BIT DIFFERENT BUT WE DON'T NEED TO DECIDE THAT TODAY BECAUSE THE APPLICANT MET THIS CONDITION BY OFFERING -- SUBMITTING AN OFFER SAYING WE WILL OFFER TO ENTER A BINDING AGREEMENT TO PAY FOR CONTRIBUTE LAND FOR PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF ANY SUCH IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXTENT

THEY'RE NOT AVAILABLE. >> IF I MAY AS WELL, LEADING IT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ON THIS, REGARDING THE 2050 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE LOCAL ONE CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY ESSENTIALLY DOES BOTH THINGS LIKE THE URBAN SERVICE AREA DOES IN TERMS OF THAT STATUTORY DEFINITION.

IT DEFINES WHERE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES INCLUDING WATER SEWER ROAD EXIST OR PLANNED AND IT'S ACCORDING TO A ONE 2D 113. NUMBER 2 IT'S URBAN FROM RURAL LAND ON THE FLUME AND THAT'S A 12 FOR SPECIFICALLY.

AND WE HAVE SHOWN THAT SPECIFICALLY AND OTHER LANDS THAT ARE ALREADY DEVELOPED NOR MIXED USE CATEGORY BUT THERE ARE

[03:55:05]

RESIDENTIAL INCLUDING PODS, SO THAT PUTS IT IN CONTEXT IN TERMS OF THE DEFINITION AVAILABLE FOR THE POLICIES REGARDING

INFRASTRUCTURE. >> THANK YOU.

>> SO THAT TAKES THIS TO THE NEXT CRITERIA WHICH IS 163.164 FOR PERTAINING TO THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

LIMITS THE PROPERTY TO 1280 ACRES EXCEPT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS ONLY 200.75 ACRES.

SO UNDER ANY CALCULATION OF THE PARTICULAR ELEMENT OR WELL UNDER THE MAXIMUM. AND STAFF AGREES THAT THE APPLICATION DEMONSTRATES COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBSECTION AS WELL. THE NEXT SECTION I THINK MAY BE THE POPULATION HAS BEEN MEMORISED BY MOST OF US.

THE PARCEL MUST BE LOCATED IN A COUNTY WITH A POPULATION OF 1.75 MILLION OR LESS AND WE SUBMITTED THE POPULATION CALCULATIONS AND SAINT JOHNS COUNTY IS WELL OVER 1.75 MILLION PEOPLE. YOUR STAFF AGREES THIS CONDITION HAS BEEN MET. JUST TO RESET THE MAP I CAN I THINK THAT MR. WESTER WAS ALLUDING TO THIS, LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY IS WELL WITHIN AN URBANISED AREA, IT'S AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IN EACH CASE AS I MENTIONED, THERE'S A METRIC THAT AN APPLICANT NEEDS TO MEET THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION IS ABLE TO FAR EXCEED IT.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE 50% OF THE PERIMETER TOUCHING LAND TO BE DEVELOPED FOR COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL.

AND IN THIS CASE IT'S 1% OF THE PERIMETER APPEAR 50% OF THE PROPERTY BORDERED BY LANDS THAT ARE WITHIN URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT AREA OR LINE. THIS PROPERTY ITSELF IS 100% WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT AREA OR LINE.

THE MAXIMUM OF ONE METRIC IS 700 THE MAXIMUM OF THE OTHER METRIC IS 1280. YET AGAIN ONLY PROPOSING 200 AND PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE MAXIMUM DENSITY THAT COULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THE STATUTORY ANALYSIS IS LOOKING LIKE A HUNDRED TIMES MORE. DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT, WE CAN DO 2600 PLUS UNITS THE APPLICANT'S COMMITTED TO 1.5 UNITS PER GROSS ACRE IN THIS CASE.

SO WE WOULD ASK THAT THE CERTIFIED THIS PROPERTY AS AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE. I KIND OF JUMPED AHEAD OF MYSELF BUT ONE MORE TIME IF I MAY, WE RUN THROUGH THESE ONCE MORE, LOCATED ON SAINT JOHNS COUNTY, IT'S A SINGLE OWNERSHIP AS OF JANUARY OF 2025, THAT'S KIND OF RUDE ASSOCIATES LLP THE APPLICANT. WE PROVIDED WELL OVER FIVE YEARS OF EVIDENCE OF A BONAFIDE AGRICULTURAL USE, ITS SIZE IS VERY SMALL COMPARED TO WHAT AN THE FUTURE LAND USE, 100% OF THE PERIMETER IS QUALIFYING FUTURE LAND USE, 100% OF THE PERIMETER IS QUALIFYING AREA OF URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT AREA OR LINE.

THERE'S A LOT OF INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND THIS PROPERTY ALREADY BECAUSE OF THE RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT THAT EXISTS BUT THE APPLICANT ALSO OFFERED TO ENTER QUALIFYING AGREEMENT TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY AND SO WE ALSO SPOKE ABOUT THE APPLICANT SELF LIMITING TO 1.5 UNITS PER GROSS ACRE. AND ONE NICE THING ABOUT THAT ONE OF MANY NICE THINGS ABOUT THAT IS THAT A DENSITY ON THIS PROPERTY WILL ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO PUT FORWARD A SITE PLAN EVENTUALLY IN PHASE TWO THAT IS GOING TO KEEP A MINIMUM OF HALF OF THE PROPERTY, 50% OF THE PROPERTY AS COLLECTIVELY WETLAND AND PRESERVE AREA. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO THIS APPLICANT WHICH HAS TO BE SENSITIVE TO THE AREA AND USING THE LAND AS A GOOD STEWARD.

AND SO, IF I COULD JUST ADD A POINT OF ORDER, BECAUSE BRAD WASN'T SWORN IN YET, WOULD YOU WANT TO JUST QUICKLY REMINDING US IF YOUR CREDENTIALS ON THE RECORD BEFORE WE ASK FOR

QUESTIONS. >> YES.

PROFESSIONAL LAND USE PLANNER 30-YEAR VICE PRESIDENT OF LAND

USE PLANNING. >> THANK YOU.

RESERVE SOME TIME FOR REBUTTAL IF NECESSARY.

>> MR. WEST OR, WHEN WE MET YOU SAID 1.3 UNITS PER ACRE.

[04:00:04]

YOU SHOWED ME KIND OF A COOL -- I KNOW IT'S NOT PART OF THIS HEARING THE WAY YOU SET UP HOW THE HOUSES WERE GOING TO BE AND THE CONSERVATION AREA AND THAT KIND OF THING BUT I COULD HAVE SWORN YOU SAID 1.3 AND IT WAS UNDER 300 UNITS.

>> SO THE 301 UNITS, WE SHOWED THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ON A CERTAIN CONCEPT PLAN IS THE 1.5 UNITS PER ACRE, SO WE ARE UNDER THE TWO QUITE A BIT, WHICH IS THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL

FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. >> THEY JUST MENTIONED IT TO ME, SO I I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT CHANGED.

>> MR., I CAN'T EXPLAIN AND I DON'T RECALL THE 1.3 BUT WE WERE AT 1.5. AGAIN, THE CURRENT ENTITLEMENT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL C, FOR INSTANCE IF WE DIDN'T TOUCH THE MIXED USE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY, WE WOULD BE HELD TO THAT CERTAIN STANDARD AND THE MAX WOULD BE SIX.

CERTAINLY IN THEORY IT COULD BE UP TO 13 UNITS PER ACRE.

THIS ONE WE'RE ACTUALLY SELF-REPORTING TO 1.5 UNITS PER ACRE ON THIS AND AGAIN, 50% OF THAT AND YOU DISCUSS THE SITE PLAN 50% OF THAT, WHICH IS GOING TO BE COLLECTIVELY PRESERVED INTO WHAT LANDS AND OPEN SPACE. AND WE DID SHOW YOU THAT CONCEPT AND WE'VE MET WITH THE NEIGHBORS AROUND THE COMMUNITY.

THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS HERE IF THIS WERE TO

BE APPROVED. >> OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD?

>> GIVING A FEW MINUTES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN WE WILL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY IF ANYTHING COMES UP THAT IS

SUBSTANTIAL. >> HAVE SOME COMMENTS BUT I CAN

WAIT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. >> COOL.

>> AT THIS TIME WE'LL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3. GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. CAN YOU ZOOM IN ON THAT A LITTLE? I WANT TO SAY I PLACED A TEN PAGE DOCUMENT ON THE RECORD GOING INTO DETAILS LIKE EMAIL 1015, I GOT CONFIRMATION IT WAS ON THE RECORD AS A 1016.

CARTER ROAD APPLICATION RELATES ON THE PATHWAY THAT REQUIRES TWO CONDITIONS TO BE MET THAT THE PARCELS SURROUNDING THE AT LEAST 50% OF THE PERIMETER BY PARCELS DESIGNATED ON THE FORM FOR INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THAT THE PARCELS ARE SURROUNDED ON AT LEAST 50% OF THEIR PERIMETER BY PARCELS WITHIN AN URBAN SERVICE AREA DISTRICT OR LINE.

WE DISCUSSED THIS RECENTLY AT THE LAST MEETING AND THIS IS NOT MET. AGAIN, AN APPLICANT IS TRYING TO SUBSTITUTE THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY FOR AN URBAN SERVICE AREA DISTRICT LINE. THE COUNTY'S OWN RECORDS SHOW WHAT DESIGNATED AN URBAN SERVICE AREA REQUIRES THE 106 2026EOCC MEETING, A SENIOR PLANNER THAT ALSO ASSIGNED A CARTER REPORT IN HER REPORT ON MAJOR ON 2026-09 URBAN PARK SHE STATED THE PROPERTY WAS DESIGNATED AN URBAN SERVICE AREA 2015 BY ORDINANCE 2015-4. IN SAINT JOHNS COUNTY AN URBAN SERVICE AREA HAS BEEN CREATED BY ORDINANCE SHOWN ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND TIED TO IDENTIFY AND FUND AN INFRASTRUCTURE. THIS WAS AGAIN STATED ON PAGE 8 OF THE STAFF REPORT FOR MAJOR MOD 202-0609.

STAFF REPORTS UNDER PARAGRAPH D THAT REVIEWED BY VARIOUS COUNTY DEPARTMENTS DETERMINED THERE ARE NOT PRESENTLY ADEQUATE PUBLIC SERVICES. DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY AND NO SERVICES CANNOT BE A USA. IN ADDITION BORDERS ALREADY REVERSED THE CERTIFICATION ON WHICH THIS APPLICANT RELIES, THEIR APPLICATION HAS THEM TALKING ABOUT HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT AND THAT THEORY OF AN URBAN SERVICE.

SO THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DENIED AS OF 92826.

THE APPLICANT MENTIONED DENSITY BUT HONESTLY ON THEIR APPLICATION AND THE STEP OF WHAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE ONE, SAID THE NEW INFORMATION IS BRAND NEW AND REALLY I'M NOT SURE WHY WE'RE FILLING IN INFORMATION FOR THEM. THIS APPLICATION COULD HAVE BEEN TOSSED OUT AS NONCOMPLETE. THE APPLICANT'S PLAN STATE THEY REVIEWED A 2050 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WASN'T PASSED UNTIL APRIL 21ST 2026. WE ARE DUE TO LOOK AT JANUARY FIRST 2025 AND STAFF NOTES DEFICIENCY OF THE APPLICATION AND BASICALLY THAT IT WASN'T SATISFIED.

WHEN WHATEVER THEY SAID TODAY WAS NOT WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS PUT IN. STAFF CHARACTERISES THE REPORT

[04:05:01]

PRELIMINARY EVALUATION AND STATES THE BOARD DETERMINED ON THE ENTIRE RECORD WHETHER THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.

AND IT HASN'T BEEN MET. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> SHERRY BADGER, 27 SOUTH COLLINS AVENUE. I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE IN HERE THAT THE SUPREME COURT DOES RECOGNISE ANYBODY THAT LIVES WITHIN 300 FEET OF A DEVELOPMENT AS EXPERT WITNESSES.

SO WHEN YOU CONSIDERED THEIR EXPERT WITNESSES YOU NEED TO CONSIDER THE PEOPLE THAT LIVED NEXT DOOR.

GOD BLESS, HAVE A GOOD DAY. >> ANY COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM

NUMBER 3. >> I'M NOT THE ONE TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY BUT I DO WANT TO REMIND YOU ABOUT FOUR WEEKS AGO, TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE NOT RELATED TO EACH OTHER, A WELL-DIGGER WAS HERE AND HE TALKED ABOUT THE WATER. AND THEN THE SECOND ONE SPOKE OVER HERE AND WAS THE ENGINEER. I HAVE TO TELL YOU, WHEN YOU GO ON YOUR VIDEO AND YOU DO A COUPLE THINGS, THEN YOU'RE BOMBARDED WITH VIDEOS, WATER GOT MY CURIOSITY UP BECAUSE FOR SOME REASON THE WHOLE WELL THING GOT TO ME AND I HAVE TO TELL YOU THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON DOWN THERE, AND I'M NOT TALKING HELP I'M TALKING ABOUT WATER FALLING APART I DON'T EVEN KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE SOILS COMING APART AND WE HAVE HOLES, THAT'S THE ONLY THING I HAVE TO TELL YOU. BECAUSE IN THE RULES THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW, IT IS TO BE LOOKING OUT FOR THE FUTURE.

IT IS TO BE DOING WHAT IS BEST AND MAYBE TODAY IT I'M SEEING, JUST ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT, WHICH I'M OKAY WITH BECAUSE TO ME IT'S BRINGING THE PLACE THE HOUSES ON, WHO KNOWS, MAY BE A HOUSE ONE DAY AND ALSO TWO ON THE AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE, I WANT TO TELL YOU, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT A FEW WEEKS AGO BUT I STUDIED THAT THING DOWN SIDEWAYS, WHEN I FIRST HEARD ABOUT AGRICULTURE, THE VERY FIRST THING THAT CAME TO MY MIND WAS FIVE, TEN, 20-ACRE PARCELS WITH NICE HOUSES ON IT CAN I PROBABLY ON THE PRICEY SIDE, GENTLEMAN FAMILY GARDENERS, MAYBE THE 28 INTO THE HORSE PROPERTY.

SO WHEN I CLICKED ON THE BACKUP AND I SAW 13 UNITS ON 1 ACRE, I SHUT THAT THING DOWN AND I SAID THIS IS OVER MY HEAD.

I CALLED THEM MY BEST FRIENDS, I AND I JUST HAVE TO TELL YOU, I DO KNOW A LOT ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW AND IT'S ALL BALONEY, IT'S JUST A DEVELOPMENT AND IF THE PERSON NEEDS THEIR RULES AND REGULATIONS, I WOULDN'T WANT TO DENY IT BUT KEEP IN MIND WATER, WATER, WATER. THANK YOU.

>> HE IS RIGHT. I AGREE WITH MR. REYNOLDS.

THEY USED TO SAY OUT WEST THAT WATER DOESN'T FLOW DOWNHILL, IT FLOWS UPHILL AND IS WORTH MONEY. THIS IS A WASTE OF WATER, THIS IS A WASTE OF OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS EARTHRIGHTS HERE IN SAINT JOHNS COUNTY AND WE NEED TO APPLY THE SEVEN GENERATION TEST, WHAT NATIVE AMERICAN STUDIES WHICH IS NEEDING TO CONSIDER ANY GOVERNMENT DECISION, HOW IT'S GOING TO BE AFFECTING LIFE IN SEVEN GENERATIONS.

SOMETIMES AROUND HERE WE DON'T EVEN THINK 7 MINUTES AHEAD, CAN WE LOOK AT LOBBYISTS WHO TELL US HOW TO WRITE OUR -- WRITE THE LAWS, LOBBYISTS WHO SEEM TO EXIST FOR THE PURPOSE OF WRITING LAWS AND THE LAWS ARE NOT VERY GOOD.

AND IT'S AS GARY USED TO ASK HIS STAFF COMMENCING IN 1975 WHEN HE WAS FIRST SWORN IN AS A UNITED STATES SENATOR, HE SHOULD ASK FOR ANY LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS, IS IT BASED ON NEED OR GREED? AND I HAVE YET TO HEAR IN ANY OF THESE AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE DISCUSSIONS THAT QUESTION ANSWERED. GIVE ME MY NAME IS JAMIE, THAT'S ROBERT WROTE IN HIS BOOK. THEY HAD MONEY, THEY WANT MORE, THEY WANT YOU TO GIVE IT TO THEM BY THIS APPLICATION.

[04:10:05]

THERE'S ANALYSIS THAT IS SPOT ON, YOU WON'T HEAR A COHERENT REBUTTAL. AND THERE'S NO PRINCIPLE REASON FOR THIS PROJECT TO EXIST OTHER THAN SOMEBODY WROTE A LAW THINKING OF WHAT'S RIGHT TO GIVE US MORE? THEY'VE GOT ENOUGH ALREADY AND YOU LOOK AT WHAT THEY'VE DONE TO SAINT JOHNS COUNTY AND THE WORDS OF THE GREAT JUDGE WHO OPPOSED GERARD MANLEY HOPKINS CACTUS COUNTY IS SMEARED, BLEARED AND TIERED WITH DEVELOPMENTS, OVER DEVELOPMENTS, UGLIEST CENTER, WASTING WATER, DESTROYING SCHOOLS, DESTROYING WAY OF LIFE AND PEOPLE IN SAINT JOHNS COUNTY KNOW THAT AND THAT'S WHY THEY ELECTED AT LEAST THREE OF YOU ALL, MAYBE ALL OF YOU ALL TO ATTEND TO THIS. SO IF IT DOESN'T FIT YOU MUST QUIT. I THINK THE ANALYSIS IS SPOT ON.

WE'RE BLESSED TO HAVE HER AND IF THIS COUNTY HAS STAFF THAT WAS MERIT BASED INSTEAD OF BEING RUN BY PEOPLE LIKE THAT GUY IN THE BACK WHO HIRED THEM, HAVE THIS COUNTY HAD A DECENT STAFF, YOUR STAFF REPORT WOULD HAVE BEEN STRONGER.

STAFF REPORT WOULD HAVE SAID NO BUT NOW WE HAVE STAFF PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING FOR WHAT THEY WOULD CALL THE DEFERRED BRIDE WHICH IS GIVE ME A JOB IN THE FUTURE IF I VOTE FOR YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON. >> HELLO, I AM JOANNE AND I LIVE ON CARTER ROAD, WHICH SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY ESTABLISHED ROAD CONNECTING TO THIS PROPERTY AT THE END OF CARTER ROAD, WHICH IS NOT EVEN A PAINTED ROAD, IT HAS NO MIDDLE LINE, IT HAS NO EDGES, IT IS HARD FOR TWO LARGE TRUCKS TO PASS EACH OTHER SAFELY ON THAT ROAD AND IT HAS SEVERAL BLIND CURVES.

I KNOW THEY WANT TO INTRODUCE 300 HOMES THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE USING THAT ROAD END. THEY MIGHT SAY WE DON'T HAVE THAT BUT THEY CHANGE THINGS, THINGS CHANGE ALL THE TIME.

IT IS NOT A SUITABLE THING. WE DON'T HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE TO HANDLE ANY MORE HOMES AND FAMILIES AND TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA. AND SO FAR AS THE GROUNDWATER, IT'S ALREADY POSSIBLY CONTAMINATED BY BIOMASS FACILITY THAT IS JUST UP THE ROAD. SO WE'RE NOT ONLY COMPROMISING OUR GROUNDWATER BY THE AIR, SO THEY'RE GOING TO INTRODUCE OR GOING TO SELL LAND TO FAMILIES IN THE AREA BUT WHAT DOES THAT SMELL? I CAN'T WALK OUT MY FRONT DOOR.

I'M SMELLIG THIS GUY WHERE'S THAT COMING FROM? THERE'S A BIOMASS FACILITY WITHIN A 5-MILE RADIUS THAT IS GOING TO INVADE YOUR QUALITY OF LIFE AND RUIN IT AND EVERY ONE OF US ON CARTER ROAD IS EXPERIENCING IT AND I DON'T KNOW WHO THIS LLC IS BUT I HAVE A FEELING IT'S THE SAME GROUP THAT OWNS THE REST OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF ACRES AND THEY'RE ALL CONNECTED TO EACH OTHER. AND THEY HAVE GIVEN THEMSELVES DIFFERENT LITTLE LLC NAMES SO THEY CAN BRING US THE APPLICATION AND SAY IT'S JUST ONE OWNER.

IT'S ALL THE SAME PEOPLE. AND WE'RE SO TIRED.

WE HAVE A QUIET LIFE OUT THERE, ALL OF US AND THE END OF CARTER OWNS FIVE PLUS ACRES. WE ARE TRULY -- WE'RE NOT JUST RESIDENTIAL. IT'S AGRICULTURE WE GROW TIMBER, WE GROW -- WE FEED THOSE ENTRANCES HOUSE AND I JUST CAN'T IMAGINE PEOPLE LIVING IN 300 HOMES AT THE END OF CARTER ROAD COMING IN AND OUT, IT JUST BLOWS MY MIND THAT THIS IS EVEN CONSIDERED AND THANK GOD IT'S BEEN DENIED SO FAR.

JUST PLEASE PRAY, THEY CONTINUE TO DENY THIS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT, IT'S JUST NOT SUITABLE.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM NERVOUS I'VE DONE THIS BEFORE BUT I DON'T LIKE DOING IT.

HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS, I TRY TO READ ALL FOUR OF THESE ENCLAVES AND IT'S JUST LIKE SWIMMING AND WITH ALL THE INFORMATION -- I ATTENDED A COUPLE MEETINGS WHERE PREVIOUS ONES, COMMISSIONER TAYLOR, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT, THE URBAN SERVICE AREA VERSUS DEVELOPMENT AREA AND THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG QUESTIONS.

[04:15:04]

DOES A COUNTY DEVELOPMENT AREA FOUNDRY SATISFY THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF AN URBAN SERVICE AREA? THIS DISTINCTION WAS RAISED DURING THE HERITAGE AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE HEARINGS. FIVE YEARS OF BONAFIDE AGRICULTURAL USE JUSTIFIED BY HAVING A CERTIFICATION THAT SAYS -- ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTY RECORDS CAMECO THOSE PROPERTIES ACTUALLY BEEN FARMED OR HAD ANIMALS OR ARE THEY DOING AGRICULTURAL TYPE OF SERVICES OR IS THE LAND JUST SITTING THERE WAITING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY SUCH AS THIS LITTLE LOOPHOLE FOR DEVELOPMENT? WHAT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES EACH APPLICATION? THE BURDEN OF PROOF, EACH APPLICATION TO DEMONSTRATE THE COMPLIANCE WITH EVERY APPLICABLE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT SHOULD CERTIFICATION PROCEED WHEN NATURAL -- MATERIAL QUESTIONS REMAIN UNRESOLVED.

PLEASE REQUIRE CLEAR DEMONSTRATED EVIDENCE INTO STATUTORY COMPLIANCE BEFORE GRANTING THESE AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVES. WE'RE GOING TO HEAR ANOTHER ONE THIS AFTERNOON. I HATE TO SEE THAT SOMEBODY MADE A PROMISE AND THEY DON'T KEEP THEIR PROMISE AND THEN THE ROAD, HERE WE ARE WITH ANOTHER THING. THANK YOU, PLEASE DENY THIS

APPLICATION CERTIFICATION. >> THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE WITH OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME?

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> THEY ENCLAVE LAW IS SIDESTEPPING THE NORMAL LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING RULES YOU ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE AND TAKING POWER AWAY FROM YOU.

I THINK AT THE VERY LEAST, WE CAN APPLY THAT LAW STRICTLY, EXACTLY AS IT'S WRITTEN, AND AGAIN TODAY WE SEE THE URBAN SERVICE AREA DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY BEING CONFLATED AS THE SAME IDEA. THEY ARE DEFINED DIFFERENTLY IN YOUR PLAN AND IN POLICY A ONE TO NINE OF THE COUNTY PLAN IT SAYS THE COUNTY CAN INVESTIGATE THE DESIGNATION OF URBAN SERVICE AREAS IN APPROPRIATE AREAS AND RIGHT BEFORE THAT IT DESCRIBES WHAT A DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY IS. YOUR PLANS RECOGNISE THESE SEPARATE THINGS AND YOU HAVE GONE FORWARD TO THE URBAN CREEK ONE SO THE DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY IS MORE OF A PLANNED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, URBAN SERVICE AREA IS ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE, IT'S WHERE THE INFRASTRUCTURE ALREADY EXISTS OR IS COMMITTED TO IN A BUDGET. AND THAT'S WHAT THE ADD ON LAW ASKS FOR AND WHAT IS DEFICIENT FROM MANY OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT YOU RECEIVED INCLUDING THIS ONE.

SO PLEASE, REALISE THAT IS A DISTINCTION.

THEY'RE CONFLATED THEY HAVE A LOT OF COMMON ASPECTS ABOUT FUTURE GROWTH BUT THERE ARE DIFFERENT AND THE LAW REQUIRES EXISTING OR PLANNED BUDGETED INFRASTRUCTURE, NOT JUST A GENERAL IDEA THAT THIS IS WHERE WE WANT DEVELOPMENT TO GO.

IT DOESN'T STOP THEM FROM COMING BACK AND APPLYING THROUGH THE COUNTY'S NORMAL PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE.

UNDER THE STRICTLY HOW THIS LAW IS WRITTEN THEY DON'T QUALIFY.

ANYONE ELSE WITH ANY PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME?

>> THERE'S FOUR ENCLAVES, ONE YOU JUST GOT RID OF, SO THERE'S FOUR TODAY, YOU PROBABLY ANSWERED THIS ONE -- WHY CAN'T WE WAIT UNTIL AFTER NOVEMBER 30 LECTURE? WILL HAVE NEW PEOPLE HERE THAT CAN LOOK INTO SOME OF THESE THINGS BECAUSE I THINK THIS URBAN SERVICE AREA -- READING A BIT ABOUT IT I THINK YOU NEED TO DIVE INTO THAT BEFORE YOU VOTE ON THIS ONE OR DENY IT AND THEN COME BACK.

THIS IS MR. PROPERTY, THIS STUFF PEOPLE SHOW UP AND START TALKING AND IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING. MIGHT SHOW ON THE BACK OF THE MATERIAL HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THAT.

SO MAYBE JUST TABLE THIS UNTIL AFTER NOVEMBER UNLESS YOU HAVE TO DO IT. I THINK THERE'S A RUSH TO GET THE ENCLAVES DONE NOW BEFORE THE NEW PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY SITTING UP THERE OR SOME OF THE NEW PEOPLE ARE SITTING UP THERE SO THAT COULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION UNLESS YOU WANT TO JUST GO AHEAD

[04:20:03]

BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE AREA, THEY SPOKE AND THEY DON'T HAVE UTILITIES AND THEY NEED UTILITIES ALL OVER THE COUNTY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WITH PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3? SEEING NONE WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> LET'S GO BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A MINUTE.

COMMISSIONER, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING?

>> COULD YOU COME UP? >> WHEN IS THE LAST DAY THAT IF WE DIDN'T VOTE ON IT TODAY IT WOULD GO AUTOMATICALLY?

>> WE DO HAVE A TIMELINE. >> I JUST WANTED THE DATE IF YOU CAN GIVE THAT TO ME. THANK YOU.

NOVEMBER 30TH. IN THAT CASE I HEARD NEW EVIDENCE TODAY AND BECAUSE OF THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE THIS TO NOVEMBER 17TH. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> I HAVE MORE INFORMATION TO SHARE BEFORE WE DO THAT.

>> YOU CAN STILL PUT THE MOTION ON THE TABLE.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> CAN ALWAYS COME BACK TO THAT.

MOTION FAILS. SO -- IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

>> COULD YOU PUT THAT MAP BACK UP THE PROPERTY.

>> THEN I'LL HAVE THE MAP OF THE LOCATION.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I DO APPRECIATE -- I KNOW I DID HAVE MY MEETING WITH BRAD WESTER, I DID MENTION -- I WAS VERY DISAPPOINTED WHEN HE SHARED WITH ME HE HAD NO IDEA WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO. I SHARED WITH HIM THE CONCERNS WE HEAR VERY OFTEN FROM RESIDENTS THAT DO LIVE NEARBY AND HE KIND OF JOKED ABOUT -- IT WILL BE A SMELLY NEIGHBORHOOD.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S OKAY BECAUSE WE HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS ABOUT THAT BUT I DO HAVE SOME SLIDES I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE BEFORE WE DO THAT, THE SLIDES KIND OF SUMMARISE THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE AGENDA PACKET.

SO I'M NOT INTRODUCING NEW EVIDENCE I JUST WANTED IT TO BE PART OF THE RECORD. BEFORE I DO THAT I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR OUR ATTORNEY. I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION.

CAN YOU CONFIRM WHO CURATES THE BURDEN OF PROVING EVERY REQUIREMENT OF THE ENCLAVE DEFINITION? AS THE APPLICANT OR IS IT THE COUNTY?

>> THE APPLICANT. >> SO THE RECORD IS UNCLEAR THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENT IS IMPROVEMENT.

IS THERE ANY COURT DECISION ATTORNEY GENERAL OR DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OPINION HOLDING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY IS AN URBAN SERVICE AREA UNDER SECTION 163.316457?

>> THROUGH THE CHAIR TO TWO VISE CHAIR TAYLOR, ARE DIRECTING THIS QUESTION? I'M NOT SURE WHO DIRECTED THE

QUESTION TO. >> THESE ARE FOR YOU.

ANY COURT DECISION? I KNOW IT'S A VERY NEW LAW UP HERE ANYTHING YET, ANY COURT DECISION REGARDING AN ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION OR DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OPINION HOLDING A DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY IS AN URBAN SERVICE AREA UNDER SECTION

164. >> TO MY KNOWLEDGE THERE'S BEEN NO CASE LAW OR ATTORNEY GENERAL PRIVILEGE REGARDING THE REVISED DEFINITION OF AN ENCLAVE UNDER 163-3164 STATUTE.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THERE'S NO AUTHORITY THAT SUPPORTS THAT. THANK YOU.

ALSO ON SEPTEMBER 28TH THIS BOARD DENIED HERITAGE EAST AND WEST 3-2 ON THE URBAN AREA QUESTION.

THAT'S THE BOARD'S MOST RECENT DECISION UNDER THE STATUTE.

CAN OUR LEGAL TEAM CONFIRMED THAT?

>> YES. >> I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE THE APPLICATION RELIES ON THE SAME THEORY.

I WOULD APPRECIATE IF STAFF CAN PLEASE PUT UP SLIDE C ONE.

WHAT I WANT TO SHARE IS ALL THE -- THIS ISN'T THE STAFF REPORT PAGE 7, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATE THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BY THE TITLE, URBAN SERVICE AREA, THE

[04:25:02]

STATUTORY DEFINITION IS BASED UPON THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE AREA AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE PROVISION OR PLANNING OF THE IDENTIFIED PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES.

SO MY QUESTION TO STAFF, WHETHER THAT BE -- I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS NEVER DESIGNATED THE DEVELOPMENT AREA AS AN URBAN SERVICE AREA.

I WOULD LIKE -- IS THAT CORRECT? >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, NO, I DON'T THINK SO IN TERMS OF -- I THINK WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT IS IS URBAN SERVICE AREA ITSELF THE NAME.

THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE PINPOINTING ON.

NO TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> OKAY.

EXACTLY. THE STATUTE SAYS FACILITIES ALREADY IN PLACE OR IDENTIFIED IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEPHANT -- ELEMENT. AND YOUR REPORT SAYS PROVISIONAL PLANNING. WHERE DOES THE STUDY SAY

PLANNING? >> WE INTERPRETED THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY OR URBAN SERVICE AREA BECAUSE IT'S DESIGNED IN A STATUTE AND THE STATUTE TALKS ABOUT AREAS THAT ARE PLANNED FOR DEVELOPMENT AND HAVE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR IT. AS SUCH WHEN YOU GO INTO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, TALKS ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT, I THINK IT'S A ONE WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THOSE ARE THE AREAS WHERE YOU WANT TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT, THIS SO THAT'S HOW STAFF GOT THERE.

>> AND THE REPORT ON PAGE 7 ALSO CHARACTER WAS REVIEWED BY VARIOUS COUNTY DEPARTMENTS THAT DETERMINE THERE ARE NOT PRESENTLY ADEQUATE PUBLIC SERVICES FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD.

SO IF SERVICES ARE NOT PRESENTLY ADEQUATE HERE, HOW CAN THE LAND AROUND THIS PROPERTY BE AN AREA WHERE SERVICES ARE ALREADY IN

PLACE. >> BECAUSE IT HAS THE LAND USE THAT IS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY, SO ANY AREA THAT IS NOT AGRICULTURAL INTENSIVE, BY VIRTUE OF BEING IN THOSE FROM SNOW'S PERSPECTIVE, THOSE ARE AREAS THAT ARE MEANT FOR

DEVELOPMENT. >> BUT THE LAW SAYS URBAN SERVICE AREA IS WHERE WATER SEWER AND ROADS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE HERE IT'S VERY CLEAR, THEY ALREADY HAVE TO BE IN PLACE.

YOUR OWN REPORT SAYS THEY'RE NOT ADEQUATE HERE.

CAN YOU SHOW ME ANYWHERE THAT THE COUNTY'S OFFICIAL PLAN

SCHEDULES THEM FOR THIS AREA? >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY BECAUSE THE DEFINITION DOES EXCLUDE ARE IN PLACE ALREADY DEFINED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT WHICH IS THE PLANNING PHASE AND THE DEFINITION GOES ON TO SAY THAT TERMS INCLUDE ANY AREAS IDENTIFIED THE COMP PLAN AS SERVICE AREAS. SO THAT'S WHERE WE GET INTO WHERE THE PART ONE IS IDENTIFIED AS URBAN SERVICE AREA SO THERE'S TWO PARTS OF THE DEFINITION AND THAT'S JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.

>> GREAT I APPRECIATE THAT. ALSO ON PAGE 7, THE ULTIMATE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE APPLICABLE PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AREA CONSTITUTES AN URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT AREA OR LINE FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 163.3164 IS TO BE MADE BY THE BOARD. SO MY UNDERSTANDING STAFF IS LEADING THE URBAN SERVICE QUESTION TO THIS BOARD.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> THROUGH THE CHAIR TO THE VICE CHAIR, THIS ENTIRE DECISION IS THE BOARD'S DECISION.

STAFF ONLY HAS THE APPLICATION BEFORE THEM SO THEY DO THEIR REPORT BASED ON WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE STATUTES.

THE BOARD RECEIVED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT IS NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OR REVIEW, ANY DECISION MADE IS NOT BY STAFF

BUT BY THE BOARD. >> GREAT, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

IF YOU CAN PLEASE GO TO SLIDE C TWO.

THERE WE GO. AND THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY A RESIDENT -- BECAUSE THE APPLICATION DOESN'T IDENTIFY A SPECIFIC PROPOSED DENSITY, THE COUNTY CANNOT MAKE A NUMERICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN A PROPOSED DENSITY AND A DENSITY PERMITTED ON AN ADJACENT PARCEL OR DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S BECAUSE THE STATUTE ALLOWS THIS APPLICATION ONLY IF A NEIGHBOR FROM THE DENSITY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, WITH NO PROPOSED DENSITY, HOW IS THAT MET?

>> ARE YOU ASKING ME. >> THE REPORT SAYS THE BOARD SHOULD DECIDE WHETHER THE COMMITMENT SATISFIES THE PREREQUISITE PICK THE PROMISE IS NOT A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

[04:30:03]

ALSO ON HERE, WE TALKED ABOUT THE DATE EARLIER, THE LAW SAYS THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS PROPERTY THE WAY IT WAS ON JANUARY 1 OF 2025. THE MAP USES THE 2050 PLAN AND WE DIDN'T ADOPT THE 2050 PLAN UNTIL APRIL OF THIS PAST YEAR.

SO THAT'S NOT ACCURATE, THAT INFORMATION IS NOT ACCURATE.

IT'S ACTUALLY DEAL WITH PLAN THAT WAS IN EFFECT ON

JANUARY 12025. >> TO CLARIFY, WHEN YOU DID YOUR 202050 PLAN, I THINK -- WE DIDN'T MOVE THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY, WE MAKE SURE WE KEPT IT INTACT SO THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY IN THE AREA OF THE 2020 PREVIOUS PLAN IS THE SAME IN THE 2050 PLAN JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.

>> THEY DID PREFER THE WRONG PLAN THAT WAS NOT IN PLACE THEN.

ALSO THESE ARE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

WHAT ORDINANCE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY OR MAP DESIGNATION IDENTIFIES THE LAND AROUND THE PROPERTY AS AN URBAN SERVICE

AREA? >> THANKS FOR THAT QUESTION.

IF WE CAN START ON THIS URBAN SERVICE AREA QUESTION BY POINTING OUT FIRST OF ALL THAT THE STATUTE DOESN'T LIMIT THE ANALYSIS TO URBAN SERVICE AREA, IT REFERENCES IN URBAN SERVICE AREA A DISTRICT OR LINE. LOOKING ONLY AT URBAN SERVICE AREA IS RESPECTFULLY A BIT TOO NARROW AND I BELIEVE THAT IF WE CAN GET -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PUT MY PRESENTATION BACK UP THERE OR OUR PRESENTATION BACK UP THERE.

IF SOMEBODY WOULDN'T MIND HELPING ME WITH.

THANK YOU. REMOTE CONTROL.

>> I AM CLICKING. OKAY.

AT THE END OF THIS -- HERE WE GO.

USING STATUTORY TEXT AND TALKS ABOUT A PARCELS WITHIN URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT AREA OR LINE, ONLY URBAN SERVICE AREA IS DEFINED IN THE STATUTE. WE CANNOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT THERE'S ALSO AN URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT AND AN URBAN SERVICE LINE. YOUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY IS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT. WE COULD ALSO CALL IT AN URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT COULD CALL IT AN URBAN SERVICE LINE, BUT IF WE WANT TO JUST FOR THE MOMENT SAY THE INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT THAT WE ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO CONSIDER AN URBAN SERVICE AREA JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, THIS PROPERTY IS HIGHLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM OTHERS THAT YOU'VE ALREADY CONSIDERED AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE THIS SITE, WHEREVER YOU DRAW THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY LINE ON YOUR MAP, THIS PARTICULAR SITE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN URBAN SERVICE AREA, BECAUSE IT IS EITHER A PROPERTY WITH URBAN SERVICES IN PLACE THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM CAPACITY. THE CAPACITY ANALYSIS IS DO THE AVAILABLE URBAN SERVICES HAVE ROOM FOR THIS PROJECT.

THAT'S A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS. THIS QUESTION IS ARE THERE URBAN SERVICES? AND IN THIS CASE, WE POST THAT MAP SEVERAL TIMES, THERE ARE URBAN SERVICES ALL THE WAY AROUND THIS PROPERTY. I THINK IF WE GO FORWARD I CAN GET IT BACK TO THAT MAP SOMEWHAT QUICKLY, MAYBE.

URBAN SERVICES ALL AROUND THIS SITE AND THE SECOND QUESTION IS CHARACTERS AND/OR AND THEIR, URBAN SERVICES ARE IN PLACE, OR THEY ARE PLANNED AND WE DID LOOK AT YOUR CIP TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WERE ANY URBAN SERVICE PLANS IN PLACE AND I WILL -.

THANK YOU. THIS IS A MAP WHICH WAS DERIVED FROM YOUR CIP, WHICH SHOWS SEVERAL -- IT'S A NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST BUT SEVERAL OF THE PLAN IMPROVEMENTS FROM YOUR CIP, WHICH IS ENACTING YOUR CIE. YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE PLAN IMPROVEMENTS FOR 15 MILLILITERS OF RECLAIMED WATER AND SEWER.

I'M JUST GOING TO GO CLOCKWISE I'M NOT GOING TO HIT THEM ALL

[04:35:02]

BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON THIS.

YOU CAN SEE THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT THE BOULEVARD AND INDUSTRY CENTER ROAD, YOU CAN SEE THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE MOSTLY COMPLETED THE ONES DOWN THERE IN YELLOW.

SO LOOKING AT THIS MAP, ONCE AGAIN, IF WE ASSUME WE'RE LIMITED ONLY TO DEVELOPMENT OR URBAN SERVICE AREA WHICH I WOULD RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH BECAUSE OF THE TERMS IN THE STATUTE, THEN WE HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS PARTICULAR AREA BECAUSE IT'S SO DIFFERENT FROM OTHER PROPERTIES YOU EVALUATED UNDER THE STANDARD COMPLETELY SATISFIES THE DEFINITION. NOT ONLY URBAN SERVICES ALREADY AVAILABLE BUT THERE ARE ALSO PLANNED.

AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION GIVEN THIS IN RESPECT TO YOUR QUESTIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT AND TO THAT POINT I WANTED TO ASK MR. WESTER TO PROVIDE A QUICK UPDATE ON THIS QUESTION OF DENSITY.

I DO WANT TO JUST POINT OUT FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE THAT THE APPLICATION DOES SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT MAXIMUM ALLOWED DENSITY IS 13 UNITS PER ACRE AND ANY PLAN PROFFERED BY THE APPLICANT PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO THAT. SO THAT CONDITION IS MET BUT WE'VE COME HERE TODAY TO NAME A SPECIFIC DENSITY BECAUSE IT IS SO MUCH LOWER THAN IT COULD BE. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO SHARE THE INFORMATION WITH YOU ALL AND MR. WESTER HAS A FURTHER UPDATE

ON THAT. >> COMMISSIONER JOSEPH, WE IN FACT WILL SELF PROFIT DOWN TO 1.3 WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THE CONCEPT PLAN WE SHOWED YOU AND YOU TOOK WITH YOU WHICH BRINGS IT DOWN TO 260 UNITS, JUST STOLE THEM FROM 1.5 TO 1.3.

SO WE PREFER TO TAKE YOU UP ON THAT OFFER TO KIND OF MAKE SURE WE'RE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING AND OUR CONCEPT AS FAR AS THE THEORETICAL MAX WE DISCUSSED 1.5 IS A BUMP IN TERMS OF THEORETICAL MAXIMUM BUT IT'S STILL WELL BELOW THE ENTITLED SIX UNITS PER ACRE BECAUSE WE'RE HOLDING WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORY SO I WANTED TO OFFER THAT RIGHT NOW.

>> AND THAT WAS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

>> NO COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL. >> AND YOU WOULD MANDATE THE APPLICATION TO INCLUDE THE REQUIREMENTS.

>> YES. STILL PRESERVING OVER 50%, THAT STILL APPLIES TO THAT. SO ESSENTIALLY THE 1.3 UNITS WOULD BE UNDER NO DEVELOPED UPON INCREASE OF THE OVERALL PARCEL AS WE OFFERED ON THIS PRESERVING MORE THAN 50% OF THE WETLANDS OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION AREAS.

>> HOW LONG UNTIL YOU START THE PROJECT?

>> GREAT QUESTION. I WOULD LIKE TO SET UP PLANS HERE AND ALSO WANT TO TO ADDRESS COMMISSIONER TAYLOR'S COMMENTS.

>> CAN I JUST ASK YOU -- YOU ALSO SAID YOU WERE NOT CLEAR CUT

UNTIL IT'S TIME TO BUILD. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> SO IT COULD BE ALMOST TWO YEARS IN THE FUTURE OR THREE.

>> YES, AND I WOULD LIKE TO WALK THROUGH THAT IMAGERY IF I CAN.

AS FAR AS MR. ELDER'S COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, EVERY DISCUSSION THAT I REFERED TO -- DISRESPECT TO ANY NEIGHBORS OR ANYBODY OR IN CALLING THE POTENTIAL TO BE SIMILARLY.

BROUGHT UP THE INDIAN HEAD PROJECT WHICH I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT UNTIL YOU BROUGHT IT UP AND WE DISCUSSED PREVAILING WINDS COMING FROM NORTHEAST PREDOMINANTLY NORTHEAST FLORIDA.

SO WE TALKED ABOUT A 5-MILE AREA THAT SOMEBODY WOULD SMELL SOMETHING FROM SOME INDIAN HEAD PROJECT GOING ON AND HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO CONTEST THAT? WE'RE NOT EVEN THERE TO DISCUSS IT. SO I REFUTE THAT AND SLANDERS TO SAY I'M DISRESPECTFUL TO NEIGHBORS BECAUSE I'VE DONE THIS FOR 25 YEARS IN THE COUNTY AND I'VE BEEN AGENT FOR DEVELOPERS AND THE LIKE FOR OVER 25 YEARS SPECIFICALLY IN SAINT JOHNS COUNTY. I HAVE A TRACK RECORD I THINK STAFF IN THE COMMISSIONER AND ALL BOARDS WILL STAND UP TO THAT AND SAY I HAVE A TRACK RECORD OF REACHING OUT TO THE COMMUNITY AND BEING ENGAGED WITH THE COMMUNITY.

SO I REFUSE THAT ABOUT SOME KIND OF SMELLY COMMENT AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE SPECIFICS OF THIS, COMMISSIONER JOSEPH, I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME IMAGERY HERE AND IT'S GOING TO DEBATE IN 1999 AND I'M GOING TO

PUT IT ON THE SCREEN. >> THIS WILL BE A FRAMEWORK INTO TWO DISCUSSIONS HERE, INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS AVAILABLE AT THE DOORSTEP OF THIS PROPERTY AND ALSO THE PHASING OR TIMING OF SOMETHING IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT.

I'M GOING TO LET STAFF DRIVE IN TERMS OF ZOOMING IN.

[04:40:01]

SO THE GREEN IS ESSENTIALLY SUBJECT PROPERTY 200.5 PLUS REMINDED OCCURS, DOES FROM 1999, JUST AFTER THE FIRES OF 98, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS REMEMBER THAT, SOME FIRES SWEPT THROUGH THE ENTIRE NORTH NORTHEAST FLORIDA AREA.

OVER PROPERTIES OUTLINED IN GREEN THERE YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE DAMAGE FROM THE PINE STANDS THAT GOT HIT.

NOT SO MUCH THE WETLANDS BECAUSE IT'S WET IN THAT AREA.

THIS IS FROM 2009. AGAIN SHOWING THE PROGRESSION.

TEN YEARS LATER, YOU CAN SEE THE PLANTED PINES ARE ALL GENERALLY BECOMING INSURABLE AFTER TEN PLUS YEARS.

COMMENCING 2021, WHAT YOU DON'T SEE ON HERE IS THIS THING ON AUGUSTINE'S LAKE SPOT AND THAT'S GOING TO COME INTO FRAME HERE.

IN 2023 AND 2022 IS WHEN IT BROKE GROUND ON THE PUD WHICH ABUTS THE PROPERTY AND THERE IT IS.

SO 2023 IS THE START OF THE GROUNDBREAKING AND NOW YOU SEE THE PROPERTY RIGHT WHICH HAS FULL URBAN SERVICES AND ABUTS OUR PROPERTY. OUR PROPERTIES IN INFILL DEVELOPMENT, WERE LITERALLY NOT ONLY ABUTTING AND ADJACENT, BUT WE'RE ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH AND THE EAST BY FULL SERVICES.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CAPACITY AND THE OVERARCHING STATEMENT THIS STUFF MAY MAKE BUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS INADEQUATE THAT'S BASED ON A THEORETICAL MAXIMUM OF 2000 UNITS AND IT MAY MEAN ONLY ONE THING IT MIGHT MEAN TRAFFIC CAPACITY.

NOT NECESSARILY WATER AND SEWAGE COULD EXIST AND I'M GOING TO CONTINUE ON 2026 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 2025 AND 2026 IS THE ABSORPTION OF UNITS. BETWEEN 2023 AND 2026 YOU CAN SEE THESE UNITS, THE PUD HAS MORE UNITS THAN WE'RE ASKING FOR SO YOU ASKED ABOUT THE SOMETHING THAT IS NEXT DOOR, THAT IS THAT RIGHT THERE. FOR URBAN SERVICES PROVIDED IN THE POD THAT HAS MORE UNITS, MORE DENSITY THAN OUR PROJECT IS ASKING FOR. AGAIN, I'LL GO BACK TO 2025.

YOU CAN SEE HERE THE PHASE IS NOT FULLY ABSORBED INTO THE MARKET YET, NO HOMES, JUST CLEARED LAND AND COMMISSIONER JOSEPH, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU WOULD DO WHEN YOU'RE READY WITH A SHOVEL READY PERMIT SET, WE WOULD THEN ONLY GO HARVEST THE TIMBER FOR A SPECIFIC PHASE FOR DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT.

SO YOU MENTIONED A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO THESE GENERALLY TAKE TWO TO THREE YEARS DURING YOUR ENTITLEMENTS PERMITTING AND THE LIKE AND FINALLY BRING AT LEAST YOUR FIRST PHASE TO THE MARKET AND THAT'S EXACTLY HERE WITH THE POD NEXT STORY.

BECAUSE WE'RE ABUTTING THE POD, CHECKS A LOT OF BOXES IN TERMS OF THIS AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE AND NOT ONLY BEING INFILL DEVELOPMENT BUT WE HAVE FULL URBAN SERVICES AT OUR DOORSTEP AND IT SHOWS YOU THE PROGRESSION OF DEVELOPMENT OVER THREE YEARS SINCE THE GROUNDBREAKING. SO THAT GETS YOU ABOUT TWO TO THREE YEARS UNTIL YOU HAVE YOUR FIRST SECOND PHASE POTENTIALLY ONLINE. SO WE HAVE 260 UNITS COMMISSIONER JOSEPH THAT WE'RE PROFITING RIGHT NOW.

THAT'S GOING TO BE ABSORBED IN THE MARKET OVER TWO TO FOUR YEAR SPAN THAT'S GENERALLY HOW IT WORKS.

>> IF LET'S SAY THE LAND IS APPROVED, NUMBER 1, X. -- IF HE SAID ALL THESE THINGS HE'S PROMISING RIGHT NOW ON THE RECORD, DOES IT STAY THAT WAY THREE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD?

>> THE APPLICATION TO INCLUDE THE DENSITY BEING OFFERED INTO

THIS APPLICATION. >> IF YOU GET THIS APPROVAL TODAY YOU'RE GOING TO COME BACK WITH WHATEVER LAND YOU OWN NEXT TO IT AND ASK FOR SOMETHING ELSE BASED ON WHAT YOU JUST GOT?

>> IT WON'T CREATE SOMETHING HERE THAT WILL APPLY.

>> THEY CAN'T PIGGYBACK ONTO THAT.

CORRECT? >> IF I CAN MAKE A POINT ABOUT THIS. THE STATUTE SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS AN APPLICANT FROM USING THE BOUNDARY OF AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE, IN THEIR CALCULATION TO TRY TO CERTIFY ANOTHER AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE. SO IF THERE WAS ONE NEXT DOOR IT WOULD HAVE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CALCULATION BY LAW.

>> WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO ALSO IS DISCUSS THE VARIATIONS, HAVING WORKED IN THE COUNTY FOR OVER 25 YEARS --

>> HANG ON ONE SECOND HERE CAN I SEE THEY WANT TO SAY SOMETHING.

>> I DON'T. >> SORRY.

YEARS REPRESENTING CLIENTS. I'VE SEEN THE EVOLUTION WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE STATE OF FLORIDA APPROVED THE LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT ULTIMATELY COUNTY COMMISSIONER ADOPTS INCLUDING ALL OF THE LANGUAGE IN IT.

INCLUDING THE DEFINITIONS THEREOF INCLUDING A DEVELOPMENT AREA. IF IT WAS SOMETHING CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS IT WORKS TO MAKE SURE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN THE 2025 PLAN OR THE 2028 COMPRESSOR PLAN THAT IS CURRENTLY ADOPTED AND ENACTED, THAT WOULD HAVE AN ISSUE WITH ... THIS MEETS ALL OF THE

[04:45:01]

DEFINITION OF AN URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY WHICH IS NOW IN SAINT JOHNS COUNTY CALL IT AND HAS BEEN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA.

THIS IS LITERALLY A PAGE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OBJECTIVE A ONE TO A DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY POLICY A 124, TALKS ABOUT SPECIFICALLY DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY IN THE AREA DESIGNATED IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT DEPICTS THE OVERALL FUTURE GROWTH PATTERN OF THE COUNTY WHICH IS AREAS DESIGNATED ARE S OR AGRICULTURAL INTENSIVE INTENSIVE ARE NOT CONSIDERED WITHIN DEVELOPMENT AREA. EVERYTHING ELSE IS.

I'VE BEEN A PART OF DOZENS AND DOZENS OF LAND USE AMENDMENTS THAT CHANGE THE RULES OF A CULTURE TO ANOTHER CATEGORY WHEREAS WE HAVE AN ENHANCED DEVELOPMENT AREA EXPANDED DEVELOPMENT AREA. I'VE BEEN PART OF THAT REVIEW

WITH THE COUNTY. >> GO AHEAD.

>> ONE MORE THING. NEW DEVELOPMENT THING FOR FAIR SHARE COST. THE INFRASTRUCTURE PORTION.

IF SOMETHING IS INADEQUATE IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THERE'S ALREADY A PROCESS IN THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE NOT ONLY FROM THE STATE LEVEL BUT BACK DOWN IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ADOPTED IN THE POLICIES 1.66, COUNTY SHALL ENSURE THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PAYS FOR PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF COST OF CAPITAL FACILITY CAPACITY NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS CASE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THE NEXT STEPS INVOLVE THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, IT'S EXTREMELY DETAILED AND WE'LL HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THE CAPACITY, FAIR SHARE ASSESSMENTS BECAUSE IT'S RESIDENTIAL IS NOT EXEMPT.

SCHOOLS, ROADS, WATER SEWER, WILL BE VETTING ALL OF THAT.

IF ANY OF THOSE STRIP IT'S LIKELY THE PROJECT WON'T HAPPEN.

THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE NEXT STEP.

WOULD THE SUPPORT THE IS A PROGRAM INHERENTLY SELF PROFFERING A DENSITY LIMITATION DOWN FROM SIX TO 1.3.

IN WE COMMIT WITH A P WITH FULL URBAN SERVICES AND ROADS.

SO THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTIONS SO BECAUSE I KNOW THAT HOW THAT WORKS. ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT AREA, IT'S LITERALLY ADOPTED BY THE STATE, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY. IF THEY WANTED SOMETHING DIFFERENT THEY WOULD OBJECT TO IT IN THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION AND PRICE REPORT AND THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE ADOPTED THE DIFFERENT PIECE OF LANGUAGE OR LEGISLATION.

>> ON THAT POINT IF I MAY, I WILL ASK MR. LESTER A QUESTION ABOUT IT I WANT TO ADDRESS THIS IDEA THAT WE UTILISE THE WRONG COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IF WE CAN GET THAT SLIDESHOW BACK UP AGAIN AND WATCH ME CLICK THROUGH IT.

IT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT. I UNDERSTAND THERE'S THE DATE ON THE JANUARY 12025, AS LONG AS WE LOOK AS THESE PROJECTS THROUGH THE JANUARY 12025 WHEN WE LOOK AT THE CRITERIA, THE IMPORTANT POINT HERE I THINK YOU'RE TURNING ALREADY -- I JUST WANT TO REITERATE, IT'S NOT IT, ONE SECOND.

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT WAS SURROUNDED BY PARCEL OF PARCELS AT LEAST 50% OF THE PERIMETER WITHIN URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT AREA. AS OF JANUARY 12025, ALREADY HEARD FROM THE STAFF THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY DIDN'T MOVE. WE ALREADY SHOWED YOU IMAGES BOTH EXISTING AND PLANNED INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE LIMITED ARGUABLY TO LIMITED DEFINITIONS OF URBAN SERVICE AREA AND JUST FOR THE SAKE OF BEING THOROUGH EVEN THOUGH WE DISAGREE THAT THE 2050 COMP PLAN DOESN'T APPLY, I THINK IT APPLIES IN THIS CASE BUT TO THE EXTENT IT DIDN'T I JUST WANT TO ASK MR. LESTER BECAUSE OF HIS EXPERIENCE IN BACKGROUND IN HIS COMMUNITY HE JUST TESTIFIED TO HAVING DONE MANY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS IN THE PAST.

AS THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY DEFINITION MORE CHARACTERISTICS ANY DIFFERENT IN THE 2025 PLAN THAT IS IN THE 2050

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? >> IT'S THE SAME.

>> SO THERE WAS NO CHANGE TO WHETHER URBAN SERVICES ARE IN

PLACE OR PLANNED. >> CORRECT THE ONLY THING CHANGED APPARENTLY IS THAT THEY HAVE GROWN SO THEY CHANGE IN AI CATEGORIES TO GROW THE INFRASTRUCTURE.

I'LL REITERATE THIS IS AN INFILL PROJECT.

THIS IS WHOLLY WITHIN RESIDENTIAL C.

ASKING FOR A DOWN ZONING IN OTHER TERMS COULD TRULY LAND USE MATTER. ASKING FOR DENSITY LIMITATION IN ORDER TO GO TO THE NEXT STEPS WE HAVE TO MEET EVERY SINGLE MATRIX THE COUNTY PROVIDES US WHICH IS ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE CAPACITY OUT THERE. NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER PROJECT. IF ANY OF THOSE STRIP AND THEY DON'T WORK WE CAN'T MOVE FORWARD.

