Regular Meeting @ 5 p.m. - Aug 25, 2026

Hey, good evening. It's 5 o'clock, and we're going to go ahead and open it up for a public hearing. I think Mary and Chuck will be joining us shortly. So, Madam Clerk, first item or only item? First and only item, Z26-00-005, transmittal hearing for Everly Farmstead Community Large-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Okay, thank you. And the recommended action is to transmit the application Z26-505 with SAF's recommended policies to the state for review and comment. And Mr. Dawson, you are recognized.

Good evening, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Chris Dawson, Principal Planner for Development Services at Alachua County Growth Management Department. You all have my resume. We've advertised this as required in our land development code. And tonight, as the clerk mentioned, this is the transmittal hearing for the Everly Farmstead Community, which is a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment.

And I presume we'll do your presentation and we'll break for a public comment at 530.

I'm going to try to not talk for half an hour, Mr. Chair. And then we'll turn it over to the applicant. We'll see where we are, and you tell me when to sit down and let other people speak.

Right on. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chair, this is a future land use map amendment for about 996 acres, 820 of which are inside the Hancry Sink Special Area Plan, and 176 are outside. It would change the future land use designation from rural agriculture to Everly Farmstead Community, and it would also create policies implementing the Everly Farmstead Community future land use designation. This application is really considered a part of the Hickory Sink Special Area Plan. So even though there is some land that is outside the limits of the special area study that's included, the majority of the property is inside. That special area study was accepted by the board in November 2023. It included a number of conditions which have been addressed in the application before us today. It allowed for a Phase I UF Gulf development, and you saw that comprehensive plan amendment and PD before you earlier this year. It identified conservation areas within the limits of the special area study, and it also identified areas for potential future development. And there was specific direction included on the protection of natural resources within the limits of the special area study. So the SAS now really has sort of three distinct ownership components. That is the property that was in the special area study. There's 580 acres that you saw earlier that's owned by the UF Foundation. That's where the UF Golf Course is. There are all the lands west of Parker Road that are owned by UF IFAS and managed by UF IFAS. And then there are the lands sort of south of the golf course on the east side of Parker Road that are subject to this application. The ones within the SAS are still under the ownership of the Lee family or its associated entities. And there are some additional properties outside of the SAS that are in private ownership. And generally, it's located south of Oakmont and west of Hale Plantation. So that's sort of a location map there. Oakmont is up here. Hale Plantation is here. The Logano development is here sort of in the center of the screen just to the east. Parker Road on the west side and Archer Road there running to the south. Again, an aerial of the recent aerial of the project site. Most of this property has been historically used for agriculture of different kinds. It's been ranch land at times. It's been active farming. And it's been in silviculture again at different times. And even the properties that are outside of the special area study have had similar historic agricultural uses. And, again, the proposal is to change the future land use designation for these properties from rural agriculture to the Everly Farmstead Community future land use designation. And on this map, you can see that that's this sort of, I'm going to call it brown for the sake of discussion color on the map. And then there is a blue line that includes, that shows the properties that were part of the special area study. You can see the UF Gulf institutional to the north. So, again, this is a request for application, a request for properties both within and outside the Hickory Sink special area plan. And we've proposed policies that are included in the staff report. We're going to go through some of them, not necessarily in detail, but we certainly can, that create the Everly Farmstead Community future land use designation. And that's applied to about 996 acres. So, again, I'll just say we sort of, in the special area planning process that we have identified in our comprehensive plan, there was a special area study scope of work that you all approved. The study itself, which included significant stakeholder, public participation, and your acceptance of a resolution for the special area study, that was in November 2023, and now we're really at that sort of implementing special area plan. So, that's kind of zoomed out a little bit more, just so you can see the extent of the Hickory Sink special area study on the west side of Parker Road. So, you can see all these, this actually goes all the way up to Tioga South, up here on the northern end. And then, again, you can see the limits of the Everly Farmstead Community future land use designation down here in the south. So, again, proposed changes. The first one is a map change to change that future land use designation from Everly Farm, from rural agriculture to Everly Farmstead Community. And that also will include an update of the map F-17 that we adopted as part of the UF Gulf application to reflect the new future land use designation on these properties. So, it'll look something like that, the new map F-17. And, again, you can see there that's the Everly Farmstead Community that we've sort of designated on that special area plan map. So, the second part is a lot of text amendments. And, as I mentioned, we're going to go through them. These are adopted in or proposed in policies 8.6.1 through 8.6.4. Those portions, I'm sorry, those 8.6.1 to 8.6.4 have already been adopted. Those would still, to some extent, apply within the Everly Farmstead Community. That includes the designation of the conservation management areas, those kinds of policies. There is also a whole new set of policies in 8.6.6 that we'll go through. Those apply to all of the Everly Farmstead Community. So, not just the area within the special area plan. Those apply to all of the properties for this future land use designation. So, I'm going to talk about some of the policies that we're adopting and the sort of framework in the sort of view of the conditions that you all adopted as part of the acceptance of the special area study. So, for example, on this first one, condition 8, related to prioritizing protection of conservation management areas and clustering development close to the urban cluster. It required any application to address requirements of policy 713, which is related to the expansion of the urban cluster. It included a requirement that development be served by urban infrastructure and services and do an analysis that demonstrates that that's possible. It required an analysis of the potable water and sanitary sewer facilities element, policy 3.1.5, which deals with the extension of potable water and sanitary sewer outside the urban cluster. It required transportation connections consistent with our urban mobility districts, including connectivity to surrounding development. It required urban design concepts that support non-automotive modes of transportation, and it included a requirement for affordable housing consistent with policies adopted in our comprehensive plan. So, I say that there's a lot of things there in condition 8. Each of those is addressed sort of somewhere in the policies that we're proposing for adoption. Condition 9 dealt, again, more with the extension of central water and sanitary sewer and the analysis of policies 3.1.5 and 3.1.6 from the potable water and sanitary sewer facilities element. And condition 10 dealt with specifically water conservation and low water use landscaping, and it included some such ases that are up here on the screen, but certainly didn't limit it to those sort of individual topics. And then condition 13 dealt with stormwater treatment, the use of low-impact design ideas and engineered soils for denitrification, as well as other LID approaches. And some of those are addressed specifically in policies that we're proposing for adoption. Some of them may have more specific implementation later in the development process if the board decides to move forward with this. So, at this point, I'm going to sort of dive into the proposed policies that we've written and sort of talk about what the policies do in terms of the Everly Farmstead Community Future Land Use designation. And the first is proposed policy 866, and this is the additional development entitlements that the project is, that we're proposing, be granted to the project. So, under the current future land use designation for the property, staff estimated loosely, it's sometimes hard to do it more specifically, that about 275 units would be a reasonable number of units that could be developed in a clustered subdivision on the property. So, that's based on the acreage of the property that allows one dwelling unit per five acres, as well as bonus units that would be available through the clustering provisions of our plan. Policy 866 proposes 2,500 residential units, market rate residential units, plus an additional 250 affordable units, and 200,000 square feet of non-residential development. So, that's the sort of total of what would be allowed on the property. And the proposed policies require that 5,000 acres be the basis for transfer of development rights, either through acquisition or a fee-in-lieu. And that's where those residential units really come from. So, I'm going to go through that here in just a second about how we arrived at those numbers a little bit more. But I did want to just point out that that's really, it's not that the units are just being created out of nowhere. We're really looking for them to be moved from one place to here. Policy 7.1.3 of the future land use element is, it's a policy that requires the analysis of need for expansion of the urban cluster. So, two parts to that. The applicant is not proposing to expand the urban cluster, and the staff policies that we're proposing also would not change the location of the urban cluster line. So, the Everly Farmstead community would continue to be located outside of the urban cluster, even though it would be served by central sanitary sewer. The applicant did not find that our analysis, that staff's analysis as part of the evaluation and appraisal, which we're considering right now, was wrong or invalid, and really didn't identify sort of in the way that our comprehensive plan requires the identification of need. There isn't really a methodology to get there. But I think what I would say about that is that sort of as staff, we focused on the policy outcomes for this particular piece of property. And that is sort of the build-out potential under its existing future land use designation as compared to the build-out under the proposed policies. And given those two, we think that the option, as we've proposed today, is a better outcome for several reasons than what might be allowed with 275 units on the site today. Policy 7.1.3E of the comprehensive plan deals with what you have to do if you're expanding the cluster. And there's a bunch of stuff in there, like that's the analysis of need part. But there's also a, okay, if you're going to expand it, you have to do one of these two things. And one of those is that 25% of any new units have to be affordable at 80% of area median income. And the other sort of option is that you have to have a transfer of development rights for any new units authorized by the amendment. So those are sort of the two ends of the spectrum. And what we've sort of done is mashed those together. And so what we've said is that there has to be a purchase or pay a fee in lieu for 5,000 acres of other land where those units could come from. That's 55% of the full TDR requirement. And that the development has to provide 250 affordable housing units. That's at the 80% AMI, at or below 80% AMI. And that's about 45% of that full requirement. So we've kind of mixed those two and said you get some of this and some of that, but together they add up to that full 100%. So just graphically, because some people may think better, you can kind of think of the top arrow going zero to 8,900. 8,900 would be the total number of acres required to offset the additional entitlements. And on the bottom, you could look at that 25% and say it would be 557 units if it were all affordable housing. So you might say, well, like if you were right in the middle, it's 4,450 of TDR, 279 of affordable units. You could slide that bar over to one side and do less TDR and more affordable units. You could slide the bar the other direction and do more TDR, fewer affordable units. And in discussion with the applicant, this is sort of the place that we arrived, which is 5,000 acres, 250 affordable units. So that's kind of how we got there. There isn't a policy specific to that in the comprehensive plan today. And those policies that are in there about TDR and affordable housing are related specifically to the expansion of the cluster. Again, we're not expanding the cluster. So this is sort of an in-between where we're taking those policies that we have in the comprehensive plan and adapting them to how this site might function.

Any questions on that, Commissioner? Okay. No, I'd love to get through it. Yeah, let's get through it first.

Mr. Chair, the policies 3.1.5 and 3.1.6 provide some options to the board about expanding or extending potable water and sanitary sewer lines into the outside of the cluster, I would say. There's an A, B, C, and D. And one of those is sort of the health safety welfare. You know, if we don't do it, you know, people are going to, wells are going to go bad or, you know, there's too many septic tanks, something like that. So those are sort of A and B are those two. C is that the board finds, makes a finding, and that's what we're doing here tonight, that the extension of those facilities would meet the goals of the comprehensive plan in some other way. And so we've really said, and in here it talks about the retention and expansion of business and industry or the attraction of new business. And what we've said instead is that really that protection of land through the TDR and the provision of affordable housing units are goals that the commission has identified in its comprehensive plan. And so that this plan really does support those other goals that are identified in the comprehensive plan. That's why we think it's okay for the extension of potable water and sanitary sewer. In addition to having that many units would really require it anyway. So, again, it is supportive of the 250 affordable units, the 5,000 acres of conservation or ag preservation, and the urban form of development that will be undertaken as part of this. And then, really, at that point, policy 3.1.6 doesn't apply because that specifically applies to the expansion of the urban cluster. So that's sort of how we went through that analysis of those two policies that were required in the conditions of the SAS resolution. For transportation mobility, there's really a couple of policies that support that, the deal with the transportation mobility aspect, proposed policy 8663 requires development of substantial portions of the development consistent with T&D standards. So the development itself sets up the idea of character areas, which are different parts of the development and would have different kinds of characteristics. So there's both a village core and a village edge that would function much like our village center and transit supportive area for T&D's function. And then the Hamlet portion of the development, which would function like our outside the transit supportive area. And although the standards aren't necessarily specifically implemented in the comp plan here, we make reference to those sections of our comp plan being the guiding factor for how those areas will develop. The fourth character area is the farmstead character area, and that's more rural in character and isn't really appropriate to have those sort of same urban design standards. We'll talk about that here in just a second as well. And then proposed policy 86613 requires the implementation of a mobility district, which is what we have for our other mobility fee. We have three mobility districts in the county, and it would require the implementation of a mobility district specific to this development with a fee that is intended to support projects that are related directly to this, to the Everly Farmstead community. And that includes a requirement to construct internal infrastructure that enhances mobility within the development, and also a limitation on development, the amount of development prior to the programming of four-laning of State Road 24 to Parker Road. I mentioned the character areas. So the farmstead generally allows density up to one dwelling unit per three acres, which is a little bit higher than our current rural ag designation. There are some areas that require clustering and that are calculated at the one dwelling unit per five acres. So it's not directly one to three over the whole thing, but generally that's where we started. The hamlet is, I'll just say, more suburban in nature and allows densities up to five dwelling units per acre, but again would be very similar in design to our outside the transit supportive area. So block standards, sidewalks, pedestrian, bike, transportation infrastructure. The village edge, which would be mixed use with up to ten dwelling units per acre and a minimum of 300 units. And then the village core, which is mixed use with up to 16 dwelling units per acre and a minimum of 600 units. So those are both a little bit, the maximum density of those two are a little bit higher than what is allowed in our TND. So our TND maxes out on, I think, ten dwelling units per acre in the village center and goes down in the transit supportive area. So these would be a little bit higher on the high end, and rather than have a minimum density on the low end, it's a minimum number of units. It's a little bit different, but accomplishes a similar kind of goal. And then the five dwelling units per acre is one dwelling unit per acre more intense than our low density future land use designation, but really sits in the same sort of area in terms of intensity. The farmstead character area under the proposed policies is required to be a minimum of 400 acres. So 400 acres out of the 996 acres. And a minimum of 50% of that is set aside for uses consistent with policy 6212C, which is the policies in our rural clustered subdivisions related to open space. And this would include all of the CMAs that are designated as part of the special area study. So those are CMAs, and they only get to be CMAs. You don't get to do development or stormwater or anything else in those. They're CMAs. And it would also include areas where the strategic ecosystem standards apply, either as a clustered subdivision or as complete set aside as, you know, potentially ag lands or something like that. There would be more property in the farmstead, but this, so the sort of remaining homestead area from the Lee family, which is sort of centrally east located in the project, would be included in this. And then there would be additional open space areas that would be included. Policy 86611 would require a working farm as part of the development, which would be a minimum of 20 acres in size. It has to be located outside of any CMA or any of the other areas that are identified with the additional development standards as part of the special area study. And this would generally support agriculturally and community-based agriculture-related activities. So you can think of this as farm-to-table kinds of things, farmers' markets, actual farm, producing farm. There's a range of activities that could be considered as part of it. Policy 86615 requires a PD, that requires the implementing PD. So all of this will be implemented by a planned development zoning district. We don't have any current zoning districts that would be appropriate for it. And it requires the planned development to include disturbance limitations. So that means the actual areas of land where you're disturbing the property as you're developing. So it would require minimization of that. And provides for some selective clearing in the CMAs, where that is consistent with the restoration of the CMA itself. Policy 86615 requires geophysical testing prior to stormwater management facility design. The specifics of that are still being sort of worked out as part of the planned development. But I'll just note that as part of the UFGOLF PD, there was some pretty stringent requirements about testing, subsurface testing prior to implementation of stormwater management system. We would anticipate similar kinds of requirements on the PD here. And then it also requires a stormwater best management practices document as part of the planned development. And you will see all of that in the future if you decide to transmit. Water conservation policy 86617 establishes a maximum landscape irrigation limit, requires Florida native or Florida friendly landscaping, sets limits on fertilizer and provides for soil amendments, limits irritable areas on lots and common areas. I'm going through this very broadly right now. Establishes irrigation water sources and rules and introduces the idea of an irrigation utility within the development. So all of these are things that there's some pretty solid language already in the plan on these, but there will be more implementing language at the planned development. Suffice it to say that nearly all of these are things that we don't get in our normal development here in Alachua County. So even with the policy language that we have in the plan, we're sort of already a leap ahead of where our existing development patterns are today. And as part of the analysis, we did review public facilities availability. The GRU has sufficient capacity in both its water and wastewater systems to serve the development. There are likely to be improvements both on the site and potentially off-site and further up the distribution system in order to support the development, but the capacity is available in the plants. Fire Rescue reviewed the application and has indicated there would be no issues providing services to the site at our urban level of service guidelines, so similar to how we provide service within the cluster. And Alachua County Public Schools reviewed the proposal and how capacity exists either within the current school concurrency service area for the project or an adjacent school concurrency service area. And I will say that that analysis was done prior to the rezoning. The district has not adopted new school concurrency service areas yet. They're working on that. But in terms of what's available today in the system, it's available. There's capacity available to serve the development. The Planning Commission heard this item on July 15th, and they recommended the Board of County Commissioners to transmit the item. I will say that they provided a comment, and this is in the staff report, that there were concerns and discussion about the potential for transportation impacts in the southwest portion of the county related to this development. There were not any specific recommendations from the Planning Commission about that. Just a request to let you know that they had concerns, and there was discussion among the Planning Commission members on that. The Board, you guys are holding a public hearing tonight to decide whether to transmit this item. This is a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment. It would be transmitted to the state for state review, both at the Florida Commerce, which is the state planning agency, as well as other state agencies that would have an interest in the application. If you transmit it, once received, Florida Commerce and those other organizations would have 30 days to respond and provide comments to us. And then if there are comments, county staff would work with the applicant to solve any of those and schedule a final adoption hearing. So that's a TBD date. So, Mr. Chair, that is the end of my presentation. I'll just say staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners find the application Z26-00005 with staff's proposed policies consistent with the comprehensive plan and transmit the proposed comprehensive plan amendment to Florida Commerce and other agencies for their review and comments.

