Regular Meeting @ 5 p.m. - Oct 27, 2026

All right. Good evening, everybody. It is 5 o'clock, and we're going to go ahead and call the evening meeting to order. Madam Clerk, first item. First item will be, sorry, sorry, public hearing to adopt Z-26-00005 Everly Farmstead Community Comprehensive Plan Amendment. All right. And the recommended action is to adopt the Ordinance 26, approving the application Z-26-5-0-5 Everly Farmstead Community Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Dawson. Welcome. I'm sorry. What does mine say? Eight. That's a quasi. We'll do that after the comp plan. Oh, okay. Oh, I'm on the wrong part. All right. Mr. Dawson, you're recognized. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Chris Dawson, Principal Planner for Electro County Growth Management Department. And as you've mentioned, this is an adoption hearing for a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment. You heard the transmittal hearing for this item in August of this year. This has been now to the state for its review. It is coming back to you for adoption. There are a couple of small changes that have been made in the policies, and I'll point those out as we go through in a little bit briefer presentation than last time I was here. That was great. Thank you. So just as a refresher, this is a proposal for both a comprehensive plan map amendment, a future land use map amendment, for approximately 997 acres. About 820 of that is inside the Hickory Sink Special Area Plan, and 176 acres are outside of it. All of that property currently has a rural agriculture future land use designation, and the proposed change is to the Everly Farmstead Community future land use designation. And then the other part is that it creates policies that implement that Everly Farmstead Community future land use. You may remember, Mr. Chair, that the Hickory Sink Special Area Study was accepted by the Board of County Commissioners in November 2023, with resolution 2023-97. There was phasing included in that specifically for a UF Gulf development. That came before you earlier this year. It identified specific conservation areas and also areas for potential future development, and provided some specific direction on the protection of those environmental resources. So this, the SAS, the Special Area Study, really includes sort of three distinct ownership groups now. There's the 580 acres that was approved for UF Gulf. That's owned by the UF Foundation. There are the lands that are west of Parker Road. Those are now owned by the state and managed by IFAS. And then the remainder of the lands, which continue to be owned by the Lee family, but are subject to this application. And then, as I mentioned, the application also includes properties that are outside of the Special Area Study. The property that we're talking about tonight is located sort of generally west, out west of Hale Plantation, just west of the urban cluster, east of Parker Road, north of Archer Road. So again, about 1,000 acres. This is a recent aerial of the site that you can see. It's generally historic agricultural uses, and that's a varying agricultural uses. So pine plantation in some places at times, and also ranch lands at times, and other active agricultural uses as well. Again, the current future land use designation is rural agriculture, and the proposal is to change it to the Everly Farmstead Community future land use designation. As part of the UF Gulf application, the board did adopt proposal or policies, goals, and objectives for the Special Area Study. Although a portion of this application is outside of the Hickory Sink Special Area Plan, the policies that are in place for the SAS do apply throughout the entire development. And I'm going to skip that one, because we've been through that, but just a reminder that we're sort of in the implementation phase of that Special Area Plan. And again, this sort of shows the boundaries or the limits of the Special Area Plan in this darker green color, and then the limits of the Everly Farmstead Community shown here. And again, you can see that portion that's sort of outside of the Special Area Plan. So again, Mr. Chair, there's really two parts to this. Part one is a future, a change to the future land use designation from rural agriculture to Everly Farmstead Community, which is obviously, this is the only place where we have that. And then there's also a change to the adopted future land use map 17, which is the Hickory Sink Special Area Study, Special Area Plan, and that'll show the Everly Farmstead Community. So that's this map F-17 that is adopted in the comprehensive plan. And again, you can see that future land use designation indicated on it. Those are the two changes? Yeah. So you've seen the map change with the Everly Farmstead Community, and you've seen this map. The second part is the proposed text amendments that really define that Everly Farmstead Community. And again, these are included within the Hickory Sink Special Area Plan. And so that's policies 8.6.6, and everything below them are really the Everly Farmstead Community. So I do want to talk a little bit about the conditions of the Special Area Plan that are sort of satisfied. And