THIS IS ONLY TO LIMIT THE DENSITY AND THEN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE NEXT STEP WITH THE SITE PLANNING.

AND IT WILL BE TWO TO FOUR YEARS BEFORE THERE ARE LOTS BROUGHT

FORWARD THAT'S HOW IT WORKS. >> HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT

CONSERVATION? >> I LOVE CONSERVATION.

>> WHAT DO YOU THINK PERCENTAGE OF THIS IS CONSERVATION?

[04:50:01]

>> 50%, WE SAID THAT. >> IS THAT ON RECORD?

>> ABSOLUTELY. IT'S MORE THAN 50%, IT'S ACTUALLY MORE LIKE 58 AND THAT'S A COMBINATION OF NOT ONLY WETLANDS BUT ALSO UPLAND PRESERVATION WE SHOWED YOU WHICH WILL BE OPEN SPACE AND PARKS INSIDE THE DEVELOPMENT.

>> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER TAYLOR.

>> COULD WE PLEASE PUT SLIDES C TWO BACK UP?

>> I WANT TO DISCUSS, TWO PARCELS ABOUT 21-ACRE THAT WERE BORN ON OCTOBER 21ST OF 2024 FOR $840,000 PER YEAR THAT'S MORE THAN 50 TIMES THEIR FARM ASSESSMENT.

ON SECTION 193.61 THAT CREATES PRESUMPTION THAT THE LAND ISN'T IN BONAFIDE FARM USE. OR THE HARVESTER TIMBER RECORDS

FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS? >> I AM NOT AWARE OF THE CELL, THIS IS NEW INFORMATION, -- WASN'T BROUGHT TO HER ATTENTION UNTIL NOW BUT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER TASKED WITH ASSIGNING AGRICULTURAL CLASSIFICATIONS AS YOU KNOW BY STATUTE ON THE RECORD TO DO IT.

THEY DO IT ANNUALLY. THEY DO IT FOR EVERY AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY IN THIS COMMUNITY, THEY ARE THE EXPERT ON WHAT IS AGRICULTURAL WHAT IS BONAFIDE AGRICULTURAL USE AND THEY HAVE DETERMINED AFTER THAT CELL THAT THIS PROPERTY STILL QUALIFIES AS AGRICULTURAL CALCULATION UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL CLASSIFICATION RECORDS TO SUPPORT THAT, TO THE

EXTENT -- >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IN 2024 THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY DENIED THE PRESERVES OF ST. AUGUSTINE LAKES THAT WAS 376 HOMES, IS THIS PART OF THAT LAND

-- >> THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S, WHAT THEIR DETERMINATION IS IS EVIDENCE, IS PRIME EVIDENCE THIS IS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY EVIDENCE PRESENTED THAT IS NOT THE PRICE MIGHT BE ONE FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED BUT I KNOW THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER FACTORS THAT ARE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING IF THE PROPERTY IS AGRICULTURAL.

THERE'S BEEN TESTIMONY FOR THE OWNER SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION OR AN AFFIDAVIT THAT THIS IS BEING ACTIVELY USED FOR CULTURE AND I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY THAT SAYS WE'VE BEEN OUT THERE OR THEY'RE NOT DOING THAT TO BRING THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AGREES WITH THAT.

SO THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT TO MAKE.

CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR LAST QUESTION IF YOU DON'T MIND?

>> IN 2024 THIS BOARD UNANIMOUSLY DENIED THE PRESERVE OF SAINT AUGUSTINE LAKES THAT WAS 376 HOMES.

IS THIS PROPERTY PART OF THAT LAND?

>> I WASN'T PART OF THIS APPLICATION PROCESS AND I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT BUT I CAN TELL YOU THIS IS A DIFFERENT PARCEL. THIS IS STANDING ON ITS OWN, WHAT'S BEING SUBMITTED AS AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE.

I DO KNOW IT'S NOT A PUD APPLICATION AND I BELIEVE, MR. LESTER YOU MIGHT HAVE LOOKED AT THIS QUESTION.

I'M FAIRLY CONFIDENT THIS IS A VERY DIFFERENT PARCEL THAN WHAT

WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE. >> I WASN'T A PART OF THE PREVIOUS PUD EITHER, I WAS IN THE TEAM OR THE AGENT.

THIS IS A MUCH SMALLER PARCEL A MUCH LESS DENSE AND MUCH LESS UNITS COMPARED TO WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY THERE.

IT DOES HAVE SOME SIMILARITY TO THE PREVIOUS PUD BUT IT'S NOT PART OF IT AND AGAIN THIS WAS ESSENTIALLY BROUGHT FORWARD TO THE RIGHT SIZE AND FIT AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE CRITERIA

THAT WE PRESENTED TO YOU TODAY. >> I DON'T THINK THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE'S BEEN A PREVIOUS DENIAL.

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WE NEED THOSE ELEMENTS THAT WE WALK THROUGH, PREVIOUS APPROVALS OR DENIALS OR RELEVANT TO THE ANALYSIS RESPECTFULLY, RESPECT YOUR QUESTION BUT I WANT TO BE

CLEAR ABOUT THE LEGAL STANDARD. >> THANK YOU.

CAN WE PLEASE HAVE SLIDE C1B BACK UP?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO JUST MOVE THIS MAP THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN

THE CIP AND MR. WESTER'S -- >> I WANT TO REALLY REAFFIRM WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT HERE, THAT THE LAW REQUIRES AN URBAN SERVICE AREA. IT'S VERY CLEAR.

THERE'S TWO TESTS TO BE IDENTIFIED IN THE PLAN AND SERVICES ALREADY IN PLACE, ALREADY IN PLACE OR IN CAPITAL

[04:55:03]

IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT. STAFF ADMITS THAT OUR PLAN DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATE DEVELOPMENT AREA BY THE TITLE URBAN SERVICE AREA. STAFF FOUND THEY'RE NOT PRESENTLY ADEQUATE PUBLIC SERVICES FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE STATUTE DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT PLANNING.

IT SAYS THERE MUST BE IN PLACE OR IN THE CIE.

AND AGAIN I WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT ON SEPTEMBER 28TH THE SPORT HERITAGE EAST AND WEST ON THE THE KNIGHTS -- THE SAME POINT. WE ONLY HAVE ONE URBAN SERVICE AREA IN THIS COUNTY AND AS URBAN CREEK.

IF YOU CAN PLEASE PUT UP SLIDE C1A PLEASE.

THIS IS HOW THE COUNTY CREATES A REAL URBAN SERVICE AREA.

THIS IS DURBAN CREEK 2015, IT WAS ORDINANCE 2015-4, A BOUNDARY DESIGNATED ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AMENDMENT WITH $51,363,800 IN SCHEDULED ROAD PROJECTS.

NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT CARTER ROAD THERE'S NO ORDINANCE OR URBAN SERVICE AREA ON THE MAP HERE STAFF SAYS THE PLAN DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATE ONE. THERE'S NO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AMENDMENT FOR THIS AREA THE STAFF CLEARLY SAYS SERVICES ARE NOT PRESENTLY ADEQUATE. WHAT IT HAS IS A DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY AND THAT IS NOT AN URBAN SERVICE AREA.

WE DID IT RIGHT ONCE ON A GENERAL BOUNDARY LINE DOESN'T DO IT. WHEN THE LINE -- LAWS ARE IN DESIGN THAT'S A SAFE CHOICE. I DO WANT TO JUST CLARIFY TO THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS IF WE DENY THE APPLICANT IS RIGHT THEN THE COURT WILL SAY SO AND CERTIFY THE LAND, NOTHING IS LOST.

IF WE APPROVE IT IT'S CERTIFIED PERMANENTLY AND THEN PLANS ARE APPROVED BY STAFF WITH NO HEARING AND NO VOTES.

THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT AND WHEN THE LAW IS THIS UNCERTAIN WE NEED TO DENY AND PUT OUR REASONS IN WRITING AND LET THE COURT DECIDE. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

MY MOTION IS TO MOVE TO DENY, INSERT 2026 BASED ON COMPETENCE OF EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT THE APPLICATION DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT AT LEAST 50% OF THE PERIMETER SURROUNDED BY PARCELS WITHIN AN URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT AREA OR LINE UNDER SECTION 163.3164 BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY IS NOT AN URBAN SURFACE AREA IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH FACILITIES IN PLACE ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE CIE.

ALSO AN ADJACENT PARCEL OR DEVELOPMENT PERMITS THE SAME OR HIGHER DENSITY THAN A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT UNDER SECTION 163.3162 AND THAT THE QUALIFYING CONDITIONS EXISTED AS OF JANUAR.

ALSO WE HAVE TO INCLUDE FIVE YEARS OF CONTINUOUS BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL USE UNDER SECTION 163.3164.

AGE GROUND IS INDEPENDENT. I FURTHER MOVE TO DIRECT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE A WRITTEN DECISION LEADING TO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW UNDER SECTION 163.3162 FOR ADOPTION BEFORE NOVE NOVEMBER 30TH OF 2026.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION. THAT MOTION FAILS.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO FULLY BEFORE WE MOVE.

>> WE HEARD A COMMENT A COUPLE TIMES ABOUT CAPACITY AND AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES. SO WE JUST WANT TO PUT A BIT MORE EVIDENCE TESTIMONY INTO THIS RECORD ABOUT THAT PEER CAN YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD?

>> I AM WILLIAM SCHAEFER, PRESIDENT OF THE ENGINEERING GROUP. I'M A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL

CIVIL ENGINEER FLORIDA. >> IF I CAN JUST FOR A SECOND, I CAN REMIND YOU YOU WERE SWORN IN.

>> I WAS. >> YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

>> COMMISSIONERS JOSEPH'S MICROPHONES ON.

>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE ALL THE THINGS YOU PUT ON THE RECORD YOU'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH AND WHETHER ANOTHER PERSON SELLS THE PROPERTY BECOMES THE OWNER IS THAT -- WE CAN DO THAT.

THE CONSERVATION, THE LESS HOMES AND IT'S TWO TO THREE YEARS OUT AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CLEAR CUT.

[05:00:02]

>> WE COMMIT TO THAT, YES. >> THANK YOU.

>> COMMISSIONER ARNOLD DO YOU HAVE --

>> I WAS READY TO MAKE A MOTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE ENCLAVE CERTIFICATION APPLICATION 2026-11 CARTER ROAD ASSOCIATES UPON FINDING BASED UPON THE COMPETENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE RECORD THE APPLICATION DEMONSTRATES THE SUBJECT PARCEL SATISFIED THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE CONTAINED IN SECTION 163.31644 FLORIDA STATUTES UNDER CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 163.31624 A FOR STATUTES TO ALSO INCLUDE EVERYTHING MR. WESTER'S

PUT ON THE RECORD HERE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION DO WE HAVE A SECOND? YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

>> SECOND. MOTION AND A SECOND ANY DISCUSSION? LET'S VOTE.

[4. Public Hearing * ENCERT 2026-13 Pacetti Oaks. Application for Agricultural Enclave Certification, pursuant to Sections 163.3162 and 163.3164, Chapter 2026- 34, Florida Statutes. This certification request includes approximately 40.5 acres of land. The subject property is located at 3975 Pacetti Road, south of State Road 16.]

THAT PASSES 4-1. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4. WE HAVE EX PARTE, IF I CAN ALLOW COMMISSIONER ARNOLD, YOU STILL HAVE THE MICROPHONE AND THE

FLOOR. >> THANK YOU.

I HAVE TEN EMAILS FOR THIS SPECIFIC ITEM FOR THE ENCLAVE

AND NO MEETINGS ON RECORDS. >> COMMISSIONER JOSEPH.

>> 18 OR MORE EMAILS FOR THE SPECIFIC ITEM AND NO MEETINGS.

>> COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST. >> I HAVE 15 EMAILS FOR THIS APPLICATION, NO RECORD OF ANY MEETINGS OR PHONE CALLS.

>> COMMISSIONER TAYLOR. >> 13 PLUS EMAILS ON THIS ITEM

AND NO MEETINGS. >> I HAVE 15 OR MORE EMAILS FOR THIS SPECIFIC ITEM AND A PHONE CALL WITH JASON GABER.

WOULD THAT EXPERTLY DONE YOU, SIR, HAVE BEFORE.

>> THANK YOU. LET ME JUST MAKE SURE THIS POWERPOINT IS UP HERE THERE WE GO.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON CAN I COME WITH THE LAW FIRM AT 15 NORTH LAUREL STREET SUITE 3000. HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, WE'RE HERE ON BEHALF -- I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF TOLL BROTHERS WHO'S THE AGENT AND DEVELOPER FOR THE PROPERTY THAT IS OWNED BY THE JAMES AND MARION CHAPMAN REVOCABLE TRUST.

THIS IS THE PROPERTY THAT IS SUBJECT OF THE CERTIFICATION REQUEST AND WITH ME TODAY IS CASEY DENDER WHO'S IN THE AUDIENCE WHO'S A CERTIFIED PLANNER WITH ENGLAND HANS AND MILLER. SHE'S THE ONE WHO PREPARED THE PERIMETER AS PART OF THE RECORDING APPLICATION DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS THE DENSITY ANALYSIS. AND OF COURSE SHOULD BE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE BUT I'LL BE DOING THE PRESENTATION.

THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE BOARD HERE IS ENTERED 202-0613, THE CITY OF -- THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR THE CERTIFICATION OF THIS PARCEL OF PROPERTY THAT IS LOCATED AT 3975 CITY ROAD AS AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE UNDER SECTIONS 163-3162 AND 163-3164 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES AS THOSE SECTIONS WERE SPECIFICALLY AMENDED EARLIER THIS YEAR BY CHAPTER 2026 LAWS OF FLORIDA 2026-34 WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS SENATE BILL 686.

AT THE OUTSET I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE, AND I KNOW YOU HEARD A LOT FROM THE APPLICATION BEFORE AND SOME OF THIS WILL REPEAT SOME OF THE LAW IN THAT BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE SCOPE OF TODAY'S DECISION IS CLEAR BECAUSE THE CERTIFICATION IS A NARROW DETERMINATION AND FLORIDA LAW DEFINES IT NARROWLY.

WHAT THE BOARD IS BEING ASKED TO DECIDE HERE TODAY IS A SINGULAR QUESTION. DOES THIS PROPERTY SATISFY THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE UNDER 163-3164 SUBSECTION FOUR OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE AS OF JANUARY 1ST 2025. THAT'S A DEFINITIONAL DETERMINATION APPLIED TO THE RECORD UNDER THE CRITERIA THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS WRITTEN. SO WHAT THE BOARD IS NOT BEING ASKED TO DECIDE TODAY AND WHAT THE CERTIFICATION DOES NOT APPROVE IS ANY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT, ANY REZONING OR DEVELOPMENT ORDER OR SITE PLAN, NO CONSTRUCTION AND THINGS OF THAT SORT.

THE CERTIFICATION ITSELF IS NOT AN IMMEDIATE ENTITLEMENT TO BUILD. EACH OF THOSE OTHER STEPS REQUIRE ITS OWN FUTURE APPLICATION.

A QUICK SUMMARY OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF, THIS IS A SINGLE PARCEL OF APPROXIMATELY 40.5 ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF CITY ROAD

[05:05:08]

BETWEEN WEST AVENUE AND TERRACINA DRIVE ACROSS CITY ROAD FROM THE BUILT OUT SUNSHINE 13 PUD RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.

JAMES AND MIRIAM CHAPMAN ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY IN JULY OD WIFE THAT IS 31 YEARS OF CONTINUOUS OWNERSHIP.

THEY CONVEYED THE PROPERTY TO THEIR REVOCABLE TRUST IN JANUARY OF 2025 AS PART OF THEIR ESTATE PLANNING.

BOTH ARE THE SOLE RENTERS AND TRUSTEES AND SOLE OCCURRENCE BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUST SO THE OWNERSHIP AND FOR THAT MATTER THE CONTROL IS CONTINUOUS AND UNINTERRUPTED.

THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER HAS CLASSIFIED THE PROPERTY AS AGRICULTURAL LAND UNDER SECTION 193461 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES CONTINUOUSLY SINCE AT LEAST 2018, SO THAT CLASSIFICATION REMAINS IN PLACE TODAY.

THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN OPERATED AS A WORKING FARM THROUGHOUT THE CHAPMANS OWNERSHIP, THE CALF CATTLE AND THEN COMMERCIAL HORSE BOARDING AND MOST RECENTLY QUEST FOR BREEDING AND TRAINING THE PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HORSE BARN, COW BARN, THE PASTURE COOK DIVIDED INTO PADDOCKS REFLECT THAT USE AND HERE'S AN AERIAL TO GIVE YOU SOME LOGISTICAL REFERENCE POINT AND AN ORIENTATION OF THE PROPERTY.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN THIS LIGHT BLUE AND AS YOU CAN SEE IT'S A IT IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE CITY ROAD DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE SUNSHINE 13 POD, TO THE NORTH AND EAST THE PROPERTY ADJOINS THE 6-MILE CREEK PUD, THE MASTER PLANNED URBAN DENSITY SUBDIVISION, YOU CAN SEE DEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOPS CUL DE SACS AND STORMWATER PONDS, ROAD 16 IS VISIBLE AT THE TOP OF THE IMAGE AS YOU CAN SEE THERE.

N TO THE SOUTH AND WEST OF THE PROPERTY JOINS DEVELOP RESIDENTIAL A PARCELS AND ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS. YOU WILL SEE THIS FURTHER IN A MOMENT WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE PERIMETER TEST BUT FOR NOW AS YOU CAN SEE THE SURROUNDING LAND IS DEVELOPED URBAN RESIDENTIAL ON THRE SIDES AND THE FOURTH SIDE CONSISTS OF RESIDENTIAL A PARCELS MOST OF WHICH ARE ALSO ALREADY DEVELOPED.

FOR THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK SECTION 16331644 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES DEFINES AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE BY REFERENCE TO SIX SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT MUST BE SATISFIED AS OF JANUARY 1ST 2025. IN ADDITION TO THOSE SIX CRITERIA DIFFERENTIAL CRITERIA, THE STATUTE ALSO ESTABLISHES A THRESHOLD AND THAT'S AN ADJACENT PARCEL OR ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT MUST PERMIT THE SAME DENSITY AS OR HIGHER DENSITY THAN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. SO SOMETHING THAT IS IMPORTANT AND CRITICAL TO THE APPLICATION STATUTE WHICH INFORMS HOW THE CERTIFICATION WORKS IS THAT THE BILL 686 THAT WAS APPROVED EARLIER THIS YEAR IS PRESCRIPTIVE FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES IT'S MINISTERIAL. SO THIS SECTION 163 THROUGH 1624C PROVIDES THAT IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T APPROVE OR DENY WITHIN 90 DAYS THE PARCEL MUST BE CERTIFIED, THE LEGISLATURE CERTIFICATION AS A NON-DISCRETIONARY DETERMINATION THAT FELLOWS FROM AN OBJECTIVE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE AND IS CRITERIA TO THE RECORD. SO OUR TASK TODAY IS TO WALK THROUGH THROUGH WHY ON THE RECORD OF THOSE CRITERIA SATISFIES. THIS SLIDE RIGHT HERE IS REALLY THE MAIN THRUST OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU, REGARDLESS OF ANY APPLICANT PRESENTATION, ANYTHING I MAY SAY HERE TODAY OR PUT BEFORE YOU, YOUR SAINT JOHNS COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF INDEPENDENTLY CONDUCTED ITS SECTION 163 THROUGH 162 AND 64 COMPLIANCE REVIEW.

I BELIEVE THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER JUSTIN KELLY ISSUED THE REPORT ON OCTOBER FIRST. THE STAFF COMPLIANCE REPORT CONCLUDED THE APPLICATION APPEARS TO SATISFY THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE CONTAINED IN SECTION 16331644 FOR THE STATUTE AND THE CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 163 THROUGH 164 A FOR THE STATUTE.

[05:10:04]

SO STAFF REACHED THE CONCLUSION AFTER REVIEWING THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, COUNTY RECORDS, THE PROPERTY APPRAISAL RECORDS, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP RECRDED INSTRUMENTS, THE AERIAL IMAGERY AND THE GIS DATA. SO EACH OF THE SEVEN CRITERIA --

I. >> SPEAKER-07:, AT SIX PUTS THE DENSITY CRITERIA WAS FOUND TO SATISFY ALL OF THE CRITERIA ON THE RECORD SO THE TABLE THAT'S HERE ON THE SCREEN SUMMARISES EACH FINDING. I'LL WALK THE BOARD THROUGH THE KEY THREE FINDINGS AND I'LL BRIEFLY DISCUSS THE OTHER THREE BECAUSE THE POPULATION AND A COUPLE OF THINGS -- I THINK YOU ALREADY KNOW. ON THE SINGLE OWNERSHIP CRITERIA, THE OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL, THAT'S WHAT THE STATUTE TALKS ABOUT. THE SUBSECTION 41 OF THE STATUTES DEFINES A PERSON TO INCLUDE TWO OR MORE PERSONS HAVING A JOINT OR COMMON INTEREST OR ALSO EXPRESSLY INCLUDES TRUST. THEY ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY IN JULY 1995 AS HUSBAND AND WIFE AND BY OPERATIONAL FLORIDA LAW THAT WOULD BE A TENANCY BY THE ENTIRETY AND THAT'S A QUINTESSENTIAL JOINT OR COMMON INTEREST THAT IS DEFINED UNDER A PERSON. AND I WON'T QUOTE YOU ALL THE CASE LAW ON THAT. IN JANUARY OF 2025 THE CHAPMANS CONVERTED THE PROPERTIES TO THEIR REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST AS A ROUTINE ESTATE PLANNING FORMALITY.

SO BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP AND FOR THAT MATTER CONTROL DID NOT CHANGE. THEY REMAINED THE SOLE GRANTORS, TRUSTEES AND CURRENT BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUST IT IS ALSO A PERSON UNDER FLORIDA LAW. AND STAFF DID FIND THEY REVIEWED THIS, COMPLIANCE WITH THE CRITERIA.

ON CRITERION B WHICH IS THE CONTINUOUS BONAFIDE AGRICULTURAL USE, THE STATUTE INCORPORATES ANOTHER PART OF THE STATUTE, 193461, AND A DEFINITION OF A BONAFIDE AGRICULTURAL USE IS A GOOD FAITH COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURAL USE OF THE LAND.

AND THAT'S FOR FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO THE APPLICATION THAT IS MET HERE. THE PRIMARY EVIDENCE, I THINK I HEARD THE OTHER ATTORNEY REFER TO IT IN THE LEGAL PARLANCE, UNDER FLORIDA LAW, THE LETTER FROM THE SAINT JOSEPH COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER IN THIS CASE, THEY DATED AUGUST 25TH 2026, THAT LETTER WHICH IS UNOFFICIAL P CERTIFICATION CONFIRMS THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND UNDER 193461 SINCE 2018. SO THAT COVERS THE ENTIRE STATUTORY FIVE YEAR TIMELINE PERIOD LOOK BACK WITH MULTIPLE YEARS OF CUSHION. THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A PROPERTY APPRAISER'S AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE OR AGRICULTURAL CLASSIFICATION IN THIS CASE IS CLOSED WITH A PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS AND THAT'S A STANDARD THAT THE BOARD IS TO APPLY. BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY, STAFF DID MORE THAN REPLY, THAN RELY ON THE PAO LETTER.

STAFF INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED HISTORICAL PROPERTY APPRAISER RECORDS AND MULTIYEAR AERIAL IMAGERY AND THEY CONCLUDED AS A COMPLIANCE REPORT STATES THAT THE DOCUMENTATION SUPPORTS THE AGRICULTURAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY AND CONTINUITY OF SUCH USE DURING THE STATUTORY FIVE YEAR PERIOD.

SO THAT CONCLUDES FOR THE FURTHER SUPPORTED CATEGORIES YOU CAN SEE ON THIS SCREEN. THE OPERATIONAL HISTORY, THE CATTLE FORCE BOARDING AND BREEDING NUMBER 2, THE PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY AND NUMBER 3 THE OWNER'S SWORN AFFIDAVIT FROM MR. AND MRS. CHAPMAN WHICH IS IN YOUR MATERIALS. THIS NEXT SLIDE, YOU KNOW, I SUSPECT TO THE EXTENT THERE'S OPPOSITION HERE TODAY THIS WOULD PROBABLY BE ONE OF THE THINGS WE PRESSED.

I THINK IT'S BEEN A TOPIC OF A LOT OF YOUR DISCUSSION ON THESE PERIMETER TEST ANALYSES AND AGAIN WE DO HAVE CASEY HERE, A CERTIFIED PLANNER WHO HAS CERTIFIED MAP AND THE DOCUMENT

[05:15:02]

RECORDS. AND I AM PLEASED FROM OUR STANDPOINT TO TELL YOU THAT WE VERY CLEARLY AND ABUNDANTLY MEET ONE OF THE CRITERION. MUSCLE PLEASE SAY AYE I WON'T BORE YOU WITH THE URBAN SERVICES DISTRICT DISCUSSION.

WE DO MEET THE CRITERIA BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE DEFINITION THAT WAS AN ALTERNATIVE PROVISION WE PUT IN THERE. THE SUBSECTION WE NEED ACTUALLY UNDER THE STATUTE IS 4C1B AND THAT SUBSECTION HAS TWO REQUIREMENTS, FIRST, AT LEAST 75% OF THE PARCELS PERIMETER MUST ADJOIN LAND THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS DESIGNATED FOR INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON BOTH A ZONING MAP AND ITS FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

AND THEN THERE'S A SECOND CRITERIA AND IN THAT SAME CRITERIA KIND OF A SUB -- THERE'S AN A AND A B.

AND THAT IS SECONDLY AT LEAST 50% OF THOSE SURROUNDING PARCELS MUST CONSIST OF EXISTING INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO WHEN WE SUBMITTED THIS, IT WAS OUR ANALYSIS THAT WE MET 100% OF BOTH OF THOSE CRITERION.

YOUR STAFF CONDUCTED AN INDEPENDENT PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS AND THE RESULT THERE WAS THAT THEY FOUND WE NEED 100% -- THE ENTIRE APPROXIMATELY 5685-FOOT PERIMETER THAT JOINTS THE PROPERTY ALL AROUND THE COUNTY DESIGNATED ON BOTH MAPS FOR DEVELOPMENT UNDER THOSE CATEGORIES.

WE NEED 100% OF THAT. ON THE OTHER CRITERION, THE STAFF FOUND APPROXIMATELY 90% OF THE PERIMETER JOINS EXISTING RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.

SO 100% OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP PERIMETER AND THEN 90% ON THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO CLEARLY MEETING AND EXCEEDING THE 75% AND 50% RESPECTIVELY CALCULATED 190.

SO THOSE STATUTORY THRESHOLDS NOT JUST EXCEEDED BY A SUBSTANTIAL MARGIN, ON THE TABLE ON THE SCREEN HERE SHOWS A BOUNDARY BY BOUNDARY ANALYSIS, AND I'LL SPARE YOU THE TIME YOU CAN READ IT BUT ESSENTIALLY IT GOES THROUGH EACH -- AND THIS IS IN THE PERIMETER MAP CERTIFICATION WE HAVE IN THE MATERIALS BUT NORTH, EAST, SOUTH AND WEST, WE MEET AND EXCEED THE PERIMETER REQUIREMENTS. THE REMAINING THREE STATUTORY CRITERIA ALONG WITH THE DENSITY THRESHOLD ARE EACH ALSO INDEPENDENTLY SATISFIED ON THE RECORD.

I'LL BRIEFLY MOVE THROUGH THE EMPIRIC THE PUBLIC SERVICES CRITERIA AND STATUTE EXPRESSLY ALLOWS THIS CRITERIA TO BE SATISFIED WHERE THE APPLICANT OFFERS TO ENTER INTO A BINDING AGREEMENT FOR ITS PROPORTIONATE SHARE.

TOLL HAS MADE THE FORMAL OFFER ON THE RECORD FOR TRANSPORTATION SCHOOLS, WATER, WASTEWATER, RECREATION, STAFF FOUND COMPLIANCE ON THE ANCHORAGE CAP OR AT 40.5 ACRES CLEARLY UNDER THE 1280 ACRES UNKNOWN COUNTY POPULATION YOU'RE LESS THAN 1.75 MILLION PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTY.

ON THE ADJACENT DENSITY THRESHOLD UNDER 163-3164 A, STAFF FOUND THE DIRECTLY ADJOINING 6-MILE CREEK PERMITS A MAXIMUM OF FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND WE FULLY ACCEPT THE FINDING ON THAT POINT. I THINK WE COME UP WITH EIGHT AND THERE'S NOWHERE TO GET EVEN CLOSE OF THAT DENSITY IN THE PROPERTIES SO IT WAS FULLY ACCEPT TO FIVE THAT STAFF HAS CERTIFIED AND OBVIOUSLY COMMIT ON THE RECORD TO NOT EXCEED THAT CAP AND IN FACT IT WILL BE LESS THAN THAT.

SO THAT THRESHOLD IS SATISFIED. I WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE TIME, YOU KNOW, AFTER THE PUBLIC SPEAKS IN CASE I NEED TO REBUT ANYTHING BUT JUST BRIEFLY BASED ON WHAT I'VE SEEN, I JUST WANT TO RUN OVER A COUPLE OF ITEMS QUICKLY.

EACH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND RESOLVED BY AN INDEPENDENT STAFF

[05:20:01]

ANALYSIS. NUMBER 1 IS A CONCERN THE PERIMETER DOESN'T SATISFY THE 75% TEST, STAFF HAS INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED 100% DESIGNATION AND 90% -- THE 100% ON THE LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION CRITERIA AND 90% ON THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA AND THAT SECTION.

BOTH THRESHOLDS ARE EXCEEDED. SECOND, THERE WERE REPORTED AGRICULTURAL USE. THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OWN WRITTEN LETTER CONFIRMS THE CONTINUOUS USE AND CLASSIFICATION UNDER FLORIDA LAW AS PRESUMPTIVELY CORRECT UNDER FLORIDA LAW AND OF COURSE THERE'S THE SUPPLEMENTARY REVIEW THAT WAS DONE. THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT THE STATED PROPOSED DENSITY. AGAIN APPLICANT COMMENTS ON THE RECORD CERTAINLY NOT TO EXCEED THE IDENTIFIED ADJACENT CAP -- THE CAP IDENTIFIED BY STAFF WHICH IS FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER THAT CRITERION IS ALSO SATISFIED AND ALSO THIS IS ADDRESSED IN THE COMPLIANCE REPORT. I WANT TO -- ONCE AGAIN AND MAYBE REPEATING A LITTLE BIT HERE BUT JUST TO COME BACK TO THE POINT I RAISED -- BILL 686 IS PRESCRIPTIVE BECAUSE IT BEARS DIRECTLY ON THE DIRECTION TO. SO AS YOU CAN SEE THE QUOTE ON THE SCREEN THE LEGISLATURE WROTE THE STATUTE IN MANDATRY TERMS IF THE CERTIFICATION CRITERIA ARE MET ON THE RECORD OF THE PARCEL MUST BE CERTIFIED. I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE BOARD'S BROADER CONCERNS ABOUT THE STATE PRE-EMPTION OF LOCAL LAND USE AUTHORITIES. THOSE CONCERNS ARE CERTAINLY LEGITIMATE. CERTAINLY A POLICY DISCUSSION.

THE LEGISLATURE HAS ENACTED THIS LAW AND THIS BOARD.

I KNOW THIS BOARD HAS EXPRESSED THOSE CONCERNS IN PRIOR PROCEEDINGS BUT THE CERTIFICATION DECISION TODAY IS NOT REALLY DISCRETIONARY. IT'S NOT A DISCRETIONARY PLANNING TYPE DETERMINATION NOR A COMPATIBILITY JUDGEMENT.

IT'S A DETERMINATION ON A PARCEL BASED ON A RECORD, BASED ON THE FACTS WITH THE APPLICATION OF THE PRESCRIBED STATUTORY CRITERIA THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS PRESCRIBED.

ONCE AGAIN, STAFF COMPLIANCE REPORTS CONCLUDES THAT IT DOES AN APPROVAL OF CERTIFICATION WOULD FOLLOW LOGICALLY FROM JUST TO REITERATE, THE CERTIFICATION DOES NOT APPROVE ANY DEVELOPMENT PLANS. THERE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE TO HAPPEN, INCLUDING THE AGREEMENT WITH STAFF ON A SCHEDULE, THE COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENCY PROPORTIONATE TO A FAIR SHARE AND ALL OF THAT OTHER STUFF THAT HAS TO GO INTO IT AND THE APPROPRIATE PLANNING. AND SO WITH THAT, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSION, AND FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE APPLICATION AND AS A RECORD BEFORE THIS BOARD, INCORPORATING THE COMPLIANCE REPORT WITH STAFF, WITH ALL THAT BEING SAID, THE APPLICANT RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE THE CERTIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE UNDER SECTION 163 THROUGH 1624 AND SECTION 163, 31644 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES AS AMENDED BY THE LAWS OF FLORIDA, 2026-34. AND AGAIN, WE REALLY THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND TIME, I KNOW IT HAS BEEN A LONG DAY.

I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS, OUR EXPERT PLANNER IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AND WE ARE HAPPY TO DISCUSS FURTHER AND IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR, I DON'T KNOW WHAT OPPOSITION THERE MAY OR MAY NOT BE BUT WE HAVE A FEW MINUTES AFTERWARDS TO ADDRESS ANY

ISSUES. >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD BEFORE WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT? LET'S GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, CAREY GUSTAFSON, ADDRESS ON FILE.

I HAVE SUBMITTED A NINE PAGE DOCUMENT ON THE RECORD, 10:15 IT WAS EMAILED TO YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE HERE.

ON SEVERAL ELEMENTS STAFF SUPPLIED EVIDENCE OR REASONING THE APPLICANT WROTE AROUND A GAP INSTEAD OF NOTING AT.

STAFF'S OWN RESEARCH CONTRADICTS THE APPLICATION AS IT DOES ON THE NORTH LINE AND ON THE DENSITY, THE RESEARCH HAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING DENIAL.

THE APPLICATION NEVER IDENTIFIES THE PARCEL THAT ADJOINS THE PROPERTY. STAFF DID THE PARCEL LEVEL

[05:25:01]

RESEARCH AND ITS REPORT ON OCTOBER 12026 RESOLVES WHAT LIES ALONG THE NORTH LINE. STAFF FOUND THAT DIRECTLY ADJOINING PROPERTY IS PLATTED CONSERVATION AREA OF 6-MILE CREEK NORTH PHASE ONE RECORDED AT 37, PAGES 21 THROUGH 34.

A CONSERVATION TRACK IS NOT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE STAFF'S USE DEFINITION IN SECTION 380 .041.

STAFF FURTHER FOUND THAT THEY FOUND THE WEST LINE ADJOINS PARTIAL WHICH IS VACANT. AND THE THIRD UNMET THING IS THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY ON 10-6 WHICH WAS DISCUSSED HERE.

WE DO NOT HAVE THE ORDINANCE AND THE TIED TO IDENTIFIED TO FUND IT. THEY INDICATE THEY DO NOT HAVE -- THE I'M SORRY. THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS WE NEED.

WE NEED THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND WE HAVE REVIEWED THAT -- THIS IS YOUR STAFF REPORT, THEY'RE NOT THE PUBLIC FACILITIES NEEDED. AS FOR 0.4, WHICH IS THE GOOD FAITH USE OF AGRICULTURE, NOT JUST THAT IT IS CERTIFIED AGRICULTURE BUT THERE IS A GOOD FAITH USE OF IT, THERE IS A HOME ON THE LAND WITH THE HOMESTEAD EXCEPTION.

ALSO BY THE OWNER'S OWN AFFIDAVIT, THE OPERATION ENDED IN MARCH 2022 AND THE BUSINESS ENDED IN MID 2023, THAT IS BY THEIR AFFIDAVIT. THE ONLY USE CLAIM SINCE THEN IS AN ORAL AGREEMENT ALLOWING A BREEDER AND TRAINER TO USE THE PASTURE. AND THE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE PUT IN THIS FILE IS THIS ONE BILL OF SALE FOR ONE HORSE SOLD FOR $8500 THAT WAS BORN BEFORE THE BREEDING PROGRAM BEGAN AND THE SELLER'S LINE IS BLANK AND IT ACTUALLY SAYS THAT THE HORSE WAS LIVING IN COLORADO. OKAY? SO THE STAFF DID AERIAL IMAGING ON THEIR OWN, WHICH CAN SHOW OPEN PASTURE. BUT DOESN'T SHOW THAT THE PASTURE WAS USED IN A GOOD FAITH COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURAL BUSINESS AFTER MID 2023, WHICH THE STATUE ASKS FOR.

NOW THIS MAY BE ABLE TO BE CURED, BUT THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZATION FORMS ARE ONLY SIGNED BY ONE PERSON IN THE TRUST AND BECAUSE IT IS A TWO PERSON TRUST, THERE SHOULD BE TWO NAMES SIGNED THERE. SO THE AREA SAYING THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS IS BLANK. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WITH GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4. GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> COMMISSIONERS, DISTINGUISHED CITIZENS, SAINT JOHNS COUNTY.

YES, I AM ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. SO WE FOUGHT THINGS LIKE THIS IN THE PAST. THIS IS POTENTIALLY 200 MORE HOMES GOING INTO AN ALREADY CONGESTED AREA.

CONGESTED DOESN'T EVEN COVER IT. WITH ANOTHER I THINK 78 POTENTIAL ACROSS THE STREET, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A RULING ON THAT ONE YET OR NOT, IN ADDITION TO THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS, ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

AGAIN, THE PARTICULAR CHARTER SCHOOL RIGHT THERE ALSO WITH A RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT, THAT IS GOING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE NIGHTMARES THAT ARE ON THE ROAD. PLEASE TAKE ALL OF THAT INTO CONSIDERATION ON THIS VOTE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANYONE ELSE AT THIS TIME ON

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4? >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

HOW ARE YOU ALL DOING? CAN YOU PLEASE DENY THIS APPLICATION? I'VE LIVED HERE SINCE THE FIFTH OF 1999. I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF REALLY BAD DEVELOPMENTS, A LOT OF REALLY BAD LOGIC IN FRONT OF THIS COMMISSION. PLEASE DENY THIS APPLICATION.

I THINK MISS GUSTAFSON DID AN EXCELLENT JOB IN EXPLAINING WHY THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT QUALIFY.

THEY DIDN'T PUT ANY REAL WITNESSES ON IT.

THEY HAD NOTHING, BASICALLY. THE STAFF, WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE ARE COMPLIMENTS FROM YOUR STAFF, I DON'T BELIEVE A SINGLE ONE OF THEM. I THINK RALPH NADER DESCRIBED THE SITUATION WITH YOUR STAFF WHEN HE USED THE TERM "DEFERRED BRIBE." IF YOU WORK FOR A GOVERNMENT AGENCY AND YOU RULE ENOUGH IN FAVOR OF A REGULATED INDUSTRY, YOU WILL BE REWARDED. NOT IN THE HEREAFTER, BUT IN

[05:30:01]

YOUR NEXT JOB. AS THE NEIGHBORS WILL TELL YOU OR HAVE TOLD YOU, THEY'VE GOT YOUR EMAILS.

IT DISRUPTS THEIR WAY OF LIFE. THE STAFF DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE. THEY LIKE THEIR PAYCHECK.

AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT HOW MR. ROBERSON TREATED TREY ALEXANDER ASNER AND THE FACT THAT COUNTY --

>> I WILL HAVE TO CALL THAT -- STAY HERE.

>> I AM! I THINK YOUR STAFF IS REALLY CRUMMY. I THINK YOUR STAFF IS REALLY

NOT. >> YOU CAN SAY THAT, DON'T SAY

SPECIFIC THINGS. >> DON'T SAY SPECIFICS?

I WILL IF I WANT TO. >> THEN I WILL HAVE YOU REMOVED

IF I WANT TO. >> YOU DIDN'T GIVE A PRINCIPLED REASON, YOUR LAWYER DIDN'T ADVISE YOU TO SAY THAT.

>> I DON'T NEED A REASON. >> YOU DON'T NEED A REASON BECAUSE YOU ARE AN AUTHORITARIAN PERSON.

>> PLEASE BE CIVIL. >> I AM CIVIL.

I DON'T THINK IT WAS CIVIL WHEN MISS ANDREWS WOULDN'T MEET WITH

TREY. >> CAN WE GET YOU BACK ON THE

SUBJECT? >> PLEASE DENY THIS APPLICATION.

IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IF IT DOES NOT FIT YOU MUST ACQUIT. WE NEED TO HAVE THE STAFF ACTUALLY DO THEIR JOBS. AND WHEN THEY SAY THE APPLICATION IS JUST BEING DETERMINED BY MINISTERIAL -- I. CAN PRACTICALLY HEAR HEELS CLICKING.

TALLAHASSEE PASSES A LAW, AND WE ARE SUING TALLAHASSEE OVER THAT LAW, RIGHT? THAT LAW HAS BEEN DISCUSSED HERE, YOU WILL AGREE IT IS NOT A GOOD LAW.

SO THEY HANG THEIR HAT ON THIS LAW, HAS THE LAWSUIT BEEN FILED YET? DO WE HAVE A DRAFT? ARE THEY REALLY GOING TO FILE IT? WE ARE AGAINST IT. WE THE PEOPLE ARE AGAINST IT AND IT IS WRONG. AND WE WOULD BE HONORED IF YOU WOULD VOTE TO DENY THIS APPLICATION.

AND TELL THEM TO GO AWAY. >> THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE WITH PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME ON AGENDA ITEM

FOUR? >> I WOULD BE REMISS IN NOT VOICING MY CONCERNS, BECAUSE THAT IS MY NEIGHBOR.

RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM WHERE I LIVE.

AND I LOVE THERE IS A CHARTER SCHOOL GOING IN RIGHT BESIDE OUR COMMUNITY AND OVER 1000 CARS WILL BE GOING IN AND OUT OF THAT CHARTER SCHOOL. SO WHY NOT? WE'VE GOT WALMART RIGHT UP THE STREET, 10,000 CARS A DAY GOING INTO THAT COMPLEX. SO WHY NOT ADD SOME MORE? LET'S ADD A FEW MORE DOZEN CARS. I RECOMMEND THAT YOU APPROVE IT UNDER ONE CONDITION, THEY CAN ONLY BUILD IT WHEN FLYING CARS BECOME AVAILABLE. THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE, PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4? SEEING NONE WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC

COMMENT. >> I THINK ELLEN HAS ALREADY BUILT A FLYING CAR, WE ARE IN, RIGHT? BACK TO THE BOARD, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? COMMISSIONER JOSEPH, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

>> I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ONE AND I THINK THAT CARRY BROUGHT UP A LOT OF REALLY GOOD COMMENTS.

ESPECIALLY WITH AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE AREA BOUNDARY.

FOR THAT REASON I WILL VOTE AGAINST IT, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE ON THE BOARD?

>> I WOULD LIKE SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS ADDRESSED, ESPECIALLY THE LAND ON THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY THAT IS CURRENTLY CONSERVATION AREA. I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW HOW MUCH OF THAT WAS INCLUDED. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT

WOULD BE PART OF THIS. >> JASON GABRIEL.

AND I THINK CASEY WILL ALSO ADDRESS THIS.

BUT TO HIT THAT POINT, I THINK THE CRITICISM WAS THAT THE NORTH LINE ADJOINS IT, I'M GOING OFF THE WRITTEN DOCUMENT.

AN UNBROKEN FOREST ALONG MILL CREEK AND CANNOT BE COUNTED AS DEVELOPMENT OR DEVELOPED, I GUESS.

THEY WANT TO SUBTRACT THAT OUT. I WILL TELL YOU THAT STAFF HAS REJECTED THAT IN WRITING. THE COMPLIANCE REPORT ON PAGE 6 EXPRESSLY FINDS, QUOTE, PORTIONS OF THE NORTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY ABUT DEVELOP PORTIONS ON THE SIX MILE CREEK POD.." SPECIFICALLY PARCELS THREE AND E ONE.

STAFF THEN INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED THAT 100% OF THE 5685-FOOT PERIMETER ADJOINS LAND DESIGNATED ON BOTH THE ZONING MAP AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. PER DEVELOPMENT, APPROXIMATELY

[05:35:05]

90% OF THE ADJOINING LAND HAS EXISTING RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE STATUTE LOOKS AT THE PARCEL, NOT THE POINT OF ADJACENCY. SO 163 ASKS WHETHER THE ADJOINING PARCEL IS DESIGNATED FOR DEVELOPMENT AND WHETHER AT LEAST 50% OF THAT PARCEL IS EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.

SO THE FRAMING OF THE SPECIFIC LINEAR FOOT OF THE ADJACENCY HAS TO BE IMPROVED IS NOWHERE IN THE STATUTE.

THE ADJOINING PARCELS ALONG THE NORTH LINE ARE THE PLATTED PARCELS THREE AND 4 OF 6-MILE CREEK, NORTH PHASE ONE, MAP BOOK 37, AGES 21 THROUGH 34, WHICH ARE PUD ZONED FLUM DESIGNATED, SAINT JOHN'S DRI. AND PART OF A DEVELOPED PLATTED SUBDIVISION UNDER THE SUBDIVISION PLANS.

SO THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED.

AND ONCE AGAIN, THE 75% TEST HAS BEEN MET, PURSUANT TO C1B.

AND I THINK THERE HAS BEEN SOME CONFLATION.

BECAUSE THERE IS THREE DIFFERENT CRITERION.

THERE IS C1A, WHICH WE ARE NOT SAYING WE COMPLY WITH THAT, WE COMPLY WITH THE SECOND ONE, WHICH IS C1B.

AND I THINK THE OPPOSITION CONFLATES THOSE.

C1A ASKS ABOUT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, C1B ASKS ABOUT THE FLUM ZONING DESIGNATION, PLUS 50% OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ON SURROUNDING PARCELS. SO ONCE AGAIN, STAFF HAS CERTIFIED THIS, WE ARE 100% DESIGNATED/90% EXISTING DEVELOPMENT DESIGNATED. AND WE WELL EXCEED THOSE THRESHOLDS. THAT IS ON THE PERIMETER.

IF THERE'S ANOTHER QUESTION, I'M HAPPY TO ADDRESS IT.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? >> NO, I AM JUST -- I. DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. THE NORTH LINE DOES NOT TOUCH A

HOME. >> THE NORTHERN LINE HAS PROPERTY ON IT THAT IS DEVELOPED.

I DON'T KNOW IF CASEY WANTS TO ELABORATE ON THAT.

>> HELLO. I MIMIC WHAT JASON HAS SAID.

THE TREE LINE YOU SEE ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY IS INCLUDED WITHIN A PLATTED SUBDIVISION.

SO THAT IS TREATED AS A NATURAL BUFFER TO THE EXISTING HOMES THAT ARE FURTHER TO THAT NORTH WEST.

AND ALSO DIRECTLY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE NORTH YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL OFFICE.

AND JUST TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT SERVICES THAT ARE IN THE AREA, WE DID SUBMIT A UTILITY AVAILABILITY LETTER TO THE SAINT JOHNS COUNTY DISTRICT AND GOT CONFIRMATION THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO SERVE THE DEVELOPMENT.

WE HAVE ALSO HAD A PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC MEETING, METHODOLOGY MEETING WITH STAFF, AND WOULD BE WILLING TO -- OR ARE PREPARED TO SUBMIT TRAFFIC METHODOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND ENTER INTO A PROPORTIONATE SHARE AGREEMENT IF NEEDED FOR THE TRANSPORTATION.

>> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> YES. THERE WAS ANOTHER COMMENT THAT WE HEARD ABOUT THE BILL OF SALE DATED MAY TENTH OF 2026.

AND IT SAYS THE HORSE IS PRESENTLY LOCATED AT THE SELLER'S AGENT ADDRESS IN COLORADO.

HOW IS THAT SHOWING ON THE PROPERTY FOR THE LAST FIVE

YEARS? >> I WANT TO REITERATE THAT THAT PART OF IT WAS SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

AND WHETHER IT WAS IN COLORADO OR BROUGHT HERE, WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO OBVIOUSLY PROVE TO YOU THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE HORSE. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THIS, THE PRIME APHAKIA AT EXHIBIT FOR THAT CRITERIA IS THE PROPERTY APPRAISER CERTIFIED LETTER DATED AUGUST 25TH OF 2026.

THAT IS IF THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE IN THE RECORD, YOU CAN HANG YOUR HAT ON THAT. THE LAW SAYS THAT PROVES -- AND IS WITH THE PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS, THAT PROVES THAT THERE WAS CONTINUOUS AGRICULTURAL USE ON THE PROPERTY, NOT JUST FOR FIVE YEARS, BUT TO 2018.

ANYTHING ELSE? >> ALSO IN THE APPLICATION IT SAYS THE CATTLE RAN UNTIL MARCH 2022 AND HORSE BOARDING WENT UNTIL MID 2023. SINCE THEN IT DESCRIBES AN ORAL ARRANGEMENT WITH A BREEDER AND TRAINER.

SO WHAT WRITTEN RECORDS SHOW THAT HERE? SALES INCOME, BREEDING CONTRACTS?

[05:40:02]

IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS JUST AN ORAL AGREEMENT.

>> THE LETTER IN THE RECORD DATED AUGUST 25TH, 2026, CERTIFIED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER IS THE WRITING THAT YOU CAN RELY ON. SO THAT IS PLENTY SUFFICIENT FOR THE LEGAL BASIS OF THIS CRITERIA.

>> OKAY. >> COMMISSIONER?

>> I MEAN, THESE ARE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT JUST CAME UP.

THIS MAY BE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WHERE WE COULD MAYBE HEAR THIS ON NOVEMBER 17TH, IF I HAVE A SECOND, I COULD MAKE A MOTION.

>> I WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT. >> WELL, LET'S...

YOU KNOW, I WAS JUST LOOKING ON GOOGLE EARTH AND IT SHOWED A PICTURE OF A HORSE ON THIS. YOU CAN SEE THE HORSE.

>> I THINK HE'S BEEN HERE ALL ALONG.

>> FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORTH, COMMISSIONER, I DRIVE PAST THIS PROPERTY IN MULTIPLE TIMES A DAY AND THERE ARE PLENTY OF ANIMALS

OUT THERE. >> THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS BESIDE THE HORSE THAT I WANT TO LOOK INTO AND HEAR THIS ON THE

17TH. >> YOU HAVE THE FLOOR IF YOU

WANT TO MAKE A MOTION. >> I MADE A MOTION TO MOVE IT TO

THE 17TH. >> DO WE HAVE A MOTION?

CAN WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I WILL SECOND THAT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CONTINUE THE 17TH.

OKAY. LET'S VOTE ON THAT.

THAT FAILS 3-2. LET'S GO BACK TO COMMISSIONER ARNOLD. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING?

>> I AM PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION.

MOTION TO APPROVE AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE CERTIFICATION APPLICATION IN 2026-13 UPON FINDING THAT BASED UPON THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE RECORD, THE APPLICATION DEMONSTRATES THE PARTIAL SATISFYING THE AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE CONTAINED IN SECTION 163.316 STATUTES AND THE CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 163.31624 A FOR

STATUTES. >> WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? JUST A POINT OF DISCUSSION?

>> SECOND. >> THANK YOU.

40 ACRES TIMES FIVE EQUALS 200 -- 40.5 ENTERING 210...

IS THERE ANY OFFICIAL WIGGLE ROOM IN THAT NUMBER?

>> YES. THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO REDUCE THE TWO DWELLING UNITS TO THE ACRE.

>> IF I MAY PIGGYBACK THAT, IT IS 40 ACRES, BUT I BELIEVE THERE IS A MINIMUM OF ABOUT 6 ACRES THAT ARE JUST WETLANDS.

SO EVEN WITHOUT ANY RESTRICTION, I THINK YOU CAN ONLY DEVELOP ROUGHLY 34ISH ACRES. I THINK I'M JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE. BUT THE APPLICANT WOULD BE WILLING TO PUT A CAP. SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE

FIVE, OBVIOUSLY. >> I CAN AMEND MY MOTION.

>> WE HAVE THAT AS AMENDED AND A SECOND AS AMENDED.

>> WHICH WOULD PUT YOU DOWN TO THE 60S, I BELIEVE.

>> LET'S VOTE. AND THAT PASSES 3-2.

[5. Public Hearing * ENCERT 2026-12 Star IV. Application for Agricultural Enclave Certification pursuant to Sections 163.3162 and 163.3164, Chapter 2026-34, Laws of Florida. This certification request is identified as ENCERT 2026-12 Agricultural Enclave Certification (Star IV) and includes approximately 70.83 acres. The subject property is located West of State Road 16, south of the Grand Oaks development, and north of the Windward Ranch development.]

THANK YOU, LET'S MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5 AND WE WILL GO STRAIGHT INTO EX PARTE. COMMISSIONER ARNOLD?

>> YES, I HAD EIGHT EMAILS FOR THIS ITEM.

I ALSO DID HAVE A PHONE CALL EARLIER THIS MORNING AS WELL AS

I THINK A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

COMMISSIONER? >> NINE OR MORE EMAILS FOR THIS

ITEM AND NO MEETINGS. >> THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER WINDHURST? >> I HAVE 25 EMAILS AND NO RECORD OF ANY NAMES OR PHONE CALLS.

>> COMMISSIONER TAYLOR? >> THIRTEEN PLUS EMAILS AND NO

MEETINGS. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I HAD 13 EMAILS OR MORE, I HAD A MEETING WITH THE LANDOWNER AND LANCASTER -- AM I SAYING THAT RIGHT?

>> THE OWNER IS BOBBY. WHAT IS HIS LAST NAME?

>> BOBBY COCHRAN. OKAY.

I THINK ART WAS WITH US WHEN WE HAD DISCUSSION.

SO I NEED TO DISCLOSE THAT. THAT IS MY EX PARTE.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

>> THANK YOU AND GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.

HEAVY DAY, SO WE WILL TRY TO BE AS BRIEF AS WE CAN.

WE WILL NOT WALK THROUGH EACH AND EVERY SINGLE CRITERIA IN EXCRUCIATING DETAIL. OUR APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED AND WE RELY ON THAT APPLICATION AND STAFF REPORT.

[05:45:01]

MY NAME IS PATRICK. WITH ME IS CASEY.

>> CASEY WITH ENGLAND, TIMS AND MILLER.

>> I HAVE BEEN A PRACTISING ATTORNEY IN FLORIDA FOR 28 YEARS, BOARD CERTIFIED IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW FOR OVER 15 YEARS. I AM GOING TO SHOW YOU, I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO START WITH HERE IS OUR PROCEDURAL ADMINISTRATION IN THE PROJECT. THE TIMELINE.

BECAUSE THE PROCEDURAL PART OF THIS I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT AND MAY BE THE FOCUS OF OUR DISCUSSIONS.

>> GIVE ME JUST A MINUTE. I APOLOGIZE, JUST A MINUTE.

COMMISSIONER? >> I WAS READING MY EX PARTE SHEET AND I DID HAVE A PHONE CALL TODAY WHERE WE DISCUSSED THE STAFF REPORT, THERE WERE A COUPLE STAFF REPORTS AND WE DISCUSSED THE DETAILS OF THOSE STAFF REPORTS.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.

I APOLOGIZE. >> NO PROBLEM.

>> YOU HAVE THE FLOOR AGAIN. >> WE ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR OUR ENCLAVE ON THIS PROPERTY ON JULY FIRST.

AND WE RECEIVED THE STAFF REPORT WITHIN THE STATUTORY 30 DAY TIMELINE ON JULY 31ST. AND IN THAT STAFF REPORT STAFF DETERMINED THAT WE DID NOT SATISFY OR MEET THE 50% PERIMETER CRITERIA OF THE FIRST HALF OF THAT PROVISION THAT REQUIRES THE PERIMETER -- THE PARCEL OR PARCELS THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS DESIGNATED ON FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO BE DEVELOPED AS INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL.

WE DISAGREED WITH THAT ASSESSMENT IN THE STAFF REPORT AND WE REACHED OUT TO STAFF TO TRY TO HAVE A CONVERSATION TO CLEAR THAT UP. AT THAT TIME, WE WERE TOLD THAT WAS IMPOSSIBLE. THAT STAFF WOULD NOT CONSIDER ANY NEW INFORMATION, THEY WOULD NOT CONSIDER ANY CLARITY AND THAT THERE WOULD BE NO DISCUSSION.

THE STATUTE REQUIRED THE STAFF REPORT BE ISSUED WITHIN 30 DAYS, SO THAT IS WHAT THEY DID. WE WERE TOLD WE COULD TRY TO RECTIFY THE ISSUE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO INSTEAD OF DOING THAT, BECAUSE WE KNEW THAT THERE WAS A FIX, WE VOLUNTARILY WITHDREW OUR APPLICATION ON AUGUST SEVENTH.