Okay, right on time. Right on time. So I think what we're going to do is pause the public hearing. We'll open it up for public comment not related to this item. Then we'll bring you back up, Chris. We'll ask questions, and then we'll hear from the applicant. Sound good? Sound good, Commissioner?

Okay. Mr. Connish, welcome. Mr. Chair, you're going to see. I'd like to thank Commissioner Chestnut and Wheeler for speaking with me on July 12th and sending county environmental protection out to Post Springs to protect the public from a toxic, dead spring. As you know, I have land out here. Sunday, I walk down. Our spring is closed for human occupation. Your lavish six-stall pump-out toilets are not being used. Post Springs flow is zero. It's a putrid pond. And this incredible run out to the river where I've spent hundreds of hours, the spring does not even return to the river, sir. I'd like to change the subject. On the trim notices that went out, taxpayers need to be aware that stormwater and solid waste assessments in the city of Gainesville have moved from GRU bills to tax bills. And the notices aren't crystal clear. You have 20 days to object to your non-ad valorem assessments or to apply for a hardship exemption. The city of Gainesville has hardship exemption forms on their website. The county does not. The county is refusing to give me a copy. They say they'll only give it to a homestead owner. I've done the public records law. I've had a lot of problems with public records. And I will sue the county to get whatever I need under the law. And there will be other things that I'll be suing them for other violations. To its credit, GRU looked at anomalous water bills and has discovered a lot of serious leaks. And I had one in front of my residence. In the duck pond across the Thomas Center, they put the water meter between the sidewalk and the street off my property. Someone must have drove over at UPS or Amazon. They broke the connection. And I leaked for a year and a half massive amounts of water billed to my house with wastewater fees. And there was no visible evidence because a live oak tree drank the water as fast as it leaked and got really big. Now, this is just old infrastructure. But Alachua General Hospital had a water leak in the basement for the entire life of the hospital. It was a broken line in front of the water meter. They thought it was a spring. Citizens need to know every leak is different. And there's large amounts of money owed to customers such as myself.

Thank you, Mr. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. Next speaker, please. Public comment? Anyone? Going once, going twice. Okay. Mr. Johnson? Oh, come on in. Oh, hey, Sam. That's my nephew.

And that's my uncle. It's the first time I've spoken in a forum like this. I understand it's three minutes, right?

Yep. You got green light. And green light means go. Red light means stop.

Excellent. Thank you both. Thank you all. Good evening, commissioners. And thank you for the work you do for this county. My name is Sam Cornell. For months, I reviewed Alachua County's license plate camera program. And of course, this is something that a lot of counties have been talking about in the news. I'm not here to criticize the county. I'm not here to compliment the county. But what I did do is through freedom of information requests, I published my findings. And I have a document here if you're interested in that. But I also have a one-page printout if you're interested in brevity that I can get to at the end. What I found is why I'm here. And pardon me, I just walked in the door. So I was getting my paperwork together. But as we speak, Alachua County's unique and expensive contracts with the Flock and Axon companies extend to 1,540 organizations. That's not 1,540 neighboring police departments. The roster includes some faraway agencies. I'm just going to name a few. We share our police information captured by Flock and Axon cameras with the Tupelo Regional Airport Police. The Wallace State Community College Police. The Missouri Department of Conservation. The National Park Service's Natchez Trace Parkway. And of course, the University of North Texas at Denton Police. Ask yourself why the Nebraska State Patrol needs a photo of your car, or actually 12 photos of your car on Newberry Road taken today. Don't get me wrong. I broadly trust the government. But the data in Alachua's agreement can also be shared with Lowe's corporate, private HOAs, and dozens of landlords from what I found inside. What are we doing? You know, think about that for a minute. There are many such examples showing misuse and abuse of these cameras in Florida and nationwide. That is not me alleging anything against ASO or its brave men and women. But it does underscore what becomes possible when local governments connect themselves to a national data sharing infrastructure. I'm asking that this commission act locally against national spillover. What bothers me in that in this county, if you want a left turning lane, or you want a fire station, or you want a street party, you have to have public speech about that. You have to have a debate about that in an open forum. And the public speaks first. That's how it works here. A system that photographs all of us every day and ships that data across the country, that arrived with no hearing, no comment, no vote, at least not one that I could find. And that's okay. I don't expect you to know every dollar the sheriff is spending money on. I also don't expect anything to necessarily be done about this right away. But I want to call it into attention. This isn't free. The newest contract we just signed with Axon for 10 years from now is $935,000. That's real money. That's a deputy or two. That's filling overtime gaps. That's retention bonuses. I'd rather fund officers than this camera technology. So here's my ask, and I'll wrap it up here. I'm asking Alachua County considers changing the 30-day data retention that these cameras collect to seven days. Often it's cited that if a person goes missing or a car gets stolen, we can use these cameras to find them. That's a great thing. I don't call in my car being stolen 30 days after it happened, though. I have some other asks, but I'm happy to share with you at another time the paper that I published or the one-page printout. Thank you.

Sam, yeah, if you'll leave those with the clerk, we'll get copies of those. Isn't he great?

Well, look, you know, I was trying to warm up here, but I just walked in the door, but

thank you. That's my nephew. Okay, sit tight, because we're going to have some comments after public comment. Anyone else from public comment? Tell me he's coming either, which is even great. I love about it.

He looks good in a tote coat and tie, too.

I know. He wears a tie. I don't. Look at this guy. Okay. All right. We're going to go ahead and close public comment. Did you have a comment to public comment?

I guess I have a question regarding this. I'm not sure if he's speaking specifically about security cameras that the sheriff's office is deploying that are separate from the cameras that we did vote on regarding school zone enforcement. But during that conversation that we did deliberate about, we were very clear, or I was very clear, and it was part of the motion that we retain that data and control over that data, and that we not share it or sell it to anybody outside of the county. So if those cameras are included in what he's reporting to us, I would like information back, and I would like to know where, you know, what is the extent of those contracts and what's happening. Do you know? I'm looking at our staff because they helped draft that contract.

No worries. Those are different cameras, and they are doing speed zone enforcement only. They're not retaining license plate data, and they have a different scope of agreement. The companies that I'm referring to are Flock and Axon.

Yeah, and I didn't know what – I have the same concerns that you have about rights to privacy, access to our data, and had expressed that during those meetings and sort of like tried to rein in what was possible so that we could still enforce school zones efficiently, but also protect people's rights and safety and privacy. But I – now you've got me concerned. So thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll certainly read your report, and I would be interested to understand if any of those contracts are county contracts or if they're only sheriff's office contracts.

Sam, do you know the answer to that?

The last thing I'll say to that, because I do, is that is part of a trial project on Tower Road with Kanapahaw Wiles, and then by extension also Lott and Childs on 24th. Whether they're through the same company would be a subsidiary agreement, but they're their own thing, and they're only for speed.

And Flock and Axon are getting access to our right-of-ways how?

The cameras – Alachua County has 50 installed right now. Forty are coming, and those are pre-already money spent, so I'm not asking we remove or do anything about that. Just some oversight, maybe look into it. There are 50 scattered about Alachua County, primarily on state and county roads, but neighborhoods and private companies own them too, and the data is interchangeably shared.

Yeah, I had someone contact me. One right outside of Hale Plantation by Lott and Childs went up. It just went up. I think that's the –

So that actually is a school's own camera. That's a school's own camera? There's not a flat camera on that road, oddly enough, but –

We'll read your report.

Yeah, no worries.

I guess I would just ask that our staff, like, let us give that report also to the sheriff's office and ask if they could give us a report back about what the data sharing is in their contracts and agreements and, you know, that there is a concern, at least for me, if you guys are okay with that, that there's a concern from this board about how our data in Alachua County is being shared outside the confines of public safety within our county, and if that is the case, we'd like to have a conversation. Well, there is from the community, too, because we're getting e-mails from folks.

Does anybody object to that request? No. No. Okay. I think – so, Missy, do you have anything to comment on that, or you'll just get back to us?

No. I can send out a request tonight.

All right.

Thank you. Excellent. Thank you.

I feel very hurt.

Thank you. Thank you, Sam. Hi. Isn't he great? I think I've already said that a couple times. Yeah. That's my brother's son. That's my nephew. Okay. Who is that, Ken?

Who? Who is it? That's Sam. So, my mom had two sons. Okay. Okay.

I had two sons. Uh-huh. My brother had two sons. That's one of them. And then both my sons had sons. All right. That's kind of a thing. Yeah. Okay. We're going to close public comment, stop talking about Ken and his family, and we're going to go back to Mr. Dawson. Your presentation has concluded before we hear from the applicant. Do we have any commissioners that have questions for Mr. Dawson? We'll use the lights. We've got Commissioner Prizzi and then Commissioner Alfred.

And, Mr. Chair, I did just want to point out that we do have lots of staff here from our other review departments, and they can also answer some of those questions.

So, you are ready to pass that microphone? I may pass that buck if needed, Mr. Chair. All right. They all over there laughing, thinking you can handle it. Go ahead. All right. Mr. Prizzi, you start us off.

I have a whole, like, you know, marked-up document here. Lots of questions. I tried to summarize them in a sheet for myself. If you do mind pulling up the presentation, and maybe I'll try to go in the order that you brought them up. And then, you know, I guess, I don't know if you want me to just do a couple and then pass- No, no. You go through all your work. You might answer a lot of ours. Sure job. All right. Here we go. All right. I guess, first and foremost, I want to understand, are all strategic ecosystem areas within the strategic area study being protected with the current strategic area plan?

Mr. Chair, I think I'm going to ask one of our EPD folks, Steve Hofstetter, to-

You're already kicking it off, aren't you? You're not even going to stand up there for the first question. Okay, good. Hey, Steve. Welcome.

Good evening. Steve Hofstetter, Environmental Protection Department. So, the ask is whether all the areas identified for protection through the special area study isn't being protected through this application. Is that accurate? So, to kind of- I'll split it up into two parts. Every part that was identified within their project area for protection is being protected. So, the areas within the lands that they own and the 996 acres is being protected as identified in the plan. The plan- the study recognized lands on the east side of the road that are currently, you know, owned by the state that also require protection. That aspect is separated from this project area and this applicant is not involved in the protection of that area.

Yeah.

That's maybe the- my- my- maybe the first step of answering your question.

Okay. Well, I guess I'll speak to my colleagues and the applicant in that regard. So, you know, when we started down this pathway, and this is- you know, this is a long time ago. This was before the applicant was even the applicant, right? You know, the conversation about this area was about the entire 4,000 acres. At that time, it was about 4,000 acres. It was under single ownership by the Lee family and their subsidiary companies that they had developed. And the plan was that they were going to do the strategic area study because it was their property. Often- sometimes the county will undertake a strategic area study and talk to all the landowners and kind of get some consensus around what we're going to do with that property. But in this instance, it was a single landowner, so it made sense for them to undertake this strategic area study because they wanted to do it now because they wanted to get moving with some projects, right? So they did that. And in that work, in that world, they said, okay, well, we recognize that we would like to donate this piece of property to UF or their golf course. We would like to retain our homestead, and we would like to develop the rest. And we were like, whoa, what? Like, that's a huge amount of development outside of the urban cluster. That would be disastrous for the karst area, the water quality. Can we have a conversation about that? Conversation went, long story short. At the end of the day, the conversation would landed on the fact that if they protected the 2,000 acres on the west side of Parker Road, that we would be- and the conservation management- in particular, the conservation management areas that were identified across that entire 4,000 acres, that we would be interested and willing to entertain the development of the remaining acreage. And that was the deal. And we also agreed that phase one would be the golf course because they wanted to get that golf course moving quickly because UF had some urgency around that property. And so we did our part, and we said, okay. And we gave UF the right to move forward with their golf course quickly like they wanted. And now we're here with part two. And from my perspective, part two is protecting all of the CMAs in that area and therefore getting the development rights and entitlements to be able to develop in a huge way beyond what the original entitlements are. So I understand that that property isn't under the ownership of the current owners anymore, right? They sold it to the University of Florida. And I understand that they can't necessarily control the decisions of the University of Florida. However, they clearly have a tied relationship to the University of Florida. They are donating them the golf course. They are in conversations about how trails might connect in their development. And so, you know, for me to be able to feel comfortable moving forward with this, I really need to see some sort of documentation of what the protections are for that CMA area on the west side of the property. I know that IFAS is working on management plans for that area. I know that they've been given...

I don't think they're here tonight.

Well, I know they're not here tonight. I'm just telling them that before final development plan, before this thing gets any kind of stamp of approval to move forward on it in a serious way with digging that first shovel of dirt, I need to see written evidence that there is protections and a restoration and management plan for that western side CMA. Because this is... That was the deal. That was the deal that we all struck. That was the conversation with that strategic area study was we got a lot of sensitive areas that need protection, and those need to be protected in order for them to develop. And now it's like at the last minute, because the state saw an efficient way to get what they wanted, which was the golf course passed, they struck a deal and they sold that property to UF instead of doing the longer, harder process of a conservation easement with like rural and family lands, which was the original plan. And I don't fault them for that, and I don't blame them for that, but I also... So, well, if that's part of this application? Well, then I'm not really interested in this application. I mean, we have to protect those areas. And that was the deal, and I think that they can. There are management plans. There's a contract that they have with the owners for the sale of that property and what they are and aren't allowed to do on that property that they could provide to us. UF is planning a restoration plan for that property. They're planning a management plan for that property. They're talking about it being like Austin Carey or like Ordway Swisher. I want to see those plans. I want to see them written. I want to see them documented, and I think our community deserves that. I think they deserve the right to have that information in writing what UF is going to do with that conservation land that's on the western side of the property. And I understand that it's not subject to this specific application, but it's part of the strategic area study. Sure. And in order for the strategic area study to implement a strategic area plan, I don't feel like we can move forward until we have that, like with that actual development until we have that information. That's just my two cents. I don't know how my other colleagues feel about it, but I'm just- I feel differently, but we'll get to that. I do too. Yeah. I will- my questions then are, if that's not being protected, like what can the applicant provide us around that with regards to what IFAS is doing with their protections or concert? And I have reached out to IFAS and asked them to do a walking tour of the property and to talk to them about their conservation management plans so that I can get some comfort myself with it, but I think that for the public, they should also have that information. It shouldn't just be something I know because I walk the property. Question. The 260 acres that's referenced in policy 3.1.5 for the farmstead area, it says- it's on page 10 of the staff report, and it says the extension of potable water and sewer and wastewater will enable development greater than rural densities. The development will be required to participate in the transfer of development rights from other properties, and to provide affordable units further, the policies will provide for a set-aside of 260 acres of the development site. Can you talk to me about those 260 acres of set-aside?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes. So, as I mentioned, in the farmstead area, we've required that to be a minimum of- a minimum of 400 acres, and then 200 of that has to be in uses that are consistent with the climate clustered subdivision policies. So, those are generally ag uses, conservation uses, just depending on- on those properties. And then we have an additional policy that requires another 60 acres specifically of open space set-aside.