then we'll also go through the specific policies that are proposed. And I'm going to go through them kind of quick, but obviously if there are questions, I'd answer them. Condition 8 of the Special Area Study required the protection of the conservation management areas and the clustering of development as close as possible to the cluster. Required the analysis of some comp plan policies related to the urban cluster, as well as the extension of urban services, sanitary sewer and potable water. Required that the development be served by urban infrastructure and services. And I say the development, this was all a sort of if it happens, these things have to be true. That transportation connections would be consistent with urban mobility districts. Required the use of urban design concepts and affordable housing. Condition 9 specifically related to the extension of central water and sanitary sewer lines. And an analysis of policies 3.15 and 3 point, that should say 0.6, 3.1.6 of the potable water and sanitary sewer facilities element. And I'll get to the sort of staff's analysis of those in just a minute. And then Condition 10 required water conservation and low water use landscaping. And it suggested things such as specific limits on irrigation, irrigable area, and adherence to a water budget. The prohibition of irrigation on private residential lots or the retention of existing vegetation and the use of native landscaping. And Condition 13 dealt with stormwater treatment, specifically engineered soils and low impact design. And LID approaches that reduce runoff. So disconnecting impervious surfaces, impervious pavement, vegetated natural buffers, and there may be others. So I want to kind of just go through what are in the proposed policies. Again, you've seen these before and where there's a change, I'll be sure to point it out to you. Under the current future land use designation, staff estimates about 275 units could be developed on this property, given a rural residential clustered subdivision. The policies propose 2,500 residential units and 250 affordable units. So a total of 2,750 units and 200,000 square feet of non-residential development. The proposed policies require 5,000 acres to be the basis for transfer of development rights. And the policies provide for that either through acquisition or fee-in-lieu payments. The special area study required the analysis of policy 7.1.3, although the applicant is not proposing to extend the urban cluster. The applicant did include sort of a detailing of the need for single-family development, especially in the southwestern portion of the urban cluster and just outside. We didn't find that our analysis that we did for the evaluation and appraisal was invalid. But we've really focused on what the policy outcomes are related to this comprehensive plan amendment, as opposed to the specific need, if you will, as sort of would otherwise be required. Policy 7.1.3 establishes some requirements to expand the cluster. There's sort of two pathways a development could go down if they wanted to expand the cluster. One of those is that 25% of the new units be affordable at 80% of area median income. The other is that there would be a transfer of development rights for any new units authorized by the urban. And so I would just say that staff took a sort of unique approach to that because this isn't an expansion of the cluster. We weren't necessarily bound specifically to either one of those routes. And staff has really looked at sort of a little bit of each. So some transfer of development rights for new units as well as some affordable units. And the way that that really works out is that the 5,000 acres that's the basis for the transfer of development rights is 55% of if you did all transfer of development rights. And the 250 affordable housing units is really 45% of what it would be if you just went the affordable units route. And so those two together get you that 100%. We did provide an analysis of policies 3.15 and 3.16 in the staff report. It basically says if you want to extend water and sewer outside the cluster as it is today, that you have to sort of do one of the things that's in that policy, 3.1.5. And C of that policy is that the board finds that the extension of the facilities would serve a purpose consistent with the comp plan. And it lists some such ases. And I think as staff, we sort of looked at this and said, you know, the board has been focused on affordable housing. The board's been focused on the protection of lands outside of the urban cluster. And that it's focused on the urban form of development. And that the policies that are proposed achieve those goals that are both in the comprehensive plan as well as sort of support the strategic goals of the commission. And because of that, policy 3.16.6 doesn't apply because the urban cluster isn't being expanded. On the transportation front, proposed policy 8663 requires development of substantial portions of the development consistent with our existing traditional neighborhood development standards. And it also requires the implementation in 86613 of a mobility district specific to the Everly Farmstead community with a requirement to construct