WE THEN REQUESTED A MEETING WITH STAFF, THERE IS A TYPO HERE, AUGUST 22ND WAS A SATURDAY, WE DID NOT MEET ON A SATURDAY.

WE MET THE DAY BEFORE ON AUGUST 21ST.

WE MET WITH STAFF AND WENT THROUGH THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT, CRITERIA BY CRITERIA. WE DISCUSSED OUR CHANGES, OUR FIXES TO THE 50% CRITERIA, PERIMETER CRITERIA, AND STAFF HAD CONSENSUS. OBVIOUSLY THEY DID NOT APPROVE ANYTHING, THEY SAID IF THAT'S HOW YOU SUBMIT, THAT SOUNDS GOOD, THAT LOOKS GOOD, THAT MAKES THE STATUTE, PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION. WE DID SO ON SEPTEMBER FIRST.

WE UPDATED THE PROJECT BOUNDARY TO SATISFY THE CRITERIA AS WE DISCUSSED WITH STAFF. ON OCTOBER FIRST, WITHIN THE STATUTORY MANDATED 30 DAY TIME FRAME, WE GOT A STAFF REPORT THAT SAID WE MEET ALL STATUTORY CRITERIA.

NO ISSUES IN THIS REPORT. VERY SURPRISINGLY, A WEEK LATER, AFTER THE STATUTORY MANDATE OF 30 DAYS, WE RECEIVED ANOTHER STAFF REPORT THAT RESCINDED THE PREVIOUS STAFF REPORT AND APPLIED A NEW ANALYSIS TO 31644 C2, ONE WE HAD NEVER SEEN BEFORE. ONE THAT HAD NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED WITH US. AND FRANKLY, ONE THAT I HAD NOT SEEN ON THE OTHER APPLICATIONS AND I REVIEWED AND STAFF HAS REVIEWED, INCLUDING ONES TO DAY. THAT STAFF REPORT SAID WE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA. HOWEVER, IT WAS AFTER THE 30 DAY TIME FRAME SET FORTH IN 163.3162.

THERE IS NO WIGGLE ROOM IN THAT STATUTE.

THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT THE STAFF REPORT, TO ISSUE AN AMENDED STAFF REPORT, ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

THE STATUTE IS UNEQUIVOCALLY CRYSTAL CLEAR.

THE STAFF REPORT IS DUE 30 DAYS AFTER THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED. SO WE ARE RELYING ON THE OCTOBER FIRST OF 2026 STAFF REPORT, WHICH IS THE SAME ONE YOU MUST RELY ON. THANK YOU.

THAT STAFF REPORT FOUND THAT WE WERE COMPLIANT WITH ALL STATUTORY CRITERIA. THEY ARE SUMMARIZED HERE, I WILL NOT GO THROUGH THEM ALL. CASEY WILL GIVE YOU SOME DETAIL ON THE PROJECT, BUT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE OCTOBER FIRST STAFF REPORT, THE OPERATIVE STAFF REPORT BEFORE YOU SAID THE APPLICATION MET ALL CRITERIA. THE APPLICATION HAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THE OCTOBER FIRST STAFF REPORT HAS COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THE OCTOBER EIGHTH STAFF REPORT IS VOID OF HAVING AN ISSUE. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW, IT IS UNTIMELY AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED.

[05:50:03]

>> THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SHOWN ON THE MAP ON THE LEFT.

AS YOU CAN SEE THERE, THE PROPERTY MEETS THE MINIMUM 50% REQUIREMENT FOR THE PERIMETER. AND THEN ALSO, THE OCTOBER 1 STAFF REPORT CONFIRMED THAT THOSE REQUIREMENTS WERE MET.

DO YOU WANT TO TAKE OVER THIS ONE?

>> I WILL TRY TO EXPLAIN THIS. THIS COMES FROM THE OCTOBER EIGHTH UNTIMELY STAFF REPORT.

THE APPLICATION OF THE UNDERLYING PORTION OF, AND TOTAL, WHAT IS -- PARDON ME, 3164, C TWO.

WITH THE OCTOBER EIGHTH REPORT APPEARS TO DO IS CALLED THE PARCEL OR PARCELS AND ADDITIONAL ADJACENCY.

ALMOST LIKE A BULL'S EYE ON THE PROJECT.

WE HAVE WHAT IS ADJACENT. AND THEN FOR SOME REASON, WE ALSO HAVE WHAT IS ADJACENT TO THAT.

IT'S LIKE 7 DEGREES OF KEVIN BACON.

IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THIS STATUTE COMPLICATES, IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE HAVE SEEN BEFORE, AND IT IS NOT SOMETHING THIS

BOARD SHOULD RELY ON. >> CAN WE ASK QUESTIONS REAL

QUICK? >> I NEED TO ASK, SO WHETHER THE STAFF AGREES WITH IT OR NOT, ARE THEY THE ONES THAT PICK AND TELL US IT IS AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE, OR CAN WE CONSIDER THE REASONING THAT THEY CAME UP WITH?

>> THROUGH THE CHAIR, YOU CAN CONSIDER THAT REASONING, WE DON'T AGREE WITH THE CHARACTERIZATION MADE BY THE SPEAKER. WE ISSUED THE STAFF REPORT THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE ANALYSIS AND WE ISSUED AN UPDATED STAFF REPORT. IN MANY WAYS THAT IS JUST A DUE PROCESS IN THE SENSE THAT STAFF COULD HAVE JUST SHOWN UP HERE TODAY AND SAID THIS IS OUR REVISED OPINION ON THIS AND MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE, INSTEAD WE ISSUED AN UPDATED STAFF REPORT TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO UNDERSTAND THE REASONING BEHIND THAT. SO YOU CAN RELY ON THAT, WE CAN CERTAINLY HAVE STAFF COME UP AND GIVE THEIR TESTIMONY REGARDING

THE ANALYSIS THEY COMPLETED. >> HE JUST SAID IT IS AGAINST

THE LAW. >> AGAIN, THAT IS HIS CHARACTERIZATION, OUR OFFICE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THAT.

>> THANK YOU. >> IF I MAY, MR. CHAIRMAN?

>> CERTAINLY, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

>> THE OTHER STATUTORY PROVISION HERE IS 163.3162.

IT IS VERY CLEAR IN THE TIMELINES, YOU ALL KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. WE FILE AN APPLICATION, WITHIN 30 DAYS WE MUST HAVE A STAFF REPORT.

NOT WITHIN 45 DAYS, NOT WITHIN 37 DAYS, NOT WITHIN 31 DAYS, WITHIN 30 DAYS, WE MUST HAVE A STAFF REPORT.

IT DOES NOT OFFER AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY THAT STAFF REPORT, AMEND THAT STAFF REPORT OR CORRECT THAT STAFF REPORT.

IN FACT, THE OCTOBER 1 STAFF REPORT HAS ANOTHER ERROR IN IT THAT WASN'T CORRECTED. SO IF IT IS STAFF THAT IS TRYING TO CORRECT AN ERROR, THEY MISSED ANOTHER ONE.

AN ACREAGE. THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY TO ISSUE A SUPPLEMENTAL, CORRECTIVE, ADDITIONAL, SECONDARY, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, THE STATUTE DOESN'T THINK OF THAT.

WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THAT STAFF REPORT, YOU MUST HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING IN 45 DAYS. YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT WITHIN 30 DAYS. IF YOU DON'T TAKE ACTION, THE APPLICATION IS CERTIFIED WITHIN 90 DAYS.

NOT 92 DAYS, NOT 96 DAYS, 90 DAYS.

THE STATUTE IS CRYSTAL CLEAR. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR

INTERPRETATION. >> THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT THE PROPERTY MADE UP OF PARCEL OR PARCELS AREN'T ADJACENT TO FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED FOR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT OR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FOR INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL PARCELS.

IT REQUIRES THERE AT LEAST 50% SURROUNDED BY THE URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP WHICH IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HERE, HAS A RED LINE THAT IS SURROUNDING ALL OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, EXCLUDING AGRICULTURAL, INTENSIVE AND RURAL SUBCULTURE PROPERTIES.

IN OTHER STAFF REPORTS, THE STAFF HAS CONFIRMED THAT IN THEIR ANALYSIS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT, THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ESTABLISHES THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY THAT IS INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND THE PROVISION OF THE URBAN PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES.

THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT IDENTIFIES EXISTING AND PLANNED FACILITIES SERVICING THE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THAT AREA, INCLUDING UTILITIES, ROADS, ET CETERA.

AND BASED ON THOSE PROVISIONS AND THE COUNTY'S OTHER STAFF REPORTS, THEY IDENTIFIED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY MEETS THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AS IT IS DEFINED IN THE FLORIDA STATUTES.

[05:55:01]

THE RED LINE -- OR THIS REVIEW OR QUALIFICATION WAS INCLUDED IN NUMEROUS OTHER STAFF REPORTS PREPARED BY VARIOUS PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS. AT LOOKING AT THIS PROPERTY AT THE ZOOM IN OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP ON THE RIGHT, YOU CAN MORE CLEARLY SEE THE RED BOUNDARY, WHICH IS CLASSIFIED AS THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO THAT BOUNDARY AND THIS GENERAL LOCATION AND HAS ADJACENCY TO THE RESIDENTIAL C AND THE RESIDENTIAL B FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS, MAKING THAT MORE THAN 50% OF THE PROJECT'S PERIMETER. THE RESIDENTIAL LITERACY LAND USE HAS THE RESIDENCE DWELLING TO THE ACRE, WHEREAS B ALLOWS A MAXIMUM OF TWO DWELLING UNITS TO THE ACRE.

THE FLORIDA STATUTES FOR THE AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE DESIGNATION ALLOWS THAT THE PROPERTY CAN BE DEVELOPED WITH UP TO THE SAME DENSITY AS PERMITTED ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE A MAXIMUM OF SIX DWELLING UNITS TO THE ACRE, AND WE WOULD BE SELF PROFFERING THAT FURTHER DOWN.

>> DID YOU SAY YOU WERE GOING TO DO THAT --

>> WE WOULD REDUCE IT. WE COULD NOT BE DOING SIX

DWELLING UNITS TO THE ACRE. >> DID YOU HAVE A NUMBER YOU

WOULD WANT TO GIVE TO THE BOARD? >> APPROXIMATELY THREE DWELLING UNITS TO THE ACRE. AND AGAIN, THIS PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 72 ACRES IN SIZE. INSTEAD OF 78.3, IT IS 78.2?

>> THE ERROR IS THAT -- THE MAXIMUM DENSITY, IT'S 2.54 DWELLING UNITS TO THE ACRE WHICH IS BASED ON THE ZONING BUT THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ALLOWS A MAXIMUM OF SIX, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AGAINST. THE LAND USE MAXIMUM.

>> THANK YOU. IN SUMMARY, BASED ON THE OCTOBES ISSUED, WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE OWNERSHIP CONTROL AGRICULTURAL USE, THE PERIMEER CLASSIFICATIONS, THE ACREAGE AND THE COUNTY POPULATION IS ALL WITHIN THE CRITERIA ESTABLISHED BY FLORIDA STATUTES 3162, 31624 AND 163.

AND WITH THAT WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

>> COMMISSIONER TAYLOR? LET'S GO STRAIGHT TO PUBLIC

COMMENT THEN. >> AT THIS TIME WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5.

>> CARRY GUSTAFSON, ADDRESS ON RECORD.

I REALLY THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS WITHDRAWN.

I SENT SOMETHING IN ON THE 15TH AND RECEIVED BACK INFORMATION THAT IT WAS WITHDRAWN. I WILL STATE THAT UNTIL THIS MORNING WHEN I CHECKED THE AGENDA PACKET STILL HAD HATTLER CREEK AND STARKE SO WHY SHOULDN'T I THINK IT WAS WITHDRAWN? BUT ANYWAY, FOR THIS STAR, THERE ARE MANY REASONS WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED.

IT WAS ON THAT EMAIL THAT I SENT, WHICH I WILL TRY TO READ SOME OF IT NOW. BASICALLY -- AN AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE SHOULD NOT BE CERTIFIED. THE AREA SUBMITTED -- THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE AREA SUBMITTED WAS A PARCEL OR PARCELS AS OF JANUARY 1ST, 2025, THAT AT LEAST 50% OF THE PERIMETER IS BORDERED BY PARCELS DESIGNATED FOR DEVELOPMENT, THAT AT LEAST 50% OF THE PERIMETER IS BORDERED BY PARCELS WITHIN AN URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT AREA OR LINE, A THEORY THE BOARD REJECTED ON SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2026, THAT AN ADJACENT PARCEL OR DEVELOPMENT COMMITS THE DENSITY STATED FOR THE ENCLAVE, WHICH THE STAFF'S OWN FIGURES, NONE DOES.

OR THE APPLICATION IS MADE BY THE OWNER OR THE AUTHORIZED AGENT. THE STAFF REPORT OF OCTOBER 1ST 2026 DOES NOT CURE THESE DEFICIENCIES.

AND MAKES NO FINDINGS ON THE FIRST, FOURTH OR FIFTH, ACKNOWLEDGES THE NARROWNESS OF THE SECOND AND LEAVES THE THIRD TO THE BOARD. EACH GROUND IS INDEPENDENT AND INSUFFICIENT. I'M NOT UP TO DATE WITH THIS, BUT I DID DO THE ANALYSIS ON THE OCTOBER FIRST LETTER, NOT THE NEW ONE THAT I FOUND WHERE THE STAFF CHANGED IT TO RECOMMEND NOT TO APPROVE. SO EVERYTHING TO MY EMAIL YOU CAN PULL UP FROM OCTOBER 15TH IS BASED ON WHAT WAS IN THEIR APPLICATION MISSING AS WELL AS WHAT OUR STAFF SAID.

ANYONE ELSE? GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> EXCUSE ME GOOD AFTERNOON. AFTER A COUPLE OF VOTES AGO

[06:00:04]

THERE, I AM THINKING ABOUT WHAT COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST WAS SAYING -- I. HOPE I DON'T MESS THE WORDS UP, BUT THE INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY. IT IS LIKE TRYING TO GET THE -- WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA WE'RE USING TO WORK ON THESE? AND IS THE ATTORNEYS HAVE SAID AND REMIND YOU OF FREQUENTLY, THE LAW REQUIRES YOU TO DO THIS, IT REQUIRES YOU TO DO THAT, IT HASN'T SPELLED OUT, YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF DECISIONS IN THIS MATTER, YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO CHECK BOXES AND IF YOU THINK THE BOXES HAVE BEEN CHECKED, YOU SAY YES.

BUT IT SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING PEOPLE WANT YOU TO TAKE DISCRETION. AND EVEN THOUGH THAT IS A LEGALLY DEFINED TERM BY THE STATE IN THE COMP PLAN AND THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARIES AT DIFFERENT TERM, IT SEEMS TO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR SOME REASON. IN A PRESENTATION EARLIER, THEY TRIED TO SAY WELL, THERE IS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AROUND OUR PROJECT. THEY SHOULD HAVE A BLOWN OUT VIEW OF THE COUNTY AND PIPES GOING ALONG ROADS, I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR AWAY, A HALF MILE, BUT NOTHING ACTUALLY SERVING THE AREA. THEY'RE VERY SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS FOR THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND IT IS IMPORTANT THAT EITHER IT IS AN URBAN SERVICE AREA, WHICH THE LAW REQUIRES, OR THAT THERE IS MONEY NOT TO THE OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTY, NEITHER OF THOSE CRITERIA WERE MET FOR THAT PROJECT EARLIER AND I DON'T BELIEVE THEY WERE MET HERE.

SO JUST AS A BOX CHECKING ROUTINE, EXACTLY WHAT THE LAW SAYS THAT YOU ARE LIMITED BY THE LAW, THAT ATTORNEYS TRY TO REMIND YOU, I THINK THAT YOU HAVE TO SAY NO TO THOSE THAT DON'T HAVE THE URBAN SERVICE AREA IF THAT IS LINE C-2 IF THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE USING TO BE APPROVED FOR THE PROJECT, WHICH IS THE CASE. AND WE KEEP GETTING ARGUMENTS ABOUT HOW THERE ARE SO MANY SIMILARITIES.

BUT I MEAN -- I HAVE A 2-YEAR-OLD PORSCHE OUTSIDE.

I WILL SELL TO ANYBODY WHO WANTS IT FOR $30,000.

IT MIGHT SAY HYUNDAI ON THE BACK BUT I CAN GIVE YOU 1000 PAGES OF SIMILARITIES BETWEEN MY HYUNDAI AND THAT PORCHE.

BUT THEY ARE DIFFERENT, THERE ARE A FEW KEY DIFFERENCES.

AND THAT'S BEING OVERLOOKED HERE.

THEY'RE NOT THE SAME THING, IT SAYS THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR WITH

THE SAME ASSETS. >> THANK YOU, VERY WELL SAID.

THANK YOU. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? PLEASE DENY THIS APPLICATION. THEY ARE FORCING THE CATEGORIES, THIS WOULD MAKE A GOOD -- WE HAD IT IN A GROUP CALLED FLAW REVIEW AND IF WE GRADUATING THIRD YEAR CLASS GOT TO PUT IN THE MUSIC.

THIS WOULD BE GREAT SET TO MUSIC.

CAN YOU MAKE SUGGESTIONS FOR WHAT THE MUSIC SHOULD BE FOR

THIS ONE? >> THANK YOU, ANYONE ELSE?

>> SAINT JOHNS COUNTY FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS.

THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A MAP OF GRAND OAKS AND THE PIECE OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION TO THESE SOUTHWEST. FUNNY SHAPE, IT LOOKS LIKE A DAGGER. THE VERY NARROW PART IS -- I'M ASSUMING BECAUSE I DRIVE BY IT EVERY DAY, IS JUST A ROAD TO GET TO WHAT IS GOING TO BE BUILT HOMES.

THAT SECTION IS INTERESTING AND THAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE SURROUNDED BY DEVELOPED AREAS, CORRECT? CORRECT. ON THIS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE IT, BUT THAT IS AN AREA IN GRAND OAKS NEXT TO THAT AND THAT IS ACTUALLY OWNED AND OPERATED NOW AND IT IS A CONCENTRATION AREA, IT IS NOT DEVELOPED, IT NEVER HAS BEEN DEVELOPED.

AND IT GOES EAST AND WEST, FROM THE RIGHT TO THE LEFT.

[06:05:02]

AND THAT IS MOST OF WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR.

THAT BORDERS MOST OF WHAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT LEFT ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE TOWARDS THE WEST THAT IS NOT EVEN DEVELOPED YET BECAUSE THAT WILL BE ON THE AGENDA COMING UP. SO IT IS MY POSITION THAT IT IS NOT SUITED BY DEVELOPMENT, NOT GOING TO BE DEVELOPED BY OTHER DEVELOPMENT AND I HOPE YOU TURN THIS THING DOWN.

>> ANYONE ELSE, PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS TIME WITH AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5? SEEING NONE WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC

COMMENT. >> BACK TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION. REBUTTAL?

>> PLEASE, IF I MAY, I WILL BE VERY BRIEF.

YOUR COUNTY ATTORNEY POINTED OUT ONE THING.

IT WAS PROFFERED AN APPROXIMATE -- APPARENTLY YOU CANNOT PROFFER AN APPROXIMATE, SO WE WILL PROFFER THREE UNITS PER ACRE.

NO MORE. AND I ALSO WANTED TO --

>> I WANT TO READ A PORTION OF THE STATUTE, I DON'T WANT TO GIVE CREDENCE TO THIS OCTOBER EIGHTH STAFF REPORT BECAUSE IT IS MY FIRM BELIEF THAT IT IS VIOLATIVE OF STATE LAW. WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS THERE.

STARTING WITH FOUR, AGRICULTURAL ENCLAVE IS AN UNINCORPORATED, UNDEVELOPED PARCEL OR PARCELS AS OF JANUARY 1, 2025.

AND THEN YOU GO TO C2, IT DOES NOT EXCEED 700 ACRES AND SURROUNDING AT LEAST 50% OF THE PERIMETER BY PARCEL OR PARCELS THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS DESIGNATED AS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT IS TO BE DEVELOPED FOR INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES WOULD MEET THAT CRITERIA. AND THE PARCEL OR PARCEL SURROUNDED ON AT LEAST 50% OF THEIR PERIMETER BY A PARCEL OR PARCELS WITHIN AN URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT AREA OR LINE.

AND THE OCTOBER FIRST STAFF REPORT CONCURS.

I HAVE KNOWN MISS WEST FOR MANY YEARS.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IT'S NOT THE COUNTY'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE ARE GRANTED ADDITIONAL DUE PROCESS, THE STATUTE IS CLEAR, THE STATUTE SETS FORTH THE DUE PROCESS WE ARE ENTITLED TO. OCTOBER FIRST IS THE STAFF REPORT THAT IS OPERATIVE AND GOVERNS THIS APPLICATION.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

MY FIRST THOUGHTS WOULD BE THAT WHATEVER IS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD WOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE BOARD AND NOT NECESSARILY ANYTHING ELSE. COMMISSIONER?

>> I WILL TRY THIS AGAIN. BECAUSE I GOT HERE AND I THOUGHT IT WAS PULLED. AND THE PEOPLE OUT HERE THOUGHT IT WAS PULLED AND THEN IT IS HERE AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE THIS TO NOVEMBER 17TH.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION. >> I AGREE, I DID NOT KNOW THAT THIS WAS GOING TO COME BEFORE US TODAY AND I DEFINITELY NEED MORE

TIME. >> WAS THAT A SECOND?

>> THAT WAS THE SECOND. >> COMMISSIONER?

>> I WILL SAY MY COMMENTS, WE CAN VOTE ON THIS MOTION.

>> THIS IS A MOTION TO MOVE TO THE 17TH.

THAT FAILS, 3-2. SO WE WILL HEAR THAT MOTION TODAY. ARE THERE ANY MORE COMMENTS,

COMMISSIONER? >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.

AND THIS IS A RHETORICAL QUESTION, BUT IT IS ALSO FASCINATING TO ME, WHETHER OR NOT THE LAW ALLOWS FOR COUNTY STAFF TO AMEND OR RESCIND THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT.

THAT'S THE CLAIM BEING MADE, HE IS EMPHATIC, HE CLEARLY VERY FIRMLY BELIEVES THAT AND I'M NOT HERE TO ARGUE WITH YOU.

THAT IS A VERY INTERESTING POINT.

OUR ATTORNEY, WHO I HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF RESPECT FOR, THEY DON'T AGREE WITH THE CHARACTERIZATION THAT IT SOMEHOW VIOLATES THE LAW. YOU FIRMLY -- I. RESPECT BOTH OF YOU AS ATTORNEYS, I'M NOT IN ANY POSITION TO ARGUE WITH EITHER ONE OF THEM. I THINK IT IS A FASCINATING POSITION WE ARE IN TO DETERMINE -- I. WISH SENATOR MCLEAN WAS THERE WHO WAS THE ORIGINAL SPONSOR, TO PROVIDE SOME CLARITY AND PROVIDE SOME CLARITY ABOUT THE MURKY SITUATION IS WE FIND OURSELVES IN. I TAKE THE POINT YOU ARE MAKING THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVIDE A STAFF REPORT WITHIN 30 DAYS, TO ME THAT IS VERY COMPELLING AND THE OCTOBER FIRST STAFF REPORT ASSERTED THAT YOU MET THE CRITERIA THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THIS APPLICATION OR FOR THIS ENCLAVE APPLICATION AGREEMENT.

SO THAT IS COMPELLING TO ME. >> ANY MORE DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD? COMMISSIONER ARNOLD?

[06:10:03]

>> IF I COULD JUST HEAR THROUGH THE CHAIR ONE MORE TIME, WHAT IS THE FINAL OFFER ON THE TABLE OF THE UNITS THAT YOU WILL DO PER

ACRE? >> NO MORE THAN THREE.

>> THREE UNITS PER ACRE EQUATES TO ABOUT 212.

I THINK IT IS A LAWYER, NUMBERS ARE NOT MY FRIEND.

>> THREE UNITS PER ACRE WHICH WOULD PUT US AT 200 DWELLING UNITS. SO COMMISSIONER MURPHY, I THINK THE PROPERTY IS 72 ACRES BUT THERE ARE SOME WETLANDS ON THERE. WHEN WE SUBTRACT THOSE OUT AND WE DO THE NET CALCULATION, IT WOULD PUT US AT 200.

>> COMMISSIONER? >> IT IS NOT NECESSARILY AN ENCLAVE, BUT WHY COME THROUGH LIKE A NORMAL -- JUST THE NORMAL WAY AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT A NICE --

>> I BELIEVE THAT HAS BEEN ATTEMPTED.

IT REFLECTS, WE WILL COMMIT ON THE RECORD THREE UNITS PER ACRE,

200 TOTAL UNITS. >> WE DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WERE DOING. AT LEAST ON THE OTHER ONES WE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND CONSERVATION.

>> IT HAS ALL BEEN OUR APPLICATION, IT IS ALL ON THE RECORD, IT IS ALL IN THE STAFF REPORT.

OKAY. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, IF I MAY REAL QUICK ADDRESS THE COMMISSIONER, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. THE ORIGINAL WRITTEN REPORT DID GO OUT ON OCTOBER FIRST, AND THEN THERE WAS A SUBSEQUENT UPDATE. THE ORIGINAL WAS NOT RESCINDED.

SO IN OUR MINDS WE HAVE MET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT WITHIN THE 30 DAYS. AS I SAID, WE COULD HAVE EASILY NOT ISSUED AN UPDATED REPORT AND JUST CAME BEFORE YOU AND SAID THERE WAS AN ERROR, THIS IS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER AS COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BASED ON THIS NEW ANALYSIS.

>> IF I MAY? >> CERTAINLY.

>> THAT WOULD BE -- IF THERE IS A ERROR, IF THERE IS A MINOR CORRECTION, THIS IS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN A WEEK.

AND IT IS A CHANGE IN A CRITERIA THAT THEY SAW ON OUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION ON JULY FIRST. AND DID NOT BRING UP -- THEY DIDN'T BRING IT UP WHEN WE MET WITH THEM ON AUGUST 21ST, IT WASN'T ON THE OCTOBER FIRST STAFF REPORT, IT IS NOT WE GOT A DATE WRONG, WE GOT A PRINT ACRE WRONG, THIS IS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE. AND I DIDN'T STUDY THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MY PROJECTS. BUT AT LEAST ONE OF THE STAFF REPORTS THAT YOU LOOKED AT TODAY DID NOT HAVE THIS TYPE OF ANALYSIS IN IT, FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION OF THE STATUTE. SO IT IS A BIG CHANGE.

AND IT IS UNTIMELY AND THAT IS A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS.

AND I AM WILLING TO ARGUE THAT ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR OF THE SUPREME COURT, THAT IS HOW STRONG I FEEL ABOUT IT.

I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.

I DON'T WANT TO LECTURE YOU, I DON'T WANT TO THREATEN EVERYBODY. YOU'VE KNOWN ME FOR A LONG TIME, I AM AGITATED BECAUSE WE WERE FLOORED WHEN WE SAW THIS ON OCTOBER EIGHTH. WE WERE FLOORED.

>> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I THINK THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION ON JULY FIRST WAS FLOORED ALSO WHEN THIS LAW WAS ENACTED.

MISS WEST, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ARNOLD, YOU NOW

HAVE THE FLOOR. >> THANK YOU.

IN LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION WE HAVE AND SOME NEW INFORMATION, I'M NOT PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION TODAY.

WE WILL MOVE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING, THE NOVEMBER THIRD MEETING, SO WE CAN HAVE A MEETING WITH MY ATTORNEYS IN TERMS OF WHAT HAPPENED EXACTLY IN TERMS OF THE CONFLICTING STAFF REPORT AND THE TIMING AND ALL OF THAT.

>> I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, THERE IS A MOTION TO

GO TO THE NEXT MEETING? >> YES.

>> DO WE HAVE A SECOND? ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE THE SECOND.

LET'S VOTE ON THAT. THAT PASSES 3-2, WE WILL DEFER THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING. LET'S GET STRAIGHT TO BUSINESS

[6. Public Hearing * MAJMOD 2026-01 Grand Oaks. Request for a Major Modification to Grand Oaks Planned Unit Development (Ordinance 2018-40) to reduce the maximum number of residential units from 999 to 954, modify language within the Master Development Plan (MDP) text regarding traffic mitigation requirements, modify the MDP Map to revise site access, update phasing, and correct inconsistencies within the MDP Text. This request was heard before the Planning and Zoning Agency on Thursday, September 17, 2026, and was recommended for approval by a vote of 6-0.]

[7. Public Hearing * DEVAGREE 2026-01 Grand Oaks PUD (Second Hearing). Pulte Home Company, LLC (Owner) has proposed a Development Agreement to mitigate the transportation impacts for 512 residential units in the Grand Oaks PUD, as proposed to be modified from a total 999 residential units to 954 units in the companion PUD Major Modification (MAJMOD 2026-01), consisting of 442 existing platted lots and the proposed 512 units. The Grand Oaks PUD is located on State Road 16 between International Golf Parkway and the I-95 interchange. This Development Agreement proposes to pay $20,000,000.00 in total mitigation for the transportation impacts for the proposed development of the remaining 512 single-family units. This is the second of two required public hearings for consideration of a Development Agreement. The first public hearing was heard before the Board of County Commissioners on October 06, 2026.]

ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6. AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ARNOLD FOR KEEPING YOUR BUTTON ON.

THAT WILL ALLOW US TO CONDUCT OUR BUSINESS PLEASE, WE WILL GO RIGHT TO NUMBER 6 ON EX PARTE PLEASE.

CAN WE DO SIX AND SEVEN TOGETHER?

>> I HAD OVER 80 EMAILS, BUT OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEARS WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING, IT HAS BEEN QUITE A BIT MORE THAN THAT.

I HAD A MEETING VIA PHONE WITH DUSTIN DUDLEY AND ZACH MILLER, WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS AS WELL REGARDING THIS AND I HAVE ALSO SPOKEN WITH VARIOUS RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS AND ABOUT THEIR

SUPPORT. >> COMMISSIONER JOSEPH?

>> ONE OR MORE EMAILS AND NO MEETINGS.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER?

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE 470 EMAILS FOR THIS

[06:15:04]

SPECIFIC ITEM, I MET IN PERSON WITH CAROL ZANDER, SHE IS OPPOSED TO THIS MAJOR MODIFICATION, SHE PRESENTED A PACKET OF FIVE REASONS TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION.

I ALSO HAD A PHONE CALL WITH MR. MILLER WHERE WE DISCUSSED THE DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION, WE DISCUSSED WHO THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY WERE, THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY AND SOME OF THE UPDATES TO THE MAJOR MODIFICATION.

>> COMMISSIONER? >> YES, I HAD WELL OVER 100 EMAILS ON THIS AND A MEETING WITH DUSTIN DUDLEY, ZACH MILLER

AND STAFF. >> THANK YOU.

I HAVE WELL OVER 98 EMAILS, A MEETING WITH DUSTIN DUDLEY, ZACH MILLER, STAFF AND I ATTENDED A PUBLIC MEETING ON SITE.

SO YOU NOW HAVE THE FLOOR. >> GOOD EVENING.

THIS IS THE PRESENTATION ON %-ÚR MODIFICATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR EASE OF REFERENCE AND BECAUSE THE TWO APPLICATIONS DEAL WITH EACH OTHER, WE ARE GOING TO ADDRESS BOTH OF THEM SIMULTANEOUSLY. AS I SAID WE'VE GOT DUSTIN DUDLEY THERE WHO WILL GO INTO MORE DETAIL ON THE HISTORY OF THE PROJECT AND WHY WE ARE DOING THIS.

JUST FROM AN APPLICATION STANDPOINT, WE FILED THIS -- I. FILED THESE APPLICATIONS ON JANUARY FIRST OF THIS YEAR.

SO IT HAS BEEN A LONG RIDE. WE HAD A COMMUNITY MEETING ON SEPTEMBER SECOND AT THE GRAND OAKS CLUBHOUSE.

I THINK THE COUNT WAS WELL OVER 100 PEOPLE IN ATTENDANCE, I THINK WE WERE THERE FOR AT LEAST OVER TWO HOURS.

IT WAS SORT OF A TALK TIL YOU DROP MEETING.

WE HAD A PZA MEETING ON JUST THE MODIFICATION BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THAT PASSED 6-0.

I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS ANYBODY IN OPPOSITION.

THEN WE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPLICATION ON OCTOBER SIXTH, WE WERE ALL HERE EXCEPT FOR COMMISSIONER ARNOLD WHO HAD TWO PHONED IN ON THAT ONE, I THINK.

AND THERE WAS NO VOTE ON THAT. YOU WERE REQUIRED BY STATUTE TO HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND YOUR ORDINANCE CODE ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THAT LEAVES US WITH THE FINAL HEARING WHERE THESE TWO APPLICATIONS COME TOGETHER, BOTH MAJOR MODIFICATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

I THINK YOU ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THIS, THIS IS THE LOCATION OF GRAND OAKS AND AS A LOT OF YOU KNOW, IT IS ON STATE ROAD 16. IT IS A MYSTERY TO ANYBODY.

THIS IS A MAP OF THE ZONING PROPERTY, ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN 2018. IT WAS ORIGINALLY FOR 999 UNITS, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO KNOW WHY, FOR LAND USE IT WAS TO GET UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS, THIS IS NOT A DRY, IT HAS NEVER BEEN A DRY.

THERE WAS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE SPACE.

I WILL GO INTO MORE DETAIL ABOUT THIS, THIS MAJOR MODIFICATION APPLICATION, ALL IT DOES FROM AN ENTITLEMENT STANDPOINT IS REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNITS FROM RESIDENTIAL, AND IT IS JUST FOR THE PROPERTY THAT MY CLIENT OWNS.

IT DOES NOT AFFECT ANYBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY RIGHTS WITHIN THE PUD, IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE COMMERCIAL RIGHTS, IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE OFFICE RIGHTS. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PUD, THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY IS JUST THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PUT IN TO THE APPLICANT'S. I KNOW THERE IS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT CLEAR CUTTING AND EXPECTATION OF THERE BEING TREES AND OPEN SPACE AND THINGS LIKE THIS.

ANYONE WHO HAS BEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT IS PRETTY CLEAR THE AREA WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

YOU KIND OF HAVE A HALF BUILT, LITERALLY, NEIGHBORHOOD.

SOME OF THE CUL DE SACS, SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED AND THEN THE REST OF IT IS THERE.

SO YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE WHERE THESE HOMES ARE GOING TO BE OUT.

NOW THIS IS THE HISTORY OF WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. IN FEBRUARY OF 2023, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION DECLARED THE DEVELOPER TO BE IN FAULT UNDER THE TRAFFIC AND CURRENCY AGREEMENT.

A BIT OF DIFFERENCE, IT WAS A CONCURRENCY AGREEMENT, OURS IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, I WILL GO INTO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS. IN MARCH OF 2023, THE DEVELOPER FILED LITIGATION AGAINST THE COUNTY TO RELIEVE ITS CONCURRENCY OBLIGATIONS. THAT AGREEMENT STATED THAT THE THEN DEVELOPER, SOUTHEAST, DID NOT OWN ANY PROPERTY, STILL DOES NOT OWN ANY PROPERTY, AND DOES NOT THE APPLICANT UNDER EITHER ONE OF THESE APPLICATIONS, HAD THE OBLIGATION TO MAKE ALL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO A CERTAIN SEGMENT REGARDLESS OF THE COST.

THAT ENDED UP GETTING TRANSFERRED TO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. THE COURT RULED AGAINST THE DEVELOPER IN UPHOLDING THE COUNTY'S RISE TO CEASE PLATTING, THE OTHER 550 PLUS UNITS COULD NOT BE PLATTED UNTIL THE WORK WAS COMPLETED PER THAT CONCURRENCY AGREEMENT.

SURPRISINGLY, THE DEVELOPER, SOUTHEAST, NOT MY CLIENT, NOT ANYBODY SUBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION, APPEALED THAT RULING TO THE 11TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.

[06:20:02]

THEY HEARD OUR ORAL ARGUMENT ON SEPTEMBER 23RD, 2025, AND IRONICALLY JUST BEFORE A COMMUNITY MEETING, 11TH CIRCUIT UPHELD THE DISTRICT COURT RULING.

SO PER THE COURT RULING, THE DISAGREEMENT AND FOR SOUTHEAST TO MOVE FORWARD, IT HAS TO ABIDE BY THAT AGREEMENT.

THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY HAVE FILED ANY APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, I DON'T EXPECT THEM TO.

THIS IS ACTUALLY IN YOUR PACKAGE, THIS IS BEING ADOPTED.

IT JUST SHOWS SPECIFICALLY THE PROPERTY THAT IS SUBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION. IT IS THE AREAS IN WHITE, THE AREAS IN GREY ARE WITHIN THE PUD, BUT THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION. THESE ARE THE PROPERTIES THAT THE APPLICANTS HERE OWN. THE AREAS IN GREY WERE NOT TOUCHING. THINGS ARE STAYING THE SAME, THE SCHOOL SIDE IS STAYING THE SAME, THE COMMERCIAL IS STAYING THE SAME. AND I'LL GO BACK TO THIS.

HERE'S WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT. FROM A TECHNICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, THE APPLICATION ON MAJOR MOD IS PRETTY SIMPLE FOR THE CRITERIA. ONE, IS IT CONSISTENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING? THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED IN 2018 WHEN THE PUD WAS APPROVED, WE WERE DOING LESS UNITS, IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. DID WE MEET ALL THE CRITERIA IN ARTICLE FIVE THAT IS INCUMBENT UPON PUD? YES, BECAUSE WE ARE DOING ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME AS WAS DONE IN 2018. USING THE UNITS, CHANGING ONE OF THE ACCESS POINTS AND THEN CLEANING UP A FEW ITEMS. WE CAN GO INTO DETAILS ABOUT THAT.

AT THAT POINT, THE BURDEN ACTUALLY -- MOVING THIS TO THE SUPREME COURT, MOVES BEFORE THE BOARD AND YOU CAN ONLY DENY IT IF YOU HAVE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS A LEGITIMATE PUBLIC PURPOSE IN KEEPING THE CURRENT ZONING.

NOT JUST A PUBLIC PURPOSE, A LEGITIMATE PUBLIC PURPOSE.

SO THAT IS ON THE MAJOR MODIFICATION.

NOW WHAT ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT? THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS ON A CHAPTER 163 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, SPECIFICALLY 1633185H.

FOR THE MOST PART, IF YOU COME IN WITH RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AS LONG AS IT IS NOT DE MINIMIS, YOU HAVE TO MITIGATE FOR YOUR IMPACTS TO THE ROAD. WELL HOW DO YOU CALCULATE THAT? YOU GO IN AND FIGURE OUT HOW MANY AM PM TRIPS ARE GENERATED THERE IS A DOLLAR FIGURE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AND YOU COME UP WITH A DOLLAR FIGURE FOR THAT.

WHAT YOU CANNOT DO UNDER STATE LAW IS YOU CANNOT USE EXISTING DEFICIENCIES IN THAT CALCULATION.

THAT HAS TO BE REMOVED. THIS IS IN THE STATUTE.

WHEN YOU COME IN AND THE ROAD IS ALREADY DEFICIENT FOR THE PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE CALCULATION, YOU HAVE TO TREAT IT AS IF THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE.

SO EXISTING DEFICIENCY DOES NOT GO TO YOUR CROP SHARE CALCULATION, IT IS ONLY HOW YOUR RESIDENTIAL UNITS WOULD BE MAKING IT WORSE. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THAT MEANS THAT OUR CROP SHARE CALCULATION NOT USING THE EXISTING DEFICIENCIES COMES OUT TO $2.4 MILLION.

THE STAFF, USING EXISTING DEFICIENCIES FOR STATE ROAD 16, WE CAN DETAIL HOW THEY DID THAT, WILL COME UP WITH A FIGURE OF 2.8 MILLION. WE ARE PROPOSING 20 MILLION.

SO WHETHER STAFF ANALYSIS OR OUR ANALYSIS, WE ARE EXCEEDING IT.

NOW MR. DUDLEY WILL GO THROUGH THE MORE DETAILED HISTORY OF THE

PROJECT. >> GIVE ME JUST A SECOND, MR. DUDLEY. COMMISSIONER JOSEPH?

>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION? IS DESOUZA HERE? WHEN WE WERE IN OUR MEETINGS HE MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT YOU ARE CALCULATING AND WHAT SHOULD BE CALCULATED. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU WERE TELLING ME ABOUT THAT? I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, DESOUZA. TO THAT QUESTION, STAFF HAS OUR PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE, WE HAVE THOSE TRIPS YOU WILL PUT ON THERE, WE HAVE A LOT OF STRIPS SO IT IS DOING ONLY THE SHARE OF YOUR TRIPS THAT ARE DOING THAT FACILITY.

SO THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE APPROACH TO IT.

SO WE CAME UP WITH A FIGURE OF THE 12.74 MILLION, ROUGHLY THE 12.8 VERSUS THE APPLICANT 2.4 MILLION.

AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE EXCLUDING ANY BACKLOGGED FACILITY AND SAYING THAT DEFICIENCY DOES NOT EXIST, WOULD BE THE TAKE USED TO COME UP WITH THE 2.4. WHERE WE WERE SAYING THAT DEFICIENCY IS STILL THERE AND THOSE TRIPS WILL STILL HIT THAT DEFICIENCY IN SOME CAPACITY. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT THOSE TRIPS WULD HIT UP TO THAT CAPACITY LEVEL, YOU WERE PAYING FOR THAT SHARE OF IT. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY WHATEVER IS GOING ON AFTER THAT TO THE NEXT DEFICIENCY.

SO IN THE INSTANCE OF STATE ROAD 16, IT IS 2-4 AND THEN WHATEVER THE CAPACITY WOULD BE TO GO FROM FOUR TO SIX, THAT IS JUST THE MATHEMATICS OUT IN THIS INSTANCE.

>> BEFORE YOU GO ANYWHERE, WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF

[06:25:06]

2.8 MILLION VERSUS 12.74 MILLION?

>> IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, UNDER OUR CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, WE TAKE OFF A PORTION OF THAT PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE TO NOT BE APPLIED DIRECTLY TO YOUR IMPACT CREDITS.

EVERY DOLLAR SPENT IS CREDITABLE, MINUS THIS PORTION THAT WE DROP OFF, IT IS A 20% OF THAT TOTAL PROP SHARE, THAT IS JUST BASED OFF THE FACT THAT YES, YOU ARE CORRECTING EFFICIENCY BUT ALSO ADDING TRIPS TO SAID DEFICIENCY.

SO IT IS A REDUCTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT.

SO THEREIN LIES YOU ARE TAKING 20% OF SMALL VERSUS A LARGER

NUMBER. >> SO IF THEY ARE WILLING TO SPEND -- BASICALLY SPEND $20 MILLION, IF WE GO BY THEIR CALCULATIONS AT 2.4, THEY GET $17.6 MILLION IN CREDITS?

IMPACT FEE TAX CREDITS? >> I WILL GO WITH THE MATH OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD. SURE.

>> IT IS MORE THAN THAT, TO BE CLEAR.

>> WE'RE TALKING LIKE 19 VERSUS 19 AND A HALF, THOSE TYPES.

19 VERSUS 19.5. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF.

>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 12.74 MILLION AS THEIR PROP SHARE VERSUS WHAT THEY THINK IS --

>> VERSUS THE 2.4. AND OF COURSE EVERYTHING ABOVE

THAT -- >> THE TAX CREDIT IS ONLY A

SMALL AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE? >> THE REDUCTION IN CREDIT IS A SMALL AMOUNT. IT IS A DIFFERENCE NONETHELESS.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY, IF I MAY? THE STATE STATUTE IS THE 2.4 MILLION IS WHAT IS OWED BASED ON THE ADDITIONAL DEFICIENCIES.

ANY NUMBER ABOVE THAT IS GIVEN FULL CREDIT.

THERE IS NO REDUCTION. SO THE REDUCTION IS ONLY ON THE 2.4. SO YOU CAN TAKE UP TO 20%

REDUCTION OF THE 2.4 MILLION. >> OKAY.

>> THAT CLEARS IT RIGHT UP. [LAUGHS]

EVERYBODY ELSE GOT THAT? >> AT THE RISK OF MAKING IT WORSE, THE STATUTE SAYS YOU CAN GO UP TO 20% DISCOUNT ON YOUR PROP SHARE, ON YOUR IMPACT FEE CREDITS.

THE WAY THE STAFF DID IT IS THEY LOOKED AT THE 2.8 FIGURE, INCLUDING EXISTING DEFICIENCIES, AND THEY LOOKED AT EACH DOLLAR FIGURE AND THEY FIGURED OUT OUR TRIPS ADDED TO THAT AS A PERCENTAGE, AND THEN TOOK THAT PERCENTAGE AND ADDED IT UP, DEDUCTED THAT FROM THE 20 MILLION AND THEY GOT THE FIGURE THAT THEY DID. WHAT WE DID IS LOOK AT THE 2.4 MILLION, TOOK 20% OF THAT AND THEN DEDUCTED IT.

COMING UP WITH A VERY SIMILAR NUMBER BUT A VERY DIFFERENT WAY

TO GET THERE. >> THANK YOU.

SORRY ABOUT THAT. MR. DUDLEY, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

>> JUSTIN DUDLEY, GRAND BAY PARKWAY.

THIS WILL JUST GO THROUGH THE HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE PCA, REALLY THIS IS THE HIGHLIGHTS TO THE MAJOR MOD.

OF YOUR TWO STAFF APPLICATIONS, THIS IS THE PUD MODIFICATION.

THE FIRST THING IT POINTS OUT HAS ALREADY BEEN TOUCHED ON CACTUS IS REDUCING THE NUMBER OF THE 999 UNITS DOWN TO 954 TOTAL.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THESE 999 ARE ALREADY ON THE COUNTY'S APPROVED UNBUILT UNIT CHARTS.

SO BY APPROVING THIS, YOU'RE ACTUALLY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE ON THE APPROVED UNBUILT UNITS FROM THE COUNTY, YOU ARE NOT APPROVING MORE, YOU WOULD BE REMOVING SOME.

THAT REDUCTION IS ABOUT A 45 LOT REDUCTION, WHICH IS ABOUT 8% OF WHAT IS REMAINING. AS YOU SAW IN THAT AERIAL, ALL THE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE, ALL THE WETLAND IMPACTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN, WE DO NOT INTEND TO WORK BEYOND THE CANVAS THAT IS ALREADY THERE. WE ARE GOING TO UTILIZE EXISTING MASS GRADING AND THE EXISTING IMPACTS TO COMPLETE THE DEVELOPMENT AS IS, WITHOUT TRYING TO GO IN AND SEEK THOSE LAST 45. THE SECOND NOTE THAT IS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THERE IS A POINT MADE ABOUT A POTENTIAL FUTURE CONNECTION ON 2209 AND US AS THE APPLICANT REMOVING THAT.

AND SO IN SOME RESPECTS, WE ARE COMING IN, WE ARE NOT THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER. WE ARE THE APPLICANT COMING IN TO TRY TO CONNECT THE COUNTY, THE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY AND THE RESIDENTS OF GRAND OAKS WITH A SOLUTION.

BUT ON THIS PARTICULAR POINT, WE DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE POTENTIAL FUTURE CONNECTION TO 2209 WAS NEVER VEHICULAR.

IN THE MAP THAT YOU SEE HERE, THE NODE AT THE BOTTOM SAYS POTENTIAL PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE CONNECTION POINT AND ACCESS TO THE TURNBULL ROMA, THAT IS THE OFF-SITE MITIGATION AREA.

IT WAS NOT A VEHICULAR ACCESS. YOU CAN SEE THE MAP IN THE STAFF PACKAGE, I BELIEVE IT IS PAGE 10.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOP LEFT AND YOU ACTUALLY SEE THE PRINTED PAGE NUMBER IN BLUE PAGE 10, THAT IS THE MAP THAT CALLS IT OUT. YOU CANNOT SEE THAT NOTE, HOPEFULLY YOU CAN SEE IT HERE ON THE PRESENTATION.

WE DID FURTHER DUE DILIGENCE THIS BY GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT ADDITIONAL PUD -- EXCUSE ME, MDP MAPS AND YOU CAN SEE HERE ARE THREE OVER THE COURSE OF 2019, 2020 AND 2022, SIGNED BY

[06:30:02]

AT LEAST TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY THAT ALL HAVE THAT EXACT SAME NOTE. NOW WHAT WE ARE DOING IS REMOVING THAT NOTE FROM THAT LOCATION OF THE MDP, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FIT THERE AS THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN BUILT OUT.

THIS IS A CUL DE SAC OF AN ACTIVE ADULT GATED PORTION OF THE COMMUNITY, IT IS NOT THE INTELLIGIBLE PLACE TO PUT IT.

BUT WITHIN THE PUD LANGUAGE, WE DO SAY THAT WE WILL INCLUDE THIS POTENTIAL CONNECTION POINT IN THE COMMUNITY, AT THE REQUEST OF STAFF. SO IT HAS NOT BEEN REMOVED FROM THE TEXT, IT HAS SIMPLY BEEN REMOVED FROM THIS LOCATION.

AND AGAIN, NEVER WAS IT A VEHICULAR CONNECTION.

ANOTHER ITEM ON THIS, IS WE STITCHED TOGETHER YEARS OF PUD WITH WHAT HAS BEEN DONE AND WHAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE, IT IS EVALUATING THE WESTERN ACCESS ONTO STATE ROAD 16 AS EMERGENCY ONLY. AGAIN, STATE ROAD 16 IS A.ORG ROAD. AND SO WE AS THE APPLICANT NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL AS TO WHAT WE OFFER THE COUNTY AND WHAT WORKS FOR THE.ORG, ET AL NEEDS TO ALIGN.

AND THE COUNTY'S VERY OWN STEPHANIE MURRAY, THE FIRE PLANS EXAMINER FOR SAINT JOHNS COUNTY WITHIN A FEW DAYS AFTER OUR SUBMITTAL AS ZACH MENTIONED WAS IN EARLY JANUARY, THAT A MAJOR MOD FROM 2022, THERE WAS A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THIS TO FULL ACCESS. BUT THE DOT HAD EXPRESSED SAFETY CONCERNS IF ANYTHING OTHER THAN EMERGENCY ACCESS WAS PERMITTED.

SO WE REENGAGED WITH JIM KNIGHT OF DISTRICT TWO AND HE SAID THAT ONE ENTRANCE IS IN FACT PREFERRED, IF WE CAN DEMONSTRATE IT IS ADEQUATE. AND IT'S ON US TO SEE IF THE SINGLE ENTRANCE THAT EXISTS DO WORK IN THE CURRENT STATE.

SO I WILL MOVE BACK TO THAT INTERSECTION AS IT IS NOW.

WE SEE A SINGLE ENTRANCE ANALYSIS UTILIZING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS.

WE ALSO DID A SIGNAL WARRANT FOR THAT LOCATION.

AND THE CONCLUSION OF THAT TRAFFIC STUDY DOES SAY THAT A SINGLE ENTRANCE SERVES THE COMMUNITY.

AND A SIGNAL IS NOT EXPECTED TO BE WARRANTED UNTIL APPROXIMATELY HALF OF THE REMAINING DEVELOPED UNITS ARE TO COME ONLINE.

SO IF WE ARE TALKING 512 REMAINING UNITS, ONE HALF OF THOSE 512 WOULD COME ONLINE BEFORE THE SIGNAL WOULD ACTUALLY BE WARRANTED. ADDITIONALLY, WE WORKED OUT WITH THE DOT, SOMETHING THAT IS IN THE ULTIMATE SIGNAL DESIGN.

THAT IS A DESIGN THAT WORKS WHETHER IT GOES IN BEFORE THE ROAD IS WIDENED OR AFTER THE ROAD IS WIDENED.

RELOCATING ARMS OR POLES OR RESTRUCTURING IT, WE WOULD HAVE TO ENGINEER IT SO THE ADDITIONAL MAST HEAD, SIGNAL HEADS COULD BE INSTALLED INTO THAT WHERE THE DOT ONLY HAS TO BOLT ON AND THEY DO NOT HAVE TO RELOCATE, IT IS NOT IN THEIR WAY.

THEY DO ALSO HAVE A NOTE TO SAY THAT PROPOSAL FROM OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEERS SITS ON MY DESK NOW. IF THE DAY WERE TO HAVE A FAVORABLE OUTCOME, WE ARE READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT TRAFFIC SIGNAL. THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING ALTHOUGH THE APPLICATION SAYS IT IS NOT REQUIRED UNTIL HALF THOSE HOMES ARE BUILT, ITS INSTALLATION IS AT THE REQUEST OF THE DOT AND THE COUNTY. BECAUSE IT IS A DOT ROAD AND THIS IS AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY.

SO WE WOULD BE READY TO COMPLY WITH BOTH OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

AS TO OUR CAPABILITY, HOMES IS CURRENTLY FINISHING UP AN $18 MILLION ROADWAY IN DISTRICT ONE, PUT MAYBE A $2.4 MILLION OKAY WE ARE PREPARED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.

AND THE ROADWAY ITSELF OBVIOUSLY IS A DIFFICULT CHAPTER IN GRAND OAKS HISTORY. BUT THERE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN THE PUD PER THE REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE BENEFITED THE COUNTY AND THE RESIDENTS DEDICATION OF A MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE BEING COMPLETE RIGHT OF WAY FOR 2209 PRESERVATION OF 89 ACRES OF WETLANDS ON SITE, 1D UTILITIES FOR SAINT JOHNS COUNTY, UTILITY DEPARTMENT AT NO COST TO THAT DEPARTMENT.

SO NOT EVERY PART OF THE STORY IS A BLACK MARK, PART OF IT HAS THERE ARE THINGS THAT DID GET ACHIEVED.

IF I MAY, I WILL MOVE OVER TO THE APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. IT TAKES ABOUT ONE SLIDE TO EXPLAIN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

THERE ARE A COUPLE OF POINTS HERE, THIS IS THE APPLICANT AND SOLE APPLICANT AND WE HAVE CHOSEN TO BE THE APPLICANT THAT BRINGS THIS FORTH WITH THE PROPER OWNER'S AUTHORIZATIONS FROM THE CURRENT LANDOWNER BROTHERS WHO CURRENTLY OWNS

[06:35:01]

UNPLATTED LOTS. BUT WE JUST DECIDED THAT TWO PARTIES HAVING ATTORNEYS COMING TO AN AGREEMENT WAS BETTER THAN FOUR OR FIVE PARTIES TRYING TO WORK IT OUT.

THEY GRANTED US THEIR AUTHORIZATIONS TO WHICH WE BROUGHT TO YOU ALL. THAT $20 MILLION IS BROKEN INTO TWO PAYMENTS, THE FIRST ONE IS 13.8 MILLION DUE WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE EXECUTED AND RECORDED AGREEMENT, THE OTHER 6.2 MILLION IS PAID TWO MONTHS THEREAFTER. THERE ARE STOPGAPS IN THAT AGREEMENT WHERE IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO PLAT WHERE THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE AND IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE TO PLAT.

IF YOU LOOK IN THE COLORED MAP THERE FOR CONTEXT, REMEMBER THERE WAS AN INITIAL 5,040,000 PAID FOR THE PORTIONS OF GRAND OAKS, EVERYTHING YOU SEE IN GREY, EVERYTHING WITH A COLOR THAT ALSO GETS INTO CURRENT OWNERSHIP THAT IS $20 MILLION IN MITIGATION THAT WE ARE OFFERING. AND TO BE CLEAR WHILE WE ARE ON THIS MAP, EVERYTHING YOU SEE IN YELLOW IS INTENDED TO BE INQUIRED AND THE BOTTOM THAT IS THE OTHER ONE HALF OF THE ACTIVE ADULT COMMUNITY WITHIN SIGHT OF GRAND OAKS WHERE HE COMPLETED THE FIRST HALF ON, BUT WE LOOK TO TAKE THAT AND EVERYTHING.

SO I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE ROADWAY.

I FIRST WANT TO EXPRESS WHY AND WHY CONSTRUCTING THE ROAD IN THE ENTIRETY IS NOT A VIABLE SOLUTION FOR US.

AND THE CONCURRENCY AGREEMENT EXECUTED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2018, THE PROBABLE COST ESTIMATE HERE BEFORE YOU HAD A NOTE ON THE BOTTOM, THAT IS AN ADDING OF TWO LANES TO WHAT WAS THERE.

AND IT OCCURS WITH RAISED GUTTERS ON THE INSIDE, 5-FOOT BICYCLE LANES AND SIDEWALKS. AND THIS IS NO LONGER ON THE ROAD THAT THE DOT HAS PUT BEFORE US WHEN THEY DID THEIR AUGUST 2025 STUDY. THE ROAD THAT IS NOW BEFORE YOU IS THE ROAD ON THE RIGHT. THAT IS WHAT THE DOT HAS NOW DESIGNED. THE ROAD ON THE LEFT IS A DEPICTION OF WHAT IS IN THAT EXHIBIT.