Okay. Got you. Thank you for that. That's clear. Thank you. You had this study about the impacts to Archer Road and Parker Road, and in the report, it talks about the potential of failure of service provision at 39 percent of the development. But currently, as it stands, I believe we have the development allowing to go forward to 50 percent before it can- before it has to have met the provisions. Is there a reason why we didn't stick with the 40 percent? 39, I'll round it up to 40 percent. And that is the-

Mr. Chair, I'm going to call up another colleague.

Okay. Mr. Hayes, transportation guy.

Well, no, and Ms. Moss is here as well in terms of details, but in terms of that specific number, I wanted to step up because that was a decision that I made. Generally speaking, so we don't do concurrency really anywhere in the county, but that policy is a concurrency-like policy. And to be quite frank, the 39 percent, I thought 50 percent was a reasonable number in terms of the entitlements for getting the project off of the ground, but also allowing the county the surety that we were not going to let something get out of hand on Archer Road. Ultimately, you know, that is modeling. That is a, you know, transportation impact analysis. It could be that. It could be something more. It could be something less. But in terms of the regulatory approach, I thought 50 percent was a good rule of thumb number for that policy.

Okay. And do we have a similar thing for when the bike trail connections to Archer-Braid need to be done or any of the internal trail networks that would serve that community?

Mr. Chair, so what we are working on, we do not have a policy in the comprehensive plan amendment that you're looking for. We don't have that level of detail. I know because we are concurrently working on the plan development. And Allison, Ms. Moss, and myself are working on it today, looking at the conditions that will accompany the plan development. And there would be a condition to that effect with the number of units. Okay, great.

You are working on a condition for that? Yes. In the plan development. In the PDP. You will see in a couple of months.

Okay. That's great. I think that's really important. I think we've had a lot of challenges with some of the other developments that were committed to doing trail network connections. And, you know, then it's like, oh, well, then that's just too expensive all of a sudden. And, you know, then we're kind of struggling just to try to make it work. So just knowing that it's committed and that there's an expectation that it's going to get done. That's in the PD. Yeah. It's really important. Okay. Let's see. How? So also in the PD, we're going to be having more specificity about how we would limit the size of phases or like work on that limiting of lock clearing and, and, and, or like you talked about limiting, if you go to your, down your slides, you talk about the limiting of, I keep going, keep going, it's like in the, there, to limit, there, go back, include disturbance limitations.

So, Mr. Chair, I have, I have people who can talk a little bit more specifically about the types of implementation tools we're talking about at the PD, just generally without biasing you towards the sort of outcome of this. But I would say generally those are sort of specific standards that we're identifying at the PD stage. They may not necessarily be phasing related in the traditional sense where we talk about a number of units or something like that. I'm guessing that they, they will take a different form, like on the golf course we talked about how, how far outside of the greenways you could go with, you know, heavy machinery, those kinds of things. I would anticipate that they're more in that range, but I think, um, Stacy or Mary could talk a little bit more in detail about those if you have specific questions about how they're approaching that.

I guess, I would like to hear how they're approaching that. I mean, I think it was one of the key things in some of our conditions for the original. Mary just said, Stacy, you want to take it?

She said, no, you take it.

Yeah, because again, this is the PD thing.

Yeah, but it was part of, it was part of the conditions in our strategic area study that we limit what we have LID and that we have a disturbance. Right, so it's going to be handled in the PD, not in the comp plan.

Mary, welcome.

Good evening. Mary Zoka, stormwater quality with EPD. Do you have a specific question or just overarching what you think?

I mean, my question is how are, how are we ensuring that they're going to limit disturbance of the natural areas to the greatest extent possible as they're doing their development practice?

So, as mentioned, that'll be further, like, defined in the PD. Preliminarily, we provided feedback on setting limits of disturbance setbacks. Similar language was recommended and implemented for the golf course portion of the project.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks, Mary. That wasn't so bad. Stacy's like, ha ha.

Chris, you mentioned that this was supposed to follow our TND and TOD policy sort of as best as it, as it can, given that it has some differences in its densities. Is that, that, and that includes sort of them following our, it looked like there might have been different policies regarding setbacks and streetscapes and blocks. I mean, to my, to my mind, it looked like their goal was to make those even more refined, which in our mind, to my mind, would be a good thing if we're trying to do more dense, more compact development, but I just want to check in that that is the case.

Yeah, Mr. Chair, I mean, you know, when we adopted our TND design standards, both in the comp plan and then the sort of implementing language in our land development regulations, it was pretty early days. And we weren't necessarily trying to be as aggressive as one could possibly be about getting those forms. I think we really, our goal was to sort of manage that level of urbanness within the context of our pretty suburban cluster. So I don't think that anybody would look at our TND standards and be like, that gets you the most urban form ever. Like, I don't, I don't, I don't think any of us would say that. So I think there is room for the applicant to propose some additional tighter standards, one, at the PD, meaning smaller, smaller setbacks, smaller lots, like tighter.

Tighter, yeah.

As well as sort of those additional pieces of policy language that are, that are in the comp plan as proposed that are supportive of additional standards at the, at the PD level that we may not necessarily implement in all of our other TNDs and TODs, but that may meet what the applicant's goal is for the form of that. Does that answer your question? And I don't think there's, this is me being honest, and this is how I wrote the, how I intended the policies to be, which is that at the minimum, they would have to meet those design standards that we have in a TND when you get to the PD. But at PD, when you look at that, we may be pointing out to you, hey, here's something that's different than what we strictly do in our TNDs. Great.

Maybe there'll be things we can adopt. Okay. Excellent. It, in the, under the, the stuff about low impact development and all of that, and again, I may be getting to the PD. I'm, I'm probably more interested in the details. I mean, you're, you're nailing the PD for sure. I am. We'll just stop there. Well, I'm giving them all the things I need to talk about. I know they're already in process, so let's just, let's get it out there. And the public, I think, wants, cares about these things. I mean, the emails that we've gotten that are regarding concerns and the conversations that I've had about concerns about this are, these are the things that people are concerned about, so, um, and that is the, the, uh, water storm, you know, both the, the amount of water that's going to be used for irrigation. I think staff have done an amazing job of the, having the water budget and kind of working, generally speaking on this idea that it's mainly reclaimed water, but that it is also going to be, um, you know, there's going to be a water budget and they're going to have sort of a maximum amount of water they can use. And they're going to try to limit irrigation on their individual, um, properties and things like that. Um, but I guess I'm interested to understand how we're monitoring that. Like, is that right of inspection by the county?

Is that with, you know, how is that going to work in terms of-

I'm going to ask, I think Stacey Greco to come talk about that question.

Mary says, I'm not taking it, Stacey. You have to do it. Hi, Stacey.

Hello, Stacey Greco, EPD, water resources. Um, so the question is, you know, how will we monitor that? So as lots are developed, so way down the road, if they're developed, you know, we have written in, it does have to follow chapter 77. So any irrigation would have to go through our approval process. So that's already set up for anywhere irrigation is going in in the county. And so then we would look at this differently because it has stricter requirements than our chapter 77. So we would look, okay, um, you can only irrigate 40% of the lot instead of 50%. And, you know, we, there are additional things that we would have to keep track of. So I think we've written it in, um, there's a certain percentage of the lots that would have no permanent irrigation. So we would definitely have to keep track of, you know, those types of things. And, you know, that would be in the PD, potentially some of this stuff would go in the, um, the covenants and restrictions for the neighborhood, depending on, you know, what exactly we're talking about.

And will there be like requirements or are we talking about the idea of having soil moisture sensors, ensuring they have rain shut off gauges, like using technologies like that to be sure that water isn't being wasted in the development?

Yes. So, um, already our code requires soil moisture sensors or, um, smart ET controllers. So those will, would have to be used. Um, I imagine when we get to the PD, we will also have in, you know, larger scale, um, water conservation technologies built in to that also.

So, and we had a farmer come today who is downstream of the development. That's very concerned about the impacts of runoff, um, to their wells and the amount of nitrogens that are going to come. And that's going to come from using reclaimed water, you know, that has a additional nitrogen load plus the farm on site, things like that. Is there any plan to have a monitoring well for water quality on site or?

Yeah, that's a great question. Um, you know, we did build in a monitoring plan for the golf course neighborhood, which is nearby or the golf course property. We have not discussed doing groundwater monitoring. We could definitely talk to the applicant as we move through these next steps and, you know, see if that could, and it could be integrated with, you know, other projects that are in that area, because there's also the infiltrating wetland going in. There's a lot happening in that area that, you know, perhaps taking a broader approach makes sense.

Okay. Thank you. Um, okay. Uh, you might want to, well, or Steve might want to say, I guess it's Steve, not really Stacey, because it's a question about the TDR. Um, I, I'm really excited. I'm actually really excited about this part of this application. I think it's a great way to use TDRs to the advantage of protection of actual natural resources rather than just buying some development rights here and some developments right there, but actually moving this money to buy conservation land that's meaningful and that's going to make an impact. Um, and, um, so for me, this seems like a win-win for us and, um, I know that, you know, some of the folks in our community are less than excited about seeing this kind of urban density outside of the urban cluster. But given it's surrounded by development and, um, given the proposals that they have put together and all the work that staff have done to get the kind of provisions that we have, I actually think this is the best potential outcome for this piece of property with the protection of the CMA on the west side and this TDR program. Because I think that we will ultimately protect a lot more important resources, natural resources and lands to this county than a lot of the farmland that's there, especially with the amount of sustainable decision making that this could developers already committed to. And it sounds like they're going to continue to be pushed towards with the PD. Um, but my question is how are we establishing the fee in lieu for this? And are we going to be sure that we have a number we can all agree on prior to preliminary development plan being approved?

Okay, Mr. Chair, Steve Hostert again, environmental protection. So the way it's going to work is we're going to come up with a developer development or developers agreement that will outline the details of how the that program is going to function. So we're in the early talks now about, you know, what that value might be per, um, TDR, as well as, you know, where, how, you know, all those details are going to be in the developers agreement that will come back to the board, my understanding is before preliminary, is that correct? So some, somewhere- So it's part of the PD or after the PD prior to preliminary? After the PD prior to preliminary? Yes, probably after PD, but before preliminary. And maybe during the PD, there's a little more information that's coming out about strategies of how we're moving toward that, that final agreement.

Okay. I guess my one, um, request is that as we work towards that, that there is definitely, uh, uh, an interest in the county being able to enforce any of the easements that are purchased in a, like, that we have enforcement authority on those easements. Because I think, you know, they're going to, we don't know who they're going to buy them from. If they decide to buy them themselves, I guess that is. If it's fee in lieu, then it's no big deal. But if they're- Right. Because we'll make that decision. Right. Because we'll make that decision. But if they're negotiating TDRs with individuals for easements that we're, um, that we're on there as having a right of enforcement for those easements is my only request. Um, in addition to a good approach for the TDRs that is fair and equitable and uses appraisal processes that make sense, um, so that it's transparent on how we're getting to that number. Sure. Um, okay. Okay. The farm. Um, for me, I think it's really important. Um, there's, there's some talk in the, in there about the farm. Um, and it talks about it as if it's bonafide ag or something like, and I, I just, I have to say, I think that, um, yeah, from my perspective, and I, I have had this conversation, um, before with staff and with the applicant that I think this farm really is, should be considered institutional use or some other land use. It, it, while it might be ag, um, it is an amenity for the development. It is, it is much like, I consider it to be much like a pool or a tennis court or something like that. I mean, it's going to be agriculture and in that way it's going to be sharing important values around our local food system and around what it should look like, I think. And what I've seen of their plans is going to be really amazing for people to learn about what local food systems are, how they work, how local farms work, and be able to connect people to their food, which I'm really excited about. But I do think that because this is a part of a development system and a system that we're really concerned about with regards to water quality, water quantity, those sorts of things, things, I really, um, would like to see that this farm have some of the same, you know, requirements to develop a nutrient, like to do soil testing and develop nutrient, a nutrient management plan and to, and a crop plan and to develop, uh, oh, irrigation and water budget plan for the farm and to submit those to us, you know, the same way that they are doing with some of the irrigation structures. Um, and so that it's not just, okay, this little piece is set aside. It's going if I can kind of do whatever it wants with, um, I think that it should be part of the overall development plan structure and compliance and enforcement that we're doing with our other water quality and water quantity concerns about the development.

Mr. Chair, I just point out if we are, if the board is deciding to make that change, obviously, um, the applicant won't maybe address that, but that's, uh, condition M talks about that bona fide AG has that ability to follow best management practices. So if we're going down that way, that would probably be the policy you'd want to adjust. Okay, thank you.

Um, and then my last question is, um, do, do we know if the farm, I guess this is a, it's a question for the applicant, actually, I'll just wait until the applicant is done. I think that I have had all of my questions addressed, so I will pass the mic to Mary.

Okay. Commissioner Alford and then Commissioner Wheeler.

Okay. And of course that's right when my tablet here decides to go up. Sorry about that. Oh, he wants to be charged. That's where all my questions are. So excuse me for like two seconds while I plug this guy in. I can come up with more.

No, I'm just joking.

Kidding. Um, well, while that's restarting, um, just one thing, the, uh, originally the, uh, uh, Mr. Lee had for 4,000 something acres. And if he had decided to just develop that all into five acre lots, he could have done that by right and had quite a few lots, like 800, I think. Is that, um, about right?

Mr. Chair, we could probably have discussions all day long about that very particular question. And I'll give you, I'll give you sort of the basics of that, which is that the future land use designation for this property is one dwelling unit per five acres. Right. So I think you could kind of start there, but we do have additional limitations in our comprehensive plan. One about the number of lots that are not part of a clustered subdivision that can be, um, created outside of the urban cluster in any given year. And that number is a hundred. So I think it's important to sort of keep that perspective. And, and we have lots being created in the unincorporated area that, um, that sort of qualify for that. They're not part of a clustered subdivision that, that take up some part of that. So I think you could say, I don't think there would ever be five acre lots as far as the eye can see. Yes. There are parts of the county that are like that before we had our subdivision regulations today. It would be nearly impossible to do that going forward. So I don't think you, we would say there would be five acre lots as far as the eye can see. I think you could say there would be three acre lots and a pretty, a less than sustainable development form. Right.

And, and that's, that's all, I don't, I don't need too much detail. It was just the point was, is there could have been something a lot worse here. And I think that by protecting the land on the west side and by, you know, creating this, I, you know, and, and, and the deal that you talked about, I feel good about this, even though some of my most favorite people in the county have sent me emails talking, you know, asking us not to transmit this. We've been talking about this a long time and I feel really good about it. So I wanted to start by saying that while my computer came up and here it is. So now I will ask my questions. Um, so we, we had the discussion. It's always great to follow Anna cause she gets a lot of it out of the way. Yeah. She gets a lot out of the way. But when we get to that 50% development part, um, is there any provision that there has to be any sort of, uh, public transit, um, or not public transit, but any sort of transit relief part of the neighborhood? So I know they've talked about doing a park and ride lot and things like that. Is there anything that could relieve some of the impact to Archer Road and, uh, other roads in the area?