internal infrastructure that enhances mobility and also provides a limitation on development prior to the programming of the widening of State Road 24. So that's a lot of words, but it basically means there's a limit that you reach and you can't go any further until that project is in FDOT's five-year work program. The PD details that out a little bit more, and I'll talk about that when we get there. Not to be billed. It's got to be in the program. Yes. The comp plan policies really provide for four character areas. We might think of these as individual future land use designations if we were in other parts of the cluster. But really these are sort of development scenarios within sort of broken down. That's the farmstead, which generally allows one dwelling unit for three acres. There's some requirement for clustering in portions of it and protection of others. The hamlet, which is more suburban in nature, it allows up to five dwelling units per acre, which is a little bit higher. Our residential low is four dwelling units per acre, so it's a little bit higher density than that. The village edge, which is mixed use and allows up to ten dwelling units per acre, requires a minimum of 300 units. And the village core, which is mixed use, again, with up to 16 dwelling units per acre and a minimum of 600. And those last two are really analogous, and we have a policy that requires the hamlet, village edge, and village core to be developed consistent with our traditional neighborhood development standard design standards for the outside, the transit supportive area, transit supportive area, and village center, like we do with our T&D. The policies require the farmstead character area to be a minimum of 400 acres, and let's keep in mind that this is a 997-acre development, so that's about 40%, with a minimum 50% set aside for uses consistent with the open space provisions of the rural clustered subdivision. That includes the CMAs designated by the special area study, and it includes areas where the strategic ecosystem standards apply. Policy 86611 designates the working farm, which requires it to be at least 20 acres. It has to be located outside of a CMA, and it generally supports agricultural and community-based agriculture-related activities. Policy 86611 spells out a little bit more detail on the working farm, and I will say that this is one area where we've made a change based on comments provided by the board at the transmittal hearing. So in this, we've added a new ownership section in this policy, which indicates that it has to be in single ownership, which could be a CDD or a property owner's association, homeowner's association, and that that group is ultimately responsible for the long-term operation, maintenance, and public access program. So I think that really kind of hones in on what the board was concerned about at the transmittal hearing. There are some minor change as well that allows working farm to be within the additional development standards areas, where previously it was prohibited, but it can't include the amenity buildings or commercial activities. It's really intended to have just the sort of farm activities there. Policy 86615 and 16 deal with land disturbance, requires the PD to include disturbance limitations, which we can talk about at the PD, but it does, and provides for selective clearing and CMAs as a restoration technique, really. Requires geophysical testing prior to stormwater management design, and requires stormwater best management practices at the PD, which are, again, included in a PD resolution that you'll see. The Water Conservation Policy 86617 establishes a maximum landscape irrigation limit, requires Florida native and Florida-friendly landscaping, sets limits on fertilizers and soil amendments, establishes irrigation sources and rules, and introduces the idea of an irrigation utility. I did want to say that we have analyzed this from a public facilities standpoint. GRU has indicated that they have capacity available to serve the development, although there may be up-system improvements that are necessary in order to provide capacity, or to provide flow. Also, fire rescue has indicated that they can provide services to the site at the same urban level of service that they do in the cluster. And Alachua Public Schools has reviewed the proposal and found that capacity exists either within the school concurrency service area, or in the adjacent ones, which is the requirement. I did want to detail one change to policy 866, 617. I feel like there might be one extra six in there. And that is to, this deals with irrigation and fertilizers, and specifically what we wanted to do was sort of not discuss specifically the working farm. Previously, this kind of acknowledged that the working farm itself would be a bona fide agricultural use, and we've kind of pushed that to the side and said if something is a bona fide agricultural use, then we can't regulate it, but if it's not, then we can. And I would say that, specifically, we do have in the PD some regulations about that in the landscape best management practices. With that, Mr. Chair, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt application Z26-00005 with the