THAT IS BOLTING ON TWO LANES TO THE EXISTING TWO, THERE IS AN 1S 5-FOOT SIDEWALKS, THE LANES ARE TEN AND 11 FEET.

IT IS 100-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY. THIS IS NOT A GIMMICK SKETCH, THIS IS A 100-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY ON THE LEFT AND A 200-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY ON THE RIGHT, WITH MORE THAN 33-FOOT MEDIANS, DOUBLE 12-FOOT LANES, SHOULDERS, 12-FOOT SHARED BACK PASS AND THEN YOU CAN IMAGINE THE EARTH AND MASS FILL NEEDED FOR THE 20.

THIS IS A ROAD THAT WILL PROBABLY BE ONE OF THE NICEST IN SAINT JOHNS COUNTY IF IT GETS BUILT LIKE THAT AND IT IS CERTAINLY IN EXCESS OF I THINK WHAT ANY BUILDER COULD OFFER TO COMPLETE. SO THE SCOPE HAS CERTAINLY GOTTEN AWAY FROM WHERE IT ORIGINALLY WAS EIGHT YEARS AGO.

SO, WHY 20 MILLION? AS ZACH POINTED OUT IN FEBRUARY OF 23, IT IS WHEN THE BOARD PUT THE DEVELOPER IN DEFAULT BY AUGUST, ABOUT SIX MONTHS LATER, ONE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS AS A PART OF ONE OF HER REPORTS, WAS SEEKING THE BOARD'S CONSENSUS FOR THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR ITS GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR THIS ROADWAY.

AND THE COUNTY WAS LOOKING AT THAT TIME TO PLEDGE A MATCH OF 20%, WHICH EQUATED TO $21.4 MILLION, THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS. THEY WERE HOPING TO HAVE THIS BY 2028, AND THEY WERE HOPING TO SUBMIT THEIR LETTER TO THE U.S.

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION IN SUPPORT OF $21.4 MILLION COMMITMENT. AND AGAIN, THAT WAS FOR THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AT THAT TIME.

TO OUR KNOWLEDGE THE COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE THOSE FUNDS, AND IF THEY DO, THEY PROBABLY HAVE A LOT OF PROJECTS TO SPEND THAT MONEY ON. SO THEY LOOKED AT THAT OPPORTUNITY TO COME FORTH AND LOOK AT PROVIDING THOSE FUNDS TO THE COUNTY FOR STATE ROAD 16. IT HAS BEEN ABOUT TWO YEARS TO GET TO THIS POINT FOR TRYING TO FIND 20 MILLION AND TRYING TO BRING IT FORTH TO SATISFY THIS REQUIREMENT.

NOT TO DO TOO MUCH MATH, BUT IF YOU JUST REVERSE ENGINEER 20% EQUATING TO 21.4 MILLION, AT THAT TIME THREE YEARS AGO, THAT IS $107 MILLION ROAD WHICH IS WHAT THAT WOULD WORK OUT TO.

IT WOULD BE 21.4 MILLION WHICH IS 20% OF 107 MILLION.

SO I THINK WE KNOW THIS ROAD LEFT THE $50 MILLION MARK A LONG TIME AGO. JOY IN THAT REPORT, DID SHE GET

[06:40:01]

CONSENSUS? YES, YOU GOT IT.

THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE OFFERING THE 20 MILLION.

WHAT DO WE INTEND TO DO WITH THE 20 MILLION? WHAT ARE WE ASKING THE COUNTY TO DO WITH THE 20 MILLION? WE MET WITH THE COUNTY BACK IN AUGUST OF 25 TO DISCUSS THE FEDERAL GRANT PROCESS AND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COUNTY TO SECURE ADDITIONAL FUNDS AS JOY HAD NOTED, SEEKING THE SECRETARY OF THE U.S. TRANSPORTATION. AND THERE SOMETHING CALLED A BUILD GRANT. IT IS THE BETTER UTILIZING INVESTMENTS LEVERAGING DEVELOPMENT.

IT ALLOWS MONIES THAT THE COUNTY COLLECTS FROM PARTNERSHIPS, FROM PRIVATE DEVELOPERS TO GO AND BE SEED MONEY SO THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT CAN MATCH THAT MONEY. AND THE FEDERAL GRANT APPLICATION TO BUILD GRANTS, THEY ALLOW US TO LOOK AT THE 5 MILLION THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY PAID, PLUS THE 20 MILLION SO THAT THERE IS 25 MILLION IN TOTAL TO GO AND SECURE ANOTHER 25 MILLION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO BRING THE FUNDS UP TO 50. IT SHOULD BE STATE FUNDED, TO HAVE THE STATE FUNDED, THIS STATE COUNTY WHICH IS ALSO IN THIS AS WELL WITH SOME CONTRIBUTIONS OF CASH AND IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS TO SEEK MONEY FROM THE DEVELOPER AND MONEY FROM FEDERAL, TO SEE THAT'S WHAT THE STATE WILL USE AS CRITERIA IN FUNDING THE ROADWAY.

THEY WERE DATED IN FEBRUARY OF THIS PAST YEAR, THEY WERE NOT AWARDED THIS PAST YEAR. BUT A SIGNIFICANT PARAGRAPH HERE IN THE PROJECT BUDGET SAYS THAT THE COUNTY, THEY WERE FINALIZING NEGOTIATIONS FOR THESE DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS.

WE ARE HOPING TODAY THAT TODAY REPRESENTS THE FILING OF THE NEGOTIATIONS SO THAT THIS APPLICATION CAN BE SUBSTANTIATED REAPPLIED FOR WITH THE MONEY BEING SECURED BY THE COUNTY.

THESE APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN ENDORSED BY SEVERAL ELECTED OFFICIALS, INCLUDING RANDY FINE, ASHLEY MOODY, JOHN RUTHERFORD.

WE KNOW THAT THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN QUOTED IN THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION THAT 16 IS THE COUNTY COMMISSION'S TOP CONCERN. AND WE ARE HOPING TO GET THAT STARTED WITH THESE FUNDS. JOHN RUTHERFORD IN HIS LETTER THERE IN THE FRONT HAS NOTED THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS RELATED TO THIS ROAD BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF INFRASTRUCTURE THERE AT THE WORLD COMMERCE CENTER AND THE LIKE.

AND PUTTING IT IN CONTEXT IN TWO OR THREE SLIDES ON THE LEFT, YOU PAY A DIFFERENT IMPACT FEE BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF YOUR HOME, AVERAGES ABOUT $11,000. WHEREAS IF YOU TAKE THE 20 MILLION AGAINST THE 512 LOTS OF, IT IS ABOUT $40,000 PER H HOME. SO SOME OF THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE 2.4 AND THE 2.8 -- I. HAD THAT BACKWARDS, BUT IT BECOMES A LITTLE BIT NEBULOUS BECAUSE WE ARE OFFERING 20.

DOING IT ON THROUGH A CONCURRENCY AGREEMENT, DOING IT THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SO WE CAN OFFER THEM MORE TO MEET THE COUNTY REQUIREMENT. AS IT STANDS NOW, WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR SCHOOLS AND YOUR BUILDINGS AND YOUR FIRE RESCUE, A LOT IN GRAND OAKS WOULD NOW DO $52,000 PER LOT, WHICH IS ACTUALLY IN EXCESS OF THE MARKET VALUE OF THOSE LOTS AT THIS TIME.

MORE CONTEXT, COMMERCIAL DOES NOT PAY CONCURRENCY BUT THEY DO PAY IMPACT FEES. SO AT THE WORLD GOLF VILLAGE AND THE PUBLIC OF THE SAINT AUGUSTINE OUTLET, YOU CAN SEE WHAT COMMERCIAL HAS PAID FOR THEIR IMPACT FEES.

AND I'M JUST TRYING TO PUT IT INTO CONTEXT OF WHAT WE ARE OFFERING HERE. YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE SILVER LEAF'S CONCURRENCY IMPACT FEES, TO WHICH THERE IS NO 20% REDUCTION IN AGREEMENTS. THE CREDITS MATCH THE 109 MILLION OF THE CONTRI CONTRIBUTIONS, THE 900 UNITS AND ABOUT 10,400 LEFT TO BUILD AND CERTAINLY WE'LL BE USING THAT ROAD THAT CAN BENEFIT FROM IT. BUT THAT AVERAGE IS ABOUT $6800 A UNIT CACTUS TO PUT IT AGAIN IN CONTEXT.

I DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE CITIZENS, A LOT HAS HAPPENED SINCE THE CONCURRENCY AGREEMENT WAS APPROVED BACK IN 2018, VERSUS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF STATE ROAD 16, WHERE THIS INFINITY INTERSECTION COMMENCED IN 2021, AND WAS COMPLETED BY NOW. IT IS DESIGNED TO HANDLE TRAFFIC THROUGH 2043. THAT TRAFFIC WOULD INCLUDE ALL OF THE EXISTING TRAFFIC, UP TO THE 999 UNITS IN GRAND OAKS, BECAUSE ALL OF THAT TRAFFIC HAS BEEN COUNTED ON THE RESERVED

[06:45:03]

SO AGAIN, ALL OF THE TRAFFIC IS ALREADY RESERVED, THESE DESIGNS ARE BEING UTILIZED AS IT IS THERE.

SO THAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE 2018. ALSO, YOU HAVE THE NEW SAINT JOHN'S PARKWAY. SAINT JOHN'S PARKWAY ALONG WITH THE 22,009 AT THE IGP INTERSECTION HAS DONE A LOT TO ALLEVIATE THE INTERSECTION OF STATE ROAD 16, THE SETTING OF IGP. THERE WAS ABOUT 15,000 CARS THAT MOVE OVER TO THAT, THAT ARE NOW JUST TRYING DIRECT ACCESS TO I-95 THAT NO LONGER NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT INTERSECTION.

THIS IS ALL PER THE 20-30 REGIONAL PLANNING MODEL.

AND TO THE SOUTH, THERE IS AN ALLEVIATION OF ABOUT 10,000 CARS AT THE EASTERN SITE OF THAT INTERSECTION THAT NOW TAKE THE LOOP TO GET TO THE INTERSTATE. AND I THINK IF YOU LOOK IN YOUR STAFF PACKAGE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, YOU WILL SEE YOUR MAPS, YOU WILL SEE ADVERSELY IMPACTED ROADWAYS.

AND IF YOU NOTE WHERE I HAVE LABELED THE 10,000 REDUCTION, THAT IS NOT EVEN A LABELED ROAD AS BEING AVERSELY IMPACTED OR BEING A DEFICIENT ROAD ANYMORE. IT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THAT, BECAUSE OF THAT IMPROVEMENT. SO THESE ARE CERTAINLY HELPING ALLEVIATE THAT INTERSECTION. SECOND TO LAST HERE FOR THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, FIRST COAST EXPRESSWAY, I THINK WE ALL KNOW ABOUT THIS. I DO WANT TO POINT OUT IS IT NOT JUST TRAFFIC AND GROWTH IN OUR COUNTY, THERE IS ABOUT 21,000 ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS THAT COME THROUGH OUR COUNTY AND CURRENTLY THEY DROP OFF AT STATE ROAD 13 AND THEN MOVE DOWN 16 A AND THEN MOVE UP LONGLEAF AND THROUGH 210 ALL TO GET TO JACKSONVILLE, TO GET TO THE INTERSTATE, TO GET TO ST. AUGUSTINE. THE FIRST COAST EXPRESSWAY WILL BECOME THAT ATTRACTIVE ROUTE THAT THOSE CARS WILL COME OFF OF OUR SURFACE ROADS AND MOVE ON TO THAT.

ADDITIONALLY, ALL OF THOSE CARS IN SILVER LEAF THAT ARE MOVING DOWN THE PARKWAY TODAY TO GET TO IGP ARE GOING TO START TURNING INWARD INTO THEIR COMMUNITY AND PICK UP THAT INTERCHANGE INSIDE THEIR COMMUNITY TO GET TO 95. SO IT WILL FURTHER REDUCE -- RIGHT NOW THE ESTIMATE IS ABOUT A 20% REDUCTION ESTIMATED ON STATE ROAD 16 ONCE THAT FIRST COAST EXPRESSWAY IS OPERABLE.

SO AS SIGNIFICANT AS STATE ROAD 16 IS, THERE'S A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS HAPPENING IN AND AROUND IT THAT WILL CHANGE THAT TRAFFIC THAT WE DO SEE, EITHER YESTERDAY OR TODAY.

AND LASTLY, THIS IS THE NEWEST OF THEM.

IF FOLKS AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH IT, THIS IS A DISPLACED LEFT, IS WHAT THIS DESIGN IS CALLED. IT MAY HURT YOUR BRAIN THIS TIME OF DAY TO STARE AT IT TOO MUCH, BUT IT IS A 60% DESIGN PLAN.

AND AS SOUTH IS TO REDUCE SIGNAL PHASING, INCREASED THROUGHPUT AND ACCOMMODATE TRAFFIC THROUGH 2050.

SO THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS IN THIS AREA.

STATE ROAD 16 SHOULD BE A PART OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS, BUT IT IS CERTAINLY NOT THE ONLY ONE. A LOT OF OTHERS ARE COMING EITHER COMPLETED OR COMING ONLINE, I JUST WANTED TO POINT THEM OUT. SO I WILL LEAVE YOU WITH TWO SLIDES. AS TO THE IMPACT WITH THE COUNTY, WE ARE ACTUALLY REDUCING APPROVED AS BUILT UNITS, APPROVE ON BUILT UNITS FROM OUR LIST. WE ARE REDUCING TRIPS RESERVED ON OUR COUNTY TABLES, WE ARE SOLIDIFYING THE 20 MILLION THAT WILL ALLOW US TO SEEK FEDERAL FUNDING AND ULTIMATELY THE STATE FUNDING FOR THIS ROAD, WHICH WILL IMPROVE TIMING AND THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT AS POINTED OUT BY RUTHERFORD THERE.

AND ALLEVIATING PRESSURE FROM BEHIND ME TODAY, WE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TOGETHER OVER THE LAST YEAR, TALKING AND WORKING THROUGH THIS. AND FOR THE RESIDENTS THEMSELVES, I KNOW IT IS NOT A DECISION POINT FOR THE BOARD, PER SE, MAY BE INDIRECTLY. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF FOLKS SUFFERING WITH REDUCED HOME VALUES, INABILITY TO SELL THEIR HOMES. I WON'T TELL THEIR STORY, BUT THEY HAVE A CD THAT OPERATES MOST OF THEIR IMPROVEMENTS.

AND AS FOR THE LAND OWNER, HE HASN'T PAID O&M THREE YEARS AND THERE IS A SHORTFALL THERE. WE HAVE NEGOTIATED WITH THEM AND WE HAVE A SIGNED AGREEMENT WITH THEM THAT ALL THAT MONEY GETS REFUNDED TO THE CD, WHICH MEANS OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FOR THOSE RESIDENTS THAT COMES BACK TO THEIR BUDGETS TO ADDRESS SOME DEFERRED MAINTENANCE AND OTHER ITEMS. SO THERE IS NO RISK OF ADDITIONAL DEBT IF WE CAN GET THIS RESOLVED, THEY ARE GOING TO PAY THE TAB ON THE UNPAID DEBT TO THE TRUSTEES OF THE BONDS, IS THE RISK OF FORECLOSURE IS ELIMINATED AS A PART OF THIS AS WELL.

AND WE ARE NOT ASKING TO BURDEN THE HOUSE'S, BURDEN THE RESIDENTS WITH ANY ADDITIONAL DEBT TO GET THIS DONE.

[06:50:03]

AND SO THE COMMUNITY CAN BE REESTABLISHED IN EQUITY VALUE THAT THEY HAVE IN MARKETABILITY OF THEIR HOMES.

SO THEY WERE NOT THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER, BUT WE AS THE APPLICANT ARE TRYING TO BRING A SOLUTION THAT BEST ACCOMMODATES THE COUNTY, THE RESIDENTS OF THE COUNTY AND THE RESIDENTS OF GRAND OAKS. SO WITH THAT, I WILL STAND BY.

>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD? FEEL. ANYONE ELSE CONFUSED ABOUT HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THIS? [LAUGHS] WITHOUT ANY COMMENTS, FOLKS, IT HAS BEEN A LONG DAY.

IF YOU ARE COMING IN IN SUPPORT, I WOULD APPRECIATE A WAVE IN SUPPORT OR A WAVE -- OKAY. LET'S GET THROUGH THIS PUBLIC COMMENT AS SOON AS WE CAN, HOW IS THAT? [APPLAUSE] LET'S GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT,

THANK YOU GENTLEMEN. >> JUST REAL QUICK BEFORE WE GET INTO PUBLIC COMMENT, I DID HAVE A QUESTION FOR LEGAL.

IS THE FINANCIAL CONDITION A LEGAL FACTOR IN THIS DECISION?

>> NO, IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A LEGAL FACTOR IN

YOUR DETERMINATIONS. >> OKAY, GREAT.

I APPRECIATE YOU SHARING THAT. AND JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION, IS THERE ANYTHING IN EITHER DOCUMENT THAT REQUIRES ANYONE TO

PAY THE CD UNPAID ASSESSMENTS? >> THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THEY HAVE TO WORK OUT WITH DAY LATE AND THE CDD.

>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO QUALIFY -- CLARIFY, THE CDD ARE NOT ANY OF THE CRITERIA WE NEED TO LOOK AT AND IT IS ALL BETWEEN THEM? OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

LET'S SEE. GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> IS IT TRUE THAT THEY CONTROL THE CDD? IS ONE OF THEIR OFFICIALS THE CHAIR OF THAT CDD?

>> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? >> IS IT TRUE THAT THE PULTE COMPANY CONTROLS THE CDD? AND WHILE YOU WERE WORKING ON THAT, ISN'T THAT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST? AND WHAT DOES MATTHEWS SAY AND WHAT DOES THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CASE LAW SAY? .

>> IS THE APPLICANT AUTHORIZED BY THE ORIGINAL COMPANY BY SOUTHEAST? ARE THEY AUTHORIZED TO BRING THIS ACTION? IS THIS ACTION PROPERLY BEFORE YOU? DO THEY HAVE ALREADY FROM SOUTHEAST? THE SOUTHEAST HAVE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO BRING THIS ACTION? I'M SORRY, MA'AM.

>> ORDER. >> I WAS ASKING THROUGH THE CHAIR AND THROUGH THE VISE CHAIR TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND COUNCIL FOR THE OTHER PARTIES HERE FOR A LEGAL OPINION.

I'M THINKING THIS CASE IS NOT PROPERLY PERFORMED YOUR HONOR.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO JUST WISH TO POSTPONE IT UNTIL NOVEMBER 17TH.

>> ORDER, PLEASE. >> IT IS ABOUT AS CLEAR AS MUD.

I DON'T THINK YOU KNOW EITHER. NOT FAIR TO YOU ALL TO BE PRESSURED BY PEOPLE YELLING AT IT.

TODAY HAVE SOME KIND OF BILLBOARDS?

>> I SAID I AGREE WITH YOU. >> THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

AND EXERCISE OF CAUTION. ASK FOR DETAILED FOR THE BRIEFING FROM OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY THAT YOU JUST HEARD FROM TODAY LEARNED COUNCIL LET'S GET SOMETHING IN WRITING.

>> YOU KNOW WHAT I DO WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO ASK LEGAL STAFF DO WE HAVE AUTHORIZATION FROM SOUTHEAST? EVEN THAT THIS IS EVEN.

>> NO AUTHORIZATION FROM SOUTHEAST.

SOUTHEAST IS NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE US AUTHORIZATION BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A DRI. THIS IS JUST A PUD.

OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY IS WHAT CONTROLS WE HAVE AUTHORIZATIONS FROM ALL THE LAND OWNERS AFFECTED BY THIS DEAL IN

[06:55:02]

HERE. COUNTY CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW ALL THE POTENTIAL THIRD-PARTY CONTRACTS THAT THEY MAY HAVE WITH THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER BUT THEY HAVE GONE ON THE RECORD AND TOLD US THERE ARE NO CONTRACTS AND THAT THERE IS NO CONTROL THAT SOUTHEAST STILL CONTROLS UNDER THOSE PROPERTIES IS THAT

CORRECT? >> THROUGH THE CHAIR COMMISSIONER TAYLOR CAN WE NIP THIS IN THE BUD? SO THIS ISSUE DOESN'T KEEP FESTERING? I THINK MR. DUDLEY HAS SOME DOCUMENTS YOU MIGHT WANT TO SEE ALSO WITH OVERHEAD JUST BECAUSE THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. OWNER APPLICANT IS NOT SOUTHEAST. THIS IS THE STAFF REPORT.

TRY TO HIGHLIGHT AS BEST AS THEY CAN.

FEEL IT ENTERPRISES SOUTHEAST NEVER OWN THE PROPERTY.

AS A LANDOWNER WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPLY FOR ZONING CHANGE.

THE APPLICANT THAT WILL BE PUTTING TRIPS TO APPLY FOR THE ON DEVELOPMENT. AND I THINK MR. DUDLEY HAS ALL

THE DOCUMENTATION. >> BY ALL MEANS, MOVE AT A

GLACIAL PACE. >> JUSTIN BRADLEY AGAIN AS THE APPLICANT WITH THE WORK AS A LANDOWNER WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE ON THE BOARD. CURRENTLY THE BOARD HAS FIVE MEMBERS ON. I MYSELF CHAIR OF THE BOARD FOR THAT CED AND THERE ARE TWO PRESIDENT BOARD MEMBERS AND SOUTHEAST IS STILL ON THE BOARD. HIS TERM EXPIRES AND HIS SEAT WILL BE PRESUMABLY REPLACED WITH AN ELECTION THIS YEAR.

WE DO HAVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS AS THEY LANDOWNER.

ELEMENT DISTRICT AND U.S. BANK TRUST COMPANY.

THEY HOLD THE DEBT. AS TO THAT WE HAVE EXECUTED AGREEMENTS TO THEM THAT ILLUSTRATE WITH THE LAND OWNER IS TO SATISFY AS A PART OF THIS APPROVAL.

AS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS WELL.

WE ALSO HAVE A FULL RELEASE OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE PROPERTY FROM SOUTHEAST. WE DO HAVE DETERMINATIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN SOUTHEAST AND DAILY ENTERPRISES AS WELL. THEY HAVE TERMINATED THEIR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTIES THAT WE HAVE SHOWN YOU AS IT RELATES TO THIS MATTER. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THESE ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE AGREEMENTS.

BECAUSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING FUNDING FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO PRIVATE PARTIES AT CONDITIONAL INSIDE OF THAT AGREEMENT THAT WILL BE NO BETTER OFF OF AN APPLICATION THAN WHAT YOU HAVE NOW THAN WHEN YOU SAY YOU ARE FINALIZING NEGOTIATIONS. SO PULLED THE HOME COMPANY HAS BEEN VERY SPECIFIC IN REACHING AGREEMENTS WITH CDD AND LAND OWNERS. AND THEN SECONDLY WE HAVE AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER LANDOWNERS AND SOUTHEAST.

ALL OF THOSE OPERATED SEPARATELY BUT COLLECTIVELY TO ENSURE IF WE COME UP YOUR OFFERING $20 MILLION TO A COUNTY IN CLEAN APPLICATION THAT THEY CAN USE IN THEIR BILL GRANTS THAT ARE 20 MILLION IS NOT AT RISK AND WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY COME AND MAKE CLAIMS TO THAT LAND OR DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS RELATED TO THAT LAND SEPARATE AGREEMENTS INTENTIONALLY.

>> I WOULD ASK YOU IT IS LATE SO IF YOU CAN MAKE YOUR PERMITS IF YOU CAN USE LESS THAN 3 MINUTES I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

>> BUT YOU CERTAINLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO YOUR FULL 3 MINUTES IF

YOU SO DESIRE. >> I'M HERE TODAY SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE 1800 VISITORS WHO ARE FINANCIALLY TRAPPED BY THE DEVELOPER'S DEFENSE. WE DEEPLY RESPECT EFFORTS TO HOLD FELLOW PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR CURRENT HOMEOWNERS ARE LIVING WITH DEEP ANXIETY AND SITUATION WE DID NOT CREATE.

WE ARE WELL AWARE OF THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER'S FAILURE TO MEET THEIR OBLIGATIONS. AS WELL AS THE FINANCIAL MISMANAGEMENT AND APPROXIMATE $1 MILLION IN UNPAID OPERATING

[07:00:03]

EXPENSES WITH OUR GREATEST ASSETS WHICH IS OUR HOMES.

IF ITEM SIX AND SEVEN ARE DENIED THE COMMUNITY FACES EXPONENTIAL FINANCIAL DAMAGE. ONLY HALFWAY FINISHED THIS MEANS HOA FEES WILL DOUBLE TO 4000 ANNUALLY.

EXPENSES WILL DOUBLE TO $3000. OR SINK INCOME SENIORS AND HARDWORKING FAMILIES TO ABSORB THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN UNEXPECTED ANNUAL FEES WHICH WILL LEAD TO A WAVE OF UNSELLABLE HOMES AND INEVITABLE FORECLOSURES.

THE STANDARD FOR DENYING THE MODIFICATION CREATES AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON A NEIGHBORHOOD. IRONICALLY DENYING THIS PROPOSAL IS THE EXACT OPTION THAT WILL HAVE AN INVERSE IMPACT HERE.

CONVERSELY APPROVING THIS DEAL DELIVERS A REMARKABLE WIND FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTY. COMPLETING THE REMAINING 512 WITH AN AVERAGE OF 5000 REAL ESTATE TAXES OVER TO $.5 MILLION DIRECTLY INTO THE COUNTY BUDGET EVERY SINGLE YEAR IN PERPETUITY. COMBINED WITH THE $20 MILLION CASH LITIGATION THIS IS A FISCALLY SOUND AND RESPONSIBLE SOLUTION. THEY HAVE PRESENTED A VIABLE PATH FORWARD THAT SAVES OUR COMMUNITY WHILE HEAVILY INVESTING IN COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE.

I RESPECTFULLY URGE THE BOARD TO PROTECT YOUR 1800 CONSTITUENTS IN GRAND OAKS AND APPROVE THIS APPLICATION THANK YOU.

>> WE HAVE TO KEEP THE FLAPPING TO A MINIMUM THAT EVERYBODY THAT WANTS TO SPEAK NORMALLY WE WOULD BE OKAY BUT IT IS ALMOST AFTER

5:00 SO THANK YOU. >> MY NAME IS ANGELA GREAVES AND I AM IN THE SUMMER-BASED SECTION OF GRAND OAKS AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO START OFF BY SAYING MY HUSBAND AND I FULLY SUPPORT THE PLAN TO SAVE THE RESIDENTS OF GRAND OAKS.

WE REALIZE THERE MAY BE A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS HERE WHO WILL SPEAK AGAINST THIS PLAN HOWEVER, THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT IS LIKE TO LIVE IN FEAR OF LOSING THEIR HOME.

NEEDED THE RESIDENTS OF GRAND OAKS OR POULTRY HAVE CAUSED THIS FRIGHTENING SITUATION WE ARE NOW IN.

BUT WE RESIDENTS WILL BE MADE TO SUFFER THE DEVASTATING FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES. NO ONE OTHER THAN THEM HAS EVER OFFERED A PLAN TO SAVE THE RESIDENTS OF GRAND OAKS.

WITHOUT THIS MODIFICATION TO THE COMMUNITY THERE IS LITTLE DOUBT THAT GRAND OAKS WILL BE FORECLOSED ON EACH AND EVERY FAMILY THAT PURCHASED HOMES IN THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE FORCED INTO FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY. WITHOUT FEATURE HOMES TO PAY FOR THE OPERATING COST THE RESIDENTS WILL BE FORCED TO MAKE OF THAT DIFFERENCE. SOME RESIDENTS ARE BARELY MAKING ENDS MEET NOW. MANY RESIDENTS ARE SENIORS LIVING ON FIXED INCOMES AND FAMILIES HOPING TO PROVIDE A SECURE FUTURE FOR THEIR EDUCATION.

THERE IS NO WAY MANY FAMILIES WILL SURVIVE THE SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN FEES THAT WILL COME. THERE IS ALSO NO HOPE BECAUSE WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SELL OUR HOMES.

I AND MY HUSBAND HAVE SPENT MANY SLEEPLESS NIGHTS BECAUSE I AM VERY AFRAID OF WHERE THIS IS GOING.

OF PULTE'S PLAN DOES NOT GET APPROVED.

YEARS AGO I WORKED FOR A VERY WONDERFUL MAN WHO SAID WE MUST ALWAYS BE LEGAL IN OUR DECISIONS BUT DON'T EVER BE LEGALLY CORRECT AND MORALLY WRONG. YOU MUST ALWAYS BE BOTH BECAUSE WHEN YOU ARE LEGALLY CORRECT AND MORALLY RIGHT IT BEARS YOUR REPUTATION AND IT PROVES YOU ARE A RESPONSIBLE PERSON TO SOCIETY.

I ASK YOU TODAY TO THINK OF THE FAMILIES OF GRAND OAKS AND DO WHAT IS MORALLY RIGHT AND CORRECT BY VOTING YES TO PULTE'S PLAN AND SAVING THE FEATURE OF 500 HOMEOWNERS AND MORE THAN A THOUSAND RESIDENTS WHO ARE THE VICTIMS HERE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> GOING TO GO REAL QUICK.

>> HELLO I AM KIM AND THIS IS MY HUSBAND.

WE LIVE IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY AND WE ARE PASSIONATELY SUPPORTIVE OF OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR NEIGHBORS IN GRAND OAKS.

WE MOVED HERE IN 2021 AND QUICKLY SELECTED A LOT IN GRAND OAKS ON THE POND WITH MANY TYPES OF BIRDS INCLUDING EAGLES, DEAR, AND LOCAL AQUATIC WILDLIFE. A FEW SHORT MONTHS LATER IN FEBRUARY 2033 THE SPORT SHUT DOWN ALL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND

GRAND OAKS. >> THREE AND A HALF LONG MONTHS

[07:05:03]

YEARS AGO. A LOT IS GOING ON IN GRAND OAKS.

IT HAS BEEN IN THE NEWS AND NONE OF IT HAS BEEN GOOD FOR HOMEOWNERS. BOTTOM LINE IS THAT NEARLY 1000, LESS THAN HALF THAT NUMBER HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.

LESS THAN 500 ARE CONTRACTING MEMBERS TO THE CDD.

THAT MEANS THERE ARE LESS THAN PAYING HOUSEHOLDS NEEDED RATING MAINTENANCE FEES AND MAINTAIN THE BOND STRUCTURE.

YOU WILL KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. THE CURRENT RESTRICTED DO NOT SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE GOING FORWARD WE NEED A FULL BUILDOUT TO SURVIVE. JUSTIN DUDLEY AND PULTE HAVE PUT TOGETHER A PLAN TO GET THAT DONE.

>> CAN YOU HOLD THAT FOR ME. MY LEFT HAND IS NOT GREAT.

>> THE FINANCIAL DEBACLE AT GRAND OAKS MUST BE LEGALLY DISCLOSED. HOMEOWNERS WHO WANT TO LEAVE OR NEED TO MOVE ARE RENTING THEIR HOMES AND MOVING ON US THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE WE TOOK NOTE OF THIS AS THE LAST TWO HOUSES THAT WENT UP FOR SALE ARE CLOSED UP AND FAILED TO SELL AND WERE RENTED. WHO WOULD WANT TO GET ENTANGLED IN THIS MESS UNLESS THEY WERE GETTING A HEFTY DISCOUNT ON THE PURCHASE OF A HOME. I WOULD VENTURE VIRTUALLY NO ONE AT THIS POINT. THE EXTENDED FINANCIAL UNCERTAINTY WE HAVE BEEN LIVING UNDER HAS BEEN VERY STRESSFUL THE MANY WONDERFUL YOUNG FAMILY MADE THEIR HOME.

WE NEED YOUR HELP TO PULL US OUT OF THIS MESS AND IT HAS GONE ON FOR FAR TOO LONG. WITHOUT YOUR VOTE YES, GRAND OAKS WILL GO UNDER. THE PUD MODIFICATION PLAN THAT JUSTIN DUDLEY AND PULTE OF PUT FORWARD AS A GOOD PLAN TO GET US BACK ON OUR FEET. A REAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE OUR COMMUNITY. TO SECURE OUR FUTURE AND FINALLY LIVE THE PEACEFUL LIFE WE ALL SIGNED UP FOR IN A BEAUTIFUL GRAND OAKS. WE ASK YOU TO VOTE YES.

>> MY NAME IS LINDA CRUISE I LIVE IN THE LAKEVIEW SUBDIVISION OF GRAND OAKS I AM OBVIOUSLY SPEAKING GET SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION TODAY AND I'M ASKING YOU ACCEPT.

I HAVE ATTENDED NEARLY EVERY SINGLE CDD MEETING SINCE I SIGNED A CONTRACT ON MY HOME IN 2021.

IN 2024 I WAS APPOINTED BOTH TO THE CDD BOARD AND THE LAKEVIEW HOA BOARD. I KNOW THE CHALLENGES I KNOW ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS AND THE PEOPLE IMPACTED BY THIS.

DESPITE EVERYTHING GOING ON I LOVE THE COMMUNITY.

I WAKE UP EVERY MORNING FEELING THANKFUL I LIVE HERE AND I AM COMMITTED TO THE SUCCESS OF THIS COMMUNITY GOING FORWARD.

FAMILIES MOVED HERE FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY BRINGING THEIR CHILDREN THEIR RETIREMENT SAVINGS AND THEIR DREAMS OF BUILDING A LIFE HERE IN COUNTY. INSTEAD WE LIVE AMONGST VACANT LOTS WHERE FAMILY SHOULD BE BUILDING THEIR LIVES.

OUR COMMUNITY REMAINS UNFINISHED BECAUSE OF THE DISPUTE WE DID NOT CREATE AND WE CANNOT CONTROL.

WE DID NOT NEGOTIATE THE AGREEMENT OR DEFAULT ON THE AGREEMENT WE DO NOT WALK FROM OUR OCCASION.

WE ARE THE ONES PAYING THE PRICE.

WE HAVE YOUNG FAMILIES WHOSE YOUNG CHILDREN DESERVE TO GROW UP IN A COMPLETED NEIGHBORHOOD WE HAVE RETIREES ON FIXED INCOME WHO SHOULD BE ENJOYING THEIR RETIREMENT.

NOT WONDERING WHETHER THEIR COMMUNITY WILL EVER BE FINISHED.

I SPENT NEARLY THREE DECADES WORKING IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND I SUPPOSE POSSIBLE FOR THEIR AGREEMENTS.

I ALSO UNDER STAND THAT SOLVING THE PROBLEM ARE NOT ALWAYS THE SAME THING. ORIGINAL DEVELOPER IS HOLDING ON AND HOLDING ON TO COLLECT AGAINST THEM WHENEVER COMPLETE HEART. REMAINING COMBS ARE NOT NEW THEY ARE PART OF THE APPROVED UNITS. BOTH OF THEM ARE VACANT LOTS BUT SOME ARE BUILT I HAVE SENT EMTY FOR YEARS.

COMBS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILLED WITH FAMILIES AND MEMORIES THAT BECOME REMINDERS OF DREAMS THAT CAN BE PUT ON HOLD. THE COUNTY HAS ALREADY RECEIVED $5 MILLION FROM THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER AND LAND WAS DONATED TO SERVE HOUR. HER CHILDREN DESERVE OUR SCHOOL.

ALSO IT WILL BENEFIT FROM WELCOMING HOMEOWNERS WHO WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THIS IS AN THIS IS AN INVESTED RIGHT.

WE BOUGHT OUR HOME LATER, AND WE KEPT OUR PROMISES.

[07:10:02]

WITH IT FOR THIS PROPOSAL. BUT OUR COMMUNITY BE COMPLETED AS A COMPLETE FAMILIES WHO WE ARE WAITING FOR.

PLEASE LET US MOVE FORWARD. UP.

>> MY NAME IS TOM GRAND OAKS. THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL COMPETING FORCES OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS IN DIFFERENT GROUPS INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER WITH THE LAND OWNER.

EVEN WELL ORGANIZED WELL-FUNDED I WANT TO MENTION ONE GROUP THAT HAS NOT GONE ONE ATTENTION. THE RESIDENCE OF SAINT OAKS MANY OF WHOM ARE WORKING TODAY. MANY START THEIR DAY'S MANY WORK OUTSIDE THE HOME. THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO RAISE FAMILY TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROPERTY THEY BOUGHT HOMES HERE.

OF THE RESIDENTS ARE DOING NOTHING WRONG THEY ARE BEING PUNISHED FOR. INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC BY PEOPLE THAT WILL FIX THE BLAME OFF OR TO FIX THE PROBLEM.

SO THEY ARE CONSTITUENTS DESERVE PROTECTION ON PUNISHMENT.

THE PROPOSAL TODAY IT MAY NOT BE PERFECT BUT OFFERS A PATH FORWARD AND PROTECTION FOR THE HARDWORKING PEOPLE AT GRAND OAKS COMMUNITY. MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE

BOARD, UP AT. >> RESIDENT OF BLUFF SECTION OF

GRAND OAKS. >> THE $20 MILLION ROAD CONTRIBUTION TO ROAD IMPROVEMENTS.

WE HAVE TO ASK WHAT IS THE COST OF CONTINUING TO WAIT AND WHO IS PAYING THE PRICE. THE ANSWER? US, THE RESIDENCE, THE FAMILIES WHO HAD NO PART IN CREATING THIS PROBLEM. THIS DECISION IF YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE IS NOT JUST ABOUT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION, IT IS ABOUT REAL FAMILY SITTING HERE RIGHT NOW. REAL HOMES IN THE FUTURE WE BELIEVED WE WERE INVESTING IN WHEN WE CHOSE GRAND OAKS.

IF YOU VOTE NO TO THAT YOU ARE ASKING HUNDREDS OF FAMILIES TO CONTINUE TO LIVE WITH THE UNCERTAINTY AND RISKING MORE YEARS OF DELAY. WE NEED ACTION WE NEED A REALISTIC PATH FORWARD. I ASK YOU TO APPROVE PULTE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND MAJOR MODIFICATION.

PLEASE GIVE OUR COMMUNITY THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE FORWARD, RESTORE CONFIDENCE AND PROTECT THE FUTURE WE HAVE ALL WORKED SO HARD TO BUILD. I WANT TO ASK YOU SOMETHING.

CAN YOU LOOK AT THE FAMILY SITTING HERE.

LOOKED ME DIRECTLY IN THE EYES TELL ME YOU ARE WILLING TO RISK MORE YEARS OF DELAYS WHILE MY FAMILY AND SO MANY OTHER FAMILIES CONTINUED TO BEAR THE CONSEQUENCES OF A DECISION WE DID NOT CREATE. NOT ASKING THAT QUESTION TO BE DISRESPECTFUL ASKING BECAUSE I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THIS DECISION IS NOT JUST ABOUT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT A ROAD OR A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION. ABOUT REAL PEOPLE, REAL FAMILIES, REAL HOME WE NEED OUR COUNTY TO SEE US.

BEHIND EVERY COMB -- HOME AS A FAMILY THAT DESERVES US TO MOVE

FORWARD. >> RESIDENT VILLAGE 20 YEARS.

ONE OF THE THINGS I'M AMAZED THAT.

HE SAYS I HAVE NEVER NOT FINISHED A DEVELOPMENT.

PLEASE WHAT YES THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

[07:15:05]

>> I AM REALLY COUNTING ON YOU. URGENTLY APPEALING TO YOU.

TO SUPPORT PULTE'S APPLICATION. AND SAVE OUR COMMUNITY.

LITTLE DID WE KNOW AFTER WE MOVED OUR LIFE WOULD DRASTICALLY CHANGE. INSTEAD OF GETTING TO KNOW MY NEIGHBORS AND BLANK MAH-JONGG. 95 AND 77.

TAKE CARE OF MY GRANDCHILDREN. AND IT HAS DECLINED SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE FACT HE WAS HOSPITALIZED.

AND NORTH CAROLINA, THREE TIMES IN A MONTH AND I HAD TO TAKE YOU TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM FIVE TIMES.

WE LIVE IN SUMMER BAY. 156 LOAN CYPRESS WAY.

WE NEED TO SELL OUR HOME. WE KNEW IT BEFORE MY -- BEFORE MY HUSBAND GOT SICK IN DECEMBER. WE DO IT IN THE SUMMER BECAUSE THE STRESS WAS JUST OVERWHELMING.

TRAVELING CONSTANTLY. IMAGINE THE HORROR WHEN I HAVE A REALTOR AND BOUGHT AND SOLD MANY HOMES AND REAL PROPERTIES.

NOT LOOKING TO MAKE MONEY JUST LOOKING TO SELL.

HE LAUGHED AND SAID I WILL FIGURE IT OUT.

CALLED ME TWO WEEKS IN JANUARY FROM A REALTORS MEETING.

HE WAS TOLD REALTORS IN THAT AREA WERE STANDING UP TALKING ABOUT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. GRAND OAKS.

SAYING STAY A WAY FROM US. DO NOT SHOW ANY PROPERTIES IN GRAND OAKS. THAT WAS THEIR ADVICE.

THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR COMMUNITY.

YES WE HAVE PAID OUR FEES AND COUNTING ON YOU TO GET INVOLVED.

THIS CAN GO ON AND ON AND ON. YOU HAVE A SOLUTION HERE TODAY.

YOU CAN HELP US. I CAN'T LIST MY HOME.

I HAVE EQUITY IN MY HOME. I'M GOING TO NEED IT IF MY HUSBAND AND I NEED TO GO INTO INDEPENDENT LIVING ABILITY.

THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. SUMMER BREAK.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO DATE.

SHOW THAT PERSPECTIVE ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE.

AND PURCHASED MY HOME IN SUMMER BAY 2024.

LIKE MANY HOMEOWNERS I WAS NOT FULLY AWARE OF THE CHALLENGES SURROUNDING THE DEVELOPMENT AT THAT TIME OF PURCHASE.

HOWEVER, I DO NOT BELIEVE TODAY IS ABOUT REVISITING PAST MISTAKES OR ASSIGNING BLAME WHILE MANY OF US HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT DECISIONS AND THE LAND OWNER AND DEVELOPER ARE FOCUSED TODAY SHOULD BE ON FINDING THE BEST PATH FORWARD.

AS THE ISSUES ABOUT HOMEOWNERS OF GRAND OAKS AND ALL OF THE SUBDIVISIONS THE FUTURE OF THE COMMUNITY LIKE I HEARD THREE NOW THERE HAS BEEN NO PROGRESS TOWARDS COMPLETING THE DEVELOPMENT. LEFT HOMEOWNERS IN A STATE OF UNCERTAINTY. HAS DELAYED THE REALIZATION OF THE COMMUNITY AND THAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY ENVISIONED.

THEY HAVE STEPPED FORWARD WITH A PROPOSAL THAT COULD HELP THE PROJECT TOWARDS COMPLETION. CERTAINLY PULTE HAS A BUSINESS INTEREST IN SEEING DEVELOPMENT AND YOU.

RECOGNIZE THAT. IN THE INTEREST OF CURRENT HOMEOWNERS THEY MAY ALIGN THE SITUATION.

THE REAL QUESTION IS WHETHER WE WANT TO SUPPORT A VALUABLE PATH FORWARD TO COMPLETION OR RISK SEEING THE PROJECT REMAINED STALLED INDEFINITELY. WITH HOMEOWNERS BEING THE CONSEQUENCE. IF A WORKABLE SOLUTION CANNOT BE REACHED THE IMPACT WILL EXTEND BEYOND UNDEVELOPED LOTS.

IN FACT EERY HOMEOWNER AND IT CAN CREATE LONG-TERM CHALLENGES

[07:20:07]

FOR THE COUNTY AS WELL PROLONGED UNCERTAINTY CAN LEAD TO DECLINING PROPERTY VALUES. REDUCED INVESTMENT IN THE COMMUNITY SMALLER LOCAL TAX BASE.

NONE OF WHICH IS GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY OR THE PEOPLE.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK PLEASE CONSIDER THE PEOPLE CONSIDER THE

COMMUNITY VOTE FOR US, PLEASE. >> ZACHARY THOMPSON GRAND OAKS RESIDENTS. ROLLER COASTER FROM THE BEGINNING. OF HOPING WE CAN COME TO AN ADMISSION FROM THIS. I THINK THE POINT WAS MADE FURTHER TODAY I THINK NOW THE PRESIDENTS ARE FEELING FEELS A LITTLE BIT LIKE WE HAVE BEEN HOUSE HOSTAGE.

SO I WILL NOT BE LABOR THIS ANY LONGER.

I STAND LARGELY IN SOLIDARITY WITH MY NEIGHBORS.

THAT IS THE MAJORITY OF THE POINTS I HAVE WRITTEN DOWN HERE AS WELL. I ASK YOU TO VOTE YES.

>> I JUST NEEDED TO GO ON RECORD.

I JUST WANTED TO GO ON RECORD. WE BUILT THIS HOME AND MY HUSBAND TOOK VERY ILL. AND I'M TRYING TO SELL MY HOUSE IMPOSSIBLE. MY AGENT SAID TAKE IT OFF THE MARKET THERE IS TOO MUCH GOING ON AND THIS.

THE PAPER IS IN A WAY THAT NOBODY WILL BUY.

I CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS OR $300,000. I CANNOT AFFORD TO LIVE IN THIS HOUSE BY MYSELF. I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO.

SO I'M BEGGING YOU. LISTEN TO PULTE.

AT LEAST THEY HAVE COME TO TRY TO HELP US.

>> I LIVE AT 116 FELIX CIRCLE IN SUMMER BAY.

OTHERS HAVE SPOKEN SO ELOQUENTLY ABOUT HOW DIRE THE SITUATION IS.

I WANT TO THANK THEM ALL I WANT TO TRY TO HIT IT FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE. WENT DOWN TO AUGUST YEARS AGO.

VISITED MANY TIMES IN THE AREA. I KNOW WE COULD NOT RETIRE IN NEW YORK WHERE I AM FROM. I HAVE LIVED THIS MUCH NORTH OF NEW YORK CITY. AFTER MY VISIT I KNEW ST. AUGUSTINE IT WAS WHERE I WANTED TO BE.

AS A SINGLE MOM A SURVIVOR OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE I KNEW I COULD AFFORD TO BUY COMFORTABLY AND HAVE MY DREAM HOUSE THAT I NEVER HAD. I LOVE LIVING HERE.

AND IT WAS AND IS MY DREAM TO SPEND THE REST OF MY LIFE DOWN HERE. WHAT HAPPENED TO GRAND OAKS HAS SCARED THE DAYLIGHTS OUT OF ME ON SO MANY LEVELS.

THOUGHT THAT PULTE SOFTWARE IS NOT ACCEPTED BY YOU GRAD WILL CRUMBLE. BE AN EYESORE AND A BLACK MARK ON ST. JOHN'S IN GENERAL. IN ADDITION MYSELF AND MANY OTHERS WILL HAVE TO GIVE UP OUR DREAMS THROUGH NO FAULT OF OUR OWN OF ANY OF US IN OUR GROUP COMMUNITY.

WE HAVE BEEN LIVING WITH THIS CLOUD OVER OUR HEADS FOR A LONG TIME. WITH THE FUTURE SO UNCERTAIN I EMPLOYEE YOU PLEASE ACCEPT PULTE SOFTWARE SO WE CAN ALL CONTINUE TO LIVE OUR LIVES AND WHAT WE HOPE TO BE OUR PLACE THANK YOU

SO MUCH. >> FRANK SINGER.

I LIVE AT 20 CYPRESS WAY AND SUMMER BAY.

I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE. I'M GOING TO LOSE.

I ALWAYS DO. TO WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE HAS THAT CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE SITTING BEHIND ME WHO DID NOT EVEN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET UP AND SPEAK AND I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE TWO SECONDS TO JUST STAND UP AND BE RECOGNIZED. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT CARE.

WE JUST ASK YOU HELP US HELP US, PLEASE.

[07:25:02]

THERE'S NOTHING ELSE I CAN SAY. I THOUGHT I COULD MAKE IT THROUGH THIS BUT, PLEASE. PLEASE THINK ABOUT US.

SOUTHEAST PARTNERS IS TERRIBLE THEY SCREWED THE COUNTY THEY SCREWED US. IT IS NOW TIME TO LET THAT GO AWAY. LET US ENJOY WHAT WE MOVED HERE FOR. THANK YOU.

>> ANYBODY ELSE WITH PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS TIME ON AGENDA

ITEM NUMBER 6. >> THANK YOU TO THE REST OF YOU FOR WAITING IN SUPPORT. WE GO BACK TO THE BOARD I DON'T THINK WE NEED ANY REBUTTAL AFTER THAT.

WANT TO MAKE A MOTION. >> I DO HAVE A MOTION.

>> WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER.

>> THANK EVERYBODY FOR COMING OUT TODAY I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A REALLY LONG AN EMOTIONAL JOURNEY FOR YOU GUYS AND PART OF IT FOR MANY YEARS. I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR LEGAL. WE DID HOLD THIS DEVELOPER IN DEFAULT. WE WON TWICE.

IF WE ACCEPT THIS DEAL WE LOSE OUR ABILITY TO GO AFTER SOUTHEAST. I KNOW THIS BOARD ON THE PRIOR BOARD AND I IMAGINE FUTURE BOARDS WE HAVE ALL DECIDED OR WE ARE COMMITTED TO 16 BEING OUR PRIORITY AND GETTING THAT ROAD BOAT. 20 MILLION IS 20 MILLION MORE THAN NOW. WE STILL HAVE TO GET THIS ROAD BUILT. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT DOES THAT DO IN TERMS OF OUR LAWSUIT AGAINST SOUTHEAST?

>> THE LAWSUIT AGAINST SOUTHEAST UNLESS IT GETS PICKED UP BY THE SUPREME COURT AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE THEY HAVE NOT FILED WITH THE SUPREME COURT IS OVER. BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE DEAL WAS STRUCTURED BACK WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY DONE WE HAVE HELD THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN.

$5 MILLION IN ESCROW THEIR IMPACT FEES ARE PAID IN.

I JUDGE HAS DECIDED THEY CANNOT BUILD ANYTHING ELSE NOTHING ELSE CAN BE DONE UNTIL THE ROAD HAS WIDENED.

FROM THAT STANDPOINT THAT RUNS WITH THE LAND TO EVER COMES IN AFTER THE FACT IS GOING TO HAVE TO EITHER WIDEN THE ROAD OR CANNOT DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY OR WE HAVE TO MODIFY THOSE ARE ESSENTIALLY OUR OPTIONS. THEY CAN TALK ABOUT DOWN THE ROAD WHAT WILL HAPPEN BUT WE DO NOT HAVE A MECHANISM TO GO AFTER SOME OF THESE FOR MONEY. THERE IS AN ONGOING LAWSUIT WITH SOUTHEAST NOW TO TRY TO CLUB BACK MONEY FROM PEOPLE THAT DID WORK IN THAT SUBDIVISION. I DO NOT KNOW THAT THERE IS A MECHANISM TO GET ANY MONEY BACK FROM SOUTHEAST.

>> THANK YOU. AGAIN, 20 MILLION WILL NOT BE ENOUGH TO BUILD THE ROAD. I KNOW MR. DUDLEY YOU AND I WITH CONGRESSMAN ROTH I THINK IT WAS LAST YEAR WORKING TOWARDS THAT GRANT. WE ALSO MADE 16 OR LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY IN TALLAHASSEE. IS THERE A COMMITMENT FROM THE RESIDENTS AND PULTE AND I THINK MOVING FORWARD TO SEEK EVERY AVENUE WE POSSIBLY CAN TO GET STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING.

I JUST WE HAD GOTTEN SOME MONEY AT 416 THE LAST COUPLE YEARS ON THIS PAST YEAR I THINK IT WAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH BASS PRO SHOPS BUT OUR PRIORITY HAS REMAINED 16.

>> TO SPEAK TO THAT THE PROJECT BUDGET PORTION OF THE BILL BROWN AS A TOTAL VALUE OF $72 MILLION. I THINK IF THE DECISION WERE TO SPEAK ON THE ROAD SAYS IT IS IN THE SEVEN E-90 MILLION RANGE ABOUT 10 MILLION OF STATE MONEY. 25 MILLION 25 MILLION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THEN ABOUT $12 MILLION OF CASH AND IN-KIND IMPROVEMENTS. HAVING TO DO WITH SOME BALL ROAD THAT THEY COUNTY IS GRANTING. 72 MILLION-DOLLAR VALUE THERE.

REALLY THEY HAVE NOT EVEN TAKEN THAT BACK YET TO THE STATE OR THE LEGISLATIVE BUDGET SESSIONS TO SECURE THE MONEY FOR THE STATE ROAD. MONEY TENDS TO FOLLOW MONEY.

I THINK WHEN THEY FIRST AMOUNT WAS COLLECTED ON THE STUDY WITH THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO FIRST USE THOSE FUNDS TO SOLICIT ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO GET IT DONE. AND SO WE SEE THE 25 MILLION

[07:30:03]

REALLY BE WHAT SURCHARGES THAT BUILD GRANT TO KIND OF SECURITY TOTAL OF THE 72 THAT PUTS THIS COUNTY AND A POSITION TO REACH

RESOLUTION ON THAT ROADWAY. >> IT JUST MAKES ME SUPER NERVOUS ABOUT PUTTING YET MORE CARS ON A ROADWAY THAT IS ALREADY 200% OVERCAPACITY. ANOTHER QUESTION AND TO YOU M MR. MALLARD OR MR. DUDLEY WHO OWNS THE COMMERCIAL PARCEL UPFRONT. IS THAT A DAY LATE?

>> I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME RIGHT NOW.

DAYLIGHT IS THE LAND OWNER AND WE HAVE DONE NOTHING WITH THE COMMERCIAL AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION WHEN MR. MILLER WAS SHOWING THE BLACK-AND-WHITE AND SHOWING PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO REVISE. THE AGREEMENT SPECIFICALLY TO THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THIS PROJECT.

SO THAT IS NOT A PART OF THIS. AND THEN EARLIER QUESTION TO MR. TAYLOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DOES SPECIFY THAT SOUTHEAST IS NO LONGER CONTRACT PURCHASE FOR ANY PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY. ANY REMAINING OUTSTANDING MITIGATION OBLIGATIONS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE PREVIOS AGREEMENT THE PREVIOUS AGREEMENT IS STILL AN VOID AGAINST ALL THE COUNTY IS PRESERVING THE RIGHTS IF THEY WERE COME BACK WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAVE TO GO TO THEY DO NOT HAVE INTENT TO FIGHT. IS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON A QUESTION OF WHETHER YOU CAN BE HEARD OR NOT.

TO WHICH ALSO MR. TAYLOR MENTIONED THE REASON THEY EXIST STILL TODAY IS BECAUSE OF OUTSTANDING JUDGEMENTS WITH UNPAID CONTRACTORS AND FOR THOSE SUITS TO RESOLVE THEMSELVES.

SO THEY ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO HAVE ANY ASSETS AT ALL.

NOT A SCENARIO WHERE THEY COME TO THE TABLE.

THEY TERMINATED ALL THEIR RIGHTS AS TO THE PROPERTY SO THEY WOULD NOT BE ANYTHING FOR THEM TO ANY REASON FOR THEM TO BE COMPELLED

TO DO SO. >> WITH THAT COMMERCIAL PARCEL BE ABLE TO BE DONATED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

A SPARK OR OPEN SPACE? AGAIN, THINKING CARS ON THE ROAD. THEY'LL QUITE A BIT OF MONEY AS

WELL. >> WE HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE PARCEL CONTRACTUALLY. AND SO I CANNOT SPEAK ON THEM AS THE OWNER. WHAT OUR FOCUS HAS BEEN WITH THE LAND OWNER IS SECURING THE UNPAID DEBTS.

TO GET BACK TO THE CDD BOND ORDERS TO AVOID FORECLOSURE.

>> JUST WONDERING THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY COULD BE PART OF THAT?

>> I DO NOT THINK I HAVE ANY MORE LEVERS TO PULL WITH THEM.

I WOULD LOVE TO GET MORE IF IT COULD.

I WOULD LOVE TO COME UP TO AN AMOUNT THAT SOLVES THE ROAD ARE IS A COMMERCIAL PARCEL I'M GOING TO SAY WITH 100% CONFIDENCE I HAVE NOTHING LEFT TO GET OUT OF THE DEVELOPER OR TO GET OUT OF THE LAND OWNER IN THIS. ALL OF OUR AGREEMENTS AND RELEASES AND TERMINATIONS RELATED TO THE SAME HAVE BEEN

FINALIZED. >> I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU GUYS HAVE DONE FOR THE COMMUNITY.

IT IS AN ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE SITUATION.

I AM SO SORRY TO EVERYBODY THAT WE ARE ALL HERE.

IT IS NOT ENVIABLE FOR ANY OF US.

MY HEART BREAKS FOR YOU. THIS IS A VERY STICKY ONE AND THAT IS A TOUGH ONE. WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC BENEFIT AND OUR DECISION UP HERE AND DECISIONS THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE AND HOW WE ARE BOUND BY LAW. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS.