Yeah. So I think, um, the way that I would answer that is that there's detail to follow, but that, um, you know, one of the things that we say about our mobility plan is that it considers development within the cluster and not development outside the cluster. That's one of the sort of hallmarks of our mobility plan. And because this is a development that we wouldn't have anticipated as part of our mobility plan, we would think there would be additional projects that are necessary to support it. Because it's a pretty big piece of property. We're not talking about 20 units on a little piece of property. It's pretty significant. So that we do have a policy that, as I mentioned, establishes or will establish a mobility district specifically for this property. Um, and we would anticipate that there is, at the very least, a transit project, um, that is tied to that. We propose that in our policies today, a table that's related specifically to that. Exactly what that transit service looks like, um, we don't have that spelled out. Is it gonna run through the project? Is it gonna run around the project? What are the, um, headways gonna be? Does it run all week? I don't have the answer to all of those. Um, and all of those will, um, sort of would contribute to the cost. But I think, yes, we've considered that just like with the cluster, transit is an important component of mobility. We would anticipate that to be the case here as well. Okay.

And I, and I do appreciate the fact that the developer has talked about putting in a park and ride lot. Cause given the number of people that, um, commute, that would make sense whether we get transit like we want it there or not, we could at least have carpooling that could work better. Um, let's see. Um, just a comment. I would love to see no permanent irrigation to any residential lots and use soil amendments instead. And I know soil amendments are part of what you guys are discussing in terms of, um, minimizing the, the need for irrigation. I also wanted to talk about you, you mentioned, um, a, uh, a well for water quality monitoring. I always hate that because by the time you see it in the well, we already have an issue. So I'm curious if we might think about as we're going forward, something like a nitrogen budget instead, um, because we know how much nitrogen is in the, um, reuse water. We know what's necessary for a farm. I know that's asking a lot, but.

Ms. Greco. Yeah. So for the non-agriculture portion, we have, um, written into this, no fertilizers. So there will be doing soil amendments prior to installing landscaping. And then, um, you know, they can do, um, soil amendments, compost and stuff after that, but no, you know, traditional fertilizers with nitrogen and phosphorus in it. And that is most of the properties. So we think that will have a big impact. Um, but I mean, we just talked about a monitoring well.

So in lieu of a monitoring well for the rest of it is, is a nitrogen budget. I, I, I worked on one like that on another project and, um, but they were only growing hay.

So it's something we can discuss with the applicant. You're talking about for the agricultural. For the agricultural areas.

Yeah. And for, um, and for any place using the reduced water, you know how much nitrogen you're putting on the water with depth and insulation. I just thought it was something to, I don't know if it's doable, but.

Thought I'd, thought I'd suggest it for a discussion. Thank you. Um, let's see. What was I asking here? Oh, um, when we get to the, um, for the, uh, what do you call it? The 5,000 acres that we're looking at for the, um, for conservation, we're looking at doing multiple tracks and multiple areas probably cause we're probably not going to get a 5,000 acre track we could buy or they could buy.

Mr. Chair, that's a good question. I asked our lands people, are there 5,000 acre tracks? And there are, but there's not very many of them.

Um, and we have a lot of small tracks that are on our, you know, want list.

So the way that our policy is written today, it references the transfer development rights policies that we already have in our plan, um, for expansion of the cluster. And there are already some requirements in those policies. Okay. So for conservation properties, they have to be on our, is it the active acquisition list? Yeah. That's right. They have to be on the active acquisition list. Generally, the default is not smaller than 160 acres, but there's some exceptions to that. And there are similar, um, requirements for the purchase of agricultural lands. So I think that, um, the short answer is we're not likely going to go find a 5,000 acre tract, either the applicant or us, unless they know something that, that we don't about acquiring land. So I would anticipate the county would be using this along with its other funds for, um, acquisition, um, to acquire lands as we, as they become available to us.

Just like we would normally try to find the best quality lands to add there.

If the applicant is, is paying a fee in lieu. Yes. Yeah.

Okay. All right. That answers that question. And, uh, one more comment. Um, is there a, well, maybe a comment. Is there a, uh, provision at all for livestock or poultry on the, in the area as part of the agricultural nature of the development? And, you know, I feel like people are going to live in a agricultural hamlet that should get the full experience.

So, um, Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, for those areas that are within the farmstead where agricultural uses are allowed, I would anticipate there might be some of that. Um, and potentially within some of the subdivisions that are in that portion of the property. I don't know exactly, um, how that would play out. We don't currently have anything addressing that in the planned development specifically. Um, I don't know on the working farm if they intend to have any animals. I think they have the allowance for that, but I don't know if that's something that they would normally do. I'm going to ask them to address that during their presentation.

Yeah, yeah. I'm going to ask them to address that with the, with the comment that, um, I, I, I really like the regenerative agricultural model. And animals are part of that in terms of creating, you know, a healthy, you know, a healthy environment for regenerative agriculture. So, anyway, um, that's all I've got right now.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Appert.

Commissioner Wheeler. Just a couple of things. The, was this property ever on the acquisition list for us? Was it offered to the county for purchase? I, I just remember, um, serving with a commissioner here who one time said, you know, if you are going to restrict the use of this property, are you willing to buy it? You know, and so that kind of sticks in my head. I'm trying to understand, you know, did it, was it offered?

Um, Mr. Chair, Steve Hofstetter, I don't want to get this wrong. Um, my memory was that there was discussion of putting it on the list and it did come in front of the commission, um, to be put on the list. My, I don't know if it, I don't believe it got put on the list. Is that right?

I was wondering. But it was. It didn't rank high enough. It was nominated.

It didn't rank high enough.

Yep. When I, I first came on this board, I walked that property with Val Lee. And I remember him sitting out in the audience, just right where the pretty young lady is right there, uh, when he came here with the people from the University of Florida. And he took it on the chin big time from the community about even thinking about working with the university. And to talk about, you know, them making deals with the university, that was so badly entangled legally that, uh, there was a lot of strong arming that was going on there too. So I think the Lee family deserves the respect from this community, um, that, uh, they have worked really hard over the eight years I've been on this board, you know, to make sure it got into the right hands or it got, you know, to the best, the best use of the property and the best way that they could actually do the dealing for their family. So, you know, when the time comes, Mr. Chair, I would have the honor of recommending that this be transmitted. Okay. Thank you.

Um, okay. Let me go through my questions and I'll go back to you. Um, so Chris, I want to go through the slides kind of in order. That's the easiest way for me to do it. Um, why don't we start with transportation mobility slide? This kind of deals with what Mary was asking earlier.

One likes my slide slide.

I liked that slide. Yeah. That was clever. Slider slide is good. I thought that was very creative. Um, you know, something not in the comp plan.

I haven't been called creative for a long time, Mr. Chair. Yeah.

That was creative.

Um, okay. So what we're talking about here is actually creating a mobility district specific with a fee included for transit, ultimately when and if, um, we get to that point. And it would require an internal infrastructure that enhances mobility limitation on development prior to programming of state road 24. So are we saying they don't, they don't turn any dirt until archer road four lane?

No, Mr. Chair, the way that policy is written is that the, the limitation is 50% of the entitlements. Right.

So, so, right. So halfway, but before they go anywhere past halfway, we have to four lane archer road. Yeah.

Yeah. I think it has to be in the five year work program is the way in the five year. And that's typical because the state sometimes moves things around. So the goal is to get it into the work program.

Yeah. Which, which I know this board has supported and I think we can work with the applicant on that. And I know the applicant has worked on that. Okay. Next slide. Farmstead property. Okay. So 400 of the acres of the 997 will be farmstead. Yes.

So you could think of the character areas. You'll see them on the plan development and they're almost like separate zoning districts within the sort of PD itself. So each of them will have its own sort of development standards. So you will see graphically that there will be 400 acres of farmstead on the plan development. Minimum.

So 40% of the entire development will be one unit per three acres.

A little more than 40%. A little more than 40%.

Right. Right. And then on the Hamlet side, there'll be five units per acre up to five units village and 10 units and the village core up to 16 units.

That's correct.

With those minimums of 900 of the 2,700 units would basically be very dense. And I, I, those, those densities. And what I had heard is in the plan and the planning commission, there was a commissioner who objected because he actually wanted more density than that. Is that right?

Yeah. So Mr. Chair, first of all, the 300 and 600 wouldn't get you to 10 and 16 dwelling units per acre. So there, there would be less than that. Um, but, but even using that, you still end up, you know, if you used up all of your density in the farmstead and you used up your 300 and your 900 with the acreage limitations that we've set, you get pretty close to four units an acre in the Hamlet area. So I just, I want to keep in perspective that that becomes really consistent with our low density residential and the development that we have seen in it, um, over the last several years. It's not as it's more, it would likely be more dense than Oakmont, for example. All right.

And all four of those would be connected to sewer and wastewater.

All of the development will be, any new development would be connected to sewer and water. Yes.

Okay. Uh, the working farm side. Yep. Right there. Um, so it must be at least 20 acres outside of the 200 CMA acres.

So it wouldn't be 200 acres that are in a conservation management area. So I, that's a, that's worth some sort of discussion, I suppose. What we said is that half of that farmstead, so 200 acres, if it's 400 have to be in uses that are consistent with the rural cluster, um, open space policies. So that includes the conservation management area, but it also could include other uses, um, that might not be conservation management. So it could potentially be, um, some stormwater. It could be, there, there's a set of recreational uses, for example. Um, so no, I wouldn't say that there would be 200 acres of conservation management area. There would be 200 acres of what I would broadly call undeveloped. It's not going to have houses sitting on it area. Okay.

Can I ask a follow-up question on that? Sure. Does, would that then, could it, in a theoretical framework, I mean, I don't imagine it would could because of the scale of the development, but theoretically speaking, could all the stormwater be in that 200 acres and then them call that like part of their open space requirement and check the box with stormwater bonds?

Uh, so Mr. Chair, the commissioner said theoretically. And so I'll say theoretically, I suppose, I, I think that that is incredibly unlikely from, uh, from an infrastructure standpoint.

Okay. Next slide on the, on the land disturbance. So policy 8.6.6.16 requiring geophysical testing prior to stormwater management. Have we ever required that? Yes, we have one other time.

Yes. And that was on the UF Gulf property. We have in limited instances also required it on specific developments where we're either aware of particular geologic features that might, um, impair that, or we've also used it at times where we know there's a property that maybe had a former landfill or something.

No, I think it's great. Um, and I appreciate that the developers want to do it. This is what we were asking the city of Alaska to require for the new chair of property. And so the fact that they're agreeing to do that, I think is really, really super. Um, next slide water conservation. So have we ever required these standards? Cause this to me set like we are setting a whole new bar on.

I would love to espouse that I could say which of these we require currently or have required in the past, but probably Stacy would be better at answering that question.

Stacy Greco. Um, so looking at these, I mean, we do have some Florida friendly language in our code. Sure. But most of these I would say are new and above and beyond current code. Especially the limit on the fertilizer. That is big. And then it is further limiting the irrigated area. You know, our design code already does that, but it's taking it further and limiting irrigation to reclaimed water on the lots and the common areas that that is new. And, um, you know, they're not going to have irrigation wells.

But I want to say most of this was also as a result of the SAS sort of requiring that. I mean, those were some of the conditions that we set for. Yeah.

I think this is a, this is a great new standard that we are setting here and that the developers are setting here. In my opinion.

Unless I'm missing something. Okay. Um, those are the majority of my questions. I have one question for staff and that's the, the Anna issue that she first brought up. So how would staff require the applicant to enforce UF to do their conservation management plan? Like, like.

That isn't what I asked.

Oh, it isn't? No. I asked for proof that UF has a plan. And so how would the applicant, how would staff require that the applicant require that

UF have a plan?

Require UF to do anything.

Um, Mr. Chair, I can think of ways that the board can enforce that kind of request. Um, so you could choose to not approve this application with that as a reasoning.

Um, I'm not suggesting that as staff, but you're asking me a hypothetical. And so I'm going to try and provide that. What we typically say is that where you have an application for a particular piece of property, you can't use the setting of another property as a reasoning for denying it. So where you have like a cell tower, maybe, and somebody says, well, why don't you put it on that piece of property? That's not the subject of the application. So if you have a reason to deny an application that's in front of you, you could do that and then you can state your reasoning for it. So I think I would say that ultimately, I think in this case, that's the way you could do it. The application that was submitted to us is for a particular piece of property. Um, and enforcing conditions on properties that are outside of that would be questionable for probably at best, although the board can adopt its own policies in the comprehensive

plan. Right. You're not saying, IPAS, do your plan. Submit it to us. So we're not going to submit next door.

I don't know. What I was saying is that we have a strategic area study. And in all the other instances where we have strategic area studies, we have conservation management areas within those strategic areas. And those are sensitive ecological areas that require protection. It's why we created these strategic ecosystems to begin with. Right. So in this instance, it just happened that it was the Lees who have stewarded that land for generations. They own it. And they owned the entire thing. I understand your point.

My point, because it is my time. Let me finish, please. Well, but it's my, it's actually my point is that if we were to do that, the time to do that was when UF was standing there asking us something. That was the time to do that. If this was your issue, UF is standing right there. They're asking for a golf course. They're asking for an approval. And if that was your issue, that was the time to bring it up. That was never, this is the first time I'm hearing this is your position and UF isn't here. Like they're literally not here. And to ask this applicant to bring UF here or to require UF do that seems a month late, two months late.

Well, I, okay, fine, but it's still my position that the applicant who is ultimately the landowner, who is the lease, like they agreed to the strategic area study. And that included the protection of the entire CMA within that strategic area. And they have a responsibility to uphold that protection. Understood. And that's what I'm saying. Yeah.

And I think for the land that they own, they are certainly upholding that. But what you're talking about is land that they no longer own. And I hear your point. And I understand your point. But they keep telling us, they told us in that meeting with UF, they told us that it

was being protected. When they came for the strategic area, they told us it was being protected. When the sale happened, they told us it was being protected. And they keep promising us that IFAS is protecting it. So if all of those things are true, then it should be no problem for them to provide us the contract, the sale agreement that includes what they're doing to protect it, the management plans or the restoration plans that IFAS is developing to protect that land. If what they keep telling us, IFAS and UF did stand up there. I did ask that question. And they told us that they had plans to restore and protect it. And I believe them.

I believe IFAS. So where are those? Show us. Right. And I love that question. I just think that question is being asked of the wrong people. So I love the question. Well, it's the landowner. It's the landowner.

They chose to sell that property. Show me that they protected that conservation management area.

Well, we'll see if the applicant can address that issue. I think right now. Because I think now it's time for the applicant to present. After the applicant presents, then we'll ask their questions. Then we'll bring it back to the board. We'll ask the board for a motion or not. And then we'll have a discussion. And then we'll open it up to the public who's here that wants to speak to the motion. Okay. Welcome.