proposed policies in the staff report as amended in the presentation, and that's just that last 866-17-M, and authorize the Chair's signature on the ordinance. With that, Mr. Chair, I'm happy to answer any question, and the applicant is also here with the presentation when you're ready. Okay, very good. We've got two lights, Commissioner Alford and Commissioner Prezio. All right, my question is, under bona fide agricultural activities, does that include horse farming? So I am not an expert in bona fide agricultural activities, but I would say, yes, equestrian uses are generally considered to be agricultural. Okay, someone asked me that question. I did not know the answer. Yeah, I mean, it has to have a commercial purpose. I mean, I think that's one sort of distinction, is you just have one horse on your property, and you ride it around occasionally. That's not an agricultural use, but if you're deriving an income from it, you show an income and a loss and all those kinds of things. Okay, so that's an important distinction. Okay, thank you. Conclude? Commissioner Prezio? Yeah, thank you. Yeah, it's a really good distinction. I think bona fide agriculture, as the property appraiser defines it, for, like, purposes of exemption, and the water management as well is, like, that it's, like, an operation for commercial purposes. So they always ask for receipts, for your property and loss statements, for an understanding of your relationship with the economy, essentially not for recreational purposes, like a homestead farm. Okay, my big question is, I guess I missed this, I think, maybe a little bit when I was reading it before. I didn't quite catch it, catch the understanding. So I am very happy to see the idea of people having the opportunity to have irrigation to help water in their landscapes, and I know it's reclaimed water, which is great, but we have, in a special area study, in the adopted language under 10B, we have prohibit permanently irrigated private residential lots as part of our requirements. And then, for some reason, we get here, and now only 15% of the lots are prohibited from permanent landscape irrigation. That's a real problem for me, because that was one of the big things that we discussed during the special area study, was that, and I know that Everly's worked really hard to have, they're going to put compost in, they're going to put all native landscaping and border-friendly landscaping in, like, they're doing all the things you need to do to ensure that you don't need permanent landscape irrigation. So I don't understand why we're only requiring 15% or less of the lots to not have permanent irrigation, rather than going with what we require during our special area study for all the private residential lots to not have permanent irrigation. Yeah, I think we... Mr. Chair, I'm lucky, and I have some other staff members here who probably can answer those questions a little bit better than... Yeah, I think that... Stacey? I'm happy to make the motion for staff's recommendation, but I'd like to... Change that? Change that, yeah. I'm with you. I don't want to change that. No, I don't either. You don't want to change that? No. You want people to be able to... Stacey. Stacey. Stacey Greco, Water Resources Program Manager. Before we ever made the application to discuss this with Stacey, so go ahead. Yes, I'm with EPD. So I think the distinction came in looking at that Condition 10, that it discussed water conservation, and it listed different things. It was staff's interpretation that that would prohibit permanently irrigated private residential lots, and then in discussions with other members of staff that because of the such as in that Condition 10, that it is not requiring all of those items there, A through D. And we can go back and watch the meeting if we want to pull up the video. Yeah, I don't mind pulling up the video. We said unanimously that we were going to pivot irrigation on all residential lots. No. What I remember prior to us making this transmittal was that we were basically implementing best management practices with this developer in this development, including their ability to turn off the irrigation for the entire neighborhood if they needed to, and that that actually, in my mind, meant that it wasn't permanent irrigation. So I got over this one. Yes, because the individual households have permanent irrigation systems. I mean, let me just give you an example. In Oakmont, the average homeowner is using 617,000 gallons of water per household per day in residential irrigation landscaping. That's a reclaimed water. Some people argue it's reclaimed water. So how is Oakmont's regs different than this one's? Yeah, so Oakmont doesn't have the requirements that we have in here that only 40% of the lot would be irrigated where they're, I mean, some of that was built before some of the design codes, but it's limited to 50%. We do have the irrigation budget in this. So there would be additional restrictions that Oakmont does not have. I'm saying that was our agreement during the special area study. It was, you're literally changing it. I'm not changing the deal. You absolutely are. It's individual homeowners are being offered the