I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MORE FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HOW THEY

STAND ON THIS. >> I WANT TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT PHASING IN 416. CAN WE FACE IT AND SO WE CAN GO FROM GRAND OAKS TO THE INTERSTATE.

PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO? >> THAT IS THE WAY WE HAVE APPROACHED. MAKING IT A TWO-PHASE PROJECT PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE WE CAN ONLY PROVIDE SO MUCH IN TERMS OF FUNDING. LOOKING AT THAT THAT IS HOW WE LOOK TO FACE THE PROJECT SO IF WE ARE SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING FEDERAL GRANT MONEY WE HAVE A LARGE FACE DONE THAT WILL GET US TOWARDS THE INTERSTATE AND THE BRIDGE EVERYTHING OUT TOWARDS 22 '09 THAT IS THE APPROACH WE ARE TAKING BECAUSE IT IS MORE PEACEABLE AND MORE REASONABLE TO EXPECT A SMALLER AMOUNT OF MONEY THAN THE TOTAL 5-MILE SEGMENT UPWARDS OF $150 MILLION.

>> A LOT OF MONEY. ANYBODY ELSE?

>> I WANTED TO SHARE A SLIDE, ACTUALLY.

LIKEWISE MY HEART GOES OUT TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU.

[07:35:04]

YOU DID NOT CREATE THIS PROBLEM ABOUT YOUR HOMES IN GOOD FAITH AND YOU ARE PROMISED A ROAD AND IT IS IT IS HEARTBREAKING.

BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO SHARE MANAGE TO SHARE THIS.

AND THIS YOU KNOW I UNDERSTAND THAT PULTE IS OFFERING THE $20 MILLION TOWARDS THE ROAD. BUT WHAT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT IS THAT IN THE AGREEMENT THERE TOTAL CREDIT IS 195 OVER $19 MILLION OF CREDIT. IT IS ALMOST A WASH.

WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT, RIGHT? IF THEY ARE PUTTING IN 20 MILLION, THE ROAD IS NINE E-100 MILLION THAT MEANS ALL THE OTHER TAXPAYERS IN THE COUNTY HAVE TO MAKE UP THAT DIFFERENCE.

I ACTUALLY WENT COMMISSIONER JOSEPH MENTIONED THAT THE LAST MEETING, SHE BROUGHT UP 40 MILLION.

AT LEAST THAT IS REASONABLE. YOU WERE GETTING THAT BACK AND CREDITS THAT DOES NOT HELP US WE ARE NOT GETTING ANY FURTHER AHEAD. IT IS JUST IT IS A WASH.

>> THE WAY THE STATE STATUTES WORK THAT CREDIT IS GIVEN FOR MONEY PAID IN CONCURRENCY. IF WE WERE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO OFFER 40 MILLION FOR THE SAME STATUTES THEY CREDIT WOULD BE 40 MILLION. THE NUMBER OF CREDITS WOULD MOVE WITH THE OFFER. AS FOR THE AGREEMENT ITSELF, SECTION 12D IT SAYS IN NO EVENT'S OUT SHALL THE APPLICANTS OR SUCCESSORS SO, TRANSFER, OR CONVEY ALL OR PART OF THE ROAD IMPACT CREDITS FOR USE OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY. SO WE PAY THE COUNTY 20 MILLION THE COUNTY USES THAT IN THEIR GRAND.

IF OUR AVERAGE IMPACT FEE FOR ROADS IS CLOSER TO 11,000, THEN WE USE CREDITS, WE USE VULTURES AGAINST THE 20 MILLION.

TO BUILD 512 HOMES WE WILL EXHAUST ABOUT $5.6 MILLION OF THAT CREDIT. AND THEN THAT CREDIT WILL SIT OUT THERE AS CREDIT ACCOUNT. JUST LIKE OTHER COMMUNITY STILL HAVE CREDIT ACCOUNTS SITTING OUT THERE.

IT IS NOT ABLE TO BE SOLD OR TRANSFERRED OR USED OUTSIDE THAT. WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY. WE HAVE TO COME BACK TO GET THAT APPROVAL TO USE THIS ELSEWHERE. WITH A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS AND ADVERSELY IMPACTED ROADWAYS OR DEFICIENT ROADWAYS MOST EVERY DEVELOPMENT MOVING FORWARD HAS TO ENTER INTO A CONCURRENCY AGREEMENT. UNDER THE NEW SP 686 THEY HAVE TO ENTER INTO A CONCURRENCY AGREEMENT WHICH MEANS THEY EACH GENERATE THEIR OWN CREDITS. NOT ONLY DID THE COUNTY APPROVE THE TRANSFER OF THE CREDITS WITH THE PROJECT TO TRANSFER THEM TO IS ALSO GOING TO BE PRETTY RARE IN THE FUTURE.

BUT THE REASON THAT CREDIT AGREEMENT THIS AND THERE IS BECAUSE HE STATES THE FOLLOWING STATE STATUTES HERE, THE DEVELOPER WHO CAME BEFORE US STOOD UP AND THEY GOT OUTSIDE OF THE LAW. THEY SIT AT ANY COST.

THAT IS WHEN THEY GOT OUTSIDE OF THE LAW AND WE ARE TRYING TO BE VERY CAREFUL TO SAY USE THE LAW FOR WHAT IT IS OWED, AND THE AGREEMENT THAT CAN BE USED OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY.

THAT IS WHY YOU SEE WHAT WE PAY AND REAL CASH TO THE COUNTY THAT

IS WHY YOU SEE THE CREDIT. >> MY OTHER QUESTION IS, I KNOW WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE CDD BUT WE CAN CONSIDER IN THIS BUT I DID HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING YOU KNOW WHAT STEPS HAS THE CDD TAKEN TO CURE THE CDD ISSUE. I MEAN TALKING ABOUT HAS NOT PAID AND HERE'S WHAT STEPS HAVE YOU DONE? BECAUSE YOU KNOW THEY HAVE STEP% THAT YOU NEED TO TAKE.

IT HAS BEEN A FEW YEARS I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT WHY THEY HAVE NOT

BEEN TAKEN. >> REMEMBER THERE IS TWO PRIMARY PARTIES TO INTRODUCE AND THIS EXPLANATION.

ONE IS THERE IS A CDD THAT IS A DISTRICT.

THE DISTRICT OPERATES THE COMMUNITY OPERATES THE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PORTION OF THAT CDD.

AND THEN THERE ARE BONDHOLDERS. THE BONDHOLDERS ARE REPRESENTED BY A TRUSTEE. IN THIS CASE THE U.S. BANK TRUST COMPANY NATIONAL ASSOCIATION IS THE TRUSTEE OF THOSE THAT HOLD THE BONDS. IF THERE WAS TO BE A FAILURE OF PAYMENT BY A LAND OWNER, INCLUDING IF IT IS A RESIDENT OR A UNDEVELOPED PARCEL LAND OWNER THERE IS A DEBT SERVICE RESERVE AND THE FIRST THING THAT THE TRUSTEE DOES AS THEY DRAW OFF THE DEBT SERVICE RESERVE. THEY CONTINUE TO PAY THE BONDHOLDERS AS THESE BONDS ARE SOLD OFF THERE IS PROBABLY A TEACHERS UNION SOMEWHERE THAT INCLUDES THEIR PENCHANT FOR

[07:40:05]

THEIR REVENUE THEY NEED TO KEEP SERVICING THAT SO THEY DIP INTO THE SERVICE RESERVES. THEY AT THEIR DISCRETION CAN EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT ON A LACK OF PAYMENT TO PRESS FOR FULL PAYMENT DUE AT THE IMMEDIATE TIME OR MOVE TO FORECLOSURE.

THAT IS NOT THE DISTRICT. ONE OF THE SUPERVISORS OR ANY OF THE OTHER SUPERVISORS THAT IS U.S. BANK TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE REPRESENTING THE BONDHOLDERS.

WHEN THEY DO THAT ACTION THE DISTRICT WOULD BE MORE THAN LIKELY TO FOLLOW SOOT. AND FILE FOR A FORECLOSURE ON OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE. IF THE TRUSTEE DOES NOT PURSUE FORECLOSURE, THE DISTRICT DOES NOT PURSUE FORECLOSURE ON O AND M IF THERE IS NO FORECLOSURE MADE OR ATTEMPTED IN ON THE BONDS THE BONDS GO FIRST AND THEN ON WHAT HAPPENED SECOND.

ADDITIONALLY IF WE WERE TO FORECLOSE JUST LIKE IF SOMEBODY FAILED TO PAY THEIR MORTGAGE AND THEN THE BANK TOOK THE PROPERTY BACK THEY WILL NOT TAKE BACK THE UNPAID MORTGAGES THEY WOULD JUST TAKE BACK THE ASSET. IN THE CASE OF THE TRUSTEE'S NOT FORECLOSING BECAUSE THEY KNOW BECAUSE THIS IS PART OF THE PROJECT THEY ARE VERY AWARE OF THE GRANTS THAT STARTED LAST YEAR FILED IN FEBRUARY. REFERENCING THIS PROJECT THIS HAS BEEN A YEAR IN THE MAKING TO GET TO THIS POINT.

THEY KNOW IF THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN THERE ASSET IS WORTH NOTHING AND THEN THEY NEED TO FORECLOSE WOULD GO AWAY.

WE HAVE WORKED OUT AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM WHERE THE LANDOWNER DOES CONTRIBUTE ON ALL OF THE OVERDUE MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS AND OUTSTANDING COSTS WHICH IS ABOUT 912,000.

THEY ALSO HAVE TO PREPAY ABOUT 165,000 OF THAT FOR THEIR PORTION GOING INTO NEXT YEAR. PULTE WILL ALSO PAY INTO THE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT.

AND THE OUTSTANDING DEBT OR DELINQUENT DEBT THE TOTAL OF THAT IS $282,624 WE WILL HAVE NOT LOST A SINGLE DOLLAR THAT WAS OWED. NOT COLLECT PENALTY INTEREST BUT THE AMOUNTS OWED AND THE YEARS THEY WERE OWED WE WILL RETAIN AND COLLECT ALL OF THAT BACK. $1,000,501,152,900 WILL GO INTO THE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT OF THE COMMUNITY THEIR RESERVES CAN BE REFUNDED. DEFERRED MAINTENANCE CAN BE ADDRESSED AND AS TO THE BONDHOLDERS THEY WILL BE SATISFIED WITH 1,164,000. AND PAID IT TO ELIMINATE THE RISK OF FORECLOSURE SO THAT WE ARE THE RIGHTFUL OWNERS.

THE DEBT IS BROUGHT CURRENT AND WE WILL PAY THE OPERATIONS

MOVING FORWARD. >> THANK YOU.

JUST THAT THE LAW I MEAN THE LAW IS ABOUT FORECLOSING.

THE LAW STATES THAT. >> THE LAW STATES THE RIGHT TO FORECLOSE BY THE BONDHOLDERS AND THEIR TRUSTEES REPRESENTED BY THEIR COUNCIL. IT IS JUST LIKE THE BANK HAS THE RIGHT TO FORECLOSE JUST NOT ASSUMING THAT THEY TAKE THAT

ACTION. >> IT IS SUGGESTED IS VERY UNFORTUNATE THAT EVERYBODY FEELS LIKE I STILL THINK THAT FORECLOSURE IS DEFINITELY IT IS AN OPTION.

>> ORDER, PLEASE. >> LET US DISCUSS THIS.

>> OR AT LEAST GET THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OR I DON'T KNOW IF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS FEEL BUT I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT AMENDMENT THREE PASSING. I MEAN I DO NOT KNOW HOW THE

COUNTY WILL HELP. >> THE COUNTY IS CURRENTLY REDUCING THE TAXABLE VALUE OF THESE LANDS BECAUSE IT IS NOT BEING DEVELOPED RIGHT NOW. WE WOULD LIKE TO TURN THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO REACH A FAVORABLE CONCLUSION TODAY IN ORDER TO MAKE THESE LOTS DEVELOPABLE -- ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED AND THEN B AND MARKET VALUE WITH THE LOTS AND THE HOMES.

FOR TAXES OWED ON THEM. IF A FORECLOSURE OCCURRED THE CDD WOULD TAKE POSSESSION BACK OF THE LANDOWNER'S LANDS, THEY WOULD PLACE IT INTO A SPECIAL PURPOSE ENTITY AND THEY WOULD LOOK TO MARKET IT TO SAIL IT WITHOUT ANY KIND OF AGREEMENT OR DEVELOPMENT IT WILL BE SOLD AT PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR.

THE AOM THROUGH THE DISTRICT THAT WILL BE FILED FOR FORECLOSURE WHOEVER COMES AND BUYS THAT THE NEGOTIATING WITH THEM TO PAY ANY OUTSTANDING GOING FOR THEM THREE AND A HALF TWO YEARS PRIOR THEY WILL MAKE VERY LITTLE TO NOTHING OFF OF

[07:45:03]

THAT. LACK OF FORECLOSURE OFF THE TRUSTEE'S RIGHTS THROUGH THE COUNCIL OF THE TRUSTEES THEY HAVE HELD ON FOR THE STATE TO SEE BECAUSE IT ALLOWS THE LANDOWNER THROUGH THE SETTLEMENT WITH US AND PULTE'S AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY TO REFUND ALL OF THESE UNPAID FOR THE LAST THREE AND A HALF YEARS. WITHOUT REDUCTION.

NO COLLECTION OF STATUTORY INTEREST BUT WITHOUT REDUCTION.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? >> I AM JUST SO I AM STILL IN SHOCK THAT THE BOARD I MEAN THE LAW MANDATES THE CDD FORECLOSURE

AND THE BOARD HAS NOT DONE THAT. >> ORDER, PLEASE.

>> THAT IS ALL. THAT IS JUST WITH THE LAW DOES.

>> MY QUESTION IS SO I MEAN I KNOW BEING A NICE GUY BUT NICE GUYS WANT MONEY HOW MUCH ARE YOU PROFITING OFF THIS NEW PER HO

HOUSE. >> ORDER.

ITS A FAIR QUESTION. >> OUR GOAL HERE IS TO FINISH THE COMMUNITY. WE DID NOT WANT TO BE IN THE SITUATION THEY WERE IN EITHER. THERE IS NOT A RETURN ON THIS THAT WOULD EVER UNDERWRITE TODAY THE MARGINS ON THESE HOMES WILL BE PROBABLY JUST UNDER HALF OF WHAT A NORMAL COMMUNITY WOULD UNDERWRITE AT IN A NORMAL. WE FOR THE LAST THREE AND A HALF YEARS HAVE PAID OUR CDD DEBT AND OWED THEM FOR THE LOSS WE CANNOT DEVELOP A LITTLE -- LITTLE OVER $30 MILLION A YEAR.

WE ARE CURRENT ON OUR TAXES ON THAT.

WE BUILT A SEPARATE CLUBHOUSE SPECIFIC TO THE ACTIVE ADULT PORTION AND WE ONLY HAVE HALF THE RESIDENTS CONTRIBUTING TO THE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF THAT CLUBHOUSE UNDER THE HOA.

THERE IS SO MUCH A SUNK COST. WE HAVE DEVELOPMENT ON THE GROUND FOR YEARS. THERE IS NO RETURN ANYMORE.

WHICH IS HOW THE COMPANY UNDERWRITES PROJECTS.

MOST OWNERS DO BUT THAT IS GONE. IT IS NOT A REAL NUMBER ANYMORE.

ABOUT TRYING TO FINISH A PROJECT THAT HER NAME IS ON.

>> I MEAN COMMISSIONER ARNOLD'S IDEA IS REALLY GOOD AND YOU WERE GREAT AT NEGOTIATING AND A WAY TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTY?

>> THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY. IT IS A PULTE WHO WORKED OUT THE

DEAL WITH THE LANDOWNER. >> IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THIS

APPLICATION. >> IF WE MADE A MOTION AND HAD

THAT IN THE MOTION. >> THEN YOU WOULD BE CONDITIONING A REZONING APPLICATION AND APPLICATION FOR SPECIFIC PIECE OF PROPERTY AS ON DONATION OF PRIVATE LAND THAT WE DO NOT CONTROL. THAT WILL BE WELL INSIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR MAJOR MODIFICATION I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU WERE SAYING BUT LEGALLY I DO NOT THANK YOU WANT TO DO THAT.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. JUST A COUPLE THINGS.

I APOLOGIZE. >> I WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY A QUICK HISTORY I WILL BE VERY BRIEF.

THE COMMISSIONER SAID AND HE WAS ADAMANT.

HE WAS A DOG WITH THE BONE HE SAID WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE GRAND OAKS OBLIGATION? AND THEY COMMISSIONER ARNOLD SAID SHE CARRIED IT. SO YOU ALL ARE THE VICTIMS OF THIS DEVELOPER BUT SO ARE THE PEOPLE OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY WHO TAVEL ON STATE ROAD 16. THERE IS MORE TO CONSIDER THAN WHAT IS HAPPENING INSIDE THE BOUNDARY OF GRAND OAKS.

ALSO HAPPENING OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARY OF GRAND OAKS.

THAT IS PART OF WHAT WE ARE CONSIDERING HERE I WANT EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND THAT. COMMISSIONER ARNOLD TOOK A RISK IT WAS A BIG RISK AT A TIME BECAUSE IT WAS LEGALLY UNCERTAIN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE TRY TO HOLD THIS DEVELOPER'S FEET TO THE FIRE. SO SHE TOOK THE BIG RISK AND THE BOARD FOLLOW THAT LEADERSHIP. WE WERE SUCCESSFUL WE HAPPEN TO BE SUCCESSFUL. HERE IS THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THAT. I'M TRYING TO TELL YOU IN A LONG FORM WAY I AM STRUGGLING WITH THIS BECAUSE IF WE DO NOT ACCEPT THE STEEL WE KNOW THAT WE DID NOT LIKE THE DEAL BUT IF WE SAY NO TO THE STEEL HOW DO WE GET THE FUNDING? NOBODY IS BRINGING UP THAT POINT NOBODY HAS ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I ALSO KNOW FOR A FACT BECAUSE I WATCHED IT PLAY OUT THAT JUSTIN DUDLEY'S WORD AS GOOD AS GOLD. HE HAS FULFILLED HIS PROMISES.

[07:50:04]

DEVELOPERS TAKE A LOT OF FLAK IN THIS AUDITORIUM SOMETIMES WITH GOOD REASON GRAND OAKS IS ONE OF THOSE DEVELOPERS AT THE TIME IN 2018 THAT DID NOT FULFILL THEIR OBLIGATIONS.

JUSTIN DUDLEY MULTIPLE TIMES HAS BEEN A SOLID PARTNER GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WAS REQUIRED OF HIM.

SO WHEN HE IS SPEAKING I WANT YOU ALL TO KNOW I'M LISTENING ATTENTIVELY. THAT IS MY LONG WAY OF SAYING I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. I DO KNOW IF WE DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION FOR FRANTIC THIS ROAD WE WILL BE SITTING HERE AT FIVE YEARS LATER ANOTHER SET OF COMMISSIONERS WILL BE SITTING HERE FIVE YEARS LATER WONDERING WHAT THEY HAD TO DO.

THIS WILL GIVE US $25 MILLION TOWARDS THE SOLUTION AND MAYBE JUST MAYBE THAT IS GOOD ENOUGH. BUT FOR NOW I DO NOT KNOW I'M SAYING WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS SO LET'S HASH THIS OUT.

>> WHAT ABOUT A GAS TAX? >> THAT IS CERTAINLY A CONSIDERATION BUT LET ME GO BACK TO YOU NOTE MY CONCERN FROM THIS FROM THE GET-GO IS THAT YOU KNOW IF THE DEVELOPER WHICH WE MADE THE AGREEMENT WITH IS OUT OF THE PICTURE AND WE DO NOT HAVE THE WAY TO GET ANYTHING FROM THEM THIS IS THE ONLY WAY WE CAN GET ANYTHING DONE TO HELP WITH OUR BUILD GRANT AND MATCHING FUNDING AND TO RELEASE THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE -- ABLE TO SELL THEIR HOME OR FOR PEOPLE TO MAKE THEIR MONEY BACK.

THE QUESTION WAS ASKED MY QUESTION TO YOU OR MY STATEMENT TO YOU IS YOU GUYS ARE NOT GETTING RICH OFF THE STEEL YOU WOULD JUST MAKE YOUR MONEY BACK. TO MY RIGHT WITH THAT.

YES OR NO. >> WE WILL MINIMIZE THE LOSSES

ALREADY OUT THERE. >> SO YOU WILL MINIMIZE THE LOSSES. I SEE THIS AS A WAY FOR US TO GET MONEY TO GO BACK TO D.C. WITH THE HELP OF OUR BOARD AND ASK FOR FUNDING TO UNLOCK THIS AWFUL SITUATION THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON IN THE GRAND OAKS AND ALLOW PEOPLE TO LIVE THEIR LIVES. IS IT A GREAT DEAL FOR THE COUNTY AND THE TAXPAYER? NO IT IS NOT A GREAT DEAL FOR THE TAXPAYERS. BECAUSE THE BURDEN WILL BE ON ALL OF OUR BACKS. IS IT A GREAT DEAL FOR US IN A WAY? WE WILL GET SOMETHING OUT OF IT AND THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE IT WILL GET A BUT I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I FELT THIS WAY FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, PROBABLY THREE YEARS THAT I'VE FELT THAT HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO FIND A WAY, YOU GUYS CAME IN, YOU FOUND A WAY DO IT AND THAT'S THE AMERICAN WAY TO ME, IS WE'RE GETTING SOMETHING DONE. SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT, AND I WOULD ASK THAT YOU GUYS ALSO SUPPORT THIS TOO.

SO --

YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. >> JUST TO CIRCLE BACK WITH COMMISSIONER ARNOLD, AGAIN YOU WERE THE ONE WHO PICKED UP WHERE THEY LEFT OFF ON THIS ISSUE. DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS? I HEARD YOU AND I KNOW THAT YOU DON'T LIKE THIS. THIS IS AN UGLY SITUATION.

THIS IS NOT MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, RIGHT.

>> NO, IT'S NOT. >> AND YOU'RE SOMEBODY WHO LIKES TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL. WHERE ARE YOU AT?

>> IT ALSO SCARES ME NOT JUST WITH GRAND OAKS BUT ANY OTHER PRECEDENT WE WOULD BE SETTING. TO UP EXTENT EVERYBODY UP HERE RAN ON THE LINE OF HOLDING DEVELOPERS ACCOUNTABLE AND NOW --

>> WAIT JUST A MINUTE. >> IT'S A VERY, VERY STICKY

SITUATION. >> LET ME -- IF YOU DON'T MIND, I ASKED A QUESTION OF STAFF YESTERDAY.

I SAID, DID WE LEARN THE LESSON, THE BEACH WALK LESSON, DID WE LEARN THE LESSON IN OUR DEALINGS WITH DEVELOPMENT ABOUT GETTING THE ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DONE FIRST BEFORE A SINGLE CO IS DONE, DID WE LEARN THE LESSON? AND STAFF SAID ABSOLUTELY, WE LEARNED THE LESSON ABOUT IT. SO I FEEL LIKE THIS WOULD CLOSE A CHAPTER AND ALLOW US TO MOVE ON.

BUT THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHTS. >> WELL, I -- I HAVE TO BE HONEST, I THINK WHY ARE WE EVEN IN ANY LAWSUITS? IF ANY -- I MEAN, WHY DID WE SPEND TAXPAYERS DOLLARS IN FIGHTING THIS AND WE JUST WON RECENTLY, JUST TO -- I MEAN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, WE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE IN ANY LAWSUITS. I MEAN, I WOULD LOVE OUR LEGAL TEAM OPINION. I DON'T -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

IT'S JUST -- WHY ARE WE EVEN IN ANY LAWSUITS? AND WE HAVE TO SLAIN THAT EXPLAO ALL THE OTHER RESIDENTS THAT HELPED FUND THESE LAWSUITS. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE ALL

[07:55:02]

IN A TERRIBLE SITUATION AND I FEEL FOR IT.

IT'S NOT THAT BUT WE HAVE ALMOST 350,000 PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTY AND WHEN THEY ASK, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE YOU GUYS DOING, AND WE HAVE TO HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THEM. AND I MEAN, IT IS

HEARTBREAKING -- >> IT'S PUBLIC WEIGHT.

IT'S WEIGHING THE PUBLIC BENEFIT.

>> EXACTLY. AND I HAVE TO BE HONEST --

>> THAT'S THE TOUGH SPOT. >> AND I AM ON THAT ROAD ALL THE TIME. IT IS OVER 200% CAPACITY.

YOU CANNOT MOVE ON 16. YOU CANNOT MOVE ON THAT ROAD.

AND I HEAR FROM PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.

AND HOW IT WAS -- IT'S JUST -- IT'S JUST -- IT'S A TERRIBLE SITUATION AND THEN -- THIS IS THE OTHER TOO, IF DAY LATE OWNS THAT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY UP FRONT, WHY HAS THAT NOT BEEN FORECLOSED ON? THERE IS A LOT OF MONEY THAT COULD BE CONTRIBUTING -- YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THAT, YOU HAVE GOT LANDOWNERS IN THERE. AND THEY'RE -- THERE ARE THINGS

THAT CAN BE DONE. >> OH, THAT'S --

>> AND THAT. SO I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT'S -- I DON'T KNOW.

I THINK THERE IS MORE THAT CAN BE DONE WHEN IT COMES --

>> EXCUSE ME. ORDER, PLEASE.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO ENACT ORDINANCE 2026- GRAND OAKS BASED UPON THE FACTS AS PROVIDED IN STAFF REPORT.

IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY, THERE IS NOT A SECOND, SO

THAT MOTION FAILS. >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY?

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION. >> YEAH, GO AHEAD.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION. >> MAKE A MOTION TO DENY IMAGINE MOD 2026-01 GRAND OAKS BASED UPON SEVEN FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED --

>> -- IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> ORDER, PLEASE. WE HAVE A MOTION.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

OKAY, A YES VOTE IS TO DENY, A NO VOTE IS TO NOT DENY.

>> LET'S VOTE. >> OKAY, THAT IS DEFEATED.

SO I WOULD GO BACK AND THEN MAKE ANOTHER MOTION.

CAN I MAKE ANOTHER MOTION TO ENACT ORDINANCE 2026-36, APPROVING IMAGINE MOD 2026-01 GRAND OAKS BASED UPON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. IS THERE A SECOND?

>> HOLD ON. WE'RE WORK THROUGH IT.

WE'RE WORKING THROUGH IT. PLEASE, ORDER.

SO THERE IS NOT -- THERE IS NOT A SECOND SO I GUESS THIS WILL HAVE TO -- I GUESS IT'S GOING TO DIE.

>> MOTION TO TABLE TO A FUTURE MEETING.

>> NO!

>> O COURAGE AT ALL. >> WAIT A MINUTE, HANG ON JUST A SECOND. OKAY WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE

UNTIL WHEN -- >> SECOND.

FR HOW LONG? >> TO -- UNCERTAIN.

A DATE UNCERTAIN.

>> CAN WE DO IT TO -- >> DO YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION,

COMMISSIONER JOSEPH? >> NOVEMBER 17TH.

>> OR LATER. >> WHAT? I JUST THINK A NEW BOARD WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE TO START AND THEN -- WELL, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING, COMMISSIONER --

>> I'M THINKING I WOULD LIKE TO SIT DOWN WITH OCA.

THIS IS WHAT I'M THINKING. I'M THINKING I LIKE TO SIT DOWN WITH OCA, GET SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED ABOUT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND THE IMPACT THAT THAT HAS ON THIS DECISION AND I WOULD LIKE TO SIT DOWN WITH MR. DUDLEY AND MR. MILLER AND GO OVER SOME OF THESE DETAILS.

>> WOULD YOU SIT DOWN WITH ME TOO?

>> SO THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING. I WOULD LIKE A LITTLE MORE TIME.

I DON'T CARE IF IT'S THE 3RD OR THE 17TH --

>> CAN WE JUST DO IT THE 17TH? >> FINE BY ME.

>> JUST FROM THE APPLICANT, ON THE DATES... THE AGREEMENTS ARE SET FORTH BECAUSE THERE'S CDD DEBTS DUE AGAIN IN NOVEMBER AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY PRIOR TO THE 17TH THAT THIS COULD BE HEARD AND I'M NOT SURE IF YOU CAN EVEN EXTEND WHAT WE HAVE HERE. WE HAVE HAD THIS DATE SINCE JUNR AGREEMENTS AS SUCH BECAUSE NOVEMBER 1 IS WHEN THE NEXT DEBT

[08:00:04]

SERVICES ARE DUE. SO IF THERE IS ANY CONSIDERATION

ON TIMING -- >> OKAY, I'M GOING TO WITHDRAW THAT MOTION AND MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE NOVEMBER 3RD MEETING. DOES THAT HELP?

WE HAVE A MOTION TO -- >> HANG ON.

THERE'S NO SECOND? MAY I, FROM MY COUNSEL?

>> I HAVEN'T HAD A SECOND YET, FOR THE 3RD.

WITHOUT A SECOND, THAT WILL DIE. >> THERE IS THE LANDOWNERS COUNCIL SAID -- THE QUESTION IS IF DAY LATE WOULD CONTRIBUTE THE COMMERCIAL PARCEL AS A PARK -- SORRY, LET ME OPEN THIS --

>> THIS IS HOW WORK GETS DONE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, FOLKS. I KNOW IT'S LATE.

>> HE'S OBVIOUSLY TUNING IN. THE LANDOWNER SAYS HE WOULD AGREE TO THAT.

>> CAN WE GET AN APPRAISAL ON THAT REPORT? IF WE CAN SEE WHAT IT COULD BE POTENTIALLY CONTRIBUTED FOR I WOULD SECOND THE MOTION MOVING FORWARD ON NOVEMBER THE 3RD.

I THOUGHT YOU SAID THE COMMERCIAL PARCEL.

>> THE COUNCIL QUESTION IS IF DAY LATE AND ITS LANDOWNER WOULD CONTRIBUTE THE COMMERCIAL PARCEL AS A PART -- DENNIS, THAT'S THE LANDOWNER, DENNIS SAYS HE WOULD AGREE TO THAT.

>> OKAY. WELL THEN I WOULD SUPPORT US TABLING IT UNTIL NOVEMBER 3RD WHILE SOME OF THESE DETAILS COULD BE FURTHER WORKED OUT.

GUYS WE'VE GOT COURT REPORTERS HERE BECAUSE THIS IS VERY WELL GOING TO END UP IN FURTHER LITIGATION.

DO NOT COMPROMISE YOUR POSITION BY ACTING LIKE THIS.

WE ARE TRYING TO DID THIS BY THE BOOK.

WE ARE TRYING TO HELP YOU.

I'M STILL ON YOUR SIDE. >> HOW DOES THAT AFFECT YOUR

BOND PAYMENTS? >> THERE IS NO --

>> CAN WE DO THIS ON THE 3RD? >> THERE'S NO CDD DEBT ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMMERCIAL PARCEL.

THAT'S WHY THERE'S BEEN NO FORECLOSURE ON THE COMMERCIAL PARCEL. THE CDD DEBT HAS BEEN CAST ACROSS THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS. SO THERE WOULD NOT BE A -- LIKE IF THE CDD FORECLOSED ON THE RESIDENTIAL LANDS, THE LANDOWNER

WOULD STILL RETAIN THAT PARCEL. >> OKAY.

WELL I'VE TRIED TWICE TO GET THIS MOTION APPROVED AND CAN'T SO -- THERE IS A MOTION TO DEFER THIS TO THE 3RD.

>> THEY'RE SAYING THIS IS ON THE TABLE TODAY AND IT'S A NO IF IT'S NOT APPROVED TODAY. I'M READING AS THEY COME IN --

>> THROUGH THE CHAIR -- >> I DO SAY --

>> NOT TO COMPLICATE IT BUT COULD WE CHECK REALLY QUICKLY WITH THE QUICK WHAT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER SAYS FOR

THE VALUE OF PROPERTY? >> IT'S AFTER 5:00.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN GET HIM NOW.

>> WE CAN GET IT ON THE DAY OF THE COUNCIL --

>> WELL, I'VE GOT THAT LITTLE -- >> I KNOW THAT'S NOT A MARKET

APPRAISAL BUT -- >> IS THE INTENT TO USE IT FOR

ADDITIONAL STORM WATER FOR 16? >> ONE IS VALUED AT 463,000.

DO YOU NEED THE EXACT NUMBER? >> LET'S GO BACK.

SALE PRICE WAS 880,000 FOR THOSE 8 ACRES.

AND THEN 391,000 FOR THE OTHER 10-ACRE PARCEL NEXT TO IT, ACCORDING TO THIS. AT THE RISK OF SAYING TOO MUCH, THOSE ARE PRICES BEING IN BASICALLY AN UNBUILDABLE PUD SO THOSE PRICES ON THE OPEN MARKET IS PROBABLY A LOT HIGHER IF THIS

WERE TO GET APPROVED. >> IT'S TAKE TRACK OFF OF THE ROAD TOO. -- TRAFFIC OFF OF THE ROAD.

>> YEAH, I WOULD -- >> I THINK WE SHOULD CLARIFY THE

PARCELS -- >> -- CELL NUMBERS YOU NEED? IT'SPARCEL NUMBERS? I'VE GOT 274400010.

8.68 ACRES. >> AND AT THE RISK OF HURTING MY REPUTATION OF BEING GOOD AT NEGOTIATING, WHAT WOULD BE THE TIMING IF WE WERE TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS?

[08:05:10]

>> THAT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY FOR A PARK, I WOULD BE WILLING TO GO

BACK AND MAKE ANOTHER MOTION. >> JUST ALSO -- IF THAT COMMERCIAL PARCEL IS NOT GOING TO DEVELOPED WITH COMMERCIAL, THAT MEANS WE'RE EVEN MORE OPEN PAYING BECAUSE THAT GOES INTO OUR CALCULATION FOR INTERNAL CAPTURE.

SO YOU'RE NOT JUST GETTING IT, IF WE WERE TO DO THIS ON THE STRAIGHT PROP SHARE, IT WOULD LOWER THE PROP SHARE OF HAVING THAT COMMERCIAL THERE OF TAKING THAT OFF THE TABLE, SO IF THE PUBLIC BENEFIT ISN'T LESS TRIPS ON THE ROAD, GETTING THE PARK, GETTING THE LAND BUT IT'S ACTUALLY --

>> SAVING ON THE PROP SHARE. >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. >> SO WE'RE OVER SHARING OUR PROP SHARE EVEN MORE. OKAY, SORRY.

>> WE'RE DOING OUR BEST TO GET SOMETHING DONE.

>> DICK, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WERE TRYING TO EXPLAIN OR YOU -- SO THAT WE HAVE COUNTY TALKING ABOUT PROP SHARE TOO?

>> YES, CHAIR. AND SO BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT IS CURRENTLY OUT THERE IS SPECIFIC TO ONLY THOSE RESIDENTIAL, THERE IS PROP SHARE DONE BY THIS OTHER LAND, SO THE PROP SHARE WOULD REMAIN. WHAT IS OF NOTE IS THAT INSTALLTORILY, A LAND DONATION SUCH AS THIS IS A CREDITABLE OCCURRENCE AND SO TO THAT EFFECT, WHATEVER THAT END USE WOULD BE, THAT BECOMES CREDITABLE AGAINST IMPACT FEES SO IF IT WERE TO BE A PARK, THAT WOULD BE CREDITABLE AS A PARK IN TERMS OF WHAT THAT LAND VALUATION IS AND THAT IS STATUTORY BY NATURE. SO I JUST WANT YOU ALL TO BE AWARE THAT THERE WILL BE ANOTHER CREDIT ACCOUNT FOR WHATEVER THAT USE IS. INSTEAD OF PARK IMPACT FEES THEY WOULD BE GOING TO CREDIT ACCOUNT FOR PARK IMPACT FEES AND OF COURSE NOT KNOWING WHAT THAT VALUATION IS, BECAUSE VALUATIONS ARE BASE OFF OF THE END USE AND THEN THE ACREAGE AND A NUMBER OVERINSTANCES. SORRY I'M NOT THE EXPERT ON THAT, I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY BECAUSE OF THE SIDES OF THAT YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO GET AN EXCESS OF CREDITS FOR PARK IMPACT FEES WITHIN THAT IMPACT FEES ZONE, JUST SO YOU'RE ALL

AWARE -- >> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN AS FAR AS

DOLLARS ARE CONCERNED? >> THAT JUST MEANS THAT THEY WILL HAVE A MONOPOLY MONEY ACCOUNT OF DOLLARS, INSTEAD OF THERE BEING ROAD DOLLARS THEY'RE GOING TO BE PARK DOLLARS AND THEY WILL PAY PARK DOLLARS FOR PARK IMPACT FEES.

>> OKAY. >> SO THAT MEANS, WHAT, WE WOULD

GET EVEN MORE CREDITS, CORRECT? >> YES, THERE WOULD BE --

>> THERE WOULD BE MORE CREDITS? >> SOMEBODY WILL BE THE OWNER OF CREDITS AGAINST PARK IMPACT FEES, ASSUMING IT BECOMES A PARK. AND SO I -- YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE

NEGOTIATION BETWEEN -- >> THAT'S THE STATUTE, RIGHT.

>> STATUTORILY WE WOULD HAVE TO GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE.

>> NOW, WHAT ABOUT -- I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE LAND THAT THE AMENITY CENTER SITS ON. WHO OWNS THAT?

>> THE OWNERSHIP IS WITHIN DAY LATE, THE LANDOWNER.

THE CDD HAS A USE AND ENJOYMENT EASEMENT OVER THAT LAND.

IT HAS NOT BEEN CONVEYED TO THE CED BECAUSE THERE ARE CLAIMS AND CLAIMANTS THAT HAVE LIENS AGAINST THE PROPERTIES.

WHEN Y'ALL TALK ABOUT SOUTHEAST AND THE JUDGMENT AGAINST SOUTHEAST, THERE IS A BURDEN ON BAD DEVELOPERS IN THIS COUNTY, AS IT RELATES TO GRAND OAKS, BECAUSE BUILDERS COULDN'T KEEP CLOSE, THEY COULDN'T KEEP FUNDING, HE COULDN'T PAY HIS CLAIMANTS -- OR EXCUSE ME, HIS CONTRACTORS, WHICH BECAME CLAIMANTS. SO HE'S IN FOUR YEARS OF LITIGATION NOT JUST WITH THE COUNTY THAT IS RESOLVED BUT STILL THREE UNRESOLVED CLAIMANTS OUT THERE.

AND THOSE -- THEY HAVE LIENS ON THAT PROPERTY AND THE CDD DOES NOT WANT TO TAKE PROPERTY THAT HAS LIENS ON IT.

BUT THEY DO HAVE EASEMENTS FOR USE AND ENJOYMENT.

SO THAT DEVELOPER HAS CERTAINLY BEEN IMPACTED WITH THE JUDGMENT, EVEN IF THEY DON'T COME AND BUILD THE ROAD, EVEN IF THAT IS NOT HELD DISPENSE THEM, THE AGAE RIGHTS ARE STILL HELD BY THE COUNTY. BUT THIS HAS CERTAINLY CRUSHED THEM AND THEN WE AS AN APPLICANT COMING IN HAVE NOT SAID, LET'S JUST PAY WHAT THE DUE IS PER STATUTES.

WE'VE SAID LET'S MEET THE COUNTY NEED OF THE 20 MILLION, NEARLY 4

[08:10:02]

TIMES THE IMPACT FEE. SO ONE DEVELOPER HAS BEEN CRUSHED, THE OTHER ONE IS COMING IN, OURSELVES AS THE APPLICANT UBER EXCEEDING IT, AND I REALLY HOPE THAT IS A MESSAGE TO OTHERS THAT COME AND BUILD IN OUR COUNTY, THAT YOU DON'T GET OFF.

AND MAYBE IT'S NOT IN THE FORM OF HAVING A CONSTRUCTED ROAD,

BUT IT IS NOT WITHOUT PENALTY. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. I GUESS I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT MOTIONS. I'M GOING TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION MOTION, TO ENACT ORDINANCE 2026-36.

HERE LET ME WRITE THAT DOWN. I'LL NEED IT AGAIN IN A MINUTE.

... AMENDED TO INCLUDE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TO BE

DONATED TO THE COUNTY FOR PARK. >> IS THAT WITH CREDIT?

>> IF THE STATUTE REQUIRES CREDIT, DOESN'T IT?

>> OKAY, WANTED TO CONFIRM. >> YEAH, THAT'S -- WHEN YOU SAY WE NEED MONEY, THAT'S -- THAT'S TO -- I THINK THAT'S THE NEXT ONE, RIGHT. ISN'T THAT 7, OR IS THAT 6?

>> WE WOULD JUST IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY, SO IF THAT

COULD BE IN THE MOTION. >> OKAY, I NEED TO DO THE SPECIFIC REPORT? DON'T LET ME GO STRAY, IT'S A GREAT QUESTION AND THANK YOU FOR ASKING THAT.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M NOT GIVING SOMETHING THAT WE -- THAT I CAN'T GIVE. AND I'M SAYING THAT BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR $20 MILLION IS IN THIS AGREEMENT, IS NOT IN THIS MOTION, IT'S IN THE NEXT MOTION, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY.

ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE TWO PIECES OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT I HAVE IDENTIFIED AS BEING OWNEDDEN ESTATE ROAD 16 WHICH DAY LATE ENTERPRISES IS PARCEL 07270002 AND COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITY INVESTMENTS LLC, 8.E INCLUDED INTO THIS DEAL.

DOES THAT HELP CLEAR UP THE MOTION?

>> THERE'S A THIRD PARCEL. AS A PART OF THAT.

0274400011. AND IF YOU INCLUDE THAT, THEN IN OUR 3 3 PARCEL NUMBERS WOULD ALN WITH THE 3 PARCEL NUMBERS PROVIDE BY THE LANDOWNER'S COUNCIL GEOL 027440011.

THAT'S THE THIRD PARCEL. >> THAT'STHAT'S CORRECT.

>> THERE YOU GO. THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OKAY, THAT MOTION FAILS. SO WE'VE BEEN GIVEN A TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT, TODAY OR NOTHING TYPE OF DEAL, COMMISSIONER ARNOLD.

WHAT QUESTIONS DID YOU HAVE THAT WERE OUTSTANDING? CAN WE RECESS THIS WHILE WE GO THROUGH THE OTHER DEPEND ITEMS AND HAVE OCA GO BACK TO A CONFERENCE ROOM -- I THINK WE

>> I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS I THINK IN TERMS OF ENTITLEMENTS OF THESE OTHER PARCELS AND THE ACTUAL VALUE AND I WANT TO SIT DOWN AND HAVE THE TIME TO GO THROUGH WITH OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THIS DEAL LOOKS LIKE.

WE'RE TALKING TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, AND THESE RESIDENTS' FUTURE. NOT GOING TO WING THAT.

IT'S NOT AS EASY TO THINK ABOUT PEOPLE SHOUTING THINGS OUT AS Y'ALL MIGHT THINK IT IS. I LOVE Y'ALL DOING WHAT YOU WANT

BUT FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH -- >> WE'LL GET THIS WORKED OUT.

PEOPLE GET IT WORKED WE'LL GET . >> IF WE VOTE TO HAVE IT COME BACK NOVEMBER 3 RKD THE PARK PARCEL IS OUT OF HERE, THAT'S

WHAT I'M HEARING? >> TO Y'ALL'S POINT EARLIER, QUESTIONING ABOUT THE CDD, QUESTIONING ABOUT SOUTHEAST, THERE'S PROBABLY BEEN 18 DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS ON THIS.

IN ORDER TO MAKE THE GRANTS AS CLEAN AS POSSIBLE WE HAVE AGREEMENT WITH TOTAL DREES, SOUTHEAST THE U.S. BANK, THE CDD, THE LANDOWNERS. ALL OF THESE THINGS HAVE TIMING TRIGGERS TO THEM AND IF WE EXCEED THOSE TIMING TRIGGERS IT PUTS US EXPOSED. IT WAS REALLY MEASURED AS A TIMING TODAY WHICH I HEAR THE UNFORTUNATENESS OF THAT AT THIS POINT. SO THE REASON THE OFFER IS TODAY

[08:15:01]

SO THAT NONE OF THOSE AGREEMENTS MADE WITH THOSE OTHER PARTIES HAVE TO GO AND BE RE-OPENED UP AND I THINK THAT'S WHY THAT OFFER IS BEING MADE TODAY PAUSE THAT WOULD STILL ALLOW US TO BIND WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE REACHED AGREEMENT ON.

THE COUNTY IS JUST ONE PARTY IN THIS.

IT IS A SIGNIFICANT PARTY BUT IT IS JUST ONE PARTY AND THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHERS AND WE'RE TRYING NOT TO LOSE WHAT WE HAVE.

>> DID YOU JUST SAY SOUTHEAST? >> THAT'S THE DEVELOPER.

>> RIGHT, OKAY. I DIDN'T THINK THEY WERE INVOLVED. SO THEY ARE STILL GOING TO BE INVOLVED. SO I'M CONFUSED --

>> THEY HAVE EXITED -- THEY HAVE EXECUTED TERMINATION RIGHTS ON THEIR PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENTS.

WITH US, THE BUILDER AS WITH -- WELL WITH THE LANDOWNER.

THEY'VE ASSIGNED OVER DECLARE ANT RIGHTS BUT THEY STILL HAVE THINGS THAT WORK OUT THAT DON'T HAVE TO DO WITH THE LAND BUT IT HAS TO DID WITH THOSE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THOSE PARTIES.

AND THOSE AGREEMENTS WILL MOVE FORWARD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER PENDING TODAY'S ACTIONS. SO --

>> OKAY. BUT SOUTHEAST HAS NO -- NO FUTURE VALUES RECEIVED OUT OF THIS.

THEY'RE NOT A PART OF THIS RESOLUTION.

>> OKAY. WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE AT AN IMPASSE. WE'RE GOING TO FIGURE SOMETHING OUT. SO I NEED A MOTION TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS SOMEHOW. WE NEED TO FIGURE THIS OUT.

>> I MEAN I WOULD BE WILLING TO COME BACK AND HAVE A SPECIAL.

I WORK ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS MOST OF MY LIFE.

I DON'T CARE WHAT WE HAVE THE MEETING.

I THINK WHATEVER TIME IT TAKES TO GET SOME OF THOSE CRITICAL QUESTIONS ANSWERED -- BECAUSE I RESPECT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING UP HERE, WHAT IS THE DROP DEAD DATE OR IS THAT -- IS TODAY THE DAY?

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR CURE PERIOD IS.

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD BE WONDERING RIGHT NOW.

TODAY IS THE DAY. CONTRACTS GENERALLY HAVE A THREE-DAY CURE PERIOD. MAYBE A FIVE-DAY CURE PERIOD.

THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING ABOUT. BUT I'M NOT SURE IF THAT ALIGNS WITH Y'ALL'S ABILITY TO NOTICE ANYTHING.

SO I'M NOT SURE THAT'S HELPFUL. >> WHAT ABOUT LESS NUMBER OF UNITS, SO THE TRAFFIC IS NOT TRIPLED?

JUST -- >> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THERE'S OCCUR ON STATE ROAD 16 TODAY. THAT WILL ADD TRAFFIC.

I KNOW THEY WILL HAVE TO COME AND DO THEIR OWN CURRENCY AGREEMENTS BUT THEY WILL DO IT VIA STATUTES.

WE'VE TAKEN 8% OF THE REMAINING UNITS OFF.

BUT IN SOME WAY IT'S AN EXISTING COMMUNITY AND WHEN WE START REDUCING UNITS AND WE ALREADY HAVE IMPROVEMENTS BUILT FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF UNITS, THEY WILL HAVE TO TAKE THAT LOSS OF UNITS AND DIVIDE IT ACROSS THEIR NEW FEES.

SO THAT IT -- THAT PUTS AN INCREASE IN FEES ON THOSE.

SO WE THOUGHT WE WERE APPROPRIATELY REDUCING UNITS AND REDUCING TRIPS, WHILE KIND OF RESPECTING THE SIZE AND SCALE AND PLANNING OF THE COMMUNITY THAT'S THERE NOW WITHIN AGAIN MAKING AN OFFER THAT WAS MEETING SORT OF A NUMBER THAT WAS PUT YEARS NOW. SO I DON'T THINK I -- IF I REDUCE THE UNITS I'M NOW ASKING THE RESIDENTS TO CARRY THE BURDEN AND IT'S BURDEN THAT WE'VE WORKED SO HARD TO TRY TO GET BACK ALL THE CED FUNDS THAT ARE OVERDUE AND UNPAID.

BUT THAT WOULD THEN SET IT INTO PERPETUITY AS A REDUCED UNIT COUNT. BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT THE BOARD WOULD SEE THE OFFER THAT WE HAVE WELL EXCEEDING STATE STATUTES VERSUS IN LIGHT OF 686S THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH THAT WILL BRING ON MORE. WE LOOK AT SILVER LEAF AND THERE'S 10,400 UNITS LEFT TO GO. THEIR IMPACT FEE AGREEMENT, THEIR CONCURRENCY AGREEMENT IS FOR 2209 INSIDE OF SILVER LEAF AND FOR SILVER LAKE DRIVE. NONE OF THEIR IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO STATE ROAD 16, AND I'M SURE T BUILDS OUT THEY WILL BE USING STATE ROAD 16 AS WELL SO WE LOOK AT THIS MONEY -- IT HASN'T EVEN

[08:20:05]

HAD A CHANCE TO GO TO THE STATE YET, SO SEEK STATE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE F DOT BUT BETWEEN THAT AND THE BRILLIANT, IT IS -- I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE NUMBER OF UNITS. IF WE JUST TOOK LIKE A SELL VERY LEAF NUMBER OF THE 6800, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE EQUITABLE TO ABOUT A 3,000 UNIT COMMUNITY THAT WE WOULD BE ASKING FOR.

AT WHICH POINT SAYING LET'S REDUCE THOSE UNITS MAY BE FAIR.

BUT IF IT'S EQUAL TO A 3,000 UNIT COMMUNITY AND WE'RE ASKING FOR 512 WITH JUST THE REDUCTION, I THINK IT'S MAYBE APPROPRIATE

TO STAY THERE. >> THAT'S A LONG-WINDED WAY TO SAY NO. I APPRECIATE YOU FOR THAT -- [INDISCERNIBLE] WITH UNDERSTANDING.

OKAY. SO --

>> AND THEY SAID THAT TODAY IS THE -- AFTER TODAY IS THE RIGHT

TO PULL AGREEMENTS. >> ALL RIGHT.

I WILL ADD, THE LEGALITY IN THIS, IF THERE'S A RISK OR A CONCERN ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD ABOUT SOUTHEAST IN THE FUTURE, WHEN PALTIE PAYS THIS, SOUTHEAST WILL NOT COME TO THE COUNTY.

SOUTHEAST IS GOING TO COME TO US AND CLAIM SOME REMAINING RIGHT INTO THIS PROPERTY AND SAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT I PAYING THAD SOLVING MY PROBLEM WITH THE COUNTY AND THEN THEY WILL COME AND MAKE SOME CLAIM AGAINST CONTRACTS OR PROPERTY.

IT WILL BE OUR LOSS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO PURSUE. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO COME AND SAY, WELL WE WOULD NOW LIKE TO NEGOTIATE THE PAYER DO SOMETHING FOR THE COUNTY. THEY WOULD COME AFTER WHAT WE WERE ABLE RESOLVE AND THEN MAKE A CLAIM INTO THAT.

IT BECOMES -- LIKE THE RISK SHIFTS IN LARGE PART TO POLTIE ON THIS FROM THEM COMING BACK. AS FOR THEM GOING AWAY, THEY DID NOT WALK AWAY CLEAN. AGAIN, THEY LOST A LOT WHEN THIS

FELL APART. >> OKAY.

LET'S TRY THIS AGAIN. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO ENACT OWNERS 2026-36, APPROVING THE MAJOR MOD 202601 GRAND OAKS BASED UPON SIX FINDINGS OF FACTS AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT TO INCLUDE PARCEL 027440011, PARCEL 07274400010 AND 0272700002 AS DONATIONS TO THE COUNTY FOR PARK.

THAT IS MY MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> I'M GOING TO SECOND IT, SO THAT WE CAN DISCUSS IT.

DISCUSS THE IMPLICATIONS OF APPROVING IT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. >> THIS IS OPEN TO THE BOARD.

IF EVERYONE WANTS TO PUSH THEIR BUTTON.

OPEN TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION.

>> I THINK THAT THE BOARD LIKES THE IDEA OF HAVING THE PARK DONATED. I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO DONATE THAT LAND THROUGH THE PARK FOUNDATION.

I THINK WE'VE ALREADY GOT A MECHANISM IN PLACE TO RECEIVE THAT LAND IN A WAY THAT COULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THE COMMUNITY.

AGAIN, I HATE TO BE BEAT THE DED HORSE BECAUSE IT'S SO LATE IN THE DAY. I THINK THESE GUYS HAVE SQUEEZED ALL THE BLOOD OUT OF THIS ROCK THAT THEY CAN.

THERE'S NO MORE MONEY. I THINK IF THERE WERE, THEY WOULD HONESTLY GIVE IT. I DON'T THINK THEY'RE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM HIDING IT. I THINK THEY'VE TRIED EVERY TRICK IN THE BACK. WHAT QUESTIONS DO WE NEED TO GET ANSWERED WITH THE PARKLAND SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON A MOTION ON WHAT DATE WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO COME BACK? I UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THEIR BANK AND THOSE AGREEMENTS AND THE TIME LINE BUT I'M JUST SAYING FOR US, HOW LONG WOULD WE NEED TO MAKE THAT DECISION IF WE CAN'T GET IT APPROVED ARREST THOSE QUESTIONS ANSWERED TONIGHT?

>> SO IT'S COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, RIGHT?

>> TODAY IT'S COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

I THINK IT'S 250,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL.

I COULD BE WRONG. SOMEBODY STOP ME IF THAT'S NOT

CORRECT. >> I MEAN, WOULD WE BE IN A POSITION TO SELL IT BUT NOT BUILD IT OUT UNTIL THE ROADS

BUILD? >> I THINK THEY'RE MAKING THE DOUGH NATION WITH THE CONDITION AS DONATION WITH THE CONDITION AS A PARK.

>> WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE CED.

>> HOW LONG DO WE NEED GET THOSE QUESTIONS ANSWERED?

>> MAYBE THAT'S A STAFF QUESTIONED.

DICK, HOW LONG DO WE NEED TO GET THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED? COME ON, I'M GOING TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT AGAIN.

IT'S ONLY 6 O'CLOCK. >> [INDISCERNIBLE] BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO ANSWER A LOT OF THESE QUESTIONS.

[08:25:05]

>> YEAH, YOU CAN ANSWER THAT TOO, MIKE.

COME OVER HERE. >> THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS OUTSIDE OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT THAT WOULD NEED TO BE INVOLVED WITH THIS. FROM THE PROPERTY TRANSFER, THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, IT MIGHT BE THERE'S OTHER INTERESTS OTHER THAN A PARK BECAUSE IT IS ON STATE ROAD 16.

WE ARE LOOKING AT THE DOT TO WORK ON STORMWATER NEEDS, EARMARKING ALL THAT ACREAGE SPECIFICALLY FOR A PARK WHERE IT MIGHT HAVE A HIGHER VALUE TO THE COUNTY FOR OTHER USES, KIND OF OPENS UP THAT NEED AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR PUBLIC WORKS 100% ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT. NOR DO I WANT TO SPEAK FOR RYAN IN PARKS AND REC 100% ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT -- WHAT IF I JUST MAKE THE MOTION TO DONATE VALUE OF THOSE LOTS TO

THE PROPERTY. >> AND THE COUNTY WOULD FIND VALUE IN THOSE PROPERTIES BETWEEN PUBLIC WORKS AND ANY

OTHER ENDUSER. >> IF HE DONATE IT IF IT'S NOT A

PARK? >> THAT'S PROBABLY A QUESTION.

IF YOU'RE LISTENING OUT THERE IN T.V. LAND, CAN WE USE THIS LAND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COUNTY, NOT NECESSARILY -- IT COULD BE A PARK BUT NOT NECESSARILY AS A PARK? YOU CAN -- YEAH, TURN HIS ON. I'LL GET YOU.

IF EVERYBODY DOES THIS AT -- >> I WOULD THINK THAT THE COUNTY WOULD FIND IT APPROPRIATE THAT IT COULD BE DEDICATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF A PARK AND THAT PARK CREDITS ARE RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE, BUT THE COUNTY WOULD NOT BE OBLIGATED TO USE IT AS A PARK, BECAUSE AS THE POINT'S BEEN MADE, IF THE GOAL HERE IS TO GET STATE ROAD 16 DONE AND THE DOT COMES IN AND WANTS TO CLAIM THAT FOR STORMWATER POND OR FILL FOR THE ROAD OR SOMETHING VALUING STATE ROAD 16, WE WOULD NOT WANT OUR AGREEMENT TO PROHIBIT THE COUNTY FROM FURTHER CONVEYING THAT FOR THOSE

PURPOSES. >> OKAY.