Great. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. For the record, Lindsay Haga. Community Planner with England Tims and Miller, 14775 Old St. Augustine Road. And happy to be in front of you. This has been a healthy debate just to get to our presentation. And with our team, we'll try to hit on some of the questions that you've raised and that staff has addressed as well, just to help move through our presentation. Here's your full team. Most of us, you know, we've been in front of your commission before. You've worked with us individually. We've worked with your staff over these last year and years in the special area study. We are all here. Some of us will present to you at different slides in the presentation, but we're all here to answer and pull up anybody during some questions or after public comment. This slide is busy because we all have been busy. You all as a county have designated the area as one of your special areas. We've gone through this process. There's been different changes in land ownership, the mixture of where we've been, different actions. And then with us, when we got involved for Everly Farms in 2026, a ton of engagement as a community planner. Let's invite people over. And I wanted to give a thanks to Principal Bell over at Teriliger because they've hosted us through all of our community meetings and made it for a very convenient location for us to meet kind of have that school engagement and go and learn from our neighbors. What are some of their concerns? What are the things that they appreciate about their areas? How do we reflect those character areas and how we can give them more information? So some of that resulted in policy changes. That's before you for TransMiddle tonight. And some of that found a home in our planned development rezoning and these commitments that our team has offered. The highlighted box here today is where we're at for TransMiddle. Do we have enough information to give this out for state and regional review? Continue to work with the community and staff on your PD and then come back before you with that whole bundle of entitlements that gives us this plan that we want to see here for Everly Farms. This map helps frame out some of the discussion and just remind us of all the things that may get lost in the details of the policy. So on the left hand of the screen trying to just frame out for us the 4,000 acres that we know during your special area study process we had different scenarios. Your regulations tell you give us a build scenario. Give us a conservation scenario. And here the scenario that we have in front of us is a third iteration of that and how we achieve. And really when we think through it of how we've clustered or honed in development to what's represented as this 997 acres. That is gotten through the transfer of development rights over into that. So additional conservation lands will be had beyond what you see here in your special area study. I'd like to invite up Austin because he's one of our members to discuss what is the project vision. He'll then walk it over to Victor Dover. I'll come back again and give you a little bit of preview. And then we'll clean up with Drew Holley and our engineers to kind of answer some of those public infrastructure questions and then go into rebuttal. Thank you.

Okay. Austin, welcome.

Good evening. I am humbled to be here. Appreciate you guys bearing with us through this. I'm Austin Roberts, president of the Roberts Companies, landowner and applicant. I'm a seventh generation North Floridian. My family and I live right here in Alachua County. My kids go to school right around the corner from this property. So it has quickly become near and dear to our hearts and a bit of a passion project.

We're probably distantly related. Yes. Well, you wouldn't be the only one. I sure am.

Everly Farms represents the remaining 996 acres of a once larger over 4,000 acre farm owned by the Lee family. As has been stated here tonight, over 2,600 acres, almost 2,700 acres have already been conveyed and they're under the stewardship of IFAS. 580 acres were donated to the University of Florida for their new golf course, which you all voted on a couple months ago. This is the evolution of this process. We are here at the finish line of what we set forward to do and a great plan. And I think you'll see tonight through the experts that I have here what we have to answer a lot of your questions and concerns. From the beginning, our goal has been to create something special, something that preserves meaningful agriculture and open space, creates a walkable connected community. My family has a long history of being passionately engaged in agriculture, land stewardship in the state. I've had the privilege of growing up here in North Florida. I have fond memories as a kid walking through the woods many times and picking blackberries and enjoying the outdoors. And my intention with this project is to bring some of that to the people of this community and the people that will be able to live here. To build a special place where you can leave your front porch, walk miles of trails, experience nature and wildlife all along the way. And to have our kids grow up and know where their food comes from. And to have the opportunity to get their hands dirty and have the opportunity to do that in the community in which they live in. I've been blessed to have that exposure and that opportunity, but bringing it to the place where people live is a new alternative. And really, I think the path forward for that sort of exposure and education, that part we're excited about and was a primary pillar of what set us on this path. And, you know, I think that the vision for this place is built around blending a walkable traditional neighborhood with a large working farm set within over 200 acres of agriculture. And so you'll hear us talk about the working farm tonight. We can give you a lot more detail on some of the nuances, BMPs and of the neighborhood itself. But that working farm component, the nuance of that being a minimum of 20 acres. Don't let that take away from the fact that we also have agreed and set aside 200 acres of agriculture and open space. It could be a variety of uses. And I know you had some questions on that earlier. So we'll walk you through that. I think looking at it from a master plan perspective with the long view was important on how we actually introduce these ideas and put them into practice. And versus, you know, the alternative of dirt daub and 100 lot, 200 lot here and there that bring no community value. You guys have heard me say this before, but the opportunity that this project brought to us and the reason that I got passionate about it was because it gave us the chance to have a master plan approach to a 15, 20 year vision and a solution. And how the, how that through that opportunity, you can bring value to the greater community, not only the people that live in here, but the people who are in this community. Um, I live here and value the people of this community. We spend a tremendous amount of time engaging with nearby residents in the broader community. Um, those conversations have helped inform this vision. We've been able to take some of that feedback and, uh, and, and, and, you know, play and effectively make it something that we can build and be, and be proud of. I'll tell you, you know, the county requires one public workshop. We've done five, the requirement for notices. We doubled. If it split a street, we sent it to the other side of the street, just to be careful. There's nothing about this project. That's been a shortcut. We've been here for months and months and years to get here. So you all know that and have felt that. Um, so bear with us through this long presentation. Again, nothing about this has been short. Um, you know, we are grateful for the opportunity. We are grateful for the opportunity to have worked closely with the county staff. I will say you, I know you guys are probably very proud of them, but this is a very sophisticated staff. And we'll give them their due. Um, it has been a joy working with them. It has not been easy, which is a good thing for the county. It, but it has been a joy and very professional. And I can tell you, we've been very impressed. Um, you know, we've worked tirelessly with them throughout this project. And we'll get to, to, to build a project that we can all be proud of. We and, and you and them in the, in the community at large, uh, their questions, requirements, guidance, and careful review have helped us strengthen the proposal and bring this vision together and what's in front of you now. And, and really what will be in front of you at the PD. And so keep in mind, obviously we're happy to walk through a lot of that detail tonight, but a lot of that will live in the PD and we will be back to you. And, you know, a month or so, two months. And, and that's where a lot of that will live. And we are actively working with staff now on, um, how we implement those practices and procedures and BMPs, best management practices. We've invested significant, significant time and resources in studying the property and working with this experience planning team to balance future housing needs with agriculture, environmentally, environmental stewardship and infrastructure and quality of life. As a community with the approval of this project, we can really set the bar and become a leader in the region with this resilient community that integrates both agriculture, nature, along with growing the need, along with the growing need for housing opportunities. So that our kids, my kids, your kids and families can continue to afford to live here and work here and build businesses here. And that is our goal. I have three kids and I sure hope that we continue to keep up with the availability for them to afford to be able to stay here, you know, live here and work here. Um, we will, we will address some of the outstanding questions you guys have. Bear with us. Let us, a lot of our, uh, presentation may get through some of that for you. And we're obviously happy to answer any questions you guys have at the end if we have not touched on them. Uh, at this time I would pass the microphone off to Victor Dover with Dover Coal and Partners, um, to, to take the next step.

Thank you, Austin. Mr. Dover. Malcolm.

Good evening. I actually have the fun part. I'm Victor Dover. I'm a town planner and neighborhood designer. Uh, you know, y'all all know design is not something to be added on at the end after all the big decisions are already made, but something that has to be there from the beginning. So it's been a pleasure to work on this. There are four fundamentals that the, the Lee's and Austin Roberts and Ryan Frankel set out for us, uh, to start. And our job has been to, to test all the policies that you're considering transmitting tonight against real world, uh, streets and blocks and building footprints and, uh, the way the farm would work. And it's physically what it would be like, even though we're going to get into much more of that detail when we come back with the PD. So we're going to give you a preview of a couple of ways of that tonight. So, uh, we've been trying to fit the design to those, those four fundamentals. Just quickly nature, um, that's reminding us of the idea that you've heard a lot about tonight about how thousands of acres have already been, uh, placed under conservation stewardship. Uh, and, and we like the idea that green Florida will be at your doorstep this place. So in the neighborhood design job, it's part of our obligation to design the doorstep, to design that connection and not to just have the big protected green Florida nature be something across a road, but have it be something that can come into the community. And come, uh, weave and integrate with the design of the neighborhoods. And so I'll show you some apps to get across that idea. Legacy is about taking the long view in both senses of the word, actually designing, since we have such a big canvas and we do have phenomenal opportunities for preserving long views across open space. That's the obvious one, but also the long view across the horizon in terms of stewardship and, and the business plan. Uh, the very definition of sustainable that third, there's a farm right at the heart of this. And you're going to hear from Justin Myers who will professionally manage the farm and has helped us conceive it. Uh, but this is just the idea that you would go with your neighbors and you could actually, um, get, get a hold of what's on in season. And your children would have that awareness that Austin described about knowing where their food comes from. And then last walkable walkable is really an umbrella term, uh, for all aspects of livable community here. And one hand it means, uh, freedom and connection because the walkable community will be set up so that you have lots of choices about how to move about and go from here to there, including walking, biking, transit, making short trips. Even if you drive, it's also about something else, which is lining those paths, those sidewalks and those trails with front porch culture. So you can get to know your neighbors and we can have healthier, uh, happier families. Now I want to read all this to you, but the, we were making notes to ourselves about all the things that have been accumulating over the last 30 years in county policies that you've been leading us to this point. Um, basically saying bring Alachua County what it really deserves in terms of the neighborhood form. I think we have an example in the making here. I'll try to describe you a little bit of why we believe that's the case. First, this word farmstead deserves a little bit of explanation. Um, in some ways the inspiration, uh, struck Austin when he visited Newfield, which is a, a community we designed in Martin County. Um, also known as the first time Martin County approved anything nearly that big in 45 years. Um, and this is a place where we were actually able to do that green weave. I described to bring the big protected nature that's part of the plan into and connect with the, the human habitat of the settlement and to put the farm at the center of community life. We didn't have the opportunity in Newfield to design it with the farmer in the room. But here we have Justin Myers, who, who runs the farm at Newfield, uh, inherited shapes and geometries that we put on the land before he was on the job. But here, uh, for Everly, we've had Justin working right beside us actually thinking about how the farm would operate. Um, just it's to give you a little bit of a window on what the design process of this has been like. It's been about starting with the green parts, which I've said several times, and then thinking about how the networks, the green network, the network of streets and, and, uh, the network of, uh, trails and greenways and the, uh, neighborhoods would go together. And so that's been kind of going through a process of getting, uh, more and more defined. Our job at this point has been to test the policies that are in front of you to see whether we have them right to be able to design the ultimate thing that, that Austin has described. This is the latest plan. Of course, just Mark's draft because it did this subject to, uh, lots of change, but this is illustrating, for example, the large, uh, Lee family farmstead at the center of the, at the center of the property. And then how the, the neighborhoods and hamlets are arranged around it. And it's quite large. And so there's a lot of details. We have to bring these back up and talk to any of the crucial ones that you have questions about. Uh, the fun part is thinking about the, what if the, the vision of this. And our, our favorite part of this is the idea that the big nature at your doorstep means you could take that walk in the woods that Austin described. Uh, and keep going on that trail and arrive at your friend's house or at the, at the heart of the community or back to your home. And that reweaving of things so that you don't have to have the situation found in so many of our Florida metropolitan areas where nature is a thing you drive your kids to see instead of a thing that they can walk out their door and see. So that was the first kind of big picture. What if, and just for fun, that illustration that I've got on the screen is actually a real place in the plan. It's imagining our extension, voluntary extension of the conservation management area deep into the land and how long views will be created as you exit one and enter the other parts of it. Another way of the ideas, uh, also shown in one of the images that Austin showed is housing variety that of course we'll have houses, detached houses of various sizes, large and small and their own lots. We'll also have attached single family houses and, uh, we'll have multifamily housing and a whole range at the whole range of prices and sizes to own and to rent. Uh, including, uh, not putting them off into their own areas by housing type, but mixing them together. So the attached houses would be on the same street with their stoops facing the front porches of the same green line, green tree line street that their neighbors have. The farm is similar. We, we see this is not something that is a walled off or fenced off from the community, but rather something that's across the street from people's front porches. So it's really, uh, uh, of course meant to be more than just food. It's also a social condenser meant to bring people together. We will have a couple of areas where we get full blown mixed use main streets. Um, here's one of those, uh, village core ideas. In this particular case, we're looking at a place in the main street or a saw. And you can see in the image, the opportunity to bring it north from Archer road for a few blocks and then bend it so that the, your view is focused on something important at the end of the street. And that little white arrow you see on the map shows, uh, that sort of direction of view of the, of the sketch. So you get the idea. We do these pictures as design tools because we were able to hold them up to the, to, uh, Austin and his team and say, is this what you meant? Is this what you intend? And compare it to other places. You'll, you'll pick up in this image, for example, showing one of the neighborhood centers, a very deliberate attempt to, uh, achieve something as, as charming and similar in scale to hail village center. The edges are the most important parts. And so here's a spot where, uh, one of the two large farm parcels, uh, and the orchard and teaching forest are adjacent to a large scale area that will be preserved adjacent to some of our sensitive neighbors. So to put that on a map, um, from the green and protected areas that are between their homes and the new ones that we build, uh, this is the kind of thing you'd be able to look across open space and see. So I've given you an idea of kind of what the human habitat parts of it are meant to be like and what the edges are like. I'd like to ask Justin Myers to talk to you about the farm itself. Okay.

Mr. Myers. Welcome.

Good evening. Uh, my name is Justin Myers and I work with Agminity. Uh, we design and manage community farms and farm amenities. And I think one of the questions that often arises is like, well, what is a community farm? And I think a farm can be a lot of different things to different people. Uh, for us, when we think about a farmstead community, such as Everly really is taking authentic agriculture. And integrating it into the holistic design of the neighborhood and community. And that's a lot of what Victor just shared with you. And it really is, how do you kind of use the farm as this dynamic resource that both for the residents who live there, but also the broader public have, it can participate and engage and really get this, uh, this resource that can really improve their day to day quality of life. Um, and so on a simple level, that's kind of like how we view that, that this, this farm can kind of benefit and kind of be woven in. Um, and so during this talk, I'll just kind of really pretty stay pretty high level. Uh, some of y'all's questions are slightly addressed, but then happy to chat more in depth as well afterwards. Um, cause there is, I think the farm is probably not like the mystery box, but there is, it can go in a lot of different directions. And so we want to kind of paint that with that picture is like, and as, as genuine and authentically as possible. Uh, so for Everly, uh, 20 acre working farm, uh, really with the goal of growing year round diversified vegetables, fruits and flowers, uh, potentially some like pasture poultry or other livestock. Um, I think how you like choose to integrate that in the land, like there's a lot of possibilities around that. Um, all utilizing sustainable and organic practices as well as like that best management practices for, uh, like ecosystem and community health. I think oftentimes when, when, when you're growing right in front of your neighbors and real farms in both Texas and Florida, and there's literally one of our projects in Texas on a front porch is like 30 feet from where the farm starts. Uh, a new field that, uh, Victor shared there, they're right across the way and they're watching what's happening. And so it's literally that kind of like their front yard. And so what we're utilizing, uh, in terms of growing practices or from soil amendments or potentially pest control, it's, uh, not only to grow really healthy food, but also it's like part of that person's daily life. And so there's a lot of intention and care that goes into that. Um, and then from the kind of like, I think when, when you get into the farm, like the growing of the food, and like the agricultural side is really like the heart and the driver. And that's kind of like speaks to that authenticity. And then layered on top of that is the, the community programming and community engagement piece. Uh, but the food is a, is a core part. And so that food access of how people get connected to food, uh, whether that's through a CSA, which is essentially like a, like a weekly membership program, uh, like a veggie share farm box, um, like a farm stand farm store. And that would be not only for the Everly farm products, but also potentially from other local farms and local food purveyors, uh, that like being able to sell their goods that we're not producing onsite, which then expands the offerings for both residents, as well as the general public around there. Uh, being able to find a local food, uh, that's supporting Alachua County, supporting Gainesville, and also support the small businesses of farmers and food purveyors. Uh, and then from that, the, the reality with farms is that, uh, there are many people who are very excited by local food. And they'll literally people come up to us and say, I bought a house here because of the farm. And I like sign up for the CSA. They joined the farm club. Um, but there's also folks who, you know, they just, what's the CSA? Uh, CSA, it stands for a community supported agriculture. And it's basically, um, oftentimes you'll hear it now described as like a, a farm share or a veggie box or a harvest box. Uh, and it can be a weekly or biweekly, um, where you're essentially getting, uh, four to eight items from the farm each week. Um, and sometimes that can include other products as well. Yeah. Um, uh, but there's other people who are less interested in like the vegetable side, but that farm can really be still be a resource for their life. Uh, and that's everything from a beautiful green space, uh, that they're walking by in the morning or they're taking that going on a run. Um, as well as I kind of like that connection to nature that, uh, Victor had mentioned, um, through education, doing like targeted classes and workshops, as well as like farm tours and volunteer programs, uh, spring break day camp for kids. Uh, there's kind of like a full range of, of education that can, can be woven in. Um, and then just that, that social hub, that social connection. I mean, I think we, when we think historically like food is part of culture, it brings people together. Uh, when you have a beautiful green space of the farm, uh, having, whether that's a pizza night or a farmer table dinner, or even just a movie night, like some of our farms, it's really, the farm is used as the space. And it's not necessarily about a farm specific program, but the farm as a, like a beautiful space to exist in. Um, and so I think when, when you layer on like the, the true, like, agricultural production and the food production that's happening, in addition to this beautiful, uh, community oriented space that can bring people together, it's a, just a really dynamic opportunity that can happen. And for Everly, it's both for, as a, as a benefit to the residents who live there, but also as that broader public is invited into that. Um, and then lastly, as I get, as we go far more broad, uh, you know, Gainesville and Alachua County has a really great agricultural network already. Um, and so I think we really see Everly as being like a node in the local food system. Uh, and how can we support and be part of that, whether through working with local nonprofits, other local farms, uh, UF IFAS. I think there's a lot of opportunities of how Everly can really help kind of strengthen that resiliency and expand the surface area of what the local food is here. Um, that's just, that's kind of like a high level snapshot.