opportunity for permanent irrigation. And I don't understand how we can offer when we literally said we were going to prohibit permanently irrigated lots. I mean, that was the whole point of our conversations was that this is a super karst area. We're going to be using reclaimed water, which has high nutrients, and it's full of nitrogen and phosphorus. We're asking them to put in compost so that they can hold water, like storm water that's coming from the sky, rainwater. We have them using native plants and Florida-friendly landscaping so that they don't require irrigation. So they're doing all the things to not need the irrigation. Why then would we install permanent irrigation and allow permanent irrigation? I'm not talking about temporary irrigation to water in the plants when they establish the landscape, because often when you establish the landscape, you have to water it more because those plants don't have a root system yet. But in the long run, why would we be allowing permanent landscape? Especially when there are examples all over the state of landscapes and neighborhoods that aren't requiring it, and they are beautiful neighborhoods. Most of Gainesville doesn't have permanent irrigation. Most of the neighborhoods all have... Okay, let's do Commissioner Wheeler, and then we'll come back to you. Commissioner Wheeler. I was going to make the motion for staff recommendation. I feel like that these people for eight years have worked on this project, for eight years since I first came on. And I feel like our staff is, along with the owners and along with the developers, have done everything they can to come to a compromise that would make it a working operation for us. And so I would move staff recommendation as is. Okay. Do you have a second to that motion? I'll pass it to you. I'll go ahead and second the motion. Now we can hear from the public. Well, no, you can pass it back and make a substitute motion if you'd like. I'd like to move that we push staff recommendation with the change to K under the overall... I don't know what these are considered. Are these considered policies? Policy 8.66.17 K to remove the sentence, PD zoning shall not be less than 15% of the total number of platted residential lots. Sorry. Permanent, the total number of lots without permanent irrigation will be identified as part of the PD zoning shall not be less than 15%. We're just removing that sentence from policy K. Second. Policy 8.66.17 K. Okay. We have a substitute motion and a second. So we will hear that. You can speak to any motion when we go to public comment, and then we will vote on that one first. If that fails, then we'll vote on the other one. Before we get to that, let's have staff... Mr. Chair, I was just going to make sure that the applicant has an opportunity to make a decision. Yeah, we're going to obviously give the applicant an opportunity. We're going to do public, general public comment in three minutes. But before we do that, we'll have the applicant speak to this issue. Good evening, Chair. Drew Hawley, ETM. I would like to have the opportunity to address some of the comments. I think staff did a great job kind of walking through specifically the permanent irrigation point. A couple things that I would ask that you bear in mind. And when we look at kind of the by right use of water and potable water for irrigation versus the opportunity to use reuse, obviously at a much reduced rate with an allocation granted across the entire development, which is significantly less than the numbers that were presented for Oakmont, with the opportunity as well to regulate it through a private irrigation utility and to also penalize those who go over that allotment substantially, we feel that this provides more teeth than anything that was done previously in the special area plan that actually limits water usage to a much greater extent. In addition to the requirements for Florida native and Florida-friendly landscapes at 100%, which will, to Commissioner Parizia's comment, require a lot less irrigation. And we certainly acknowledge that. We only want to use what is right and needed by the landscape. And so that is certainly something that we are mindful of when working through with staff to put together the best management plan for irrigation and water use. So we'd be happy to answer any further questions. Commissioner Alford? No, Commissioner Parizia? How does that work in practice? So how would the HOA, you know, the developer's gone, everyone's got their permanent irrigation systems, how will that work in practice that we're able to regulate? The biggest change, I think, Commissioner Parizia, from what you are typically used to seeing would be that this would be a private irrigation utility not regulated by GRU, not regulated really through a bulk service agreement. And so GRU would provide reclaimed water through a bulk service agreement, which would be held and stored on the project site. Ultimately, that reclaimed water would then subsequently be distributed to customers. There is a minimum that 15%, likely more of those customers, would not be a part of that reclaimed water utility. That would be an opt-out, right? And each of those customers would