>> AND EVEN IF IT'S ALL OR NOTHING -- I MEAN, IF THIS DOESN'T GO FORWARD AND YOU JUST WANT THE PARK CREDITS, CAN YOU JUST LET -- I MEAN, WILL HE DO IT JUST FOR THE COMMERCIAL.

>> WE WOULD SAY WE WOULD DONATE THE VALUE OF IT IN EXCHANGE FOR CREDITS, ONLY TO BE USED IN GRAND OAKS FOR PARK CREDITS AND I THINK DICK IS FAIR IN SAYING THAT'S PER STATUTES.

SO WE DO IT BY STATUTES BUT THERE IS NO RESTRICTION ON WHAT THE COUNTY CAN USE IT FOR IN THE SENSE IF THEY WANT TO USE IT FOR DEDICATION TO THE DOT OR FOR DRAINAGE, LIKE THAT WOULD BE

PERMISSIBLE. >> YEAH, SO THE TAX CREDITS THAT THEY WOULD GET WOULD BE MONEY THAT GO INTO PARKS ANYWAY AND IF WE'RE DONATING THE MONEY FOR A PARK BUT IT'S A ZERO SUM, RIGHT?

>> WE'RE JUST SAYING IMPACT FEE CREDITS.

>> IMPACT TAX CREDITS ON THE PARKS AND REC SIDE PORTION OF

IT, YEAH. >> SO TO FURTHER CLARIFY IN FACT THESE ARE ON A VERY DISCREET NUMBER OF CATEGORIES SO BEFORE TO APPLY AGAINST ONE OF THE SAID CATEGORIES AND AGAIN ANY AGREEMENT TO TRANSFER THE PROPERTY KIND OF SETS THAT FRAMEWORK UP AND I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THE LEGAL ASPECT OF THAT, WHETHER THEY DONATE AN OPEN PROPERTY BUT ONLY REQUEST THE PARK CREDITS IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT, WHETHER THAT KIND OF BOXES THE COUNTY IN TO THE PARK USE ONLY VERSUS A MUCH BROADER USE AGAINST JUST TOTAL PARK CREDITS. TYPICALLY IT'S DONATED FOR VERY SPECIFIC REASONS AND THEN WE AWARD THE CREDITS FOR THAT SPECIFIC CATEGORY. AND I CAN THINK OF ONLY MAYBE ONE OR TWO INSTANCES WHERE LAND WAS DONATED FOR A KIND OF BROAD CATEGORY AND WE GAVE JUST A SPECIFIC CREDIT WHILE WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE AN END USE IN MIND: SO THAT'S GETS INTO SOME OF THE NUANCES AS THAT AGREEMENT GETS SET UP.

AND ANY AGREEMENT TO AWARD CREDITS WOULD CERTAINLY HAPPEN AFTER THE FACT, WHICH IS A VERY TYPICAL PROCESS FOR GROWTH

MANAGEMENT TO RUN THROUGH. >> DO WE HAVE ANY LEGAL ISSUES WITH ACCEPTING THIS LAND FOR A PARK AND THEN AWARDING IMPACT FEE CREDITS FOR THE PARK USE AND THEN NOT USING IT AS A PARK? I KNOW SOME OF THE OTHER PROPERTY HAS BEEN DONATED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND THE COUNTY HAS SEEN FIT TO USE IT IN ANOTHER WAY. I GUESS MY QUESTION: ARE WE DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL IF WE DO THAT?

[08:30:02]

>> DON'T KNOW. PROBABLY.

THAT? THE CONCERN IS THAT WHEN YOU DONATE SOMETHING FOR A ROAD, PARK, SCHOOL, WHATEVER AND UP DON'T USE IT FOR THAT, IT FAILS THE FEE VERSUS TAX ISSUE.

I THINK THE ONLY ENTITY THAT WOULD RAISE IT AS AN ISSUE WOULD BE US. SO IF THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH IT,

WE WOULD BE THE ONLY PARTY -- >> YOU WOULD BE THE ONLY ONES

COMPLAINING OR -- >> CORRECT.

AND WE WOULDN'T, BECAUSE WE WOULD AGREE TO NOT COMPLAIN.

>> OKAY. >> SO -- YEAH.

>> CAN I JUST -- I HAVE TO BE HONEST, THERE ARE JUST SO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD

TONIGHT WITH -- >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY --

>> EVEN OUR ATTORNEYS ARE -- I'M NOT COMFORTABLE, LIKE WORKING UNDER PRESSURE AND BEING FORCED INTO A DECISION RIGHT NOW.

>> WELL, I THINK, IF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS TO RESOLVE THE CLADDING ISSUE, AND IF THE -- IF THIS WAS AMENDED TO SAY THAT THE PARK DONATION NEEDS TO BE WORKED OUT PRIOR TO THE APPLICANT'S RIGHTS TO PLAT, PERHAPS WOULD THAT ALLOW US TO MOVE FORWARD AND STILL HEAVE TIME FOR THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENTS WITH STAFF AND COUNCIL TO WORK OUT THAT AGREEMENT SO THAT WE'RE NOT HAVING TO NEGOTIATE THE PARCEL NUMBERS AND THE VALUE AND EVERYTHING TODAY, BUT IT SIMPLY COULD BE SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE CONCLUDED, THAT WE DO AGREE TO THIS DONATION WITH CREDIT BUT HAS TO BE FURTHER AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES AS A CONDITION, THE PLATTING, MAYBE THAT GIVES US THE PROPER TIME AND TEMPO TO WORK THROUGH IT CORRECTLY AND BE

CORRECT WITH THE LAW. >> I THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY BE BEST TO PUT -- IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THE BOARD WOULD ENTERTAIN, TO GO INTO THE MAJOR MODIFICATION, SO WE'RE THE NO MIXING NOT MIXING APPLES AND ORANGES.

>> OKAY. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

IF WE MODIFIED THE -- >> COMMISSIONER MURPHY, I'M GOING TO INTERRUPT AND I'M SO SORRY, BUT THE LANDOWNER IS WILLING TO DO IT WITHOUT THE CREDITS, IF THAT WOULD PUT THIS

TO BED NOW. >> OKAY, IT WOULDN'T CHANGE IT FOR ME. I'M FULL SPEED AHEAD.

IT MIGHT CHANGE IT FOR SOME OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS SO -- IF THEY WOULD NOT TAKE IMPACT FEE TAX CREDITS OFF THE DONATION OF THEIR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY -- STATE 16 TO FIX IT TO FOUR LANE, DOES THAT PUSH THE NEEDLE ANY, DOES THAT HELP ANY?

>> THAT'S GENEROUS. IT'S VERY GENEROUS.

THE 20 MILLION IS PRETTY GENEROUS TOO FOR TRYING TO GET

BLOOD OUT OF A TURNIP. >> OKAY.

SO THE MOTION -- THERE'S BEEN A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 2026-36 WITH THE DONATION OF THOSE THREE PROPERTIES IN THE MOTION. THERE'S BEEN A MOTION, THE LANDOWNER HAS AGREED TO NOT SEEK IMPACT FEE TAX CREDITS, WHICH SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE, SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS I WOULD LIKE TO CALL FOR A VOTE FOR UNDER AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6, IS THAT RIGHT, ARE WE ON 6?

>> I THINK 6 AND 7. WE DON'T WANT TO DO THOSE TOGETHER, DO WE IS THIS WE WANT TO DO THEM SEPARATE?

OKAY. >> GOT TO DO THEM SEPARATE.

>> THIS IS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6 AND I WOULD CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION. DOES ANYBODY NEED A CLEARER UNDERSTANDING OF THE MOTION? WE STILL GET THE 20 MILLION.

THAT WILL BE IN THE NEXT -- THAT WILL BE ON 7, RIGHT?

>> JUST SO COMMISSIONER JOSEPH UNDERSTANDS, THE 20 MILLION IS REFERENCED IN THE PUD MOD AND IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

SO IT'S IN BOTH. >> SO IT'S THE 20 MILLION SO WE'RE GOING TO GET OUR MONEY FOR OUR ROAD.

>> SO I WOULD CALL FOR THE VOTE, SO -- THROW IT UP THERE.

>> YESES FOR, TAKING THE AGREEMENT.

AND I'LL GO FIRST.

[08:35:05]

>> I'M SO PROUD OF YOU. I'M SO PROUD OF YOU.

THAT'S UNANIMOUS. >> I'M VERY, VERY PROUD OF THIS BOARD FOR WORKING THROUGH THIS. WE STILL HAVE WORK TO DO, BUT WE ALSO HAVE ANOTHER -- ANOTHER AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7.

IT IS NOT QUASI JUDICIAL, SO YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

JUST MAKE IT QUICK, WILL YOU? [LAUGHTER]

>> THROUGH THE CHAIR, WE'D JUST REFER TO EVERYTHING WE PUT ON

THE RECORD FOR AGENDA NUMBER 6. >> THANK YOU.

END -- ANY DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD? WITHOUT THAT, WE'LL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT BUT IF ANYBODY COMES UP HERE AND TALKS LONGER THAN A MINUTE, YOU'RE IN TROUBLE.

30 SECONDS. COME ON UP HERE AND YOU CAN WAVE IN FAVOR OR... OKAY.

PUBLIC COMMENT. I DON'T SEE ANYBODY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. SO WE'LL BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, MR. ARNOLD? OKAY.

THANK YOU. IT'S GOING TO TAKE A SECOND.

PUSH THE BUTTON. OKAY, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE GRAND OAKS PUD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2026-01 FINDING THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2026-01 MEETS THE REQUIREMENT IN INTENT OF SECTION 11.09 OF THE LDC PROPORTIONATE

FAIR SHARE FOR GRAND OAKS PUD. >> I'LL SECOND THAT.

>> LET'S VOTE.

>> THAT PASSES. CONGRATULATIONS, MR. DUDLEY.

CONGRATULATIONS, MR. MILLER. WE APPRECIATE YOU GUYS.

THANKS SO MUCH. IF YOU DECIDE TO LEAVE, PLEASE DO SO QUIETLY. WE STILL GOT WORK TO DO.

THANK YOU. LET'S GO STRAIGHT TO AGENDA

[8. 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. 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, Spiegel, Olson, and Labanowski. Dissenting votes were made by Matovina and Green. The subject site is located on an unaddressed parcel on County Road 13 North, approximately 0.60 miles south of Joe Ashton Road (Parcel ID 013240-0010).]

NUMBER 8. THIS IS A...

>> THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.

FIVE MINUTE BREAK.

WE'RE BACK IN ACTION. TO -- AGENDA NUMBER 8.

SO I WOULD GO TO COMMISSIONER ARNOLD

>> YES. I HAVE HAD A HANDFUL OF E-MAILS

ABOUT THIS ITEM. >> 7 MORE E-MAILS WITH A MEETING

WITH BOB, DORIS, AND THE TEAM. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST

>> I HAVE FOUR E-MAILS. AND I MET WITH -- OKAY.

I MET WITH STEVE GLIDDON AND OUR STAFF HERE IN THE OFFICE.

THEY ARE OPPOSED. I ALSO MET WITH MARY SOLIK, MIKE BURKEHEAD AND OUR STAFF YESTERDAY HERE IN THE OFFICE

>> I HAD 11 PLUS E-MAILS ON THIS.

STEVE, BOB, AND DORIS AND STAFF AND A MEETING WITH MARY.

MIKE BURKEHEAD AND STAFF. >> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. AND I HAD 14 OR MORE E-MAILS FOR THIS SPECIFIC ITEM. MEETING WITH STEVE, BOB AND DORIS AND STAFF WHO ARE OPPOSED MEETING WITH MARY, MIKE AND STAFF. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, MA'AM.

>> THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING.

MARY 121 SUITE 1,500 FLORIDA. I CAN TALK REALLY FAST.

I HAVE WITH ME TONIGHT MIKE BURKEHEAD WHO IS THE PRINCIPAL OF GOLF STREAM TOWERS, THE RF ENGINEER FOR VERIZON WIRELESS AND OUR STATE CERTIFIED GENERAL REAL ESTATE APPRAISER.

BEFORE WE GET INTO SOME THINGS, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE AND FOCUS AND YOUR DEDICATION TODAY.

I'M WORN OUT AND I HAVEN'T DONE THE HEAVY LIFTING THAT ALL HAVE DONE TODAY, SO THANK YOU. IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT THE COMPLETE APPLICATION, THE STAFF REPORT, THE PRESENTATION THAT I'VE DONE TONIGHT, AND YOUR AGENDA MATERIALS BE PUT IN THE RECORD, PLEASE.

AND THEN I WOULD ASK YOUR COUNTY ATTORNEY TO SWEAR IN WITNESSES,

PLEASE. >> ANYONE WHO'S GOING TO GIVE TESTIMONY TODAY, COULD YOU PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH

AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> OKAY.

>> WITNESSES ARE SWORN. >> THANK YOU.

>> YOU HAVE A LOT OF MATERIALS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

I'M GOING TO GO OVER SOME OF THESE DETAILS VERY QUICKLY.

THIS IS A SPECIAL USE APPLICATION FOR A -- I WENT TOO MANY SLIDES. FOR A 199 FOOT

[08:40:02]

TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON A 22.6 ACRE PARCEL.

THE TOWER IS 195 TO THE TOP OF STEEL PLUS A 4-FOOT LIGHTNING ROD. IT'S LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF STATE ROAD 13 SOUTH OF JOE ASHTON ROAD.

IT'S IN COMMISSIONER ARNOLD'S DISTRICT.

PROPERTIES OWN BY STATE 13. IT HAS A SPLIT FUTURE LAND USE OF RURAL AND AGRICULTURE AND IT IS ZONED OPEN RURAL.

IT IS WOODED AND UNIMPROVED. THIS IS YOUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THERE'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

YOU CAN SEE THE GREEN OF THE AGRICULTURE, THE WHITE IS THE RURAL AND IT SPLITS THAT PROPERTY IN HALF.

HERE'S THE ZONING MAP. MOST OF THE AREA IS ZONED OPEN RURAL. THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH IS ZONED PRD, WHICH I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY YOUR STAFF IS NOW EXPIRED. THIS IS AN AERIAL OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AGAIN IT'S ON THE EAST SIDE OF STATE ROAD 13. IT'S KIND OF IN A REGULARLY SHAPED PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND YOU'LL SEE THAT IT'S ONE OF THE FEW REMAINING WOODED TRACKS OUT IN THAT LARGE SILVICULTURE AREA. THERE'S A WETLAND ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF IT. NOT SURE OF THE COMPLETE EXTENT.

THE PROPERTY SO HEAVILY WOODED THAT WE CAN NOT GET BACK IN THERE TO DO SOME OF THAT WORK UNTIL WE HAVE OUR ZONING APPROVALS AND OUR SITE PLAN APPROVALS TO GET IN THERE TO DO CLEARING. THIS PROPERTY'S IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR, WHICH MEANS THERE ARE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS OUT OF YOUR PLAN THAT APPLY TO IT.

THE RED LINE ON THE NORTH AND -- WELL THE RED LINE ALL THE WAY AROUND ARE DEVELOPMENT BUFFERS AND SCENIC EDGE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE SET FORTH IN YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE SCENIC ROAD REQUIREMENT IS A 35 FOOT SCENIC EDGE.

AND THEN THE COMP PLAN REQUIRES A 35 FOOT DEVELOPMENT EDGE FROM ALL OTHER PROPERTY LINES. TOWERS HAVE ADDITIONAL SETBACK REQUIREMENT. THIS ONE NEED TO BE SET BACK 600 FEET FROM STATE ROAD 13 SP BECAUSE THAT'S A SCENIC HIGHWAY SO WE HAVE TO BE 600 FEET BACK. THE TOWER IS 669 FEET BACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. IT IS SET BACK 75 FEET TO THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. 1,102 TO THE EAST.

AND 667 FEET FROM THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE.

WHICH MEETS ALL OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN YOUR CODE.

THERE'S ALSO A TEN FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER AROUND THE BASE OF THE COMPOUND. I'M GOING TO GO REALLY FAST AND TRY TO CONDENSE THIS FOR YOU BECAUSE YOU'VE STILL GOT MORE YOUR AGENDA. I'M GOING TO GO RIGHT INTO BILL COMPTON'S PRESENTATION ON WHY THIS TOWER IS NEEDED IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA. SO I'M GOING TO ASK BILL COMPTON FROM VERIZON WIRELESS TO COME UP HERE AND ADDRESS WHY THIS TOWER IS NEEDED. SO BILL, COME ON UP.

AND I'M GOING TO GO TO HIS NEXT SLIDE.

HE'S GOING TO TELL YOU HIS QUALIFICATIONS FIRST.

>> I'M BILL COMPTON VERIZON WIRELESS.

RF DESIGN ENGINEER AND TRAFFIC PLANNING ENGINEER FOR VERIZON.

THE NEED FOR THIS SITE IS CAPACITY.

IT WILL PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL COVERAGE IN THE AREA.

BUT PRIMARILY IT'S CAPACITY. WE'RE LOOKING AT BASICALLY THE EXISTING SITES IN THE AREA THAT ARE TRYING TO SERVE THE AREA AND THEY'RE EITHER OUT OF CAPACITY OR PROJECTED TO BE VERY SOON.

HOW DO I... YOU GOT IT? OKAY. JUST SOME QUICK SLIDES ON WHAT CAPACITY MEANS AND HOW WE WANT TO BE IN THE RIGHT LOCATION.

WE DON'T WANT TO BE 3 MILES AWAY TRYING TO SERVE PEOPLE.

WE NEED TO BE CLOSE TO WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE.

A LOT OF THE TRAFFIC'S ALONG THAT SCENIC HIGHWAY.

AND ALSO THE HEIGHT REQUESTED IS WHAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SERVE THE -- FILL IN THE GAP OF COVERAGE AND ALSO PROVIDE THE SERVICE IN THE AREA. JUST A QUICK STATEMENT OF NEED.

I JUST -- WE SAID THAT. THIS IS A LIST OF THE FIRST TIER VERIZON SITES. THIS IS THE FIRST HANDOFF SITES.

BASICALLY BE THE FIRST SITES IN THE AREA THAT WOULD BE PROVIDING COVERAGE TO THIS AREA. THESE ARE THE NEAREST TOWERS.

THERE ARE NO OTHER TOWERS CLOSER TO THIS AREA THAT WE'D BE ABLE TO COLOCATE ON. I CAN ALSO TELL YOU THAT WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING WE CAN CAPACITY WISE TO AUGMENT THESE SITES.

WE'VE ADDED ALL THE EXISTING FREQUENCY SPECTRUM THAT WE HAVE.

WE'VE PUT THE LATEST GENERATION OF ANTENNAS AND EQUIPMENT ON THEM SO US BEING HERE AND TRYING TO BUILD A NEW TOWER, THIS IS NOT OUR FIRST OR SECOND OPTION. IT'S OPTION NUMBER TEN.

THIS WILL CONGEST AND YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO USE YOUR DEVICES

ANYMORE. >> SO WHAT IS THIS MAP?

>> THIS IS A MAP OF JUST THE GENERAL AREA JUST SHOWING THE DISTANCE FROM THE PROPOSED SITE IN YELLOW TO THOSE NEAREST HANDOFF SITES. YOU HAVE A TO THE NORTHEAST, B TO THE EAST AND C DOWN TO THE SOUTHWEST.

AND THOSE DISTANCES ARE MILES. >> AND IS THIS DEVELOPMENT UP ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THIS TOWER WHAT'S CONTRIBUTING TO THE

CAPACITY ISSUE AT THIS LOCATION? >> YES, EXACTLY.

[08:45:03]

SO DESCRIBING CAPACITY'S KIND OF DIFFICULT.

A CELL SITE CAN HAVE COVERAGE AND YOU CAN BE ABLE TO TALK OPT DEVICE BUT CAN'T USE IT FOR ANY INTERNET SURFING SO WHAT'S HAPPENING IS ALL THE CAPACITY IS BEING EATEN UP BY THOSE PEOPLE UNDERNEATH THOSE EXISTING SITES TO THE EAST, SOUTHWEST AND ANYBODY THAT'S VERY FAR AWAY USES A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF RESOURCES BECAUSE BASICALLY THERE'S ONLY A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO SEND THE RESOURCES OUT AND GET THEM BACK AND IF YOU'RE VERY FAR AWAY, IT TAKES MORE RESOURCES TO SERVE PEOPLE FAR AWAY. ANOTHER REASON WHY WE NEED TO BE

CLOSE TO WHERE THE TRAFFIC IS >> AND I THINK YOU JUST APPROVED AN ENCLAVE TODAY THAT'S RIGHT HERE.

SO MORE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMING IN OVER ON THAT AREA THAT EATS UP THE CAPACITY TO THE SOUTH.

>> CORRECT. >> OKAY.

WHAT'S THIS, BILL? >> THIS IS A RELIABLE SERVICE MAP. SO THIS IS BASICALLY LIKE AN RF PROPAGATION MAP. WE HAVE PROPAGATION TOOLS THAT MODEL THE RF COME OUT OF THE CELL SITES AND THE GREEN AREA IS BASICALLY A SERVICE LEVEL FROM A SPECIFIC CAPACITY SPECTRUM THAT BASICALLY GIVES YOU A GOOD LEVEL OF SERVICE.

YOU'RE GOING TO BE IN VERY GOOD SERVICE AREA THERE.

ANYTHING IN RED IS BASICALLY YOU'RE ON THE VERY FRINGE OF THE NETWORK. ANY RESOURCES THAT YOU'RE USING ARE GOING TO BE LIKE I SAID BEFORE, TAXING THE NETWORK A LOT

MORE. >> OKAY.

>> AND THEN THE PROPOSED -- GO AHEAD.

>> WELL, JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT.

THIS IS VERY COOL. >> WOULD YOU SHOW THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN THAT COMMUNITY THAT AREN'T GETTING -- THAT ARE IN THE RED THAT AREN'T GOING THE GREEN COVERAGE?

JUST YOU CAN CIRCLE THEM. >> WHAT THIS SITE'S GOING TO HELP A LOT WITH IS THIS AREA HERE AND THEN THE MAIN HIGHWAY.

THAT'S WHERE WE'RE SEEING A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF OUR TRAFFIC. WE GET A LOT OF DATA BACK FROM OUR NETWORK. THAT DATA IS THE VERY SPECIFIC.

FOR CUSTOMER PROPRIETARY NETWORK INFORMATION PURPOSES, WE CAN'T SHOW THOSE BECAUSE THAT COULD POSSIBLY SHOW A LOCATION OF ONE OF OUR CUSTOMERS, WHICH WE HAVE TO PROTECT.

SO WE HAVE EXTENSIVE MAPS THOUGH SHOW US WHERE COVERAGE AND CAPACITY IS NEEDED. UNFORTUNATELY WE CAN'T SHARE IT ON THIS FORMAT BECAUSE AGAIN, SHARING...

>> OKAY. >> AND YOU CAN SEE THE INCREASED AREA OF CAPACITY AND COVERAGE THAT'S ADDED TOO.

THIS WILL ALSO INCREASE THE CAPACITY AND EVERYTHING ON THE EXISTING SITES. AGAIN THE EXISTING SITES ARE THE ONES THAT ARE OUT OF CAPACITY. WE'RE NOT TROYING TO BUILD A IN YOU SITE TO ADD MORE CUSTOMERS. WE'RE TRYING TO FIX THE SITES AROUND IT AND THIS IS THE BEST WAY WE HAVE TO DO IT IT.

WE'RE ON OPTION TEN. THIS IS THE ONLY OPTION WE HAVE IS TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT OFFLOADS OTHER SITES.

>> LET ME CLEAR THAT. CAN YOU TELL THEM WHAT THIS IS?

>> ALL RIGHT. AND THIS, THE COVERAGE MAP IS ONE THING. IT.

KIND OF SHOWS YOU JUST A BLOB OF COVERAGE.

THIS IS A CELLULAR NETWORK IS MADE UP OF CELLS.

AND A CELL MEANS THERE'S A SPECIFIC SET OF ANTENNAS.

THEY'RE POINTED IN A SEARCH DIRECTION AND THEY HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CAPACITY RELATED TO THAT SECTOR IS WHAT WE CALL IT. SO EACH ONE OF THESE COLORS IS A SECTOR COMING OUT OF ONE OF THOSE SITES.

AGAIN WE HAVE WE'VE ADDED ALL THE CAPACITY.

SO WE'RE BASICALLY OUT OF CAPACITY.

WE CAN'T ADD ANYTHING MORE TO THE EXISTING SITES.

SO YOU CAN SEE THE GREEN ONE TO THE NORTH, IT'S BASICALLY COVERING THE ENTIRE PROPOSED SITE AREA.

THAT'S TREMENDOUSLY OUT OF CAPACITY RIGHT NOW.

AND THE BLUE ONE TO THE EAST IS OUT OF CAPACITY AS WELL.

AND THEN WHEN WE INCREMENT TO THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE NEW DOMINANT SERVER AREAS AND YOU CAN SEE HOW WE OFFLOAD TRAFFIC OFF THE EDGE OF THAT BLUE SITE TO THE EAST.

MORE SIGNIFICANTLY WE TREMENDOUSLY OFFLOAD THAT GREEN SECTOR, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT'S REALLY BROKEN TRYING TO SERVE THE AREA NOW. WE APPLY WITH ALL THE FEDERAL SATE RULES, THE RF EXPOSURE, ALL THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. COMPTON BEFORE I MOVE ON?

>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

THANKS, BILL. THIS IS OUR PHOTO SIM THAT WE DO. THE 8 SQUARES ARE THE PHOTO LOCATIONS AND I'M GOING TO WALK YOU THROUGH THIS, BUT I WANT YOU TO KNOW MR. BURKEHEAD HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS APPLICATION SINCE 2024 THIS AND THIS PHOTO SIM WAS DONE BEFORE HE SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION IN EARLY 2026. AND SINCE THAT WAS DONE, SINCE THE PHOTO SIM WAS PREPARED, ALL OF THIS AREA HAS BEEN HARVESTED.

IT'S CLEARED. SO THAT AERIAL THAT I SHOWED YOU EARLIER THAT SHOWED ALL OF THAT CLEARED AREA, THAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE WE STARTED ON THIS PROJECT.

SO THERE ARE FOUR VIEWS ALONG COUNTY ROAD 13 AND THEN WELL, I GUESS YOU CAN COUNT FIVE AS BOTH ON 13 AND ON JOE ASHTON ROAD BUT I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THEM ONE BY ONE.

THE BOTTOM LINE ON THIS IS OUT OF THESE 8 LOCATIONS, THERE'S ONLY TWO LOCATIONS WHERE THIS TOWER IS AT ALL VISIBLE TO THE

[08:50:04]

TRAVELING, TO THE COMMUNITY. AND THIS IS IT.

THIS IS THE WORST VIEW OF THE TOWER.

IT'S RIGHT AT THE ENTRANCE THAT LITTLE -- THIS HERE IS THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE TO THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF US.

AND THAT PROPERTY'S BEEN CLEARED AND THAT IS THE ONLY VIEW ALL ALONG STATE ROAD 13. WE GO TO VIEW 2.

NOTHING. THIS IS ON COUNTY ROAD 13 LOOKING NORTH. VIEW 3.

LOOKING NORTHEAST FROM COUNTY ROAD 13.

AGAIN VIEW 4. NO VIEW.

5 WAS THAT VIEW AT THE TOP OF 13 AND JOE ROAD, NO VIEW.

NOW WE'RE COMING AROUND THE CORNER.

THIS IS THE SECOND SLIDE. THIS IS OFF OF JOE AHEARN ROAD WHERE THERE IS A TINY BIT OF A GLIMPSE OF THE TOWER RIGHT THERE. THAT YOU CAN SEE.

AND I SKIPPED OVER 7. NO VIEW.

AND VIEW 8. WE THINK WE HAVE FOUND THE BEST LOCATION IN THIS AREA TO PUT THIS TOWER BECAUSE WE HAVE 22 ACRES OF WOODED PROPERTY THAT ALMOST COMPLETELY ABSORBS THE OFF SITE AESTHETIC IMPACT OF THIS TOWER.

IT'S SO HEAVILY WOODED AND IT'S SET BACK FROM THE ROAD SO FAR BECAUSE OF YOUR SCENIC HIGHWAY SETBACK THAT WE HAVE REALLY, REALLY MINIMIZED THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THIS TOWER.

AND THE VISUAL IMPACT IS REALLY THE ONLY IMPACT TOWERS HAVE.

I'M NOW GOING TO CALL OUT MR. TOLBY AND HE HAS DONE SOME STUDIES ABOUT THE IMPACT OF PROPERTY -- OF TOWERS ON PROPERTY VALUES. AND I'M GOING TO TURN IT BACK -- YEAH, YOU CAN USE THAT MICRO

MICROPHONE. >> THERE.

DAVID, 609 EAST JACKSON STREET TAMPA, 366-02.

I'VE BEEN SWORN. >> GO AHEAD.

>> YEAH, I AM A COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE APPRAISER.

I'M AN MAI. MEMBER OF THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE. I'M ALSO A STATE CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE APPRAISER AND I'VE BEEN APPRAISING SINCE 1987 AND I'VE BEEN STUDYING THESE IMPACTS FOR OVER 25 YEARS.

IN FACT YOU PROBABLY WILL NOT FIND ANYBODY WITH MORE KNOWLEDGE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA ABOUT THESE THAN ME.

>> OKAY. HAVE YOU MADE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER CELL TOWERS DO AN IMPACT ON PROPERTY VALUES?

>> I'VE BEEN STUDYING IT FOR OVER 25 YEARS.

I'VE STUDIED RURAL TOWERS, URBAN TOWERS, SUBURBAN TOWERS.

I'VE STUDIED CROSSES, TREES, LATTICE TOWERS.

MONOPOLE TOWERS LIKE THEY'RE PROPOSING HERE, AND BASED ON ALL MY RESEARCH, FROM THE PANHANDLE DOWN TO NAPLES ACROSS TO DADE COUNTY, I CANNOT FIND ANY DATA, ANY SALE DATA THAT WILL SUPPORT TOWERS HAVE IMPACT ON PROPERTY VALUES.

RESIDENTIAL, RESIDENTIAL LAND, COMMERCIAL.

I HAVE A STUDY HERE. 85 PAGE STUDY WITH ALL SORTS OF MATCH PERIOD ANALYSIS FROM DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES AND DIFFERENT TYPES OF TOWERS I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT INTO THE RECORD.

THERE'S TWO OF THEM HERE. >> AND HAVE YOU CONSULTED WITH VARIOUS PROPERTY APPRAISERS ACROSS THE STATE OF FLORIDA ABOUT WHETHER THEY'D MAKE ADJUSTMENTS?

>> THROUGH MY RESEARCH, I'VE INTERVIEWED OVER A THIRD OF OUR COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISERS THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF FLORIDA INCLUDING YOUR OWN -- MARK TAILOR, ONE OF YOUR CHIEF APPRAISERS HERE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

AND NOT ONCE, NOT ONCE HAS A PROPERTY APPRAISER MADE A REDUCTION IN AN ASSESSMENT BECAUSE OF A TOWER LOCATION.

AND YOU GOT TO ASK YOURSELF, HOW CAN THAT BE? ALL THE ANECDOTALAL DATA WE HAVE OUT THERE.

THEY DEAL WITH DATA JUST LIKE I DO.

IF THERE'S NO SUPPORT, YOU CAN'T MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT FOR IT.

AND EVERY ONE OF THEM HAS TOLD ME THEY'VE NEVER HAD A PROPERTY OWNER SUBMIT A REDUCTION ASSESSMENT DUE TO A TOWER.

>> OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO

ADD, MR. TOLBY? >> I THINK THAT'S GOOD.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?

NO. >> THANK YOU.

>> AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO KEEP THIS AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE.

YOU HAVE THREE DIFFERENT SETS OF REVIEW CRITERIA THAT APPLY TO THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION. YOU HAVE GENERAL SPECIAL USE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN SECTION 2.03.01 IS A AND THEN YOU HAVE SPECIFIC TOWER CRITERIA THAT COME IN TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS.

I'M GOING TO ADDRESS THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIFIC

[08:55:01]

TOWER CRITERIA FIRST AND THEN WRAP UP WITH THE -- HOW THIS APPLICATION MEETS THE GENERAL SPECIAL USE CRITERIA.

SO LET'S START WITH 2003.06. THE FIRST IS YOU HAVE TO USE A MONOPOLE TOWER. THIS IS A MONOPOLE TOWER.

AND SECOND IS YOU MUST MEET THE SPECIAL USE CRITERIA AND AGAIN, I'M GOING TO GO TO THAT AT THE END.

WE HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE ARE NO SUITABLE EXISTING ANTENNA STRUCTURES OR TOWERS ON WHICH WE CAN COLOCATE.

MR. COMPTON HAS TESTIFIED TO YOU ABOUT THE COVERAGE GAP AND THAT THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER TOWERS IN THE VICINITY.

THE TOWER -- YOU'LL NOTICE, THE TOWER IS ALSO LOCATED IN A SPECIAL ANTENNA TOWER ZONE, WHICH IS AN AREA DETERMINED BY YOUR STAFF IN A STUDY THAT WAS DONE SEVERAL YEARS AGO THAT DETERMINES THAT THERE ARE NO SUITABLE EXISTING STRUCTURES IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA AND THAT THERE IS A COVERAGE NEED THAT WAS -- THAT WAS INFORMATION THAT WAS COMPILED BY YOUR COUNTY A LONG, LONG TIME AGO. AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED ABOUT THAT AREA. TERE'S STILL NO SUITABLE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THE GAP IS STILL THERE.

I WILL TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO POINT OUT THAT THAT SPECIAL ANTENNA TOWER ZONE SECTION OF YOUR CODE ALSO REQUIRES THAT ANYBODY WHO COMES IN AND PUTS A TOWER IN THAT SECTION HAS TO GET IT UP AND RUNNING IN 180 DAYS. OUR APPLICATION HAS ASKED FOR A WAIVER OF THAT CRITERIA AND WE'VE ASKED FOR 365 DAYS.

IT TAKES US A LONG TIME TO GET THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, GET ALL OF OUR DUE DILIGENCE DONE AND GET A BUILDING PERMIT.

WE CAN'T GET IT DONE IN 180 DAYS AND THAT IS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT YOUR STAFF INCLUDED IN THE RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL. THEY'VE WRAPPED THAT CONDITION IN. SO THE LAST CRITERIA IS THAT THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS TO ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS. THERE ARE WETLANDS IN THE PROPERTY. THEY'RE IT IN THE BACK.

WE HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY THAT'S PART OF YOUR PACKAGE.

WE'RE OVER 300 FEET AWAY FROM THAT WETLAND AND PER THAT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT, THERE'S NO ENDANGERED SPECIES PRESENT NEAR THE TOWER. BUT THAT WILL GET ADDRESSED AGAIN WHEN WE GO THROUGH SITE PLAN.

ALL OF THAT WILL BE -- WILL HAVE TO RESTUDY THAT AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN. OKAY.

NOW WE MOVE TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECTION 6.0812.

AGAIN, THIS ONE ALSO REQUIRES THAT IT BE A MONOPOLE TOWER AND PROVIDE COLOCATION FOR FOUR USERS.

THIS IS CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING FOUR USERS.

YOU ONLY HAVE THREE LICENSED USERS LEFT IN YOUR MARKETPLACE, BUT IT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT FOUR USERS.

IT DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE A LIGHT ON IT.

IF TOWERS UNDERNEATH -- UNDER 200 FEET DON'T REQUIRE LIGHTING.

SO THERE WILL NOT BE ANY FLASHING OR BLINKING LIGHTS ON IT. IT'S REQUIRED TO HAVE A GALVANIZED FINISH. WE WILL.

WE'VE MET ALL OF YOUR FENCING AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT AND THE SCENIC HIGHWAY SETBACK, ALL NORTH WESTERN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND SCENIC ROAD DEVELOPMENT EDGES.

IT'S -- OH. TYPO.

SORRY. IT'S DESIGNED WITH A 50 FOOT FALL ZONE RADIUS SO IN THE UNLIKE EVENT OF TOWER FAILURE, IT WILL FALL ENTIRELY WITHIN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

REMEMBER IT'S 75 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH.

AND IT'S GOT A 50 FOOT -- SO THERE'S NO ISSUE TO ANY

NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER >> COULD I ASK YOU A QUESTION

REAL QUICK? >> SURE.

>> THE LIGHTING REQUIREMENT, IS THAT 200 FEET MSL OR OR HEL?

>> MIKE. AGL.

>> OKAY. SO THE FAA SAYS AGL IS 200 FEET.

DO WE KNOW IN A THE ELEVATION IS THERE ON THAT PROPERTY?

MS -- >> WE HAVE SUBMITTED THE TOWER APPLICATION TO THE FAA AND HAVE GOTTEN THE NO DETERMINATION HAZARD BACK WITH NO LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS SO WHATEVER CRITERIA OR METRIC WE USE, THEY USE, WE USED AND COMPLIED WITH

THAT. >> THANK YOU.

>> AND THAT IS JUST KIND OF A ACROSS THE BOARD FAA POSITION.

NOTHING UNDER 200 GENERALLY NEEDS A LIGHT.

>> THANK YOU. >> THIS IS NOW YOUR SPECIAL -- YOUR GENERAL SPECIAL USE CRITERIA, IN THE BLACK IS YOUR CODE. IT WILL PROVIDE NECESSARY WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE. YOU TALKED A LOT TODAY ABOUT DEVELOPMENT AND THE NETWORK WASN'T IN PLACE.

THIS IS INFRASTRUCTURE AND IT'S NEEDED OUT THERE.

AND IT'S INFRASTRUCTURE THAT HAS REALLY VERY LITTLE IMPACT, NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY AND IT'S NECESSARY TO OFFLOAD THE NETWORK TO THE NORTH AND THAT MEETS THE INTENT AND PURPOSE SECTION OF YOUR CODE. YOUR 6.02112 POWER CODE.

IT WILL ENHANCE PUBLIC SAFETY IN THAT IT ENHANCES 911.

[09:00:03]

I GOT THIS STATISTIC FROM YOUR SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

I'LL PUT THIS E-MAIL IN THE RECORD.

THIS DATA COMES FROM A 2024. YOUR SHERIFF'S OFFICE RECEIVED 100,189911 CALLS IN 2024 AND 87336 OR 87% OF THEM CAME FROM WIRELESS HANDSETS. IT'S A PUBLIC SAFETY NEED.

YOU KNOW, YOUR COMMUNITY WANTS YOU TO DO THEIR WILL.

THEY WANT YOU TO PROTECT THEIR COMMUNITIES AND GIVE THEM BEAUTIFUL PARKS AND ALL THOSE THINGS, BUT YOUR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY IS PUBLIC SAFETY. AND THIS IS A PUBLIC SAFETY MANDATE. OKAY.

IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WILL NOT IMPOSE AN EXCESSIVE BURDEN OR HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDER OR ADJACENT USES.

THE SURROUNDING AREA IS MOSTLY AGRICULTURAL WITH SILVICULTURE BEING THE MAIN USE. THE EXISTING VEGETATION ALONG WITH THE 600 FEET SCENIC ROADWAY SETBACK MINIMIZES VISUAL IMPACT.

IT'S PROPOSED TO HAVE A 50 FOOT FALL ZONE WHICH ELIMINATES ANY SAFETY RISK OFFSITE. YOU JUST HEARD FROM MR. TALBY THAT IT WILL NOT HAVE I IN DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTY VALUES AND IT WILL NOT LIMIT ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON ADJACENT PROPERTY. I'M GOING TO COME BE A TO THAT.

I THINK I SKIPPED A SLIDE. YES.

THIS IS ALL GENERAL USE CRITERIA.

THE TOWER DOES NOT CREATE ANY ODOURS, NOISE, SMOKE, DUST, TRAFFIC, OR RISK OF FIRE. NO DRAINAGE IMPACT.

MINIMAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE WITHIN THE GRAVEL COMPOUND.

NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY PUBLIC SERVICES. WE DON'T PLACE ANY DEMANDS ON SCHOOLS. WE DON'T CREATE ANY TRAFFIC.

THE CLOSEST RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO THE TOWER IS OVER 1 1,000 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST AND THE PHOTO SIMULATION DEMONSTRATES IT HAS VERY LITTLE

VISIBILITY IN THE COMMUNITY. >> YOUR STAFF IS DETERMINED WE'VE MET ALL OF THE OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA IN YOUR CODE AND I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR ANY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TODAY THAT WE DON'T MEET ALL OF THOSE CRITERIA IN THE CODE. I TOLD YOU THAT WE ARE A THOUSAND FEET AWAY FROM THE CLOSEST RESIDENCE.

THIS IS A GRAPHIC THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT.

THERE IS ANOTHER RESIDENCE TO THE SOUTHEAST OF HERE.

THERE WAS SOME INPUT OR DISCUSSION AT THE COMMUNITY MEETING THAT WE SHOULD MOVE THE TOWER FURTHER TO THE EAST, MOVE IT INTERIOR TO THE LOT MORE. AND AGAIN, WE HAVE A WETLAND BACK THERE. BUT WHEN WE MOVE IT FURTHER EAST, THEN WE MOVE IT CLOSER TO THE HOUSE TO THE SOUTH.

SO WE'VE PLACED IT HERE TO MEET THE 600 FEET SETBACK.

WE'RE AVOIDING THE WETLAND AND WE HAVE MAXIMIZED THE SEPARATION FROM THE TWO CLOSEST EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES.

AND BY THE WAY, YOUR CODE DOES NOT HAVE A RESIDENTIAL SEPARATION REQUIREMENT. I DO THIS BOURQUE ALL OVER THE STATE. I SO HE SEE A LOT OF CODES THAT DO HAVE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS. YOUR CODE DOES NOT HAVE ONE.

I'M GOING TO -- THAT'S GOING -- I HAVE TWO MORE THINGS I WANT TO SHOW YOU AT THE END. THIS IS ALL OF THE EXISTING TOWERS IN THE AREA. THEY'RE OUTSIDE THE AREA OF NEEDED COVERAGE. THE THREE TOWERS THAT A MR. COMPTON TOLD YOU ABOUT ARE ON IN THIS MAP.

THEY'RE TOWER ONE, TOWER 8, AND TOWER 4.

BUT I SHOW YOU THESE BECAUSE THESE ARE ALL TOWERS IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR. FOUR OF THE 8 OF THEM ARE 250 FEET TALL. SO THEY DO HAVE LIGHTS ON THEM.

THE OTHER FOUR ARE ALL 180 FEET. SO THE HEIGHT THAT WE'VE REQUESTED IS ALL CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWER FOOTPRINT IN THIS AREA. BUT I ALSO SHOW YOU THESE TO SHOW YOU WHAT ALL 8 OF THEM LOOK LIKE.

AND THE POINT I WANT TO MAKE HERE IS IF THESE 8 TOWERS HAVE ALL BEEN DEEMED TO BE COMPATIBLE IN YOUR COMMUNITY, THE TOWER THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO YOU THAT HAS ALMOST ZERO VISIBILITY DEFINITELY FALLS WITHIN THE COMPATIBLE CATEGORY.

NUMBER ONE, THAT'S A 250 FOOT TOWER.

[09:05:03]

IT'S 420 FEET FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.

NUMBER 2 ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE IS ANOTHER 250 FOOT SELF SUPPORTING TOWER. 105 FEET FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.

DOWN IN THE LEFT HAND CORNER ANOTHER 250 FOOT TOWER.

IT'S A THOUSAND FEET FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.

ON THE ON THE RIGHT HAND, YOU HAVE 150 FOOT MONOPOLE.

HERE'S FOUR MORE. UPPER LEFT, 250 FOOT TOWER.

IT'S 162,000 FEET FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.

IT'S ON INTERNATIONAL GOLF PARKWAY ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE.

180 FOOT MONOPOTHOLE. 1,350 FEET FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY ON INTERNATIONAL GOLF PARK WAY AS WELL.

LOWER LEFT, 182 FEET FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.

IT'S ON COUNTY ROAD 16A. AND FINALLY, WE HAVE THE MONOPOTHOLE IN THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.

THAT'S 180 FEET. AND IT'S 196 FEET FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY. AND IT'S AT 289 IRISH ROSE ROAD.

SO THESE ARE THE 8 CLOSEST TOWERS TO THE ONE THAT WE'VE BROUGHT YOU TODAY. THEY ALL HAVE FAR GREATER SIGNIFICANT AESTHETIC IMPACT AND THEY'VE ALL BEEN DETERMINED AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMUNITY.

AND LAST, STATE ROAD 13 IS A BEAUTIFUL ROAD.

IT'S SCENIC HIGHWAY, SCENE, ROAD AND THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE A 600 FOOT SETBACK, BUT IT'S BEAUTIFUL BECAUSE IT HAS A TREE CANOPY ALL THE WAY DOWN THIS ROAD. AND THIS IS LOOKING NORTH.

THAT'S THE ENTRANCE TO THE PROPERTY.

OWNER TO THE NORTH. AND THAT REMEMBER IS THE ONLY PLACE THAT YOU CAN SEE THE TOWER FROM STATE ROAD 13, IS RIGHT THERE AT THAT ENTRANCE. BCAUSE TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS, HIS PROPERTY'S ALL BEEN CLEARED.

AND THEN THIS IS LOOKING SOUTH. AGAIN THE CANOPY RUNS ALL THE WAY DOWN THE ROAD. BEAUTIFUL.

AND THAT'S WHAT'S GIVING US THREE VIEWS OF THE FOUR ALONG STATE ROAD WHERE YOU DON'T SEE THIS TOWER.

IT'S THAT EXISTING TREE CANOPY. AND THAT CANOPY STAYS BECAUSE YOU HAVE A DEVELOPMENT EDGE AND YOU HAVE A SCENIC ROAD REQUIREMENT -- SCENIC -- 75 FOOT SCENIC HIGHWAY SETBACK IN YOUR COMP PLAN FOR ALL OF THOSE PROPERTIES.

SO EVEN THOSE PROPERTIES THAT WERE CLEARED ON THE WEST SIDE OF 13 NORTH OF OUR SITE, THEY LEFT THE 75 FOOT SCENIC EDGE IN PLACE BECAUSE THAT'S A COMP PLAN REQUIREMENT.

AND THAT PROTECTS THE ADVICE VISA ALONG THIS ROAD.

SO I'LL STAND FOR QUESTIONS AND I'D LOVE A CHANCE TO COME BACK UP AND REBUTT ANYTHING AND I'VE GONE AS FAST AS I COULD GO.

>> AND THAT'S APPRECIATED. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? YES, MA'AM. YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE THE FLOOR.

>> THOSE 8 OTHER TOWERS YOU SHOWED US, WHAT YEAR WERE THOSE

PUT IN? >> I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT.

THE MONOPOLES ARE ALL PRETTY RECENT

>> YEAH, BUT THE 250, I MOO -- I MEAN, IT HAD TO BE YEARS AGO

BEFORE THE PEOPLE GOT THERE. >> WELL, WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE OR

THE PEOPLE DRIVING. >> THANKS.

>> THREE OF THOSE LATTICE TOWERS ARE ALL ALONG 208.

ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HERE. THEY'RE ALL ALONG THE ROAD.

>> I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THAT ONE.

IRISH ROSE ROAD. THAT'S RIGHT AT THE INTERSECTION OF 13 AND 16. WARDS CREEK.

INTERESTING PICTURE. OKAY.

THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? LET'S GO RIGHT TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> OKAY. THIS TIME WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC

COMMENT ON AGENDA NUMBER 8. >> GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING. JOE, 1005 BLACKBERRY LANE.

SO A QUICK POWERPOINT AND THE QUESTION IS, DOES A PROPOSED TOWER MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF 60812P.

THERE'S A LOT OF SECTIONS IN 60812.

AND 60812P SAYS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE AREA. AND THAT THERE IS NO DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTY VALUES.

SO THE -- AND -- OKAY SO THE PCA IN JULY HEARD THIS PRESENTATION AND HEARD THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION.

AND BY A 5-2 MARGIN OF YOUR PCA VOTED NO MANY.

5-2 TO RECOMMEND A DENIAL. THEY DID NOT BELIEVE THAT IT DID

[09:10:01]

MEET LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. SO WHY WOULD THAT BE? IS IT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE AREA? WELL, WE'VE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT AND WE HAVE SEEN THE DISPLAY THAT THIS IS RURAL SILVICULURE.

TWO YEARS AGO, AND NOW THEY'RE GONE.

SO I JUST PUT IT OUT TO HAVE TO YOU.

THEY HAVE MADE A BIG DEAL ABOUT HOW PROTECTED SOMEDAY THIS CELL TOWER BY TREES. THIS IS SILVICULTURE SO PICTURE YOURSELF LOOKING AT THAT TOWER WHY NO IT -- WITH NO TREES.

SO AS I'VE SAID, THERE ARE LEASING 6400 SQUARE FEET OUT OF 22 ACRES. SO THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER DOES RETAIN THE RIGHT TO HARVEST TREES.

HERE'S THE APPLICANT'S PICTURE THAT THEY'VE SAID THIS IS THE WORST VIEW, BUT IMAGINE THIS VIEW ALL OVER WITH NO TREES.

AND HERE IS THE LOCATION. THEY HAVE SAID THAT THEY CAN'T GO FURTHER EAST OR SOUTH. AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHERE THIS TOWER GOES BECAUSE IT DOES ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. AND WHAT I SHOW IS THAT EVEN A SIMPLE PRD, WHICH MUST REMAIN -- RETAIN 70 TO 80% WILL HAVE AN EXPOSED 199 FOOT TOWER. POSSIBLE RESULTS YOU CAN SEE THERE. IMPEDIMENTS TO THAT PROPERTY.

SO THE PROPOSED TOWER FAILS TO MEET 60812P.

IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA.

IT HAS AN ADVERSE EFFECT. AND BY THE WAYTIOUS ALTHOUGH IT'S 679 FEET FROM THE SCENIC HIGHWAY, WITHOUT TREES AND EVEN WITH ONLY THOSE 75 FOOT SCENIC EDGE, IT WOULD BE QUITE VISIBLE.

199 FEET IS MUCH MUCH TALLER THAN AN 80 FOOT PINE.

SO ENCOURAGE YOU TO DENY THIS CELL TOWER, TAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THIS. THANKS SO MUCH.

>> THANKS SO MUCH. ANYONE ELSE?

GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING.

I'LL TRY NOT TO REPEAT WHAT MY PREDECESSOR TALKED ABOUT, BUT 5210 BELL FORD ROAD JACKSON VILLE.

NOTABLY YOU DIDN'T SEE ANY PICTURES FROM THEIR PROPERTY.

IT IS DIRECTLY BEHIND THEIR PROPERTY.

300 FEET FROM THEIR PROPERTY LINE.

IT'S A WORKING RANCH. THEY'RE OUT THERE.

YOU CAN SEE IT. IT'S THOSE PICTURES ARE TAKEN FROM A PARTICULAR ANGLE. AND A FOLLOWUP ON WHAT YOU JUST HEARD. THE FACT THAT IT'S SCENIC HIGHWAY IS IMPORTANT. IT'S 600 FEET BACK.

IT'S THE BARE MINIMUM. IN FACT THE FOOTPRINT OF THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE WILL ACTUALLY BE WITHIN 600 FEET. THE TOWER ITSELF WON'T BE BUT IT ACTUALLY BE WITHIN 600 FEET. THEY WANT THE BARE MINIMUM.

THEY'VE GOT AREAS IN THE BACK. YOU SAW THE WETLAND MAP.

THERE'S AREAS BEHIND THAT THAT THEY COULD GO EVEN FARTHER BACK BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TOWER THAT'S 100 FEET ABOVE THE EXISTING TREE LINE. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MATTERED BUT GOING BACK TO THE SCONIC HIGHWAY, IT'S A SCENIC HIGHWAY. THERE'S NO WATER THAT RUNS DOWN THAT LINE. THERE'S MY CLIENT IN FACT HAD TO BUILD A POND AND PROVIDE ITS OWN WATER FOR FIRE PREVENTION, BECAUSE IT'S THERE. AND I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT.

YOU'VE HEARD HIM TALK ABOUT AGRICULTURE.

THIS TOWER IS NOT COMPATIBLE AT ALL WITH ANY OF THESE USES.

IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE. IT'S WITHIN 75 FEET OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND AGAIN, YOU JUST SAW A MAP OF WHAT THAT WOULD DO TO PREVENT ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY PLUS THOSE TREES ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO GET CUT IF IT'S USED BY ITS -- IN ITS CURRENT FORM.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE DIDN'T HEAR AT THE MEETING WAS TO TALK ABOUT THE REAL ESTATE VALUES. YOUR PROPERTY VALUES GO DOWN BY 2.65%. THAT'S RESIDENTIAL, NOT COMMERCIAL. IF YOU'RE WITHIN SITE, IT GOES DOWN OVER 9% AND I HAVE A COPY OF THAT WE CAN PUT INTO THE RECORD. BUT THE SIMPLE FACT IS THOSE PROPERTY VALUES ARE GOING TO GO DOWN.

THERE'S NO WATER OUT THERE. THERE'S NO SERVICES OUT THERE.

WE TALK ABOUT -- THERE'S A REASON WHY THEY SAY THERE'S NO FIRE RISK. BECAUSE OF ALL THE EQUIPMENT, THE EQUIPMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO PUT ON THOSE TOWERS.

THEY HAVE TO HAVE THAT BECAUSE THERE'S NO WATER.

[09:15:01]

AND YOU'RE IN AN AGRICULTURAL AREA.

THIS IS JUST THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME TO BE PUTTING THIS CELL TOWER. THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT THEY'RE HOLDING AGAINST THEM IS SAYING IT DOESN'T IMPACT ANYBODY OUT THERE. YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT AS YOU FIND IT AND THE FACT IS IT'S GOING TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THAT AREA.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE ON AGENDA NUMBER 8?

>> MOST OF YOU KNOW ME. BUT I HAVE NOT MET SARAH ARNOLD.

SO LET ME INTRODUCE MYSELF TO SARAH.

AND REINTRODUCE MYSELF TO THE REST OF YOU.

I AM ROBERT DURHAM. I LIVE AT 1060 POPLY ROAD.

I MOVED THERE IN 1974. IF YOU ALL WANT TO DO THE MATH, I LIVED IN THAT ONE PLACE FOR 52 YEARS.

BOTH OF MY CHILDREN LIVE IN FRUIT COVE.

OVER 40 YEARS AGO, I PURCHASED THIS 22.6 ACRES OF LAND.

IT WAS A LONG TIME INVESTMENT AND I HOPED DOWN THE ROAD, IT WOULD HELP MY CHILDREN FINANCIALLY.

THIS PROPERTY JOINS THE PROPERTY WHERE THE CELL TOWER IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED. THE TOWER LAST MEETING THEY SAID IT WOULD BE 40 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

TODAY SHE SAID 75. SO GOING ON THE 40 FEET FROM LAST MEETING, IF THAT TOWER FELL, 159 FEET OF IT WOULD BE ON MY PROPERTY. THIS WILL DEVALUE MY PROPERTY.

I CANNOT DEVELOP IT. NOBODY WANTS TO BUILD A HOUSE WITH A MONSTER TOWER IN THE BACKYARD.

I READ ON THE INTERNET WHERE ALL PROPERTY AJOINING A CELL TOWER DEVALUED BY 30%. BUT IN MY CASE, I BELIEVE IT WILL EXCEED BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF THE TOWER SO CLOSE TO MY PROPERTY LINE. TO SUM IT UP, YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE HIM GETTING PAID AND ME AND ALL THE NEIGHBORS TAKING A LOSS IF IT YOU BUILD A TOWER. THIS IS NOT RIGHT.

THIS IS WRONG. IT SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED.

AND NO VOTE WOULD BE GOOD FOR MY PROPERTY, GOOD FOR WILLIAM [INDISCERNIBLE] AND GOOD FOR THE COUNTY.

ONE OTHER THING YOU MAY NOT KNOW THAT IN FEBRUARY 2ND, 2024, I RECEIVED A REGISTERED LETTER FRO THE SAME COMPANY WANTING ME TO PUT A CELL TOWER ON MY PROPERTY.

I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS A GOOD IDEA THEN.

AND I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA NOW.

ALSO, THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY REVIEWED THIS REQUEST.

THEY VOTED TO DENY THE BUILDING OF THE TOWER BY A VOTE OF 5-2.

ONCE AGAIN, I'M ASKING YOU TO VOTE TO DENY BUILDING THIS TOWER. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME. ON AGENDA NUMBER ITEM 8.

GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING.

HELLO. MY NAME IS KELLY PRESCOTT.

KELLY DURHAM PRESCOTT. ROBERT DURHAM IS MY FATHER.

THIS IS PROPERTY THAT I'M GOING TO -- OH, YOU SHOULD SAY I'M FROM FRUIT COVE. BUT MAYBE HE TOLD YOU THAT.

THIS IS PROPERTY FROM I'M GOING TO INHERIT.

AND WHAT I'D -- I KNOW WE'VE HAD ALL THE EXPERTS AND PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THIS, BUT REALLY THE IMPACT IS TO ME AND TO OUR FAMILY. I GUESS IN ADDITION TO THE WAY IT'S GOING TO LOOK ALONG STATE ROAD 13.