Happy to answer like more questions as well. Lindsay's going to chat, uh, a little bit more, um, and then we can chat again. Okay. Thank you, Justin.

Thanks, Justin. Okay.

I'm going to walk you through a couple of slides that really, um, fall into the PD preview element and begin with a kind of summary of all of our community meetings.

This follows that consumer report style of capturing what did the community share with us as their important aspects, and then what did we do about that? And so some of them are, Hey, we want land use and character to be reduced densities along the edges. You'll see that both in the density assignment for our farmstead character area, as well as when the P the PD rezoning is presented to you lot sizes around and perimeter buffering. So they can maintain the character and familiarity that they're used to seeing on our adjacent neighbors. Some of it was more trails, making sure that they have connections both to outside on Long Parker, out to Archer, but also to Logano and then into up to the north on the golf property. Right now we're tracking at about 16 miles of trails that provide for internal and external connections. So we'll see that again in our PD. Some of this is about preserving the east west connections on how they see how they utilize Southwest 73rd, how they want to have that connection, and then how they do not want connection in through vehicular traffic into hail. We heard that loud and clear coming out of our resolution at the special area study. And then on following on Justin's line, inviting the neighbors to be part of the working farm. Part of that wasn't was that this wasn't an exclusive amenity or farm only to the residents of Everly, but that it is really community engagement. Folks are welcome to come and visit and see and be a part of that. Some elements. This plan is a glamorized version, if you will, of what will be the zoning master plan that will come before you and really want to hit home what our character areas are as far as clustering development within the project area and following some of the guidelines that you have within your policies already, as far as transitioning from the area to the east, over moving to the west to Parker. Some of the areas that you see highlighted are very specific elements that the community provided for us as areas they want to see and commitments that we've agreed to. We've met with the Carrollton folks there and they want to see this expanded buffer that's more manicured that they can see as they exit out of their neighborhood and are not. And then expanding and not averaging but having a hundred foot buffer undisturbed in that area around kind of that nook into the southern area. Again, this is like character maintenance, mitigation of things that would be new development to the adjacent development. And then seeing some other areas that we would have for clearing that you're going to see within our PD rezoning application. These are best practices that either are a policy that's before you tonight to transmit out or will be part of our best management plans that are attached to our PD. And they generally hit on things that are already given to us that recipe out of our special area study resolution. We've talked about open space, how that's provided on site and then off site to gain our density, our water resources. You've walked through staff and what we're going to see as far as covering all those elements. And then affordability as far as meeting in some of that policy again through transfer development rights and then the provision of affordability in a mixture of units that we see on our project. Again, we're here for policies that transmit out for state and regional review. But a lot of our questions are of interest and our PD and just a sneak peek and a preview into that. I think it helps round out the policies that are before you. I'd like to invite up Drew. He'll complete our presentation for you. And then we can go into public comment or any comments that you may have. And we thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Drew.

Thank you, Lindsay. Commissioners, Drew Holley, England, Timms and Miller. Just want to say staff did such a wonderful job this evening. They stole a lot of my thunder. So I will make it as brief as I possibly can. Thank you all for having us here this evening. I wanted to hit on some of the key tenets of the comp plan that's before you this evening and really give you some numbers associated with some of the benefits that we see. So looking at transportation and the mobility fees, we're looking and estimating approximately $20 million in mobility fees to be paid in over time based on current rates and based on the development program. Those mobility fees, of course, as you know, are used for a number of things, mostly within the mobility district to improve roadway segments and level of service. Chris hit earlier on utilities. We do have capacity as evidenced by GRU's letter to us. We've talked a lot about our irrigation policies and water use. We see that as a core tenant of this proposal in front of you this evening. We've gotten conversations with the fire chief regarding the donation of a fire station site and are holding one out on our proposed plan. We've looked, and as evidenced by Chris's presentation earlier, the school planning component, there is currently capacity and we estimate about $7 million average in annual ad valorem school taxes. As Lindsay mentioned earlier, the miles and miles of improved and unimproved trails to serve both residents and neighbors alike. And really the innovative TDR and affordability matrix that we worked very hard and diligently with staff to address two key components of the county's goals. So Lindsay kind of gave the precursor to this timeline, which was the lead up to where we are this evening. And I wanted to kind of finish the timeline at least to the next couple of years. So we stand here before you tonight asking for a transmittal to the state and ultimately look to be before you again in October for an adoption hearing. But during the next several years, there is still a long road to hoe as we move forward with this project to finalize preliminary development plans, to work on engineering and permitting, surveying the geophysical testing that we talked about, all to make sure that we get the plan right. And that ultimately culminates in final development plan, permit approvals, and construction. We see, you know, homes going up and families moving in really in the next three years or so. As a part of that, obviously there is a component there that I talked about earlier with the impact and mobility fees paid at certificate of occupancy to make sure that the infrastructure that's needed to support these homes and families is paid for and in place to be able to support the proposed development. So one of the things that we heard at Planning Commission and we wanted to address head on was this transportation component. So I have many of my colleagues here tonight who are much more well versed in transportation than I am, but I will take the first crack at it. So our current policy or our current analysis looked at an internal capture rate of only about 10%. When compared to the region in areas like the town of Tioga and Hale Plantation, we believe that may be a bit understated. We see internal capture of greater than 30% in those areas. Based on the development plan that we have, the mix of uses and the attractiveness of the non-residential elements, we feel certain that we are going to create that internal capture which keeps traffic volumes off of local adjacent roadways and inside of the development as much as possible. We talked earlier this evening about a phasing threshold limiting development to 50% until the State Route 24 widening is in the five-year work plan. We've also talked about the creation of an Everly specific mobility district. And that mobility district would be to use to fund transit element within the district, including the Everly Farms transit circulator, a potential park and ride site, bus stops, all of those elements to be really figured out in the future as we work with staff. I wanted to hit on something that we've heard from you all this evening and also from staff. And obviously some of the slides that we're going to go through next are a little bit of a preview of what's to come with the PD, but wanted to address them here this evening as well. We are certainly focused on nutrient management and water quality. Our water resources in Florida are of significant importance to all of us. That is something that we do not take lightly. So that really starts on the input side when we look at how do we improve our water quality that's limiting nutrients. Well, we've had discussion tonight with Mary and other members of staff who have talked about our commitment to no fertilizer on any of the residential lots. We've committed to a water policy around an irrigation budget. We've committed to using the lowest quality source of water available to us and reuse water. We've committed to a lot of different things that are above and beyond. We've committed to limiting the areas that we can actually irrigate within the project. So that's where it starts. We talked a lot about limiting the level of disturbance on the site. This is just a graphical example of some lots potentially backing up to the CMA. And our desire, obviously, to maintain existing vegetation, to not clear trees where it's not necessary, and to make sure that we preserve the character in the community that makes this place special as it is today. I want to talk a little bit about our landscape best management plan. Again, you heard from staff this evening that this plan really goes above and beyond, and you will see this again in the PD. But really using Florida-friendly, Florida-native plants, setting an irrigation budget, making sure that we limit the amount in turf grass, which we know is a constant driver of water use, creating an irrigation utility that will limit the amount of irrigation that individual residents are able to apply on the landscape, and so on and so forth. This is something that we believe strongly in and are really committed to seeing this through throughout and the enforcement of this through the BMP process. You know, I've had the pleasure of working with Austin and the team behind me this evening, and it is not lost on me that this is a generational land. And with generational land comes very unique responsibilities. This team behind you has one opportunity to get it right. And through working with staff, I believe we have gotten it to a point where we are getting it right. So with that in mind, I would kindly ask you all to consider transmitting this to the state, and would be happy to take any further questions. Okay.

Commissioner, is there any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Prizia and then Commissioner Alpert.

Yeah, I guess quickly, how do you anticipate the phasing of the affordable housing going? We currently don't have the requirement, you know, for in this anywhere of a policy around the affordable housing being at the front end of the development, but I do think, you know, it's one of those things that if it gets left to the end, it may never happen if certain phases don't go through, or we see it's 30 years or 40 years before they happen. So can you just talk so that more for the community to understand what you think of in terms of how that affordable housing will come along?

Sure, yeah. We're working with staff currently, and I think a lot of that will be in the PD and the development agreement that we're working in now. So I think you'll see, you know, I'm sorry to continue to say you'll see it, but that is a part of the process that we are in now. And so our intent with that is that that is not an afterthought or to come at the end, that it's integrated throughout. I will tell you, I don't think it's economical to say that there's some sort of one-for-one or some sort of specific, you know, ratio, but I do think that it'll be integrated and there's some language we can come up with with staff to be integrated into the development agreement. Yeah. That they can, you know, say, you know, at certain stages, right, that there has to be those, some sort of criteria. Yeah. So we're committed to that.

Excellent. Thank you. First, I did, I also wanted to say congratulations. I mean, I will tell you, I think, you know, we've had a few other really big development type projects happen in Alachua County. We've never had one where there's an empty room or very few people here that have comments on the development. So I will say it's a testament to that five meetings that you had in the community and listening to your neighbors and hearing what they have to say and listening to us and what we have to say through the SAS process and being willing to work with our staff. So thank you for at least coming, you know, for coming to the table with all of that work already being done and making sure that the neighbors are excited about having you as a neighbor. I mean, I've never had so many letters of support from neighbors who actually live directly next to a development that they're excited about a development coming. Yeah. It's the opposite. It's all the reasons why they think it's an awful idea. Sure.

I appreciate that. That was important for us. As you know, I'm a community member. Yeah. It's something to be proud of. For sure.

I mean, it's evident that the work's been done. And I do really appreciate, I really appreciate our staff. I know that they worked really, really hard to, you know, get to yes on this and to find those balances with protecting our natural resources and allowing for the developer to build something that's going to be, and the family to build something that's going to be a legacy, that's going to be more dense, more urban in nature and make more sense. If we're going to develop a piece of property, let's do it the right way. And let's put that kind of density so that we're building affordable housing, so that we're allowing for mobility and people to live, work, and play in the same area. And, you know, of course, I'm excited about the farm. That's what I do. But I do think, you know, one of the things I mentioned was the idea that, you know, from my perspective, that farm is an amenity to the development. And I think leaving it to bona fide agriculture is a mistake. I think that it needs the kind of controls through the HOA, through the agreement with the county to protect the residents of that neighborhood and the future of that land to make sure that it has the same types of regulations and requirements for the management of that property as the rest of the development. I agree.

I think you'll find that, as a part of those BMP conditions, that we plan on implementing into the PD. So that we do plan to implement. And so while there may not be a ton of detail in the comp plan transmittal and the comp plan application, I think that you will see that come along into some of the BMP criteria that you'll see in the PD, just like some of our landscape and irrigation BMPs will also be addressed. So we're happy to address that specific point, even within the confines of the comp plan amendment and the PD proposal that we have in front of you, also presenting criteria and BMP practices that have to be abided by.

I guess I would like for staff to let me know what they think the appropriate edits are to M in the comprehensive plan transmittal as we have it, to address that at this stage as well as at the stages moving forward just so that.

Yeah, I'm happy to pass the microphone off. I think where we have come to it from this perspective is that we were asking for transmittal and then you will get back the PD with those conditions in which you would vote on its own merits within that PD document, you know, with that criteria. I'm happy to pass the microphone off if you want me to.

Mr. Chair, I don't know. So I would say from staff we find ourselves in a little bit of a quandary because the state really takes control of defining what ag is and it preempts us from regulating that.

This isn't, that's my point, is that this isn't ag in the traditional sense. I mean, yes, they're going to be growing food, but it's first and foremost, and I mean, they just mentioned it's going to be an open space, it's going to be a park for the neighbors who live right next door. You know, and so while it is a farm, I guess my sense of the story that they're telling and my experience of these developments in the past is that it's not a traditional farm in the sense that it's operating on its own in a rural area outside of the impact that it would have on residences that are right next door or stormwater ponds that are right next door to it. And, therefore, it's actually a different type of land use than bona fide ag. It's going to be subsidized by the development, you know.

Chris, you were fast with that. Corbin?

I don't know if there's something you want to add to that before I jump in.

Sure, I was just going to say that as a part of the PD, there's a mix of, or as a part of the comp plan, there's a mix of uses, obviously, and to be categorized in each one. And that was why we addressed it via character areas and addressing that farm and that location and the criteria and the guidelines of which it has to abide, you know, that we're offering above and beyond maybe just bona fide ag, we're happy to offer in the form of that PD in which, obviously, you would have all the detail in front of you to support or obviously not support, but that would just be my only comment is that I think that as we see it, we see character areas and individual categorization of what is where and what that has to abide by, and so we plan on having that for you in the PD.

Correct, and I appreciate that, and I believe you. I mean, the conversations that I've had with you about what you all plan to do and listening to Justin talk about and see, you know, these types of films, I absolutely 100% believe you and agree with you, but I think if we call it bona fide ag, then our ability to actually do those enforcements of that PD are actually pretty limited to this point because we cannot regulate agriculture in certain instances, and thus I just want to be mindful of that and make sure that we have the ability to work with you to come up with those conditions.

I mean, wouldn't we have that as part of the adoption of the PD? We put the conditions in the PD. Corbin?

So ultimately, as far as the land use perspective goes, yes, I get the point that this is different than your traditional ag, but if there is a commercial component to this agriculture, there's nothing that we could do that would stop it from getting or potentially getting an ag classification and coming in at a later time and saying, we're doing bona fide ag, we're selling this, you know, these vegetables, and then you're preempted. For tax, for tax classification. Yeah, they could come in and say on this particular portion, this is ag classified, therefore, you know, because we are using this for bona fide ag, we have a commercial agricultural output, the county is then preempted from coming in and regulating it, no matter what we call it on this end.

So how would the PD requirements be upheld in a situation where there was bona fide? Chris?

Yeah, so, I mean, it's a walks like a duck, quacks like a duck kind of thing, Mr. Chair.

On a farm.

On a farm. Yeah, I guess there will be animals there. I think that the problem is we can call it something else in our comp plan, but if it's on a piece of property and the property appraiser says it's bona fide ag, we're preempted from it. I guess I just don't. So if the applicants, I would just say, you know, from my perspective, so one thing we could do is, I'll wait on that, I think from my perspective, trying to say that the working farm, that might potentially, and this is sort of what happens in the future, it's a what if, but if it is ag and it gets an ag classification, regardless of what we adopt, the state says we can't enforce it because it's ag.

I mean, reading public.

So the only, I don't know if the applicant is willing to stand up here and commit and say, I agree that it's never going to get an ag classification, yes, it's an institutional use, and I agree to these regulations, but the applicant would sort of have to make that explicitly clear.

But they're saying that they're going to have these BMPs further defined in the kinds of things that they're binding themselves to in terms of operating that farm with sustainable practices, organic practices, water management practices, and I'm saying you're telling me today that we couldn't actually enforce that.

Yeah, I mean, they may do some of those things, and we can have them in the PD. But if it comes to that point where the state or the property appraiser says no, they apply for an ag classification, they have a commercial purpose, they do one of the activities that is generally considered agricultural, we can't regulate it anymore. So I think that's sort of the challenge that we found because we talked about, I know Stacey sat in a conference room with me and we talked about that possibility. Can we apply these irrigation policies or fertilizer policies or whatever to the working farm portion? And I think where we always sort of ran into the wall was what happens when it becomes bona fide ag.

I mean, I think, if I could step in here, 8.6.6.10 and 8.6.6.11 hammers home in its exact point, and it's in the policy. I mean, it basically says working farm as a community anchor, the required planned development zoning shall include a professionally managed year-round working farm as a centrally organized element of the community. That's like the first sentence. And then when you get into policy 8.6.6.11, it says, context, agricultural compatibility and best management practices, context sensitivity buffers, best management practices, including the landscapes, best management plan, and right to farm disclosure shall be required to ensure long-term compatibility between ag operations and residential or mixed use. I mean, you guys have addressed this, I think. I don't understand. Mike. Like, we're going to hear all of your concerns be put into the PD, and it's actually part of the comp plan policy. Like, it's got to be consistent. The PD can't be inconsistent with the comp plan policy. It must be consistent with the comp plan policy.

But what they're saying is that it doesn't matter if the comp plan policies or the PD policies are applied to the bona fide act because at the end of the day we can't regulate the bona fide act.

But the PD and the HOA will regulate it. People living there, and it's literally going to be regulated. That's my concern.

My concern isn't now.

My concern is, you know, 20, 30 years from now when the developer is no longer there and the HOA has taken over.

They're going to be gone.

Well, 40 years from now, yes, they will. Believe me. I don't disagree with your concern. My point is let's address that concern at the PD because the policy, it has to be consistent with what staff has put into the comp plan policy.

I'm being told by our attorney is that it doesn't matter what we put in the PD. If it's land use is ag and it's bona fide agriculture, then we have no ability to regulate it.

So we don't want an ag component to this neighborhood?

No, I'm not saying that.

Well, you are. You are saying that.

No, I was saying that I was hoping that the land use would not be ag, that it would be something else and it's actually part of the development rather than an agricultural farm because even though it is technically a farm, it's an amenity to the neighborhood. And my only concern is long-term the residents and with this gets turned over to somebody other than agmenity for management that they understand that they need to uphold the values that an amenity is bringing to this farm. You know, it's the down the road. You know, we're the ones who are going to, well, not me, but some other commissioner up here is going to be the one who gets the whiny neighbor who's like, this farm is stinky and it looks bad and they're not doing their job the right way and, you know, they're not using organic materials and, you know, they're not covering them. And they're going to put their for sale sign in the yard and someone else is going to buy that house.

Because that's central to the neighborhood. Yeah.

Like, if you don't want a farm in your neighborhood, probably don't go to Everly.

Correct. This is not the place for you. But to that point, as a part of the later stages, we will have a CDD creation and there will be, you know, an HOA. And so just to be clear, the working farm is not a landholding that there would be any incentive to be held privately. Right. So there will be confines of obligation, right, in that, whether the HOA owns it or CDD, what have you. I mean, there would be no benefit of privately holding that liability, if that makes sense. So I think that, in reality, probably addresses a lot of the ongoing concerns that you have. And the way we get there is through that scale that we're asking for.

Commissioner Alford and then Commissioner Whelan.

Okay. I have a few things. First, I want to say thank you for the extensive community outreach. This is in my district, basically. And I've had calls from many of my former neighbors and friends that live in the Hale area, and they've all said, you know, we thought we weren't going to like this, but we really love it. And they said that you guys have just been great to talk to, to negotiate with, to share information. That's the first thing I wanted to say. Second thing, I need to disclose that I've known Victor Dover for a very long time. He's my favorite new urbanist, and I haven't seen a project of Victor's that I haven't liked. So he's really, well, I mean, I can't not say that. So I'm very excited to have you do, you know, potentially do work in our town and provide something that, you know, I just like your approach to things. And I like how you integrate the new urbanist principles in a practical and approachable way. You don't talk about transects and all this other stuff. You just tell people how it works. And so I like that. And then I, and I really like this whole idea of growing healthy food and growing healthy people and growing healthy community because it all fits together. And, and I, and I just, you know, I, I really tried hard to not like this project because it isn't what we should be doing. We should be developing outside of our urban cluster, but I just love it. I can't help it. I really do like it. And I, and I have to admit that. So a few concerns that I do have are, so I, I lived for a number of years in the Hale Village Center. And I got very familiar with a lot of people that did a lot of work in the Hale Village Center because they're my business partner. And one of the things that I learned is that GRU has stated on multiple occasions that they would never allow another village center to get built in their district because it,

it, everything's too close together.

It was too hard to provide the utilities, too hard to go in and fix things, just too hard. So I hope that we are working hard to make a good relationship with that early on in this project while we're in the planning phase. So can you talk a little bit about what you, how you've worked with GRU and how you're planning on managing that?

Yes, of course. Specifically, Commissioner Alfer, we have been working with GRU for the better course of the last nine months. Okay. So we engaged them prior to actually filing any applications with the county. We had concerns, obviously, around their ability to serve and how that would work with the urban cluster. We have worked with them and actually have been having biweekly meetings really over the course of the last six months or so to discuss their ability to serve,

the utilities that would be necessary, the extensions that are required to get to the property. And we have gone so far as to really start looking at sizing of lines and how do we provide infrastructure for the specific property at specific locations. And so that's something that we have been intentionally working with GRU towards really alignment for the last six to nine months.

So are they going to allow their urban setback standards in your urban, more urban areas and not try to impose their, all you have to do is drive through Butler and see what they'd like to have for setback. Sure. Sure.

Yeah. And certainly, I mean, we want to be accommodating as we can be as we look through. No, you don't. As we think through really street sections and streetscapes and building frontage and how we accommodate trees, how we accommodate sidewalks, pedestrian facilities, utilities. You know, we're providing, we've submitted very narrow street safe sections. Okay. Purposefully to really slow design speeds, narrow right of ways. That creates a challenge for utilities and that's something that's not lost on us as engineers and planners and designers. So we look forward to having those conversations with GRU specifically on how we can address that as we move towards construction documents. Okay.

I just, I, you know, it just really worried me because I, I've heard that quote so many times and I just, and, but I also know that, you know, there was probably not the same level of planning at the beginning of that. And so, you know, there were utilities run under buildings and things that were a challenge. So hopefully we're, we're in a little better place than that. So thank you for that. Um, on the, um, I would love to think that the whole agriculture thing would be self-regulating, but again, living in the hill village center, I've watched that slippery slope of a natural landscape that everybody embraced and loved being slowly chopped down. And replaced with, um, uh, more formal landscaping along some of the streets and areas, even though residents didn't want it. It's what the homeowners association did. Cause I don't know if somebody knew somebody, but, um, I, I really do feel like we need something there. I don't know what it would look like, but, um, I think expecting it to be self-regulating is, is, is going to be a challenge because, uh, because, uh, things, things do change and managers do change. And sometimes it just all boils down to money. And, um, I hate to say that. And, uh, while I'm on the subject of, um, landscaping, I was curious. Now, when you did your first presentation to us, you kind of had this little vision that you shared of walking, uh, down a natural path in the woods. And, um, I remember talking about edible landscaping at this point. So can you talk about how that would fit into the, um.

Of course. Yeah. Yeah. Let's back up one step and try to give you an answer on the, on the, on the farm and the agriculture stuff regulation. I think that the important piece there is having the ownership and obligation live in the CDD or HOA. Okay. Just to answer your question. Much like an amenity center in another neighborhood. Yeah. And it's gotta be really. There's an obligation to the association. Yeah. And it's gotta be really clear. To uphold that amenity.

So. It's gotta be really clear. Sure. Because in, in, in Hale, it wasn't necessarily clear.

Yeah. I, I think that's important for us too. I think the clarity for potential homeowners, that, that's gonna be necessary. So that, to answer that part. The second part of that though, for the, uh, edible landscaping, I think that goes back to when I was telling you kind of, my original vision for this and one of the primary pillars, right, is that not only street design and walkable neighborhoods with sidewalks. That, those are all very important pieces of this presentation, no doubt, but also some of the natural landscape and having trailways through them and then incorporating. And we're, we're working with EPD, um, through, through some of the criteria on what can be implemented and potentially added in some of those CMA areas or conservation areas where we can implement either restoration, um, implementation or potentially some edible landscaping. And so the vision with that was that we try to keep, uh, a lot of the, especially perimeter or integrated conservation trailways, you know, in a way that you get to experience edible landscaping and, and wildlife and, and, you know, under tree canopy. Right. So some of that we'll be working hand in hand with staff and working through and weaving through some policy to make sure that we can make all that happen, you know, in a way that, that is meaningful.

I, yeah, I mean, I, I think about my kids getting to experience, you know, uh, mulberries or pawpaws or things like that, that you don't necessarily see anymore because, you know, nobody's growing them commercially really, but you know, they're, they're great. Yeah.

This is an opportunity to do that. I mean, just, especially considering in the trailway system, you know, is really not commercial at scale, right? It's more of an experience. And so that's something that we value. I think that we're excited to have the opportunity to, to work with, uh, with IFAS on potentially, you know, using, would love to pair up in some way to have some research component, but then also be able to use some, you know, improve genetics or root stock. And, and we'd love to see how that can evolve. Uh, we plan on incorporating a lot of that into the, into the, uh, trail system. Awesome.

Thank you. All right. Let me see if I got all my little stars. Um, and I think this goes without saying, but we are measuring 50 cent, percent development by the number of residential units or? One half of 2,700, 2,500.

50% of what?

Of residential units or residents or, uh, area developed. What does 50% mean? For the Archer Road. For the Archer Road. Oh, yeah. It would be the, the units, the intensity development. Yeah. The intensity of development. Okay. Just wanted to. Yeah. I figured somebody's gonna ask me that, so I figured I should ask. Okay.

That's all I have right now.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Wheeler.

Yes. I just, I just want to thank the group. Um, I, I've been asking for eight years now, every development to give me something I've never seen before. Now I know it's time I can finally retire. I was on a Jake Fuller cartoon. I always got the last word on a water video today. And now I'm getting to see something that I've never seen before. And to watch all of you who were a part of the team that I was there that visiting that day was remarkable. To see the energy and the enthusiasm and the commitment to this project. Um, being able to make a community that is charming and, and as inviting and inviting community. So I do hope you all will put some of those cracker houses that I saw the designs for out there, you know, that are, are reminiscent of a, of a, a calmer, easier time. Um, you know, people try to travel to Disney all the time to see, uh, these kinds of communities, you know, that you all are talking about trying to do. And that's what it felt like when I was there that you all were creating this place that people would want to be. And it was really exciting to see that in motion. And, uh, I, I would really like to make this motion. Now I know we're going to have community speak. Good. I mean, we need to have a motion. I, I move that we transmit the application Z 26, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5 with the staff recommended policies to the state for review and comment. Second.

Second.

Motion and two seconds. All right. Now I can retire. I got you. Yes.

Commissioner Chester.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I have a couple of questions. Uh, first of all, um, how many, uh, farmstead communities are there? Uh, this the first or, or is it more in Florida? I'm just asking.

You mean in the, in the County or are you just.

Or just in general, because to me, this is the first time I've ever seen anything like this. So that's why I'm asking.

I would not dare to think that there doesn't exist something similar to this. There are definitely different versions of this, but I think that what we have built under the guidelines of what your staff has recommended is very unique. I would not shy away from that. There may be farm components to communities that may exist elsewhere, but with all of the processes and policy that they've recommended, I would imagine we're. Yeah. Very unique.

There are a lot of. Mr. Myers, did you want to? Yeah. I saw you jump up.

Like via agriculture.

Yeah. Austin, do you want Justin?

Yeah, sure.

Yeah. Yeah, please. I'm just curious. Yeah, I think Austin's answer was great. I think in terms of, I think there's like a spectrum of like kind of these farm based communities. And this is, I think, on that like deeper end of like really having it be like a core part of the neighborhood in a very like real and authentic way where it's not just kind of like checking a box or kind of like a farm in name only. And so I think on that end, it's like is one of the more unique projects. And there's not like necessarily like a formal like governing body or definition of like, oh, what is a farmstead or an agrihood or anything like this. But I think this is like on that end of the spectrum that really kind of captures like the vision of how a farm can be integrated into a neighborhood and really have it be like a deeply valuable thing. Okay. Thank you.

All right. My next question. I think during the presentation, they stated there would be fruits and vegetables, but I never heard anything about any animals. Are they going to be animals? Yeah.

I mean, I think so. Right now. And what kind? Yeah. So at some of our other projects, we have like pasture poultry. And there's I think there's a difference to like for some places, we'll have like an educational chicken coop where there's 20, 25 birds. And then for others, you get into like pure like egg production where you have 200, 300 birds. And the same with like an apiary where we'll have we'll have 10 hives. There's kind of like there's like a showcase piece. But you could have 50 to 100 hives and really be in like honey production. Yeah. And so I think from where we are now in the planning, there's like will be especially the educational pieces that are woven in. And then there's opportunity to have like larger scale animal ag as well. That kind of how it evolves down the road. But I think like vegetables, fruits and flowers are really like the main driver, like on a diversified year round basis. And then you can kind of slide in animals along the way if needed.

And the only reason I asked that question was because I remember Mr. Lee saying that their farm been there for many years. Then the development started building around them. And people from Hill Plantation, I don't mean to pick on Hill Plantation, but were complaining about the cows at night mooing and stuff like that. So that's why I asked that question because what I want to make sure happens is that when folks buy property there, that they know that they're buying into a farm.

Sure. Yeah. Keep in mind that the 20 acre working farm may be more primarily directed at fruits and veggies. But there is there is another, you know, at the part of a 200 acre, you know, agriculture, conservation, open space requirement. And so we might have other areas. And again, we're still in planning stages, but we have other areas that have livestock, you know, horses or cattle or goats and maybe a little bit farther away from community center, but still allow those uses. Cute little pig, maybe. Yeah. If my daughter had any say in it, probably.

And I guess my last question is, what phase will the farm go into an active farm? Said the purpose.

That's important. Thank you for mentioning that. Our commitment was that that implementation is up front. Okay, great. And so keep in mind that the property is being farmed today. And we wanted not only some of the areas that are later development, but they continue to be farmed, but the actual working farm be implemented up front. And obviously there's phasing involved in that. I mean, you could move in day one and have the sort of intensities over the entire 20 acres that you will have as homes come in. But the implementation of that farm at some scale day one is a commitment of ours.

Okay. And I guess my last comment. Thank you for the presentation. It was very informative. My first time seeing something like this, I think that it would probably be a great success. And that's why I second the motion. Thank you. Well, thank you.