BUT WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT AND WHEN YOU DRIVE DOWN A ROAD AND SEE A CELL PHONE TOWER, WHAT DO YOU THINK? IS IT GREAT TO SEE? NO, IT'S NOT.

AND IF YOU PUT -- IF YOU ALLOW THEM TO PUT THE CELL PHONE TOWER WHERE IT'S GOING TO SHOW WHEN WE DEVELOP OUR PROPERTY DOWN THE ROAD, IT'S GOING TO BE AN EYESORE.

AND YOU MAY HAVE EXPERTS THAT SAY IT DOESN'T DIMINISH VALUE.

BUT IF YOU PERSONALLY WERE LOOKING TO GO PICK A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND YOU WANTED TO SPEND YOUR MONEY, WOULD YOU SPEND IT WHERE YOU HAD TO SEE A CELL PHONE TOWER? THEY'RE ATROCITIES. YOU CAN'T HIDE THEM, COVER THEM UP, MAKE THEM LOOK LIKE PALM TREE SO I'LL ASK YOU TO THINK

[09:20:02]

ABOUT THAT. THIS IS A -- IT IMPACTS ME.

IT IMPACTS OUR FAMILY AND THE WAY IT'S GOING TO LOOK AROUND STATE ROAD 13 AND I KNOW YOU CAN TAKE PICTURES AND DO IT AT CERTAIN ANGLES WHERE THINGS SEEM MINIMIZED BUT PLEASE CONSIDER THIS. AND PLEASE DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME. GOOD EVENING.

>> I'LL MAKE IT QUICK. HI, I'M AT 8960 COUNTY ROAD 13.

NORTH. AND WE'RE TO THE SOUTH OF THE POJECT. WE MOVED THERE ALMOST 20 YEARS AGO TO RAISE HORSES. AND QUITE HONESTLY, I NEVER THOUGHT WE'D GET TO THIS POINT. WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY.

MY CONCERN IS IT'S PREDOMINANTLY AGRICULTURAL DOWN THERE.

THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET FROM US RIGHT NOW IS OWNED BY THE ARNOLD FAMILY. AND THEY LEASE IT OUT TO TIMBER COMPANIES. AND THEY DID JUST REPLANT ACROSS THE STREET NEW TIMBER. I GUESS THE CRUX OF THE WHOLE ARGUMENT REALLY TO MY POINT OF VIEW IS THE FACT THAT IT'S AGRICULTURAL. I DON'T THINK IT'LL EVER BE DEVELOPED TO THE POINT WHERE IT NEEDS -- WHERE THE DENSITY REQUIRES ANOTHER CELL TOWER IN THAT AREA.

QUITE HONESTLY, I HAVE VERIZON AND I GET PRETTY GOOD RECEPTION THERE. BUBBA

>> BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU VOTE NO AND HONOR THE RESPECT AND DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

>> GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING.

>> HI. HOW YOU ALL DOING? TED SLAVIN.COM. LIVED HERE SINCE NOVEMBER 5TH OF 1999. I AGREE WITH ALL THE WITNESSES.

I USED TO TRAVEL THAT ROUTE A LOT.

WITH MY LATE FRIEND DAVID QUEEN TO VISIT STETSON KENNEDY, OUR HERO FOR WHOM THIS COUNTY PARK WAS DEDICATED.

WE DON'T WANT TO MESS THIS AREA UP.

AND DID I UNDERSTAND THAT ONE OF THE COMPANY WITNESSES OR ONE OF THE COMPANY ATTORNEYS SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT THIS IS THE LAST FULLY WOODED ACREAGE IN THAT AREA? BY THE WAY, DO WE HAVE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PCA HERE? DO WE GET TRANSCRIPTS OF THE PCA HEARINGS? BECAUSE I KNOW IN THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, THERE WAS A RESOLUTION ON AN ORDINANCE PASSED A FEW YEARS AGO.

STATING IF YOU WERE APPEALING FROM A ZONING DECISION OR WANTING A ZONING DECISION, YOU HAD TO PAY FOR THE TRANSCRIPT.

I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL FOR US IF YOU AND WE COULD READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF PCA HEARINGS.

AND IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE IN AN AWFUL HURRY TO APPROVE THIS THING WITHOUT ANY REASON -- SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

FOR INSTANCE, WHAT ABOUT TECHLOGICALLY CHANGE? APPARENTLY THERE ARE SO-CALLED EXPERT -- AND I WOULD CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO SHELDON RAM DON'S BOOK THAT I CITED TO YOU BEFORE.

TRUST US, WE'RE EXPERTS. EXPERT TESTIMONY.

THEY'RE A DIME A DOZEN. HOW MUCH WAS THIS GUY PAID? COULD WE ASK HIM? HOW MUCH WAS THE EXPERT PAID FOR THE COMPANY. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW.

PLEASE ASK. THAT'S -- IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE, IF THERE'S AN EXPERT, THE TRIER OF FACT HAS THE RIGHT TO KNOW, SO PLEASE ASK THEM WHEN I'M DONE BUT I'M THINKING YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE. FOR INSTANCE, WHY ARE THEY TREATING CELL PHONE TECHNOLOGY TOWER TECHNOLOGY AS A CONSTANT? AS A GIVEN. IT CHANGES CONSTANTLY.

IT IMPROVES CONSTANTLY. AND BY THE WAY, I PERSONALLY WORKED FOR YEARS TO GET T-MOBILE TO GET US BETTER COVERAGE THAN THE ISLAND. AND I CALLED THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF T-MOBILE IN WASHINGTON STATE. LEFT MESSAGES AT HIS HOUSE BECAUSE THAT'S THE ADDRESS HE HAD REGISTERED WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR. I THINK HE THOUGHT HE WAS A PEST. BUT WE FINALLY GOT BETTER COVERAGE ON ANASTASIA ISLAND AND LET ME TELL YOU.

MY FRIEND HENLEY DEAN TOLD ME THAT -- EXCUSE ME.

CELL PHONE'S RINGING. HOW POETIC.

I'LL TURN THIS DOWN. SORRY.

SORRY. --

>> POETIC WASN'T THE WORD I WAS THINKING.

>> YEAH. HENLEY DEAN TOLD ME THAT APPARENTLY THE COUNTY IN PURSUIT OF GETTING BETTER CELL PHONE COVERAGE WAS ASKED IF BY A DEVELOPER TO ALLOW A TOWER TO BE BUILT NEAR THE PUBLIC'S ON ANASTASIA ISLAND AND APPARENTLY THE DEVELOPER JUMPED THE GUN AND BUILT THE TOWER WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COUNTY. IS THAT CORRECT IS THERE IN LITIGATION PENDING? HENRY TOLD ME ABOUT THAT

ANYONE ELSE? PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME ON AGENDA NUMBER 8. OKAY.

[09:25:01]

SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> OKAY. BACK TO THE BOARD.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? >> OH, SORRY.

WE HAVE ONE MORE. >> NOPE.

SORRY. TOO LATE.

I'M KIDDING. COME ON.

BUT YOU GOT TO HURRY. AND IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO SPEAK, COME NOW HAD BECAUSE IT'S GETTING LATE.

>> BY ALL MEANS, MOVE AT A GLACIAL PACE.

>> HELLO. GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS MABEL PEREZ. I'M FROM 300 TERRELLIS BAY DRIVE. THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE INFORMATION ON COVERAGE AND CELL PHONE MAPS AND ALL THAT FANCY STUFF, BUT AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT MAKING A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT A CELL PHONE TOWER BELONGS, I THINK THE BIGGEST ISSUE IS COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EXISTING AREA.

I'VE LIVED IN NORTHEAST FLORIDA SINCE 2007, IN FLORIDA SINCE 1996, AND A LOT'S CHANGED AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF GROWTH AROUND THE STATE. BUT I THINK THAT COMPATIBILITY PLAYS A HUGE ROLE IN THIS APPLICATION AND I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYONE MOVES NEAR COLLEY COVE TO HAVE HIGH TECH SERVICE.

THEY MOVE TO COLLEY COVE BECAUSE IT'S QUIET AND SCENIC AND BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GET AWAY FROM ALL THE TRAFFIC OF 16 AND EVERYWHERE ELSE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

SO I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT COMPATIBILITY AS A BIG PART OF THAT. AND THEN ALSO LOOK AT HOW PEOPLE ARE USING THEIR CELL PHONES, SO IF THE MINDSET IS THAT AS MORE GROWTH HAPPENS AND MORE HOMES ARE BUILT IN THE AREA, PEOPLE WILL NEED MORE 5G SERVICE, ASK YOURSELVES WHEN YOU GO HOME, ARE YOU USING WHEN YOU'RE ANALYZING THOSE COVERAGE MAPS THEY'RE SHOWING GAPS WITHIN VERIZON, IS THIS AN ISSUE THAT IS JUST FOR VERIZO, DOES SOME OF THE OTHER PROVIDERS ALSO HAVE THE GAPS AND IS THIS A FAILURE WITH VERIZON NOT KEEPING UP WITH TECHNOLOGY OR IS THIS TRULY AN ISSUE WHERE THERE IS A GAP IN SERVICE? COLEE COVE IS A BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY, THERE ARE LOTS OF TREES, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, BUT, AGAIN, NO ONE MOVES TO THAT AREA FOR HIGH TECH SERVICE, RIGHT? NO ONE MOVES OUT THERE TO BE SUPER CONNECTED.

AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL SHOULD REALLY LOOK AT WHEN, YOU KNOW, ANALYZING ALL THE FACTS AND MAKING YOUR DECISION, I THINK THEY MADE THE RIGHT CHOICE TO DENY THIS

SPECIAL USE APPLICATION. >> THANK YOU.

>> GOOD EVENING. >> HELLO.

HI NAME IS CORY, I'M A ST. JOHN'S COUNTY RESIDENT, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT MAY BELIEVE POINTED OUT, BUT I WANTED TO POINT OUT TWO THINGS THAT I THOUGHT DIDN'T QUITE RESONATE CORRECTLY. THE APPLICANT POINTS TO THE NUMBER OF 911 CALLS AS EVIDENCE THAT ADDITIONAL CAPACITY IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, HOWEVER, THE VOLUME OF 911 CALLS ALONE DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT EXISTING EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS ARE INADEQUATE OR THAT THIS TOWER IS NECESSARY.

OUR COMMUNITY HAS WEATHERED HURRICANES, POWER OUTAGES AND SERVICE DISRUPTIONS. WHILE MAINTAINING ACCESS TO EMERGENCY SERVICES. EMERGENCY CALLS RECEIVE PRIORITY TREATMENT ON WIRELESS NETWORKS AND CARRIERS ARE REQUIRED TO ROUTE 911 CALLS WHENEVER POSSIBLE.

THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SHOWN THEIR RESIDENCE ARE UNABLE TO REACH 911 TODAY, OR THAT PUBLIC SAFETY IS COMPROMISED WITHOUT THIS TOWER. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE TOWER DOES NOT POSE A FIRE HAZARD, HOWEVER, THE EXISTING TOWER ON IRISH ROSE AND ASHLEY OAKS DISPLAYS A WARNING SIGNAGE RELATED TO FIRE DANGER AND STATES, THIS SITE HAS AN ELEVATED WILDFIRE HAZARD POTENTIAL.

THIS SIGN'S PRESENCE RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EQUIPMENT. AND I DO HAVE A PICTURE OF THAT.

SEE IF I CAN FIND IT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE IT

HERE OR NOT. >> PUT IT ON THAT CENTRE BLOCK

THERE. >> SO WHERE IS THAT SIGN

[09:30:17]

LOCATED?

>> SURROUNDING THE ASHLEY OAKS TOWER, I HAVE A PICTURE OF IT,

ON IRISH ROSE. >> OKAY.

>> 16 AND 13. >> OKAY.

>> GREAT, THANK YOU. >> I JUST WANT TO JUST SAY THAT I DON'T THINK THAT HER SUGGESTION WAS THAT EVERYBODY USING THE CELL PHONE WAS TRYING TO DIAL 911, I THINK SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CALLS IN A 911 THAT CAME FROM CELL PHONES WAS VERY HIGH. BUT DID I GET THAT RIGHT? OKAY. THANK YOU.

DO YOU HAVE ANY REBUTTAL? OKAY.

COME ON. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? OKAY.

SEE NONE WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> YOU'RE RIGHT, COMMISSIONER MURPHY.

I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT THAT MOST 911 CALLS COME IN FROM WIRELESS HAND SETS, THEY'RE NOT LANDLINES ANYMORE, PEOPLE NEED TO BE ABLE TO USE THEIR CELL PHONES AND THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO USE THEM OUTSIDE. AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE OUT THERE ARE CUTTING TREES DOWN NEED TO BE ABLE TO USE THEIR CELL PHONE IF SOMEBODY GETS HURT OUT THERE. AGRICULTURE IS A DANGEROUS INDUSTRY. JUST BECAUSE YOU LIVE IN A REMOTE AREA OR YOU'RE IN A REMOTE AREA DOES NOT MAKE YOU IMMUNE FROM THE PEARLS OF HUMAN LIFE, AND GOOD ROBUST COVERAGE IS NECESSARY. MIKE, WOULD YOU TALK ABOUT LAND OWNERS PLANS FOR THE PROPERTY AND THE GROUNDING ON THE TOWER AND WHETHER YOU'VE EVER PUT ONE OF THOSE IRISH SIGNS ON ANY OF THE TOWERS YOU'VE EVER DEVELOPED?

>> SO THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY DON'T HAVE ANY IMMEDIATE PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT. I'M SORRY, MIKE, OWNER OF GOLDSTREAM TOWERS. 2200 WINTER SPRINGS BOULEVARD,

SUITE 106. >> THANK YOU.

>> THEY DON'T HAVE ANY IMMEDIATE PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. THERE ARE PINE TREES THAT ARE SO OVERGROWN THEY'RE NOT HARVESTABLE, WE WERE TRYING TO OFFSET SOME OF THE COSTS BY HARVESTING THE TREES ALONG THE ACCESS ROAD, BUT IT WASN'T DOABLE.

>> BECAUSE THEY ARE. >> IT'S OVERGROWN, THEY'RE TOO THIN. THEY GREW TOO CLOSE TOGETHER.

I'M NOT A TREE EXPERT. BUT WHEN WE PUT SOME PEOPLE OUT TO LOOK AT IT, TO DO THE HARVESTING THEY SAID IT WAS NO GOOD. AS FAR AS GROUNDING GOES, THE TOWER ARE GROUNDED FOR LIGHTNING STRIKES AND IT DISBURSES THE LIGHTNING AND THEN AS FAR AS THE FIRE SIGN, I'VE NEVER PUT ONE OF THOSE ON A TOWER SITE, SO I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO THAT.

BUT AND WE HAVE THE FCC NUMBER ON THERE, WE HAVE OUR ADDRESS, AND WE HAVE -- THAT'S ABOUT IT. WE DON'T HAVE --

>> NO TRESPASSING. >> WE DON'T HAVE FIRE SIGNS.

NEVER SEEN THAT BEFORE. >> OKAY.

>> OKAY. WE HAD THE TOWER IS 75 FEET FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. THAT IS SHOWN IN THE PLANS IN YOUR PACKAGE. THE FALL ZONE RADIUS IS CERTIFIED BY A CERTIFIED ENGINEER, THAT'S IN YOUR PACKAGE TOO, AND THAT MEANS IT WILL NOT FALL OUTSIDE OF A 50-FOOT RADIUS OF THE TOWER. THERE IS NO DANGER TO THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE NORTH. MR. COMP TONNE IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE TECHNOLOGY ISSUES YOU HEARD, AND REENFORCE HIS VIEW THAT THERE IS CHANGE OUT THERE, AND THE CHANGE IS WHAT'S NECESSITATING THE NEED FOR THE TOWER.

>> THANK YOU. >> I FIND IT VERY IRONIC WHEN PEOPLE SAY MY PHONE WORKS GREAT THERE.

I WISH THAT WOULD BE THE CASE, BECAUSE I KNOW BETTER.

THEY DON'T. MAYBE THEY'RE ABLE TO MAKE A VOICE CALL, VOICE CALLS ARE OUR HIGHEST PRIORITY TRAFFIC.

THEREFORE WHEN THE NETWORK DOES BREAK IN THAT AREA, THAT WILL BE THE LAST THING TO GO, THAT WILL WORK AND THEN YOU WILL START T - GETTING THE BLOCKED CALL, THE SOS IF YOU'VE EVER SEEN THAT.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET AHEAD OF THAT.

WE'RE TRYING TO GET AHEAD OF THE BUILD-OUT, WE'RE TRYING TO GET AHEAD OF THE TRAFFIC DEMAND. AGAIN, WE'RE NOT HERE BECAUSE THIS IS THE EASIEST ANSWER. WE'RE NOT HERE BECAUSE THIS IS THE QUICKEST ANSWER. THIS IS THE HARDEST THING FOR US TO DO IS TO BUILD A NEW SITE, IT'S THE MOST CAPITAL THAT WE HAVE TO EXPEND, AND WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS TO BUILD THIS.

SO COMMENTS WERE MADE ABOUT AS SOON AS YOU GO IN THE HOUSE WIFI WORKS. WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE POWER YOU DON'T HAVE WIFI EITHER. WE INSTALL GENERATORS, WE EXERCISE THOSE GENERATORS WEEKLY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE AVAILABLE WHEN THERE IS A STORM. TO MAKE SURE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DO WORK UP AND DOWN THAT SCENIC HIGHWAY AND FOR ANYONE IN THE HOUSE OR OUTSIDE IN THE YARD.

[09:35:03]

THAT'S BASICALLY EVERYTHING I MADE NOTES TO.

>> THANK YOU. >> AND, HAVE YOU HAD ANY INTEREST FROM T-MOBILE ON THIS PARTICULAR TOWER LOCATION?

>> YES, WE'VE BEEN CONTACTED BY T-MOBILE.

WE'RE JUST GETTING STARTED ON THE LEASING PROCESS FOR THEM TO

COME ON THE TOWER AS WELL. >> AND THE -- IS MY POWER POINT

BACK UP? >> IT CAN BE.

>> MR. -- THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SOUTH SAID THAT WE DIDN'T SHOW WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE FROM HIS PROPERTY.

WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO GO ON PRIVATE PROPERTY TO GET A VIEW FROM SOMEBODY'S BACKYARD, BUT IN THE PHOTOS --

>> ONE OF THE PHOTO SHOTS, HERE'S HIS HOUSE, AGAIN, WE'RE A THOUSAND FEET AWAY FROM HIS HOUSE.

BUT ONE OF THE PHOTOS SIM SHOTS IS TAKEN FROM STATE ROAD 13 AND HIS DRIVEWAY, AND THERE IS NO VIEW OF THE TOWER.

I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE MAIN MAP TO SHOW YOU THAT.

THAT NUMBER TWO, RIGHT THERE. THAT'S HIS PROPERTY.

AND THERE IS NO VIEW OF THE TOWER FROM THE ROAD.

AGAIN, WE CAN'T GO INTERIOR TO HIS PROPERTY.

AND HE WANTS US TO MOVE IT BACK. AND AS I SAID, WE WOULD DO THAT, WE SHIFT IT FROM, YOU KNOW, MAKE HIM HAPPY AND THEN WE ALIENAE THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT'S TO THE SOUTHEAST.

SO IT'S BEEN LOCATED SO THAT WE DON'T -- SO THAT WE MAXIMIZE THE SEPARATION FROM ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT ARE NEARBY. I'M GOING TO JUST CLOSE WITH SAYING THIS IS AGRICULTURE PROPERTY, VERY, VERY LITTLE VISIBILITY, PROVIDES A PUBLIC SERVICE, IF WE CAN'T PUT IT HERE IN AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY WITH SURROUNDING CULTURE AND AGRICULTURE AND VERY FEW HOMES, WHERE CAN WE GO? WE'VE CHOSEN THE BEST PROPERTY OUT IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, A WOODED TRACT, WHERE IT CAN MEET ALL OF THE SETBACKS, THE TREES ARE THERE. WE WOULD ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL TONIGHT. AND I'M SORRY WE KEPT YOU SO

LATE. >> OKAY.

MR. ARNOLD, ANYTHING? >> YEAH, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

AND THANK YOU TO THE RESIDENTS AGAIN FOR COMING OUT AND SPEAKING. I'M GOING TO TAKE AN UNUSUAL POSITION ON THIS. I'M GOING TO DISAGREE WITH PCA, AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY. MR. AND MRZ DURAM, I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PROPERTY AND I'VE LIVED THERE WITH MY FAMILY FOR YEARS. I'M PARTIAL TO OUR PART OF 13.

WE DO HAVE CELL PHONES, AND WE ARE OUT THERE -- THEY DON'T ALWAYS WORK. WE'RE NOT ALWAYS ON WIFI, WE LOSE POWER A LOT, IT'S VERY RURAL, IT'S VERY BEAUTIFUL, THAT'S WHY WE LIVE OUT THERE. BUT WE HAVE HAD EMERGENCIES, OUR NEIGHBOURS HAVE HAD EMERGENCIES, WE HAD A HOUSE STRUCK BY LIGHTNING AND BURN DOWN SEVERAL YEARS AGO.

AND SO I APPRECIATE YOU ALL TRYING TO FIND A PLACE WHERE TO PUT THIS, WHERE IT WILL BE THE LEAST DETRIMENTAL TO ALL THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA, I APPRECIATE IT BEING THE 200 FEET AND NOT LIGHTED -- OR NOT LIT, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU RESPECTING THE SCENIC HIGHWAY AND THE BUFFERS.

I KNOW AT ONE POINT, THERE WAS -- THE COUNTY WAS EYEING A WASTE WATER PLANT TO BE ON THE 13.

AND I WENT NUTS. SO I APPRECIATE YOU NOT DOING THAT, BUT I DO THINK THAT WITH INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SAFETY, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE OPPORTUNITIES WHERE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. EITHER THEY'RE TOO CLOSE TO HOMES OR THEY'RE TOO FAR AWAY, AND AT SOME POINT WE'RE RUNNING INTO A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE SERVICE COVERAGE THAT WE NEED, AND SO, AGAIN, AS SOMEBODY WHO WILL BE NEIGHBOURED TO THIS, I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT JUST FROM ME AND MY NEIGHBOURS, OUR EXPERIENCES, WE NEED SERVICE.

SO, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. >> K ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE

BOARD? >> YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

>> JUST BRIEFLY, YOU HAVE A BEAUTIFUL PROPERTY OUT THERE, IF I WAS IN YOUR POSITION I WOULD BE SITTING IN THE SAME SEAT OPPOSING THIS. I DON'T BLAME ANYBODY ONE BIT.

BUT I DO HAVE THESE IN MY NEIGHBOURHOOD, THE QUESTION IS RAISED, WOULD YOU WANT THIS IN YOUR BACKYARD, YES I HAVE BEEN IN AND AROUND MY BACKYARD, ALL ALONG RACETRACK ROAD, I AM SURROUNDED CONSTANTLY WHEN I'M DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD BY CELL PHONE TOWERS. IT IS INFRASTRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE SOMETIMES IS AESTHETICALLY UNPLEASING, BUT I THINK SHE RAISED A GREAT POINT, IF IT'S NOT HERE, THIS IS

[09:40:03]

USUALLY THE KIND OF PROPERTY THAT PEOPLE ARE DESCRIBING WHEN THEY SAY DON'T PUT IT IN ANY BACKYARD AND THEY'RE DESCRIBING A PLACE LIKE THIS. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY, WHICH OF COURSE IS IMPOSSIBLE.

BUT IT'S NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE, SO I SUPPORT IT.

>> OKAY. >> YEAH, MOTION TO APPROVE, ESPECIALLY USED PERMIT, 2026-0, BASED UPON 11 FINDINGS OF FACT KS AND 10 CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST.

[9. Public Hearing * PLNAPPL 2026-09 St. Thomas Island Parkway Cell Tower. Request to appeal the Planning and Zoning Agency (PZA) approval of a Special Use Permit (SUPMAJ 2025-29) to allow for the construction of a 180-foot monopole communication tower and support facilities within Open Rural (OR) zoning, specifically located approximately 0.23 miles east of the intersection between St Thomas Island Parkway and Saint Croix Island Drive. Motion to approve was made by Mr. Matovina, seconded by Mrs. Perkins, and passed with a vote of 4-3. Dissenting votes by Mr. Hilsenbeck, Mr. Olson, and Mr. Labanowski.]

>> OKAY. THAT PASSES 3-2.

LET'S MOVE ON TO NUMBER 9. I'M GOING TO LET COMMISSIONER JOSEPH GO LAST. COMMISSIONER EARL IF YOU WOULD -- YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BRING SOMETHING BACK.

>> OKAY, WE'RE ON NUMBER NINE, THANK YOU.

I HAD 20 EMAILS, NO MEETINGS. >> COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. THREE EMAILS, NO RECORD OF ANY MEETINGS, ALTHOUGH I DO BELIEVE I HAD A PHONE CALL WITH

MR. WESTER TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER

TAYLOR. >> YES, I HAD WELL OVER 50 EMAILS ON THIS. AND NO MEETINGS.

>> OKAY. I HAD A WHOLE BUNCH OF EMAILS TOO, AND NO MEETINGS. SO COMMISSIONER JOSEPH, YOU ARE

IN LAST BUT NOT LEAST. >> OOPS, SORRY.

>> 33 OR MORE EMAILS, I THOUGHT I HAD A MEETING.

BUT IT SAYS NO MEETINGS ON HERE, SO I'M NOT SURE.

>> OKAY. MS. COLINS, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

> ONE SECOND. >> AND IF YOU WOULD USE THAT MICROPHONE IF YOU GET THE CHANCE SO WE CAN PICK IT UP ON THE

VIDEO. >> CAN YOU GUYS SEE THE --

>> IT SHOULD BE UP THERE, DO YOU HAVE THE CLICKER?

>> IT'S ON THE SCREEN. THERE YOU GO.

WELL, GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, I'M BLISS, I'M A RESIDENT AT 240 I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MARGARIT, COLINS.

SO THANK YOU FOR HEARING US AND THANK YOU FOR HEARING HOW WE

FEEL -- >> THROUGH THE CHAIR --

>> SORRY. COULD YOU PUT YOUR NAME -- ARE

YOU MISS COLINS? >> NO, I'M SPEAKING ON HER

BEHALF. >> CAN YOU PUT YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS ON THE RECORD. >> WHERE DO YOU WANT ME TO PUT

IT? >> NO, JUST RIGHT IN THE

MICROPHONE. >> I'M SORRY.

JUST MOVE THAT THING AROUND. >> IT'S BLISS TKACZYK, AND I'M

240 PETER ISLAND DRIVE. >> DO WE HAVE -- WE DO? OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, BLISS. >> IF YOU DON'T MIND CALLING ME

BLISS. >> NO ONE CAN PRONOUNCE MY LAST NAME, SO I GET IT. SO I UNDERSTAND YOU GUYS ARE TIRED, AND WE HAVE ASKED FOR YOU GUYS TO REVIEW THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE PCA ON JULY 23RD, THIS PERMIT IS FOR AN 180 FOOT CELL PHONE POLE. THE IMAGE ON THE SLIDE IS THE APPLICANT'S OWN PHOTO SIMULATION TAKEN IN OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD.

WE ASK YOU -- OH, NO, WHICH ONE DO I CLICK?

>> TYLER WILL COME DOWN THERE AND HELP YOU OUT.

>> I GOT IT. WE ASK YOU TO APPROVE OUR APPEAL WHICH DENIES THE PERMIT FOR FIVE REASONS.

THE TOWER DOESN'T FIT THE NEIGHBOURHOOD.

NEED WASN'T PROVEN. ALTERNATIVES WEREN'T SHOWN.

FLOOD, WIND AND FIRE RISKS WEREN'T ADDRESSED, AND THE BOARD PACKING CONTAINS NO APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY VALUES.

THIS IS A VIDEO THAT WE PUT TOGETHER OF OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD.

SO YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND WHAT IT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE.

>> ST. JOHN'S AND MEADOW RIDGE ARE FACING A HARSH NEW REALITY.

IN JULY, THE ST. JOHN'S COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY APPROVED THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 180 FOOT MONOPOLE TOLD IN THIS ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY, THE RESIDENTS HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS.

[09:45:02]

THAT TOWER PROBABLY FROM OUR HOMES OR AT LEAST OUR ADDRESS.

>> THE REASON WHY WE MOVED HERE WAS BECAUSE OF THE THE LAND AND THE TREES AND THE NATURE, AND BEING ABLE TO SEE WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT OUR LOT, A RED TAIL FOX BACK HERE.

WE SAW DEERS, RIGHT AND LEFT, >> WE CHOSE THIS NEIGHBOURHOOD FOR A REASON. PRIVACY, THE QUIET.S, THE - MORE THAN 660 HOUSEHOLDS CALL THESE COMMUNITIES HOME.

NOW, A 180-FOOT CELL TOWER IS PROPOSED NEAR OUR RESIDENTIAL

NEIGHBOURHOOD. >> WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THE STRUCTURE AND THERE'S NOTHING ELSE LIKE THE STRUCTURE AND ANY NEIGHBOURHOOD OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD, AND THIS STRUCTURE IS GOING TO BE ALMOST TWICE THE SIZE OF THE TREE LINE.

SO BASICALLY ALL OF US ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE THAT TOWER

FROM OUR HOMES OR OUR DRIVEWAYS. >> IT'S AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBOURHOOD, AGAIN, AND IT DOES NOT BELONG IN OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD BECAUSE IT'S HERE, IT'S AGRICULTURAL, AND IT'S

LUSH, AND IT'S BEAUTIFUL. >> THIS ISN'T AN INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR. IT'S A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY SURROUNDED BY HOMES, PINES, AND NATURAL LAND.

AT 180 FEET, THE PROPOSED TO YOUR WOULD RISE WELL ABOVE OUR ROOF TOPS AND THE SURROUNDING TREES.

THE APPLICANTS' OWN SIMULATION SHOW IT.

LANDSCAPING AT THE BASE WON'T CHANGE THAT.

>> WE HAVE TWO OTHER TOWERS THAT ARE A MILE AND A HALF FROM MY HOUSE. RIGHT? AND THOSE HAVE NOT BEEN TURNED ON.

SO WHY DON'T WE TURN THOSE TWO TOWERS ON, THEN SEE IF WE HAVE A NEED FOR A THIRD TOWER. BECAUSE I'VE ATTENDED EVERY MEETING AND THE STUDY THEY DID DIDN'T INCLUDE THOSE TWO TOWERS.

>> THE APPLICANTS' FUTURE GROWTH MEANS MORE TOWERS ARE NEEDED.

BUT THE SAME APPLICANT IS BUILDING TWO OTHER 170-FOOT TOWERS LESS THAN A MILE AND A HALF AWAY.

THAT WOULD PUT THREE TOWERS WITHIN LESS THAN 2 MILES.

SO HERE'S THE QUESTION. WHY IS A THIRD TOWER NEEDED BEFORE THE OTHER TWO WERE OPERATING AND THEIR CONTRIBUTION

TO COVERAGE HAS BEEN EVALUATED. >> WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH ALL OF THIS? THEY'RE PUTTING THESE TOWERS EVERYWHERE. ARE WE GOING TO HAVE GIANT PLATFORMS OF STEEL EVERY MILE AWAY FROM US?

>> THAT CELL PHONE TIGER IN ST. JOHN'S GULF AND COUNTRY CLUB, THAT HAS BEEN THERE. THEY BUILT AROUND THAT CELL PHONE TOWER AND WAS AGREED UPON BY ST. JOHN'S GOLF.

THIS IS A WELL ESTABLISHED NEIGHBOURHOOD THAT'S BEEN OUT HERE FOR OVER A DECADE, AND BUILDING IS 180-FOOT CELL TOWER MAKES NO SENSE WHEN YOU HAVE PLENTY OF OTHER LAND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF ST. THOMAS ISLAND PARKWAY.

>> A TEN-YEAR STUDY IN GEORGIA NIZED MORE THAN 34,000 HOME SALES FROM 2007 TO 2016 TO EXAMINE CELL TOWERS AND PROPERTY VALUES. RESEARCHERS FOUND THAT HOMES WITHIN 500 FEET SOLD FOR UP TO 7.6% LESS, THAT DOESN'T PREDICT OUR MARKET, BUT THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON HOMEOWNERS DESERVES SERIOUS CONSIDERATION. ON OCTOBER 20TH, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAVE BEEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO REJECT THE TOWER AND PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF OUR COMMUNITIES.

WE'RE ASKING IT TO REQUIRE PROOF OF NEED, EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES, AND CHOOSE A LOCATION THAT FITS. OUR HOMES, OUR NATURAL SURROUNDINGS AND OUR COMMUNITIES CHARACTER MATTER.

ST. JOHN'S COUNTY DENYING THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT TODAY.

>> SO I UNDERSTAND THAT'S A LITTLE DRAMATIC.

BUT THAT'S HOW OUR COMMUNITY FEELS, WE GOT A BUNCH OF PEOPLE INVOLVED AND THAT'S WHAT THEY PUT TOGETHER FOR US.

ACCORDING TO TO OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, EVERY SPECIAL USE PERMIT MUST MEET THIS TASK, COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA WITH NO SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ITS NEIGHBOUR. THE CODE PUTS THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE APPLICANT. THESE FIVE AREAS THE APPLICANT HAD TO PROVE. THE RECORD DOESN'T SUPPORT ANY OF THEM, COUNTY STAFF DIRECTED TEN FINDINGS FOR DENIAL FOR THE JULY 23RD HEARING. THESE FIVE WERE NOT FULLY ADDRESSED. THE TOWER CODE SAYS THAT -- I'M SORRY. THE TOWER CODE SAYS THE TOWER SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH A NEIGHBOURHOOD CONSIDERING ITS HEIGHT AND DISTANCE FROM HOMES. THIS IS GLENN ST. JOHN'S, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AROUND PONDS WITH PINE FOREST ON EVER SIDE, NOTHING HERE IS TALLER THAN THE TREES.

THE AREA AROUND THE SITE HAS NO INDUSTRIAL USE, NO UTILITY YARD,

[09:50:01]

AND OUR COMMUNITY STARTED DEVELOPMENT IN 2007 WITH THE MAJORITY OF HOMES COMPLETED BY 2010, AND FULLY ESTABLISHED BY 2018. NOTHING HERE RISES ABOVE THE TREES. OUR HOMES BACK ON TO THE PINES, OUR MATURE PINES REACH 75 TO 100 FEET.

AT 180 FEET, THE TOWER WOULD BE NEARLY TWICE THE HEIGHT OF THE TALLEST PINES, AND THE ONLY STRUCTURE ABOVE THE CANOPY.

THE APPLICANT PHOTOS SIMULATIONS FROM 551 AND 894 FEET, THEY WERE TAKEN FROM A LOW, STREET LEVEL PERSPECTIVE WHICH MAKES THE NEARBY HOMES AND TREES LOOK TALLER AND A DISTANT TOWER LOOK SHORTER. EVEN SO THE POLE IS ABOVE THE ROOF AND TREES, AND THEY SHOW A BEAR POLE, THE APPLICATION SHOWS 4 ANTENNA PLATFORMS. THIS IS AN EXISTING 180 FOOT MONO POLE ON IRISH ROSE ROAD IN THE ASHLEY OAKS COMMUNITY.

THE SAME HEIGHT PROPOSED HERE, FROM 414 AND 672 FEET, IT IS WELL ABOVE THE TREES AND ROOFLINES.

THIS PICTURE'S RUN TO SCALE. HOMES ARE 15 TO 25 FEET, WITH SHARP PINE 75 TO 100, AND THE TOWER IS AT 180 FEET, WITH ANTENNA PLATFORMS AT 170, 155, 140, AND 125.

THAT IS ABOUT 12 TIMES A ONE STOREY HOME AND TWICE A MATURE PINE. THIS IS THE STAFF'S COMPATIBILITY MAP, WHICH DESCRIBES TWO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOURHOODS TO THE EAST AND WEST.

AND THE PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTHEAST.

OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD IS THE PLANTATION TYPE NORTH OF ST.

THOMAS, WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

THE 460 FOOT DISTANCE TO SILVERERLY IS A SEPARATE, ACROSSING THOMAS PARKWAY WHERE THE MULTIFAMILY PROJECT IS PROPOSED AND NOT BUILT. OWNED AND DEVELOPED BY HUDSON DEVELOPMENT, WHICH ALSO OPERATES THE SAME COMPANY LEASING TO THE SITE OF THE APPLICANT. SILVER LEAF PUD IS NOT IN OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD AND CANNOT BE ACCESSED BY OUR ROADS, SO THIS MAP IS MISLEADING. THE APPLICANT CITES MATURE -- NATURAL BUFFERING. ITS TREE REMOVAL PLAN REMOVES ALL TREES IN THE LEAFS AREA, WHICH ARE PLANTED PINES, 2 TO 8 INCHES THICK. THE LAND AROUND ITS PINE IS A PINE PLANTATION AND RURAL CULTURE, WHICH CAN BE HARVESTED AT ANY TIME.

AT THE PCA HEARING, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE CONDITIONS FOR KEEPING THOSE TREES CANNOT BE ACCOMPLISHED TODAY BECAUSE THE LAND HAS A SEPARATE OWNER. THAT OWNER SENIOR WHITE FORD TIMBER, THE LEASER. MATURE PINES HERE ARE 75 TO 100 FEET, AND THE TOWER IS 180 FEET, IMAGINE WHAT THIS WILL LOOK LIKE WITH ALL THE SURROUNDING TREES HARVESTED.

WE NEED AN ALTERNATIVE, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 2.03.26.

AFTER THE APPEAL, ONE NEW COVERAGE MET CAME IN, LIKE THE OTHERS, IT'S A PREDICTED SIMULATION NOT REAL DATA.

THE COUNTY'S REVIEW CONSULTING GROUP CONFIRMED NO EXISTING TOWER WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE SITE AND FOUND THE APPLICANT'S COVERAGE MODELLING TO BE TECHNICALLY ACCURATE.

THIS ONLY CONFIRMED THE INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF THE APPLICANTS' OWN COVERAGE NUMBER. IT DOES NOT INDEPENDENTLY EEFULT WHETHER A GENUINE SITE OR COLOCATION ANALYSIS WAS PERFORMED. THEY WERE NOT DOCUMENTED AND THEY WERE NOT -- THEY ARE REQ REQUIRED. ON THE ALTERNATIVES, AT THE PCA HEARING, THE APPLICANT SHOWED SITES LABELED A THROUGH H.

AND CALLED THE DETAILS PRIVATE REAL ESTATE MATTERS.

ALL THREE OF THESE MAPS ARE COMPUTER PREDICTIONS, THE CURRENT MAP BEHIND THE NEED CLAIM.

LEFT OUT THE APPLICANT'S OWN TWO SILVERLEAF TOWERS.

AND WITH THOSE TOWERS AND WITHOUT THIS ONE WAS DISCUSSED THAT THE FEBRUARY 19TH COMMUNITY MEETING.

IT WAS PROVIDED ONLY THE PCA VOTE, AND AFTER OUR APPEAL WAS FILED. THE COUNTY'S REVIEW RAN THE APPLICANTS INPUTS THROUGH ITS OWN PREDICTION SOFTWARE.

THE BOARD OF TEAMS NO DRIVE TEST OR OTHER SIGNAL MEASUREMENTS.

THE NEW MAP IS ONE IMAGE AND VERIZON ONLY.

[09:55:07]

WITH NO REPORT, BOTH TOWERS ARE BUILT SO SERVICE CAN NOW BE FULLY MEASURED. THEY ALSO REPORT THAT -- THIS IS THE SILVERLEAF'S ST. JOHN'S TOWER.

HER OWN SITE AS ITS ANTENNAS ARE ON BOTH SILVERLEAF TOWERS.

THIS IS ITS PUBLIC COVERAGE MAP ON ITS WEBSITE.

AND IT WAS SEARCHED AT THE TOWER SIT, WHICH SHOWS IT HAS 5G ULTRABAND. WHICH DOES NOT SHOW A GAP.

THE FCC'S NATIONAL MAP, AS OF DECEMBER 31ST, 2005.

SHOWN HERE AT THE SAME SITE, AND IT ALSO SHOWS 5G.

AROUND THE SITE, AND IT STREETS AROUND IT.

THIS IS T MOBILE'S PUBLIC MAP. WHICH SHOWS THAT IT ALSO HAS 5G ULTRACAPACITY, ITS HIGHEST HERE. ALL THREE CARRIERS, PUBLIC MAPS SHOW THE HIGHEST SERVICE HERE. ONLY THE MILDLY PREPARED FOR THIS PERMANENT SHOWS THE GAP. AT THE PCA HEARING THE APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL INCLUDED TWO CLAIMS, FIRST, IT EVALUATED 8 ALTERNATIVE TOWER SITES, THE APPLICANT SHOWED A SEARCH RING LABELED A THROUGH H, BUT NONE OF THOSE SITES ARE IDENTIFIED OR ANALYSED IN THE BOARD PACT. WHEN ASKED FOR DETAILS, APPLICANT CALLED THEM PRIVATE REAL ESTATE MATTERS.

IF THE 8 SITES WERE ANALYSED, WE ASK THE ANALYSIS AND THE REASON THOSE SITES WERE UNSUITABLE BE PUT IN THE RECORD.

SECOND THE COUNTY DOESN'T USE THE WORD GAP.

IT SAYS, IT TAKES NO EXCEPTION BASED ON THE TECHNICAL PARAMETERS SUBMITTED. THE GAP CLAIM REST ON VERIZON ONLY USED AFTER THE APPEAL. WHICH IS ALSO ONLY A PREDICTION.

THERE ARE 7 TOWERS WITHIN 3 MILES.

2 BELONG TO THE APPLICANT, 1 BELONGING TO THE COUNTY AND MAY HAVE SPACE FOR LEAFS. HOW MANY DO WE ACTUALLY NEED? THE COUNTY SEARCHED A 1-MILE RADIUS, THE NEAREST IS 1.4.

WHICH IS THE APPLICANT'S OWN TOWER.

THE LANDOWNER, ALSO THE MASTER DEVELOPER OF SILVERLEAF DIRECTLY ACROSS THE PARK, WHERE TOWERS ARE ALLOWED BY RAIN.

>> AT THE COMMUNITY MEETING THE APPLICANT WAS ASKED ABOUT MOVING THE TO YOUR, 1500 FEET SOUTH TO THE SILVERLEAF PUD, AND IT SAID IT POTENTIALLY PUTS IT WHERE WE CAN'T GO, AND BE THAT IT WAS DIRECTED TO GO OR ZONED AREA. THAT'S THE LANDOWNER'S CHOICE, NOT A TECHNICAL LIMIT. STAFF REPORT SAYS THAT THE SAME PARENT PARCEL WAS ALREADY CLEARED FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT INSIDE THE SILVER LEAF PUD, WHICH IS NOT IN OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD AND WE HAVE NO ACCESS TO IT.

WHEN THE APPLICANT WAS ASKED ABOUT OTHER SITES, THE APPLICANT SAID THOSE WERE PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS.

THE FIRST QUESTION IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND IS ABOUT 0.4 MILES SOUTH OF THE SITE. THE SEGMENT THROUGH SEVER LEAF IS EXPECTED TO BE FINISHED AROUND 2030.

THE APPLICANT DOES NOT MEANS IT AT ALL.

FLORIDA LAW ALLOWS THE FDOT TO LEASE ITS LAND FOR WIRELESS TOWERS. THE FIRST COAST EXPRESSWAY WITH THE NEW FDO2 LANDS NEXT DOOR. THE APPLICATION DOESN'T EVEN MENTION IT, CELL TOWERS BELONG ALONGSIDE HIGHWAYS, NOT IN

NEIGHBOURHOODS. >> IMPORTANTLY THE LOCATION --

OH. >> IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT -- IS IT ON THE NEXT SLIDE? EXCUSE ME THROUGH THE CHAIR, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE RECORD.

>> MY NAME IS MABLE. MS. COLLINS ASKED US TO SPEAK ON

[10:00:05]

HER BEHALF. >> THERE WAS NOTHING IN WRITING

STATING THAT. >> I COMMUNICATED THROUGHOUT THE

PROCESS -- >> BUT WE NEED WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION IF YOU CAN PROVIDE THAT, PLEASE.

>> I'M HAPPY TO SEARCH IN MY EMAIL AND SEND IT TO YOU.

DO YOU NEED ME TO PAUSE? OKAY.

PERFECT. HERE WE ARE.

OKAY. IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS PARCEL OF LAND WHERE THE TOWER IS PROPOSED TO BE BUILT FLOODS.

WE LOOKED AT THE COUNTY'S OWN MODEL THAT SHOWS THE ENTIRE LEASE AREA WILL BE UNDER WATER IN THE 25, 50, AND 100-YEAR STORMS. THESE ARE COUNTY MAPS.

THE APPLICANT'S ANSWER IS TO RAISE THE SITE WITH FILL THAT'S GRADED TOWARDS THE WET LAND. THE PLAN SHOWS NO STORM WATER SYSTEM, AND NO CALCULATIONS FOR WHERE THAT WATER WILL GO, YET ITS REPORT SAYS THAT THE FLIGHT ISN'T IN A FLOOD PLAIN, WHICH CONTRADICTS THE COUNTY MAP THAT SHOWS THAT AREA BEING IN A FLOOD PLAIN FOR THE 100 YEAR PREDICTIONS.

THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT COUNTY WET LAND DETERMINATION, NO STUDY, NO STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, AGAIN, THE APPLICATION LACKED INFORMATION IN THIS AREA.

AND THE INFORMATION ABOUT IT NOT BEING IN A FLOOD PLANE IS COMPLETELY INACCURATE, AS IT CONTRADICTS THE COUNTY'S OWN MAP ON FLOODING. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS MAP, THERE ARE A FEW DIFFERENT WAYS, THERE IS THIS MAP, WE WILL LOOK AT FLOOD ZONES, BASED ON, YOU KNOW, FLOOD ZONES FOR INSURANCE PURPOSES. AND WHERE FLOOD INSURANCE IS REQUIRED, BUT THROUGH THE COUNTY'S VIEW, ABOUT HALF OF THIS PARCEL IS IN THE 100-YEAR FLOOD PLANE, STARTING 200 TO 300 FEET FROM THE TOWER. AND THE SITE IS GRADED TOWARD IT. THE DRAINAGE NEARBY IS ALREADY AT ITS LIMIT. WE HAVE INFORMATION THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED IN A PACKET, ABOUT THE GLENN ST.

JOHN'S CDD IS THE PROPERTY OF BUDS TO THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL.

AND 12 MONTHS AGO OUR DISTRICT ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PUTTING TOGETHER A REPORT ABOUT OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND OUR FACILITIES IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND IN THAT REPORT, THEY LOOKED AT OUR PONDS AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. AND IN THAT STUDY, THEY LOOKED AT POND NUMBER 2.

AND POND NUMBER 2 IS -- AND I'LL GO BACK -- LET ME SEE IF THERE IS A MAP -- IS THE POND -- LET ME SEE IF I CAN, WILL IT GO TO THE PRESENTATION IF I DO THAT? IS THIS POND HERE, THIS IS RIGHT TO THE LEFT OF THE PROPOSED TOWER, AND THE ENGINEER FOUND THAT THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AT THAT POND WAS NOT WORKING PROPERLY. AND IN THAT SAME REPORT THEY FOUND THAT THE NORMAL WATER ELEVATION NEAR THAT POND WAS MUCH HIGHER THAN WHAT IT SHOULD BE RESULTING IN HIGHER ELEVATION AND CONTINUOUS SERVICE WATER SEEPAGE.

IT INDICATES THAT THERE IS A DRAINAGE PROBLEM ON THE PROPERTY, AND OBVIOUSLY IF THAT PROPERTY HAS A WET LAND, IT'S THE SAME WET LAND THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY NEAR IT.

DUE TO THIS CONDITION, THE HIGH WATER MOST LIKELY BE ORIGINALLY

HIGHER THAN PLANNED. >> ENGINEER AT THE TIME RIMMEDOR RECOMMENDED FURTHER EVALUATION AND NEW WET LAND STUDY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE -- SINCE THE ORIGINAL REPORT.

AND TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THE EXTENTS HAD CHANGED.

THAT'S SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO NOTE, BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY IS RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY WHERE THE B PARCEL IS LOCATED. THE 180-FOOT TOWER WOULD STAND AROUND 108 FEET FROM ST. THOMAS PARKWAY.

[10:05:02]

I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY OR ARE FAMILIAR WITH OUR COMMUNITY. BUT IF YOU DRIVE DOWN, IT IS A DEAD-END ROAD. ONCE YOU'RE THERE, YOU MAKE A LEFT ON ST. LAWRENCE PARKWAY. IT'S A PRETTY NARROW ROAD.

SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS 180 FOOT TO YOUR IS ONLY 108 FEET FROM THAT SINGLE ACCESS ROAD INTO OUR COMMUNITY.

THE PLAN DRAWS A 40-FOOT FALL RADIUS AND THE APPLICANT SAYS SABER INDUSTRIES CERTIFIED IT, AND IT LED HER DEBATED OCTOBER 8, 2025, HOWEVER, THAT LETTER IS NOT IN THE BOARD PACT.

ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT TOLD THE PCA THAT THERE IS A CERTIFIED LETTER FROM THE EPG NEAR. IF YOU LOOK AT THE VIDEO THAT'S AROUND 1 HOUR AND 35 MINUTES. THE ONLY ENGINEERING REPORT THAT WE FOUND IN THE PACKET IS STAMPED "PRELIMINARY".

NOT CONSTRUCTION. WITH NO SOIL TEST AFTER THEY PUT NEW -- AND THE STAFF'S TENTH FINDING SAYS THE SAME ON THEIR CONCERNS. ADDITIONALLY FALL CERTIFICATION IS NOT IN THE PACT, IT'S VERY PRELIMINARY.

THERE IS FIRE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH ANY TOWER, AND WE KNOW THAT'S THE RISK THAT YOU HAVE. GENERATORS, ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, AND A PINE PLANTATION IN THE MIDDLE OF LOTS OF FLORIDA VEGETATION, BESIDE A ROADWAY THAT ONLY HAS SINGLE ACCESS IN AND OUT OF OUR COMMUNITY IS A PROBLEM.

THE KUNTY ATTORNEY LISTED FIRE RISK AS A COMPATIBILITY FACTOR.

THE APPLICATION HAS NO FIR RISK ASSESSMENT AND NO FUEL PLAN THE PLAN CALLS FOR A TIRE CODE ACCESS ROAD THAT IS ACCESSED NOT AN ASSESSMENT OF THE RISK WHICH IS IMPORTANT.

WE ALSO KNOW THAT, AGAIN, TOWERS CAN CATCH FIRE AND TOWERS CAN FALL. HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF SOME TOWERS THAT HAD FAILURES. WE HAD ONE 163-FOOT MONO POLE TOWER THAT JUST SNAPPED. VERIZO NOT IS THE TENANT, WE HAD A SITUATION WITH THE BLIZZARD IN NEW YORK, AND THEN A TOWER

DURING HER HURK EVENT. >> TOWERS DO FALL, WE KNOW THAT, AND THERE IS CORONER. AGAIN KS WE ARE CLOOSH SO THAT WE CAN ASSESS WHETHER OR NOT DUE DILIGENCE WAS DONE FOR THIS PROJECT. TOWERS ALSO BURN, HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF THAT. WE HAD ONE -- BOTH ACTUALLY IN FLORIDA, WE KNOW LIGHTNING IS VERY POPULAR AROUND HERE.

AND THIS ONE OBVIOUSLY PUTS, YOU KNOW, PUTTING GENERATORS NEAR A PINE STAND IS ONLY FUEL. AND WITH A COMMUNITY WITHIN ONLY ONE WAY IN AND WINNER WARMUP WAY OUT ACCESS, IT'S HIGHLY CONCERNING. NOW THIS IS AN AREA THAT I'M EXCITED TO TALK ABOUT, THERE IS BEEN SO MUCH DEBATE ABOUT HOME VALUES AND WHETHER OR NOT TOWERS OR CERTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE DO IMPACT THE SALE OF HOMES. I AM A FULL-TIME RELATOR.

I'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR ALMOST A DECADE, WORK WITH MANY BUYERS AND SELLERS IN WHAT THEY DESIRE IN HOMES AND WHAT CHALLENGES WE FACE IN PUTTING HOMES ON THE MARKET.

I'VE HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPRAISERS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS ABOUT CELL TOWERS AND THEIR THOUGHTS.

AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT I WAS QUITE SURPRISED THAT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THEY HAD FEEDBACK ABOUT TOWERS AND HOW THEY AFFECTED VALUE. BUT MANY OF THEM WOULD NOT PUT SOMETHING IN WRITING BECAUSE THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT WRITING A GENERALIZED STATEMENT ABOUT CELL PHONE TOWERS.

WE DID HAVE A COMPANY THAT DID QUOTAS, AND THAT'S WHAT'S NEED HE HAD HERE. IT'S NOT JUST A SIMPLE APPRAISAL STUDY. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S ALSO MISSING FROM FROM THE APPLICANT'S PACTS.

WE DO KNOW THAT STUDIES SHOW THAT HOME SALES LOWER PRICES WHERE A TOWER IS VISIBLE. THERE IS A LOT OF DEBATE ON WHAT THAT PERCENTAGE IS. IF A CELL PHONE TOWER IS NEAR YOUR HOME AND YOU LIVE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CITY, IT'S A LOT LESS DEPRECIATION THAN IF YOUR HOME IS EXCLUDED.

SO THERE YOU WOULD HAVE MORE IMPACT FOR THAT.

WE DO HAVE FEW REALLY IMPORTANT STUDIES.

ONE OF THEM WAS A TEN-YEAR STUDY THAT WAS DONE IN SAVANNA, WHICH

[10:10:03]

I'M EXCITED ABOUT, BECAUSE SAVANNA HAS A VERY SIMILAR HOME TYPE AND CULTURE THAT SAVANNA COUNTY HAS.

THAT WAS TEN-YEAR STUDY THROUGH A UNIVERSITY WITH SOMEONE THAT'S MUCH SMARTER THAN ME. AND THAT'S ALSO IN YOUR PACKIT, AND THEY LOOKED AT HOME SALES FOR 10 YEARS.

ANALYSED OVER 34,000 HOME SALES AND THEY ONLY PULLED MLS SALES THAT HAD NO MISSING INFORMATION. WE KNEW THE NUMBER OF BERMS, BATHROOMS, PULL INFORMATION, WHEN THEY LOOKED AT THAT AND THEY FOUND A CORRELATION OF ABOUT 7.6% IN PROPERTY VALUE LOSS FROM ZERO TO 500 FEET, AND ALSO 500 TO A THOUSAND FEET, A LOSS OF ABOUT 7.2. AND AFTER ABOUT 1500 FEET SOME OF THAT CONCERN IN TERMS OF PROPERTY VALUE GOES AWAY.

AND THAT'S AGAIN SOMETHING REALLY IMPORTANT.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE OVER 100 HOMES THAT ARE GOING TO SIT IN THAT 1,000 FOOT OR LESS FOOTPRINT, AND IF THOSE HOMES ARE VALUED AT 500 THOUSAND. YOU'RE LOOKING AT $45,000 LOSS FOR EACH OF THOSE HOMEOWNERS. AGAIN, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THIS IS NOT FROM A GENERALIZED LETTER FROM AN APPRAISER THAT WE CALLED, THIS IS A TEN-YEAR STUDY WITH SO MUCH DATA FOR US TO LOOK AT. WHICH IS WHY WE MADE A POINT OF AGAIN YOU CAN'T JUST HAVE A JENNER GENERALIZED STATEMENT FROM AN APPRAISER. OPINIONS ABOUT VALUE ARE EASY TO DISMISS, A REAL ANSWER TAKES WHAT'S CALLED A DE -- COMPLETED BY A CERTIFIED MAI APPRAISER, BOTH COMMERCIAL CERTIFIED AND RESIDENTIAL CERTIFIED. THEY HAVE TO ANALYSE A WHOLE NEIGHBOURHOOD THAT ARE SIMILAR TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY NEIGHBOURHOOD AND LOOK AT ACTUAL SALES WITHIN 6 TO 12 MONTHS.

WE DID GET A QUOTE FOR THIS STUDY THAT STUDY COST IS $9,500.

AND IT TAKES ABOUT 60 DAYS FOR THEM TO PRODUCE THAT STUDY FOR US. AT THE MEETING, THE APPLICANT DID CITE A JULY 2026 REPORT BY CBRE, A COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE FIRM CONCLUDING THAT A TOWER 740 FEET FROM THE HOMES HAS NO ESK EFFECT ON VALUE, AND THEY'VE TOLD THEM THEY HAVE THAT.

WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT, IT'S NOT IN THE PACKET AND THE APPLICANT DIDN'T CALL IT AN APPRAISAL. AND THE AUTHOR'S CREDENTIAL AND METHOD HAVEN'T BEEN SHOWN. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE APPLICANT TO TELL US AND SHOW US THAT PROPERTY OWNERS WILL NOT HAVE HARM. ONE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT WHEN IT COMES TO HOME VALUES, THIS IS -- I DON'T KNOW IF OUR -- THIS IS WHAT'S CALLED A UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT. THIS IS THE LATEST FORM FREDDY MAC, FANNY MAY, THIS IS WHAT'S REQUIRED WHEN YOU'RE ACQUIRING PROPERTY. I LOOK AT THESE A LOT.