Appreciate it. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Frizio. Yeah, I guess to, you know, I mean, both Commissioner Alford and I have sort of expressed our concerns. I think, and you'll have to forgive me. It's not that I'm trying to be a stick in the mud about this. As you know, I should be the most excited up here being the local food maven that, you know, that we're doing a development that's like has ag at its core. But, you know, we just had to deal with a PD that had a golf course as an amenity. And, you know, 50 years ago, everybody thought golf courses in the middle of developments were going to be the most amazing thing. And everyone was going to want to live on a golf course and it gave them free open space. And now that PD is trying to split off the golf course and wanted to sell it. And we ended up buying it as a park because we had this situation. And I want to make sure that we're not doing the same thing with this development. That in 50 years, we're not going to have people standing up here trying to sell off that part of their PD and rezone it and turn it into something else that they can sell it off. Or Meadowbrook. Right, or Meadowbrook. You know, I just have seen those happen and where they create these amenity-based developments and then it's not cool anymore and then they want to change it.

Mr. Chair, I think both the applicant and staff have heard at least that comment pretty clearly. I think we have some thoughts about how we might deal with that. I don't think they're ready for production at transmittal and sort of wordsmithing that right now may not be great. I think the thought that we have is that we transmit it if the board wants to transmit it, that we transmit it as is. But with some language in the motion that gets at, when we come back for adoption, having some better handle on that working farm component. Like maybe it has to be under common ownership or it's, you know, whatever that language is. But something that addresses the comments that we've heard.

Mind adding that to the motion, Mayor Haley? Certainly. The applicant and the staff are okay?

So essentially that by adoption, which would also be at the same time as PD, that the applicant and staff will work on something to provide protection of the long-term management of the farm. Or the farm. Okay.

You agree with that? That's agreeable. May I make a comment about that though? Because you're talking 30 to 50 years from now where farming may not be possible here because of the climate and the water situation. I got faith in Austin Roberts. I think he'll be able to do it. And he looks young enough to where he'll still be alive, unlike some of us. That's not my point. My point is that if we need to change in 30 years, the people who are here now have to change the way it is, you know, it is implemented, then it may not even be logical to have it as farming, you know, anymore. Yes, ma'am.

I mean, at that time, we could come back to the board at that time, obviously.

Of course, 30 years from now. I think the key piece in those examples you had was private ownership of a common amenity.

And I think that's pretty easy for us to mitigate through CDD and HOA ownership.

I think that's the important piece of long-term sustainability on those practices.

Thank you. Thank you, Austin. Okay. So we've got a motion and a second. We've heard from staff. We've heard from the applicant. It is time for our amazing citizens that are here to come forward. We'd like to hear from you all. Then we will come back to the board. We'll have further deliberations, and then we'll see where this goes. If you will introduce yourself, we've got a light system. Green means go. Yellow means 30 seconds. Red means next. Chair?

Commissioners? I'm grinning because I don't think I have ever been in the position that I'm in now. The position I'm in now is I'm going to say a little tiny no in a whole chorus of yeses. And that's kind of fun, and I'm glad to be here. Jay Rosenbeck, chair of EPAC. EPAC recommends the comprehensive plan amendment not be approved as currently written. Concerns include the increase in allowable units, location outside the urban cluster, water quality impact on groundwater and springs, location in sensitive cars, lack of exact metrics for TDR, and something we haven't heard before, potential impact on gopher tortoises. That was a vote five to three with two members absent.

Thank you. Jay, we appreciate you and all of the work you do for this county. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

I think they've got to be back, but I'm back. Sam. I recognize this guy. Hey, Sam. Recognize. Thank you. I don't know why we keep calling this a farm. I genuinely have no idea. If you talk to a farmer from this area or from the peripheral counties, they will tell you the numbers need to be interversed. We are losing the forest for the trees here, no pun intended. 2,750 homes. Why aren't we talking about that? All three roads that flank this development are single lane. Parker, 24th, Archer, whatever you want. It's all single lane. What are we doing about that? A farm? This is a Trojan horse. And I'm sorry. I feel very emotional about this. I don't want to take away from my credibility to talk about it. I am a beekeeper. I do have a degree from zoology at the University of Florida, and I grew up across the street from this proposed development. I cannot tell you that I knew about this issue far before today. And, you know, Vice Chair Prezio, you mentioned there's not a whole lot of audience here as a potential indicator that there's not a lot of disagreement. It's a luxury to be here. There are not a lot of people who can take this time, just no matter what, to come here and voice their opinion, particularly from the 45 minutes away that this site is proposed. Commissioner Alford, you mentioned your kids talk about the berries. I love that. I've worked at a summer camp owned by the school board here for seven summers, and there actually are a few mulberry bushes still growing out there. It's amazing. The antithesis of a neighborhood that has berries in it is putting another 1% of the entire amount of homes in this county in an area that comprises less than a thousandth of the land in it. You take away so many more berries than you will have, no matter how dense you try to say it. 20 acres, 40 acres, it all chops up to about 300 square feet per household of farmland. That is a bedroom. That is not a farm. This is a Trojan horse, and there are not very many people behind me who are going to be here to pay attention to this in 40 years. I'm sorry. There are only three of us in this room in our 20s. So I have to think about tomorrow. This is an unpopular opinion, and I concede that. But at the same time, park and ride, this is not the population that's going to be utilizing those services. In college, I rode the Route 150 RTS route from the Hale Village Center to the University of Florida. Nobody's on that bus. They discontinued the service. This isn't a viable transport idea. We don't have the infrastructure yet. I like that this company continues to mention the good that it will do to the community. I like the public service offsets that they're suggesting, and that's all good. The bones aren't there yet. We just got the golf course. We just got the IFAS land. IFAS will have trails, and they will do extension, and they will do teaching in that 500-acre forest. I taught for IFAS for three years. I promise you that will happen. What they're not going to do is go to a neglected 20-acre farm and say this is how farming is, because it's not. You'll get one zucchini per household if you have a bumper crop on a 20-acre farm with 2,700 houses in it. I regret that I only have three minutes to talk about this because I have pages of notes that I took during the 97 minutes that the other people got to talk about it. But the reality is I don't see how this is sustainable for this county right now. We don't have the infrastructure in place for it, and I really don't want to put the cart before the horse, but I had to say something.

Thank you, Sam. All right. Next speaker. Anybody else? Okay. We'll go ahead and close public comment, bring it back to the board. Commissioner Wheeler and then Commissioner Prizio.

Very quickly. I understand the concerns. A lot of us feel have had those concerns. I've been working recently with three families who have large pieces of land. They're elderly people trying to decide what to do about that land to be responsible to their families and to make sure that it gets into the right easement or the right conservation or the right use for that plan. 4,000 acres is a lot of land to try to decide what to do with. And so I feel like then working with the Lee brothers and watching them struggle over eight years of trying to figure out what to do with, how to take responsibility for this land, not only for the community, but for their own families as well. A large piece of property like this could easily be sold to someone who would put an AI center there. This is exactly the kind of land those places are looking for. And some of these families are so desperate to get that property moved along that they would take the first best offer without doing the investigation, without doing the work that the Lee brothers have done. So I just feel like that though I am also a water conservationist, I feel like that it's inevitable that these big properties are going to be sold to somebody. And so to be able to watch it be sold to who we've got now, this team of people who are trying to coordinate to the best possible creative resolution, this is why I'm supporting it at this point. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. President and Commissioner Alford. And then I'll make some comments.

First, I think you might want to run for office someday, sir. I follow in your uncle's footsteps. But I guess what I want to say is that I hear you loud and clear, but I will argue with you a little bit because I run a small farm on campus. We're only a quarter acre and we grow 15,000 pounds of food a year. We grow lots of food in a very small space and we feed a lot of people. And so, you know, it's possible with sustainable integrated agriculture to grow a lot of food in a small space. And so I don't know that it's just going to be one zucchini household. But I do hear you that this is a farm that's a very small piece of a very big residential and commercial development. And that that's being kind of focused on a lot when really this is about the bigger picture of developing a neighborhood and a community in a space that traditionally never had one and was very rural. But, you know, we're in a private property state in a private property country and people can develop their property. And as commissioners, we get the unenviable job of making the call about how that gets done and trying our very best to protect the natural resources. The public tax dollars with efficient delivery of services to all of those residences that private entities decide to develop. And from my perspective, I think we've done the very best that we can do to protect the natural resources that are out there to get funding to be able to buy more of those beautiful wild spaces that aren't being used for agriculture. To actually protect more land in our county from development and at the same time allowing for a much more compact, much more efficient development of space for the delivery of services to what will ultimately be a more urbanized area. And while it is technically outside our urban cluster, it is right on the edge. And I know that this, you know, we're very cognizant of the fact that we don't want this to be a leapfrog situation. We've done the analysis to look at all the other parcels around it to make sure that this can't just be like a, you know, hop, hop, hop with the agricultural enclaves bill, with a lot of the other pieces. I think staff have really worked hard to make sure that this is a unique circumstance in a unique area. And, you know, I didn't want to like it either, to be totally honest with you. You know, I really didn't. And I still feel like it's one of the hardest votes that I've ever had to make to vote for 2,700 homes on what used to be conservation land and farmland. But I do think that it, if it's going to be developed, this is the best way it could possibly to be developed. And I just wanted to share that with you since you took the time to come up here and speak to us. So thank you. Thank you. And to EPAC, we appreciate your comments. And my comments are also to EPAC. We appreciate your input. And we agree with you in a lot of ways. But I think the things that staff have put in place around irrigation protections, around fertilizer protections, around ground penetrating radar that will help us. And looking to see if there are any geological resources that we need to protect. I think both the developer and the staff have done a really good job to hopefully build something we can all be proud of. Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Alford. Yeah, you know, I started getting involved with the county by being the chair of EPAC. And so I understand where EPAC comes from. I would like to invite the developer to meet with EPAC. EPAC is our environmental protections advisory board. And they, they are some of the most, some of the most talented environmental folks in our county. And I think that it would be great to meet with them and address their concerns directly. Because I, I think that would be, I would love to be, maybe even be there for that meeting. And then the Trojan horse idea, I was going to say the same thing. I think I added it up in my backyard. I think I have about 300 square feet of, of garden. And I have more than I can eat and share and whatever put away jars. But I also have a lot of fruit trees all over my property and other things that have, you know, integrated that are outside of what I consider, you know, the part that I farm, so to speak. And that's what I'm hoping that this development will also have is that, you know, integrated agricultural thought process throughout development. So I wanted to say that. And then there's one more thing. Nope. I think that's all I need to say right now. But again, appreciate your comments. Understand exactly where you're coming from because that's where I started. Because that's where I started.

Thank you, Commissioner. So like Mary Alford said about Victor Dover, she's known you her whole life.

Not, not my whole life.

Oh, you didn't say that?

No, no, no. For a long time. Oh, for a long, long time.

Yeah.

For my professional life. Well, I will say that I have known Sam literally his whole life, not my whole life.

And so he is in the Cornell family. We teach people to speak their mind and let's have the debate. And so, Sam, thanks for being here. Appreciate your comments. Let me tell you, when I got comments from many folks that were not in favor of this, I really respect those comments. You know, and some of those folks are some of my largest supporters, like Mary said.

And then this weekend I heard from well over 50 to 75 other folks. Many of those folks I know and they are in largely in support of this project. One of them is Sam, your neighbor, Roger and Dagny Christian. So they, they sent in an email. And so it was really interesting because there were so many folks that are so close to this project that are in favor of it, which really to your point, commissioner, is a testament to how Austin and his team have brought this forward to us. You know, I didn't know Austin before this, but what I've learned about him is that he is a landowner. He is a farmer. More importantly though, he is a person in our community that wants to have and build something that he's proud of. And we don't get a lot of developers to stand up here and spend that amount of time and energy. And resources to really engage the community with here's my idea, but are there better ones out there and really incorporate that. And he's worked with what I think is the best staff in the state. And they are tough. They, they say, if you want to do something new, it's going to have to kind of, well, it's going to have to be consistent with our plan. And so let me tell you what I like about it. Policy 8.6.6.9 integration with conservation lands and research assets. We have an opportunity with the premier research institution of the state, and we will be pushing them to put the strategic ecosystems into some conservation. But we have an opportunity to work with a flagship university, the best in the country, in my opinion. And that's a, that's part of our policy that we will be transmitting. Working farm as a community anchor. I'd never seen that. I did have a chance to go down and see Newfield. I love the concept. Hopefully we can get some of the things that you are concerned about as our farmer on the commission. And I, I know the, the land owner is interested in doing that as well. I love that that policy is a community anchor. Mobility. We are literally creating a mobility district, completely consistent with our comprehensive plan. And the growth is going to fund itself. We're not asking our existing taxpayers to fund the mobility plan. The developer and the neighborhood is going to fund it. 8.6.6.13, transfer of development rights and affordability. Two things that we are so in favor of and asking developers to bring affordable housing. They are voluntarily doing it. I heard tonight that it's going to be consistent with the phasing of the development. I can't wait to read that policy in the PD. I think that's going to be great. We are combining the density, getting 4,000 acres or 3,000 acres into conservation or management through IFAS. We're going to have conservation in the 997 acres. And through the TDR that the developer and staff came up with, we're going to be able to acquire an additional 5,000 acres and put that into conservation. Hasn't happened since I've been on the board. And I don't know if it's happened previous to me very often. I see one of our folks that helped us write the plan three decades ago. So I guess I'll ask him after this hearing. So I really love that. To me, that staff and the developer are working on, hey, you want to do something outside the urban cluster? It's got to be pretty special. And I really appreciate staff's work and the developer for working with our staff. The land disturbance piece, that policy, 8.6.6.14. We've talked to developers about, don't just clear cut everything. It's actually in the policy. The 8.6.16 policy, water conservation and low water use landscaping. Again, you heard Stacy say, this is really a model. Haven't had a developer want to work with us on that level. And I think, you know, they worked with us in the strategic, adopting the study. And so that's something that they're following through on. So is it perfect? No, I think we have a real opportunity to make it perfect at the PD. And I know that with Mr. Dover, with the army of experts that have been involved in this process for the last year, with the community's input and with what I think is the best staff in the state, I think we're going to have a really special thing to look at in a couple of months with the PD. So I am in favor of the motion. Really appreciate all the work that our staff has put into it and all the work that the community has put into it. And with that, is there any further discussion before we take a vote? Okay, all those in favor of the motion on the floor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion is unanimous. So congratulations. We'll see you for the next four years and certainly in the next couple of months.

Okay.

All right.

Only four?

I think we'll see you for longer than that. Yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, not building a house until 2029 is what I saw. So there's going to be a lot more of these meetings. And I think, yeah, I think that concludes our meeting because we've already had our commission. Mr. Chuck, did you have something you want to add?

Yeah. Well, yeah, something different though, totally. Over the weekend, I was, yeah, I was going through my emails. I was playing catch up, I'll be honest with you. And I ran across a whistleblower in reference to, it says administrative mismanagement and a resume fraud, confidential whistleblower disclosure, and it gives a state statute. And it says the office of county clerk of the court, comptroller, and is asking for an audit of the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners, County Managers Office, the formal report of an administrative mismanagement recruitment policy violation, and a material resume fraud within Alachua County Human Resources. So I don't know if this is true. I want to know what's going on here. I thought with whistleblower, yeah, I want to give it to staff, but I want to know what's going on. If we have whistleblower stuff, I mean, if I hadn't caught this, this would have been dead. It's still, I don't think anybody else saw it. Did it come on the email?

No.

It was in the email. It was in our emails. Yes, ma'am. Oh, I saw it. I've forwarded it to legal. We've forwarded it to the attorney. We've forwarded it to legal. Oh, okay. But I haven't heard anything, though. I mean, so that's why I'm bringing it, and I'll give it to the clerk and give it to them.

You're going to hand it to him? Yeah. Yeah, because I just want to know, I mean, if we're having whistleblowers tell us something is wrong with some of our policies, I think it's important that we know.

Not that I have to keep constantly looking, looking, looking for stuff. That's not what I got elected to do, but I am going to look at my emails when folks send them. So that's why that was important to me, and I just want to bring that to the attention of all of you all. Thank you, Commissioner.

Anything else? That's it.

That's it.

All right. We are adjourned. Thank you.