IT HAS PROPERTY ADDRESS, BASIC INFORMATION, SINGLE FAMILY, LOCATION, ALL THIS GOOD STUFF. FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT THERE IS NO EFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUE, I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHY ON PAGE 2 OF THE UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT, WHICH IS THE REPORT THAT FINANCING AGENCIES LOOK TO PROVIDE HOME LOANS, VIEW IS A FEATURE.

AND NEXT OF YOU, THERE IS A DESCRIPTION.

POND, TREES, GOLF COURSE. MARINA, TOWER.

AND THERE IT IS, A SPACE FOR AN ADJUSTMENT.

VIEWS ARE ADJUSTED. IF THEY WEREN'T, THEY WOULD NOT BE PART OF THE FEDERAL UNIFORM APPRAISAL REPORT THAT'S WHAT'S TO USE TO FINANCE EVERY PROPERTY IN AMERICA.

BRIEFLY MORE IS ON OUR WRITTEN APPEAL.

WE GOT THREE DIFFERENT ANSWERS ON WET LANDS.

WE GOT THAT THERE IS AN UNDISTURBED BUFFER THAT WE KNOW WILL GET DISTURBED BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE MACHINERY GO THROUGH IT. AND EVERY TREE IN THE LEASE AREA COULD BE CUT. THERE IS NO WET LAND PERMIT OR WET LAND STUDY ON ASSIGNED COVERAGE MAPS AND HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF RESIDENCE LETTER IS WHAT WE SUBMITTED.

[10:15:04]

AT THE MEETING, WE SUBMITTED MORE THAN 303 PETITIONED WET SIGNATURES, THINK MOMS PUSHING STROLLERS IN JULY WITH HIGH HEAT GETTING SIGNATURES DOOR TO DOOR. WE HAVE NEIGHBOURS DOING BAKE SALES AND SELLING SOURDOUGH AND RAISING $150 TO HELP US MAKE OUR CASE. SO THERE IS A LOT OF SUPPORT.

AGAIN, THE BUFFER WILL BE DISTURBED.

THERE IS NO WETLAND PERMIT, IT SAYS THERE IS NO DEFORESTATION, BUT THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT BECAUSE OF SILVER CULTURE

IN TIMBER. >> COULD I GET YOU TO WRAP THIS

UP? >> THE BOARD HAS SAID NO BEFORE.

SO FOR COLEE COVE, FOR COUNTY ROAD 13, YOU HAD IN JULY 2026 A DENIAL. APRIL 2026 WAS DENIER DENIED.

NOVEMBER 2025, THAT OTHER TOWER WAS DENIED, AND THEN ANOTHER TOWER ON ST. PATRICK'S CHURCH. THE BOARD HAS SAID NO BEFORE, AND AFTER DISCUSSING COMPATIBILITY, THE FALL ZONE, TREE BUFFERS THAT COULD BE HARVESTED, STAFF AND PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED A 100 FOOT TOUFR AND THIS IS THE FEDERAL CASE THAT WENT TO COURT. AND THE CITY COMMISSION DENIED IT 3-2 OVER COMPATIBILITY AND AESTHETICS, THIS IS ENOUGH TO DENY THE SPECIAL USE APPLICATION.

IN 2021 WE KNOW FEDERAL COURT IN THIS DISTRICT UPHELD THE DENIAL BECAUSE PHOTO SIMULATION SHOWED THE TOWER ABOVE THE TREE CANOPY.

THAT'S THE SAME EVIDENCE IN OUR RECORD.

WE'RE ASKING YOU TO APPROVE OUR APPEAL.

DENY THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. BASED ON NOT ONLY OUR PRESENTATION BUT OF THE STAFF'S OWN TEN FINDINGS, AND THE ORGANIZATION THAT'S ALREADY DRAFTED, IF YOU'RE NOT READY TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY, WE'RE ASKING YOU TO CONDITION IT UNTIL THE APPLICANT IMPROVES THE NEED. AND WE HAVE A SIGNED SEALED ENGINEERING REPORT. AND WE HAVE ANSWERS ON WHY THOSE OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT WERE DISMISSED AND THAT THEY ANSWER OUR QUESTION TO HAZARD AND AT MINIMUM ADD WHAT -- ABOUT CAMOUFLAGE DESIGN AND RECORDED TREE HEIGHT.

I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU ALL TO REALLY LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE APPLICANT -- THE APPLICATION.

AND SEE THAT THERE IS SO MUCH MISSING INFORMATION IN THERE, AND ENOUGH TO CAST DOUBT, AND REVOKE THE APPLICATION.

>> OKAY. THANKS.

GOOD JOB. DO WE HAVE ANYONE TO REBUT THIS?

>> YEAH, THE APPLICANT IS HERE. >> OKAY.

YEAH. FOR REBUTTAL.

>> BRAD WESTER, . AGENT APPLICANT FOR THE SUBMITTAL, AND OBVIOUSLY THE 43 APPROVAL WE RECEIVED ON THIS MATTER, AND THEN OF COURS REPRESENTING THIS IN DEFENSE OF THE APPEAL. I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH MY PRESENTATION, I DO HAVE MY LICENSED REAL ESTATE APPRAISER HERE AS WELL, SO I'LL BRING HIM UP WHEN I'M DONE WITH MY PRESENTATION. BUT SINCE THIS IS DENOVO HEARING

RIGHT? >> YES.

>> SO OBVIOUSLY THIS IS THE PLAN APPEAL 2026, BUT IT'S AN APPEAL TO THE SPECIAL PERMIT MAJOR 2025.029 WHICH WAS APPROVED 4-3.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ON OR ZONE PROPERTY, I WILL BE FAIRLY QUICK WITH THESE SLIDES.

WE CAN GO BACK TO THEM IF YOU NEED THEM.

80 BY 80 LEASE HOLD. THE PARENT PARCEL ITSELF IS

[10:20:04]

153.7 ACRES BUT WE'RE FOCUSED ON THE 80 BY 80.

THIS IS THE TOWER IN CONNECTION WITH VERIZON AND T MOBILE.

THE PROPOSED TOWER IS LOCATED 1.4 MILES FROM THE NEAREST TOWER TO THE SOUTHEAST FROM THE NEAREST TO THE NORTHEAST, 1.67 MILES TO THE SOUTHWEST. AND THERE IS A MAP THAT SHOWS THAT. THE PROPOSED TOWER IS NOT -- I REITERATE -- NOT WITHIN 150 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

THAT IS THE CRITERIA, IT IS 740 FEET TO THE NEAREST EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. AND 460 FEET TO THE NEAREST PROPOSED FIVE BUILDING FOUR STOREY.

300 MULTIFAMILY UNIT ACROSS THE PARKWAY.

IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY. THE TOWER'S ENGINEERED CERTIFIED WITH A COLLAPSE RADIUS OF 40 FEET.

ENGINEERED TO SUPPORT UP TO 4 WIRELESS CARRIERS.

AND THAT IS IN THE REPORT. AND BOTH VERIZO NOT AND T MOBILE ARE COMMITTED TO THIS LOCATION. WE DID SUBMIT AND WE DO HAVE A SIGN SEALED REPORT FROM SABRE ON THE COLLAPSE.

THAT WAS INCLUDED, AND I WILL INCLUDE IT HERE ON THE RECORD.

IT IS SIGNED BY A PROFESSIONAL LICENSED ENGINEER.

THERE ARE NO WET LAND, WILDFIRE, ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACTS.

THERE IS A SCENIC EDGE, AND THE BUFFER IS MAINTAINED.

NOT ASKING FOR ANY DEVIATIONS FROM THAT.

AND OF COURSE THE EXISTING PINE STANDS IF YOU WILL WE PUT INTO A CONSERVATION EASEMENT. HERE'S THE PROPOSED TOWER, LOCATION, HERE'S THE PROXIMITY TO THE OTHER TOWERS I JUST DESCRIBED. HERE'S THE PROPERTY.

IT'S BEEN DESCRIBED THAT THIS IS THE SAME OWNER AS THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET. AND THIS IS THE OR ZONED PROPERTY THAT WAS GIVEN TO US AS PART OF OUR STUDY FOR THE DIFFERENT TOWER SITES IN THE AREA.

YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT RURAL CIVIC CULTURE KS AND ON THE RIGHT, OR ZONE. PROGRESSING THROUGH A HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE AREA, BACK TO 1988, YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED IN RED. BUT I'LL TAKE YOU THROUGH ABOUT ROUGHLY TEN YEARS LATER, 1999 YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY AGAIN.

GENERALLY TRAIL ROADS AND THEN THEY BECOME DEVELOPMENT.

SO 2005/2010. YOU SEE THAT KIND OF PLAY THROUGH THE RECESSION WITH SOME HOME BUILDING STARTING AND SOME HOUSING STARTS. 2015, 2019.

AGAIN, PROGRESSING 2021, 2023, THE PROGRESSION OF DIFFERENT NEIGHBOURHOODS, AGAIN, THE BACK BONE OF THIS IS THE TOWER'S FOLLOW THE NEED FOR COVERAGE AND CAPACITY.

AND HERE'S THE SITE ITSELF. AGAIN, PROGRESS MAPS, THIS SHOWS OUT PROPERTY AROUND THERE. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION PREVIOUSLY ABOUT THE BELT WAY, IT'S SHOWN ON THIS MAP AS WELL.

AND THE BREATH OF LAND IN BETWEEN, WHICH IS PART OF THE SILVERLEAF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. YOU CAN SEE OUR RURAL CIVIC CULTURE SLIVER UP THERE WITH THE STAR.

ALL OF OUR DRAWINGS ARE SIGNED AND SEALED DRAWINGS, BOTH FROM THE LICENSED SURVEYOR AND OUR LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS.

THEY ARE NOT CONSTRUCTION READY. SO WHEN THEY SAY PRELIMINARY, THAT IS A STANDARD FROM A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER THAT THAT COULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION.

THAT IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PROCESS.

THESE ARE USED FOR THIS USE. AND TO PROMOTE AND PERMIT THIS USE SPECIFICALLY BUT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.

THAT IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PROCESS.

YOU CAN SEE ON THESE PLANS, THE SURVEYING SHOWING THE ENTIRE BIG PARCEL WITH THE 80 BY 80 LEASE HOLD.

AND THERE IS HIGHLIGHTED TO 80 BY 80.

OF COURSE IT HAS AN ACCESS ROAD TO IT.

ZOOMING IN, WE DO HAVE A TREE SURVEY, A WET LAND LINE, WE HAVE A JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION ON THAT WET LAND LINE, AND YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE FAR EDGE OF THAT SCREEN THERE.

IT WILL BE GRAPHICICALLY REPRESENTED.

THERE IS THE 80 BY 80 SQUARE. THERE IS THE ACCESS TO IT.

SORRY, THE CLICKER HAS BEEN THROUGH ITS PACES TODAY, TO SAY THE LEAST. THE BATTERY MIGHT BE DYING AGAIN. OKAY.

THIS IS SHOWING THE PARCEL ITSELF.

SO IT SHOWS THE 40-FOOT FALL RADIUS FROM THE CENTRE LINE OF THE TOWER. WE HAVE SABRE INDUSTRIES SIGNED AND SEALED REPORT FROM 2025 ON THAT.

IT'S BEEN PART OF THE RECORD. YOU CAN SEE THE ACCESS ROAD, THE LIGHT GREEN OR THE DARK GREEN ARE THE BUFFERS FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION LINE OF THE WETLAND SURVEY.

THAT'S HOW FAR IT'S SEPARATED, INCLUDING THE ACCESS ROAD AND THE 80 BY 80 LEASE HOLD AREA. WE DID NOT IMPACT ANY WET LANDS.

HERE'S THE ELEVATION VIEW OF THE TOWER.

AGAIN, THIS IS CRITERIA, I'LL GO THROUGH THIS FAIRLY QUICKLY, BUT PER THE 4-3 APPROVAL. SHOWING WE MEET THE CRITERIA IN

[10:25:03]

THE TENANT TOWER REGULATIONS AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

APOLOGIZE, I'M ACTUALLY CLICKING BUT IT'S NOT PROGRESSING THROUGH, SO... THERE WE GO. THESE ARE ALL THE DIFFERENT CRITERIA, AGAIN, THE 250 FOOT METRIC IS ONE OF THE MAIN ONES WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE. WE TALK ABOUT THE COLLAPSE ZONE, DISTANCE FROM NEARBY RESIDENTIAL, CRITERIA FOR REVIEW FOR TOWERS, AGAIN, GOING THROUGH THAT, DIFFERENT SECTIONS ON THE CODE. WE HAVE MET IT.

AND THAT'S OUTLINED BOTH IN THE REPORT, WHICH IS THE THIRD PARTY PROVIDER. AND ALSO THE STAFF IN THEIR STAFF REPORT. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS PREVIOUSLY AT PZA, THE -- IT'S ABOUT COVERAGE AND CAPACITY.

THE COVERAGE IS THE BEST OF THE SIGNAL THAT GOES OUT, AND THE CAPACITY IS THE TALKING OF THE CELL PHONES TO THE TOWER ITSELF AND HOW MUCH CAPACITY CAN IT SERVE.

IT'S ALL ABOUT LOCATION. THE HEIGHT, THIS IS THE LOWEST OPTIMAL HEIGHT TO SERVE THE COVERAGE NEEDS AND FOR THIS.

SO THIS IS A VERIZON MAP, THERE WERE SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE COVERAGE MAPS AND WE DIDN'T SHOW THEM PREVIOUSLY SHOWING TOWERS THAT WERE TURNED ON OR TURNED OFF.

AND THIS IS SHOWING THE SITE, THIS IS SHOWING THE RED, IT'S UNRELIABLE, THE GREEN IS RELIABLE.

>> AND THAT IS AFTER THE TOWER. FLIP BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE.

TWO TOWERS SHOWN IN BLUE ARE ON IN THIS IMAGE.

AND THEN THE THIRD ONE IS AND YOU CAN SEE HOW IT COVERS ALL THE NEIGHBOURHOODS. THE KEY TO THIS ESPECIALLY IN 5G IS ABOUT IN HOME AND IN CAR COVERAGE, OKAY? GOING TO T-MOBILE. WE HAVE A COMMITMENT FROM T-MOBILE. VERIZON WILL BE THE PARENT OR ANCHOR IF YOU WILL AND T-MOBILE HAS ALREADY COMMITTED TO BEING A PART OF THIS. AND NOW THIS IS PART OF THE RECORD. SO YOU SEE ON THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT THE DIFFERENT IMAGES AND BBANDWIDTHS AND MORE IMPORTANTLY THE GREEN. YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENT COVERAGE WITH THE DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES WITH THE T BAND PROVIDER. WE AFFIRM THAT THE TOWER WILL COVER THE OBJECTIVES FOR VERIZON SPECIFICALLY THE ANCHOR TENANT AT THE TOP. SPECIFICALLY THE TOWER IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE WIRELESS SERVICE IN THE AREA AND SUPPORT PLANNED GROWTH AS WELL AS ENHANCED INVEHICLE COVERAGE.

THE SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED STUDY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE REQUESTED TOWER LOCATION IS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE OPTIMAL SIGNAL COVERAGE AND PERFORMANCE IN THE TARGET AREA.

WE HAVE THE THIRD PARTY REVIEWER THAT WAS HERE IN THE PZA AS WELL, BUT OCG WHICH IS THE COUNTY'S THIRD PARTY TOWER VIEWER HAS CONFIRMED OUR PROPAGATION STUDIES WHICH ARE BASICALLY COVERAGE PREDICTION MODELS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY ACCURATE. IN THE REPORT THEY TAKE NO DONATION THE APPLICANTS FINDINGS BASED ON THE TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS, PLANNED EXHIBITS, AND THE LIKE WHICH WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY FOR THEIR REVIEW. BASICALLY IT IS A COMPUTER GENERATED EVALUATION USED TO PREDICT HOW WIRELESS SIGNALS WILL TRAVEL ACROSS A GEOGRAPHIC AREA T HELPS ELIMINATE DEAD ZONES AND DETERMINES THE BEST PLACEMENT FOR ANTENNAS AND TRANSMITTERS BEFORE INSTALLATION.

AND HERE IS THE THIRD PARTY REVIEWERS' REPORT.

AND THEN THEIR MAPS SPECIFICALLY SHOWING WHAT THE TOWERS LOOK LIKE WHN THEY ARE TURNED ON IN THE AREA PROVIDING COVERAGE WHICH IS NEEDED. HERE IS THE SABER INDUSTRIES FROM OCTOBER 8, 25. YOU CAN SEE IT IS SIGNED AND SEALED BY THE LICENCED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER REGARDING THE COLLAPSED FALL RADIUS. IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE AS IF YOU CUT A TOWER AT THE BOTTOM AND IT FALLS 180 FEET.

IT IS MEANT TO COLLAPSE WITHIN A 40-FOOT RADIUS.

AGAIN, THERE IS THE 40-FOOT RADIUS HIGHLIGHTED.

EQUAL TO SIGNED AND SEALED BY A LICENSED ENGINEER FOR THE MATTER. YOU PREVIOUSLY SAW THIS MAP WITH THE FOLKS WHO JUST SPOKE. AGAIN 740 FEET TO THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL LOT. THAT IS THE METRIC, BUT WE PUT ON THERE THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL DISTANCES AS WELL.

AND HERE IS ANOTHER MAP. THE 250-FOOT RING IS THE STANDARD FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

ARE YOU WITHIN 250 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL USES, AND WE TOUCH A RESIDENTIAL PUD OBVIOUSLY. AND THEN WE ARE OPEN RURAL ON THE PARENT PARCEL. THERE IS THE FENCE THAT WILL GO AROUND THE 80 BY 80 LEASEHOLD IF YOU WILL.

AND WE ALSO HAVE IT LANDSCAPED. I AM CLICKING, I PROMISE YOU THAT. SO WE HAVE A LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT

[10:30:11]

COMES WITH THIS EVEN THOUGH WE WILL ONLY CLEAR THE TREES IN THE 80 BY 80 PARCEL AND THE ACCESS ROAD TO GET TO THIS.

WE HAVE A LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT MEETS THE CODE.

WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR WAIVERS OR DEVIATIONS FROM THAT.

AND THEN WE DID PROVIDE ALL OF OUR PHOTO SIMS WITH THIS.

I APOLOGIZE. I AM CLICKING THIS I PROMISE YOU. SO HERE IS THE DIFFERENT AND ACTUALLY STAFF ASKED US TO ADD% MORE THAN WE HAD ON THERE ORIGINALLY. WE MET THE CODE, BUT THEY ASKED US TO PROVIDE MORE. SO WE DID THAT.

SO WE HAVE AND THIS WAS SHOWN AT PZA.

YOU HAVE ONE IMAGE. THE TOWER IS BACK THERE.

YOU JUST CAN'T SEE IT IN THE TREE LINE.

AGAIN, THIS IS IMAGES 7 AND 8. I CAN'T HELP IT IS NOT COOPERATING. I'M SORRY.

BUT HERE ARE ROADWAYS AROUND THE DIFFERENT VARIOUS NEIGHBOURHOODS. IMAGES 3 AND 4 AND 5 AND 6.

YOU CAN SEE THE TOWER IN THE BACKGROUND STICKING OUT OF THE TREES FROM VARIOUS ROADWAYS IN SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES.

AGAIN, THE NEIGHBOURHOOD ITSELF OUT ON THE ROADWAYS.

ONCE AGAIN ST. THOMAS ISLAND PARKWAY.

YOU DON'T SEE THE TOWER BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY TO ROAD BUT THERE IS A CANOPY ROAD, WELL-ESTABLISHED MATURE LANDSCAPING AND TREES. THE YOU CAN SEE THERE AGAIN THE TOWER THROUGH THE PINE TREES. AND THEN OF COURSE THE TOWER ON THE LEFT ON SLIDE NUMBER 11. JUST TRYING TO GO THROUGH PRETTY QUICK HERE. 13 AND 14.

15 AND 16. WHAT YOU SAW FROM THE PREVIOUS FOLKS THAT FILED THE APPEAL IS YOU SAW ONLY SLIDE NUMBER 15.

AS FAR AS SEEING THE 48 HOURS THE MIDDLE OF THE CUL-DE-SAC.

BUT AGAIN THAT EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENT, THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT TO THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL APP.

THIS IS SITTING INSIDE THE CUL-DE-SAC.

AND YOU CAN SEE THESE ARROWS WE HAD TO USE ARROWS TO SHOW WHERE THE TOWER IS BEHIND AND IN BETWEEN THE TREES.

I PROMISE YOU THIS SHOULD GO QUICK HERE.

THIS IS OURS. SO THERE WAS CONCERN WE HAVEN'T DONE ENVIRONMENTAL SHUTEDIES AND TALKED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CORE OF ENGINEERS AND BUGS AND BUNNIES SURVEY.

AND WE HAVE DONE IT. WE HAVE DONE IT ALL.

THIS IS HELD TO A EPA STANDARD NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT POLICY ACT.

AND WE DID ALL THOSE STUDIES. WE DID A WHOLE WILDLIFE TRANSECT AND A WHOLE JD WHICH IS WALKING A DEVELOPMENT LINE, GETTING IT VALIDATED. WE MET ALL THAT CRITERIA.

NO WETLAND OR ARCHEOLOGICAL IMPACTS.

THERE ARE NO WILDLIFE OR SPECIES OF CONCERN REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL. AND THEN NEXT DOOR YOU SEE THEM HIGHLIGHTING THIS PROPOSED TOWER IN CONCERT WITH THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OR THE PUD JUST TO THE NORTH THERE.

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ONE BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT COMBATTABILITY AND PROJECTING INTO THE FUTURE. THIS TALKS ABOUT THE UNDERLYING THERE. THE PROJECT WILL THEREFORE HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT TO THE FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY. THE OVERALL DESIGN INCORPORATES GREEN SPACE AND OPEN SPACE. THE PROJECT WAS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN AN AREA THAT IS EXPERIENCING STRONG DEMAND FOR HOUSING IN NORTHERN ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

THIS IS FROM THE NEIGHBOURING PUD.

THE PROJECT WILL THEREFORE MEET THE DEMAND OF HOUSING FOR RESIDENTS OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY. THE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT WOULD NOT PERMIT THAT PROPERTY TO MEET DESIGN IF IT WERE NOT CHANGED IN THAT PUD. AGAIN THIS MEETS THE COMMUNITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES TO THE FUTURE AREA.

THIS ALL CONTEMPLATES THE LAND USE FABRIC IN THE AREA AND THAT IS SHOWN AND VALIDATED THROUGH THE IMAGES WE SHOWED YOU BACK TO 1988. GOING THROUGH THIS PLANTATION PUD. TALKED ABOUT MINIMAL IMPACTS ON PARKS, ROADS, SEWER. IT IMPACTS 8.4 ACRES IN THE NEIGHBOURING PUD. THEY HAD 11 WAIVERS.

STRONG DEMAND FOR HOUSING. CHANGING O.R. TO P.U.D. MEETS COUNTY GOALS FOR DEVELOPMENT. OURS, ZERO IMPACTS ON PARKS, SCHOOLS, WATER, SEWER. NO IMPACT ON ROADS, UTILITIES.

NO WETLAND IMPACTS. NO WAVERS, DEVIATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE OUR PLAN. LOCATION WITH A STRONG DEMAND FOR A NETWORK. KEEPS THE OR ZONING VIA SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THIS IS NOT A REZONING.

MEET THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR VITAL COMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURE. BALANCE BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. NOT COMBATABLE WITH ADJACENT USES. AND DISTANCE WITH MINIMAL AND NO IMPACTS. THIS ONE HERE TALKS ABOUT

[10:35:03]

COMBATTABILITY SURROUNDINGS. TALKS ABOUT SPECIAL USES, THE INTENDED TOWER SHALL BE COMBATABLE WITH THE USES IN THE AREA. NOT THE SAME AS AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTY VALUES. I WILL BE QUICK HERE.

AND I CAN'T HELP THAT THE REMOTE ISN'T HELPING.

CELL TOWER TO PROVIDE A PROVEN NEED.

DENSITY INTENSITY. THIS IS ALL FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO FIGHT THE CRITERIA.

LESS THAN THE MAX AS PRESCRIBED. THERE IS ALREADY A PRESCRIBED TYPE OF TOWER. MONOPULL HAS TO BE A CERTAIN COLOR. CAN'T BE OVER A CERTAIN HEIGHT.

ODOURS AND DUST, NONE, NEGLIGIBLE.

TRAFFIC GENERATION, NO IMPACTS. ONE MAINTENANCE VEHICLE PER MONTH. FIRE RISK EXTREMELY RARE TO STRICT BUILDING CODES AND MONITORING INCLUDING THE LIGHTNING ROD. AIR QUALITY NOT APPLICABLE.

AND THEN OF COURSE DRAINAGE, SPECIES.

WE HAD OUR LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER REVIEW AND CERTIFY ALL THESE PLANS. AGAIN PRELIMINARY.

THERE ARE NO DRAINAGE PLANS. THIS IS NOT A FLOOD PLAIN.

THERE'S NOT EVEN A LIGHT BLINKING ON TOP OF THIS TOWER.

AGAIN, IT'S NOT ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL LOTS.

IN FACT IT IS APPROXIMATELY THREE TIMES THE REQUIRED DISTANCE TO THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL LOT.

AGAIN THIS TALKS ABOUT SPECIAL USE STATE TOWERS.

SIGNIFICANT DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS ON PROPERTY USES.

DEFINITIONS. ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE THOSE DIRECTLY ABUTTING THE PROPERTY ALSO MEANING PROPERTIES MAY SHARE A COMMON BOUNDARY BUT ALWAYS IMPLIES ABSENCE OF THE SAME KIND IN BETWEEN. THERE ARE RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITHIN CERTAIN PROXIMITY TO THE TOWER BUT NOT ADJACENT TO THE TOWER SITE. AND THEN YOU SEE HIS DESIGNATIONS. HE DOES IN FACT HAVE MAI ALONG WITH A BUNCH OF ALPHABET SOUP BESIDE HIS NAME WHICH IS INCREDIBLE. EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT CBRE CONCLUDES THE LOCATION OF A CELL TOWER HAS NO EFFECT ON VALUE AS SUBMITTED AND DATED JULY 22ND IN THAT REPORT.

I WILL HAVE HIM COME UP AND SPEAK TO THIS.

WE TALKED ABOUT THERE WAS A LOT OF FOLKS TALKING ABOUT YOU WENT THROUGH A SITE SELECTION STUDY. YES, WE DID.

THAT IS A PRIVATE PROPRIETARY THING WITH OTHER PRIVATE LAND OWNERS. CAN WE GO THERE? DO YOU HAVE ACCESS OR VET LANDS? WAVE PROTECTED TREE.

SO MANY OTHER FACTORS THAT DISQUALIFY WHY WE WEREN'T GOING IN ANY OTHER PROPERTIES. BUT WE HAVE TO BE IN A SPECIFIC RING TO FULFILL THE COVERAGE AND CAPACITY USES ON A CELL TOWER PROJECT. YOU CAN'T JUST GO WAY OVER THERE BECAUSE SOMEBODY SAYS GO OVER THERE.

WE NEED CELL SERVICE BUT JUST GO OVER THERE.

VISUAL PRESENCE ALONE SHOULD NOT OUTWEIGH DEMONSTRATED SERVICE GAPS AFFECTING PUBLIC SAFETY AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.

THE MONOPULL TOWER HAS BEEN ENGINEERED TO MINIMIZE VISUAL IMPACT THROUGH HEIGHT OPTIMIZATION, FINISHES, PRESCRIBED STUFF. AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS MUST BE EVALUATED IN THE CONTEXT OF MEASURABLE STANDARDS.

NOT JUST I CAN SEE IT, I DON'T WANT IT, YOU SHOULD VOTE NO.

AND THE DEMONSTRATED PUBLIC NEED FOR SERVICE.

THIS APPLICATION FULLY COMPLIES WITH ALL THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS INCLUDING HEIGHT SET BACK, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND THE LIKE. THE TOWER PROVIDES SERVICE FOR VERIZON AND T-MOBILE AND OTHERS. THE COUNTY USES T-MOBILE.

SO YOU AND I WOULD GET KICKED OFF IF THE FIRST RESPONDERS NEED ACCESS. VERIZON IS THE ANCHOR TENANT.

IT IS PUBLIC SAFETY UTILIZING 800 MEGAHERTZ TRUNK RADIO COMMUNICATIONS AND ST. JOHNS COUNTY IF A PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO DOES NOT HAVE COVERAGE IT REVERTS TO THE NEAREST VERIZON TOWER. THAT USES FRONT LINE.

THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR THIS GROWING COMMUNITY AND WILL HELP PROVIDE SERVICE ON THE ROADS AND BELT WAY.

AGAIN UNDER THE FCC ACT OF 1996, MUST BE GROUNDED IN SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND OBJECTIVE CRITERIA. JUST GREAT THAT HIS CELL PHONE IS GOING OFF RIGHT NOW. AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS MUST BE EVALUATE IN THE CONTEXT OF MEASURABLE STANDARDS AND THE DEMONSTRATED PUBLIC NEED FOR SERVICE.

WITHOUT THE FACILITY -- EXCUSE ME, I'M TALKING.

WITHOUT THE FACILITY, IF WOULD LEAD A SIGNIFICANT SERVICE DEFICIENCY UNRESOLVED AFFECTING PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE BROADER COMMUNITY INCLUDING THE GROWTH OF THE RESIDENTIAL BASE AND ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE AREA.

FOR THE REASONS AND THOSE PROVIDED AS SUBMITTED IN THE APPLICATION AND IN THIS PRESENTATION I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST BCC TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION. AND I WOULD LIKE MY APPRAISER TO COME UP RIGHT NOW AND ENTER HIS INFORMATION TO THE RECORD.

>> JUST AS QUICKLY AS HE CAN. >> JUST A MINUTE.

ALSO WANTS YOU TO GET HELP TURNING THAT ON VIBRATE.

HELP HIM TURN THAT ON VIBRATE ALSO.

[10:40:04]

ORTLAND IR ICC, CBRI,IR. INDEPENDENT DRIVE SUITE 3000 Select to skip to this part of the video">ORTLAND IR ICC, CBRI,IR. INDEPENDENT DRIVE SUITE 3000 JACKSONILLE. AIM CERTIFIED STATE GENERAL REAL ESTATE APPRAISER. CRE DESIGNATION FROM ACCOUNT SOURCE OF REAL ESTATE. I AM A FELLOW WITH THE ROYAL INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED SURVEYORS.

THE MAI DESIGNATION AND THE AIGRS DESIGNATION FROM THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE. SO I WILL BE BRIEF.

YOU HAVE HEARD A COUPLE OF TIMES PEOPLE TALK ABOUT STUDIES.

SO THERE ARE ABOUT 17 PUBLISHED STUDIES THAT ARE OUT THERE ABOUT THIS. 50% FIND THERE IS A REDUCTIONS IN VALUE. 50% SAY THERE'S NOT.

IT SLIDES THE FURTHER AWAY YOU GET FROM A TOWER.

BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THEY SAY IS THE ONLY WAY TO DETERMINE IF THERE IS DIMINISHING VALUE TO RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLDS NEXT TO IT IS TO DO A PAIRED HOUSE ANALYSIS.

AND I THINK Y'ALL HAVE MY PAQUETTE SO I WON'T GO THROUGH IT BUT WE HAVE FIVE SETS OF PAIRED SALES IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. TWO WITH POLES THAT -- SORRY.

THREE WITH POLES BEFORE THE HOUSES WERE BUILT AND TWO AFTER THEY WERE PUT IN. YOU CAN SEE THAT DATA AND IT CLEARLY SAYS THERE IS NO REDUCTION ESPECIALLY AT THE DISTANCE WE A TALKING HERE 748 TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

WHICH IS WHAT WE MEASURE. HOUSES THAT WERE CLOSER THAN THAT AGAINST HOUSES THAT WERE FURTHER THAN THAT AND THERE WAS

NO REDUCTION OF VALUE. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU FOR KEEPING THAT BRIEF.

>> HE'S GOT CAN THE REPORT. AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS SUBMIT THIS FOR THE RECORD AS WELL.

WHICH IS INCLUDING OUR WILDLIFE STUDY AND WETLAND STUDY.

AND I ALSO WANT TO INCLUDE THIS. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT.

MR. MADAVITA BROUGHT UP AND HE WAS ONE OF THE ONES THAT VOTED FOR THIS. IT WAS A 4-3 VOTE.

HE SAID CAN YOU CUT ALL THE TREES IN THAT AREA.

AL YES, BY RIGHT. WE TALKED ABOUT TIMBERLANDS AND ENCLAVES. YES, YOU COULD HARVEST THE TIMBER, RIGHT. WE HAVE GONE BACK TO WHITESFORD TIMBER. I HAVE HERE.

>> WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT? >> PLEASE DON'T INTERRUPT.

>> WRAP IT UP. OKAY.

AFFIDAVIT FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THIS IS AN AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT WHICH IS CODY HUDSON.

WE ARE GOING TO PRESERVE EVERY SINGLE TREE WITHIN 250 FEET OF THIS LEASEHOLD. THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN PZA. WE CAME TO TERMS WITH THE LAND OWN AND THEY AGREED TO IT. THAT'S ENTERED INTO THE RECORD NOW SO EVERYTHING WITHIN THE COUNTY'S CRITERIA WHICH IS 250 FEET WILL BE PRESERVED. THERE WILL NOT BE A TREE CUT DOWN. AND THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT PZA, BUT STILL GOT APPROVED 4-3. THE WE ARE HERE TO ENTER THAT INTO THE RECORD, AND IT WILL BECOME PART OF THIS PROJECT IF THIS WERE TO BE PROVED AND YOU DENY THIS APPEAL.

SO I AM ENTERING ALL THIS IN THE RECORD, AND I STAND BY FOR ANY MORE QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE REBUTTAL?

IF NOT, WE'LL GO STRAIGHT TO. >> TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> I GUESS SO. >> GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING. >> IS ANYBODY AWAKE?

>> BOX 3084. I AM NOT BELIEVE THAT GO GUY.

HE'S NOT -- YOU LET HIM TESTIFY. DON'T DO THAT AGAIN.

WE NEED RULES OF EVIDENCE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS IN ST.

JOHNS COUNTY, AND THEY NEED TO BE ENFORCED.

AND YOUR ATTORNEY NEEDS TO DO THEIR JOB FOR A CHANGE.

THEY'RE SITTING THERE ON THEIR -- LET ME CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

THIS APPLICANT. I WILL IF I WANT TO.

I WILL POINT AT THEM AND I WILL POINT AT MR. ROBERSON, ANYBODY I WANT TO. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT.

NOW,. >> WRAP IT UP.

POINT IS MADE. >> ARTICLE 1 SECTION 24 OF OUR FLORIDA CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED BY 83% OF THE PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN 1992. THAT'S 3.8 MILLION PEOPLE IN FLORIDA. THAT IS THE OPEN RECORDS AND SUNSHINE LAW. HOW IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT'S HOLY DOES THIS APPLICANT, THIS INFLUENCE PEDDLER, THIS LOBBYIST GET TO PRESENT AND TESTIFY ABOUT THINGS NOT IN HIS EXPERTISE.

THEY ARE NOT EXPERTS. AND THEY HAD SECRET EVIDENCE.

THEY HAD IF I'M HEARING CORRECTLY FROM THE APPELLANT THAT THEY HAD SECRET REAL ESTATE EVIDENCE.

REALLY? SECRET COURTS AND SECRET LAW.

THAT'S UN-AMERICAN THE LAST TIME I CHECKED.

CALLING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF WEST NEW JERSEY 1676 SECTION 23. JUSTICE MAY NOT BE DONE IN A CORNER OR IN ANY COVERT MANNER. JUDGE JAMES WILL AND I QUOTED THAT IN ONE OF OUR JUDGES JOURNAL ARTICLES FOR THE AMERICAN LAW ASSOCIATION CIRCA 1990.

[10:45:01]

THAT'S BLACK LETTER LAW. BEFORE THE FIRST AMENDMENT, BEFORE THERE WAS A GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WE HAD A PRINCIPAL. JUSTICE MAY NOT BE DONE IN A CORNER NOR IN ANY COVERT MANNERS.

WHERE IS THE TRANSCRIPT? WHERE I THE TRANSCRIPT OF THIS SO-CALLED HEARING. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO WATCH A VIDEOTAPE? THAT'S A WASTE OF MY TIME AND YOURS. WE NEED AN ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT.

IS THERE A TRANSCRIPT, SIR? COULD WE STATE ON THE RECORD? DO YOU HAVE A TRANSCRIPT? I HAVEN'T SEEN A TRANSCRIPT.

THIS WOULD BE REVERSED AND REMANDED AT THE VERY LEAST FOR THE REASONS THAT THE APPELLANT STATED.

AND I THINK YOU GOT A LOT OF ISSUES.

AND I THINK THEY DID A VERY GOOD JOB AT PRESENTING IT.

BUT MR. WESTER I GUESS HE'S A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTOR, RIGHT? OKAY. I THINK YOU GAVE HIM WAY TOO MUCH TIME. I THINK YOU NEED TO HAVE TIME LIMITS FOR THESE HEARINGS. AND YOU HAVE TIME LIMITS IN ANY COURT OF THE LAND. YOU CAN HEAR LOCALLY EVEN IN THE SUPREME COURT. WHY DO YOU LET HIM GO ON FOR SO LONG? YOU ALWAYS LET DEVELOPERS GO ON FOR TOO LONG. DON'T DO THAT AGAIN.

THAT'S WHAT I SAID TO TOM MANUAL WHO WAS ARRESTED FOR THE FBI FOR BRIBERY. I CALLED HIM UP AT HOME AND SAID

DON'T DO THAT AGAIN. >> LOOK.

I'M JUST AS TIRED AS YOU ARE AND I AM PROBABLY A LITTLE MORE CRANKY TOO. WE GAVE THE PEOPLE WHO WERE APPEALING AS MUCH TIME AS THEY NEEDED.

AND WE HUSTLED THE REBUTTAL UP. >> IS HE QUESTIONING THE

TRANSCRIPT FOR WHAT, PZA? >> I DON'T KNOW.

>> IS THERE ONE? >> THERE IS NOT.

>> THERE IS NOT A TRANSCRIPT. AND THERE IS ALSO THE VIDEO RECORDING. (INAUDIBLE).

>> YOU HAVE TO WHAT? (INAUDIBLE).

>> OKAY. I LEARNED SOMETHING NEW TONIGHT.

I DID NOT KNOW THAT. >> YEAH, LET'S MOVE ON WITH

THIS. >> OKAY.

HI GUYS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

IT HAS BEEN A LONG DAY. WE UNDERSTAND EVERYBODY WANTS TO GO HOME, BUT THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE TO US SO WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU COULDN'T RUSH US.

>> NOBODY IS RUSHING YOU, MA'AM. >> SO THESE ARE TWO THINGS.

WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO SHOW UP? >> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> I LIVE -- LESS THAN TWO MILES FROM THE PROPOSED SITE. I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THE RADIO FREQUENCY, HEALTH, FIRE SAFETY, AND EMERGENCY ACCESS IMPLICATIONS OF PLACING THIS PROPOSED CELL PHONE TOWER IN OUR ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.

AT THE EXISTING ASHLEY OBSERVATION TOWER WHICH THESE ARE THE SIGNS FROM THE EXISTING ASHLEY OBSERVATION TOWER WHICH YOU COULD GO SEE ON STATE ROAD 13, IT SAYS NOTICE.

RADIO FREQUENCY ENVIRONMENT AREA.

AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY BEYOND THIS POINT.

A SECOND SIGN STATES FIRE DANGER.

THIS SITE HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS HAVING AN ELEVATED HAZARD POTENTIAL. THESE ACTIVITIES ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED. SMOKING FIRES, COOKING, AND IDLE VEHICLES. THESE SIGNS RAISE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS. IF AN EXISTING TOWER SITE HAS AN IDENTIFIED FIRE HAZARD, WHAT SITE SPECIFIC RISK FIRE ASSESSMENTS AND PROTECTIONS ARE PLANNED FOR THIS PROPOSED TOWER? OUR COMMUNITY HAS ONLY ONE INDISTRESS AND ONE EGRESS F ELECTRICAL POLE FAILURE CAUSES INTO THE SURROUNDING FOREST, RESIDENTS COULD FACE A SERIOUS EVACUATION HAZARD.

SMOKE SCREENS OR EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACTIVITY COULD COMPROMISE OUR ONLY WAY OUT. WHAT FIRE DETECTION, MONITORING,S AND SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS WILL BE PROVIDED? HOW WILL EMERGENCY CREWS ACCESS THE SITE DURING A HURRICANE OR OTHER SEVERE WEATHER? WE DESERVE DOCUMENTED ANSWERS BEFORE APPROVAL. THE ASHLEY OBSERVATION RF WARNING ALSO IDENTIFIES RESTRICTED AREAS WHERE PERSONNEL MUST FOLLOW RADIO SAFETY PROCEDURES.

THIS DEMONSTRATES WHY SITE SPECIFIC EXPOSURE ASSESSMENTS AND CLEAR SAFETY DOCUMENTATION MATTER.

AS QUESTIONS ABOUT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY AND RADIO FREQUENCY EXPOSURE CONTINUE TO RECEIVE SCIENTIFIC AND REGULATORY ATTENTION, A PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH IS RESPONSIBLE AND NOT UNREASONABLE. JUST RECENTLY THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES IN OUR CURRENT ADMINISTRATION PUT IN A REQUEST TO THE FEDERAL REGISTER ON THE RISKS AND DETRIMENT OF THIS RADIATION ON OUR HEALTH. FINALLY CONSIDERERS MUST CONSIDER COMBATTABILITY. OUR ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS IS VALUED FOR ITS NATURAL SURROUNDINGS, PEACEFUL ENVIRONMENT, AND FAMILY FOCUSED CHARACTER. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS ALONE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT AN INDUSTRIAL TYPE STRUCTURE BELONGS HERE. WE ARE NOT OPPOSING TECHNOLOGY.

WE ARE ASKING FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT, A FULL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES AND PROTECTION OF OUR COMMUNITY.

COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE, PLEASE. WHY APPROVE THIS PERMANENT STRUCTURE BEFORE THESE HEALTH, FIRE, EVACUATIONING COMBATTABILITY CONCERNS HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED.

WE RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO TAKE A CAUTIOUS APPROACH AND DENY THIS PERMIT. THANK YOU.

[10:50:05]

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 9?

GREEN. >> GREEN, EVERYBODY, AND THANK YOU FOR STAYING LATE. YOUR PROFESSIONALISM IS EXEMPLARY THIS EVENING. MY NAME IS DAN MCGRATH, AND I AM A RESIDENT OF GLEN ST. JOHNS PROUDLY WITH MY FAMILY ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO WHEN WE LANDED. WE FELT WE LANDED IN HEAVEN.

IT'S A WONDERFUL NEIGHBOURHOOD WITH FANTASTIC NEIGHBOURS.

AND ABOUT A YEAR AGO WE WOKE UP AND FOUND OUT THAT WE WERE GONNA HAVE ONE OF THESE GIANT MONSTROSITIES RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD. AS YOU CAN IMAGINE WE WERE A BIT CONCERNED, AND THE REALITY IS 180 FEET IS ALMOST TWICE AS HIGH AS THE TREELINE. NOT REALLY AS HIDDEN AS SOME OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE YOU BELIEVE.

I GOT TO THINKING THAT, YOU KNOW, 180 FEET IS KIND OF UGLY.

WHAT ELSE MIGHT GO IN THERE THAT MIGHT GO ALONG WITH THE NEIGHBOURHOOD A LITTLE BIT BETTER? AND WHILE I THOUGHT OKAY, 180 FEET.

LET'S TRY THE ST. AUGUSTINE LIGHT HOUSE.

THAT MIGHT LOOK GOOD IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD.

OR WE COULD GO AHEAD AND THROW EPCOTT CENTER IN THERE.

THE TRUTH IS THAT BALL IS 180 FEET TALL.

OF COURSE EVERYBODY'S FAVOURITE, CINDERELLA CASTLE RIGHT DOWN THE END OF ST. THOMAS PARKWAY. OF COURSE THAT'S ABSURD.

AND IT'S ABSURD TO THINK THAT A 180-FOOT CELL TOWER BELONGS RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD.

LOOK, YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN HERE LATE.

I'M NOT GONNA KEEP TALKING. THE REALITY IS THAT WE NEED YOU TO BE ON YOUR A GAME WHEN IT COMES TO USING COMMON SENSE.

COMMON SENSE SAYS SURE, GROWTH, CELL TOWERS, COMMUNICATION, WE NEED ALL OF THAT. BUT IT DOESN'T BELONG IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD. SO I'M GONNA ASK TO YOU VOTE YES TO THE APPEAL. I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO TELL THE CELL PHONE TOWER PEOPLE TO GO BUILD THEIR TOWER SOMEWHERE ELSE. I'M NOT INTERESTED IN THEIR PROBLEMS. I'M INTERESTED IN OURS.

ANYONE ELSE. GOOD EVENING.

MY PAPER SAYS GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD EVENING.

AND I'M GONNA READ IT BECAUSE I'M TIRED.

MY NAME IS LESLEY MOSIER. I LIVE AT 255 GLEN COYER DRIVE IN ST. JOHNS ABOUT 1,500 FEET FROM THE PROPOSED SITE.

I LIVED HERE SINCE 2017, AND OVER THE PAST NINE YEARS I WATCHED OUR COMMUNITY GROW INTO A STABLE, FAMILY FOCUSED PLACE WHERE PEOPLE FEEL INVESTED IN THEIR HOMES AND THE LONG-TERM CHARACTER OF THE AREA. THAT STABILITY IS EXACTLY WHY THIS PROPOSED 180-FOOT CELL TOWER RAISES SERIOUS CONCERNS FOR ME. FIRST, THE TOWER IS SIMPLY NOT COMBATABLE WITH A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOURHOOD LIKE OURS.

180-FOOT MONOPOLE WOULD RISE FAR ABOVE OUR ROOFLINES AND TREE CANOPY WHICH WAS ALREADY SHOWN CREATING PERMANENT VISUAL INTRUSION THAT CHANGES THE LOOK AND FEEL OF OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD.

THE APPLICATION EITHER PROPOSES REMOVING TREES.

I GUESS HE SAID THEY WOULDN'T REMOVE THEM NOW, SO FORGET THAT.

THERE'S BEEN NO CREDIBLE ANALYSIS ON HOW THIS STRUCTURE COULD AFFECT VALUES DESPITE WHAT THEY SAID OR QUALITY OF LIFE.

AND THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED NO APPRAISAL, NO MARKET STUDY, AND NO COMBATABLE SALES ANALYSIS.

AT LEAST NOT A DIMINUTIVE ONE. AND A TOWER OF THIS SIZE GENERAL STATEMENTS ARE NOT ENOUGH, AND WE DESERVE REAL EVIDENCE.

THE APPLICANT HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE TOWER IS ACTUALLY NEEDED WITH THE TWO ADDITIONAL TOWER SITES ALREADY PLANNED NEARBY, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE SHOWING WHAT UNIQUE COVERAGE IT WOULD PROVIDE EXCEPT FOR PREDICTIVE MODELS.

AND WHILE I AM SITTING HERE GETTING VERY TIRED, ALL I CAN THINK OF IS HURRICANE SPAGHETTI MODELS, AND YOU KNOW HOW SO I ALSO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU AS THE DECISION MAKERS EXERCISE CAUTION BEFORE APPROVING A CELL TOWER IN OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD MY SON RECENTLY COMPLETED CHEMO FOR LYMPHOMA AND OUR FAMILY IS CONCERNED ABOUT EXPOSURE.

WHILE SCIENTIFIC DEBATE CONTINUES, NUMEROUS PUBLISHED STUDIES HAVE REPORTED ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN PROXIMITY TO CELLULAR BASE STATIONS AND ADVERSE HEALTH OUTCOMES.

I BELIEVE A PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH IS DEFINITELY WARRANTED

[10:55:05]

INCLUDING ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS FAR FROM NEIGHBOURHOODS WHERE CHILDREN LIVE AND PLAY. THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING. >> MY NAME IS DON.

I'M A RESIDENT IN AT GLEN ST. JOHNS.

EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR STAYING AND LISTENING TO US TONIGHT AND TAKING UP OUR CASE.

THIS HAS BEEN VERY PASSIONATE THING IN OUR HOUSEHOLD.

TO SAY IT'S A CONCERN FOR OUR FAMILY AND COMMUNITY WOULD BE AN UNDERSTATEMENT. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS REALLY WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH IS A PERMANENT CONDITION OF VISUAL POLLUTION THAT CANNOT BE EFFECTIVELY MITIGATED BY ANY LANDSCAPE ORGAN ANY STEALTHY DESIGN.

THE DEGRADATION OF OUR AESTHETIC CHARACTER DIRECTLY VIOLATES LOCAL ZONING GUIDELINES MEANT TO PRESERVE THE VISUAL INTEGRITY OF RESIDENTIAL ZONES. AT THE END OF THE DAY EVEN WHEN I WAS HERE FOR THE FIRST HEARING, WHAT I HEARD A LOT OF IS RULES AND GUIDELINES AND THAT THEY'RE IN ADHERENCE WITH ALL OF THEM. SO I'M NOT DENYING THAT.

THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY GUIDELINES THAT THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW.

BUT IN THIS CASE WHERE THEY HAVE CHOSEN EVEN WHERE THE GUIDELINES ARE MET, IT DOESN'T FIT, DOESN'T WORK THERE.

SO I REALLY WANT YOU GUYS TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

THE THERE ARE OTHER WAYS. WE HAVE SEEN OTHER TECHNOLOGY ON SHORTER POLES LIKE TELEPHONE POLES THAT CAN BE INSTALLED ALONG THE NEW PARKWAY. THERE ARE DEFINITELY OTHER WAYS AND WITH THE FUTURE COMING WITH SATELLITE COMMUNICATION, WE DON'T NEED CELL TOWERS EVERYWHERE WHEN TECHNOLOGY IS GOING TO PASS THIS STUFF UP. THEY CAN FIND ANOTHER SPOT FOR% IT. THEY HAD OTHER OPPORTUNITIES AND OBVIOUSLY DISPOINT COUNTERED THEM FOR OTHER REASONS.

IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR TINY COMMUNITY THAT WOULD AFFECT ALL OF US JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE BULLIES AT THIS POINT AND THEY'RE DOING EVERYTHING THAT THEY SAY IS TO THE LAW THAT THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PUT THIS THERE.

IF IT WERE YOU FINE FOLKS SITTING IN OUR COMMUNITY, YOU WOULD PROBABLY HAVE THE SAME IDEAS WE DO.

SO I HOPE YOU VOTE NO. DON'T LET THEM DO THIS.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE? PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME. GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS DR. MICHAEL BUBENZIE.

I RESIDE AT 22 WHITE BAY DRIVE ST. AUGUSTINE.

I AM HERE TONIGHT REPRESENTING HUNDREDS OF FAMILIES WHO SIGNED PETITIONS WHO SPOKE OUT AGAINST THIS AND WHO HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED OVER THE TIME. THESE ARE THEIR HUNDREDS OF FAMILIES THAT ARE ALL AT HOME RIGHT NOW PUTTING CHILDREN TO BET AND GETTING READY FOR SCHOOL TOMORROW AND THINKING ABOUT THE LIFE THEY CREATED IN THIS COMMUNITY.

I HAVE BEEN LIVING HERE FOR TEN YEARS.

WE MOVED HERE, BUILT HERE, STARTED A LIFE HERE BECAUSE THIS PLACE WAS DIFFERENT, THIS PLACE WAS SPECIAL, THIS WAS A COMMUNITY. WE ARE FAMILIES.

THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR THIS, FOLKS.

THERE HAVE BEEN MANY REASONS GIVEN, MANY EXPLANATIONS FOR WHY THIS TOWER DOES NOT BELONG HERE. AND ANY ONE OF THESE REASONS BY THEMSELVES COULD BE REFUTED, COULD BE EXPLAINED, COULD BE GIVEN RULES AND TECHNICALITIES AND SO ON, BUT WHEN YOU ADD UP AND LOOK AT THE SUM OF THE IMPACT OF WHAT THIS CAUSES AND DOES TO OUR COMMUNITY, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

RESPECT ITEM NUMBER 8 ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA AND THE IDEA OF THE SACRIFICE THAT WE HAVE TO FIND SOMEWHERE TO PUT THESE TOWERS, AND WE LOOK FOR THESE OUTLINES PARCELS, THESE AREAS THAT ARE LESS POPULATED, ST. JOHNS IS THE OPPOSITE OF THAT.

GLEN ST. JOHNS IS A COMMUNITY THAT GOES AGAINST ALL THE REAONS WHY YOU WOULD PUT A CELL TOWER IN.

ITS ALSO PROBLEMATIC THAT WE DO HAVE THESE TWO TOWERS CLOSE BY, AND I JUST HOPE THAT THIS GROUP WILL NOT VOTE BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS, BASED ON MODELS, BASED ON PREDICTIONS.

BECAUSE ANYONE CAN PREDICT ANYTHING.

AND EVERYONE IS AN EXPERT. SO I ASK OF YOU ALL TO JUST PLEASE CONSIDER THE HUNDREDS OF FAMILIES WHOSE LIVES WILL BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED FOR ALL OF TONIGHT BY THIS DECISION AND THAT YOU SET A PRECEDENT AND CONTINUE TO SET A PRECEDENT AND LEAVE THEM TO THE LOCATIONS IN WHICH THEY BELONG.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME.

GOOD EVENING. >> HELLO.

AT THE MEETINGS, RESIDENTS URGED THE COUNTY TO PROTECT THE

[11:00:01]

PEACEFUL, RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THEIR COMMUNITY ARGUING THAT THE PROPOSED CELL TOWER WAS NOT COMBATABLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBOURHOOD. THE APPLICATION WAS LATER DENIED. AT THE TIME BRAD WESTER ARGUED THAT THE COUNTY SUPPORTED THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND THAT COMBATTABILITY DOES NOT REQUIRE IDENTICAL SURROUNDING LAND USES.

HE MADE THE SAME ARGUMENT AT OUR HEARING AND STATED THE TOWER MET TECHNICAL CRITERIA AND WOULD FILL A WIRELESS COVERAGE GAP PARTICULARLY FOR INCAR SERVICE. COMBATTABILITY IS NOT A BLANK STATEMENT OR STANDARD THAT CAN BE REDEFINED BY THE APPLICANT UNDER THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

A SPECIAL USE MUST BE HARMONIOUS WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA'S CHARACTER, SCALE, AND INTENSITY. THE REQUEST HE IS NOT WHETHER NEARBY USES ARE IDENTICAL BUT WHETHER THIS IS APPROPRIATE IN A RESIDENTIAL SERVING AREA. GIVEN ITS HEIGHT, SCALE, AND VISUAL IMPACT IT IS NOT. THE PROPOSED TOWER FAILS TO MEET COUNTY'S COMBATTABILITY REQUIREMENT.

THE APPLICANT PLACES EMPHASIS ON INHOME AND INCAR COVERAGE, BUT CONVENIENCE ALONE DOES NOT MEET THE BILL.

MEETING TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS ALONE DOES NOT MAKE IT APPROPRIATE FOR OUR COMMUNITY. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATED THE CLAIMED COVERAGE GAP OR SHOWN THAT SATELLITE CONNECTIVITY AND OTHER EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES HAVE BEEN FULLY EVALUATED. NO VERIFIED EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT COLOCATION ON EXISTING TOWERS IS UNAVAILABLE, SO COMMISSIONERS SHOULD CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZE THOSE CLAIMS. OUR COMMUNITY WAS BUILT LONG BEFORE THIS PROPOSAL. FAMILIES CHOSE TO LIVE HERE FOR ITS PEACEFUL, RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER AND NATURAL SURROUNDINGS. WE NEVER HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH THE IMPACT OF A TOWER LIKE THIS WHEN PURCHASING OUR HOMES AND WE SHOULD NOT LOSE THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE THIS PROPOSAL CAME LATER. PLEASE HELP US PRESERVE OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD THAT WE HAVE INVESTED IN, THAT WE LOVE, AND THAT WE PROUDLY CALL HOME HOMAN. WE DID NOT MOVE OR SORRY, CLAY MURPHY SAID REGARDING THE TOWER DENIAL.

WHEN THINGS GET ROUGH, FOLLOW YOUR HEART.

TODAY WE ASK YOU TO DO THE SAME AND PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY.

WE DID NOT MOVE HERE FOR TOWERS AND INDUSTRIAL FREDERICTON.

FOREST OPEN SKIES, WILDLIFE, AND PEACEFUL CHARACTER THAT MAKES ST. JOHNS UNIQUE. FOR MANY OF US THIS IS NOT JUST A NEIGHBOURHOOD. ITS A HOME.

AND A WAY OF LIFE WE WORKED HARD TO FIND.

PLEASE PRESERVE THIS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.