likely only have water available to them for set hours during the week. So, for example, if you are on the even side of the road, you have an allocation on Tuesdays and Fridays, and your allocation is from 3 a.m. until 6 a.m., the valve is open. At other times, the valve is closed. You no longer have water available to you. The private irrigation utility would be responsible for all of the metering. It would also be responsible for the monitoring. Ultimately, GRU, we've been in conversation with GRU for the better part of the last year and how this could potentially work in terms of delivering at bulk service at low pressure, and then us or a private irrigation utility that the developer stands up, being the one that ultimately delivers the water to the end user and the customer. So, who operates that utility? That would be operated through, there's a number of private irrigation utility companies that operate throughout the state, primarily in areas that are underserved by centralized water and sewer. I know in this scenario, the adjacency to GRU makes it a little bit odd for us to kind of fathom, but, you know, GRU is currently looking to put some of their water into the wetlands park. Obviously, they have additional high-service pressure customers along the route as well. Part of the commitments that we've made to GRU in terms of what Everly is willing to take, along with working with them on the golf course as well, is part of the strain on their system is having to provide it at high pressure. And if we're able to take the water at a lower pressure and then redistribute it throughout the rest of the neighborhood to the uses that need it, to the customers that are requesting it on a set schedule, that that would relieve a lot of the burden that's being placed on the utility to provide and distribute water to the west side. A few other questions. I guess who, I guess this is a question maybe for Corbin. Who regulates this utility? Like, how would we ensure that this utility is sticking to the water budget that's defined in our plan and is not? I'd be happy to answer that. So that's actually covered in the PD and the Best Management Plan in terms of water quality, monitoring, reporting on an annual basis. How about quantity of water, not quality of water? Yeah, both. Both. And staff would be monitoring that as well? Correct. How? How are staff going to monitor that? I mean, there is a component of annual reporting that the utility would be required to provide. So annually, the utility is going to report to us how much water they used? Correct. That's not going to, I guess I just, I don't know that I feel very comfortable with that in terms of, like, self-reporting how much water they used to us on an annual basis is going to stop people from overusing water. I don't understand how that's going to stop people from overusing water. Like, you sent us an annual report, and if you're overusing water, then what? Is there a fine structure? Is there a cease and desist? Is there, like, what is our regulatory authority? I mean, ultimately. Stop them overusing water. As far as that goes, it would be the same as any condition you would find in a development order for any other development. So you would have codes enforcement as an option. There could be some sort of litigation injunction type action that's taken. So why don't we pause just for a second to do public comment, general public comment, then we'll come back to this afterwards. So we're going to go ahead and pause the hearing, open it up for, it's 530, and so we'll do general public comment, then we'll circle back, and Commissioner Prizio has the floor, and we circle back. Mr. Connish, you are recognized. Welcome. Mr. Chair, Jim Connish, I'd like to remind you of an unfortunate circumstance where Poe Springs has stopped flowing and become totally unfit for any kind of new limitation. I believe you wrote a chair letter to DEP who has nothing to do with the withdrawals that has caused the collapse of the Santa Fe River from Poe Springs at least up to the River Rise, where former springs have become siphons and receiving algae-tainted water into the groundwater, which will contaminate all the wells. And there is no end in sight to this. While this goes on, GRU withdraws an average of 21 million gallons a day, creating a cone of depression, sucking water as far away as the Santa Fe River into the Murphy Wellfield, and any pollution is being sucked into, and we're going to build a one-mile-long, 65-foot-deep concrete wall that supposedly will contain the copper's pollution that went on for 100 years, supposedly, and the more GRU pumps, the lower the Santa Fe River gets, and the more threats to the water supply from the pollution to be found all the way around the Murphy's Wellfield. Moreover, I have a concern on now a town and gown, which should not be this taxpayer on all fours and a UF coming in from behind. Is UF the equitable owner of any or all of this development so that later on they're going to say we're immune, immune from local government taxation? That's what happened with the continuum. This abuse of UF tax immunity by sophisticated investors is a catastrophe for a community already hosting a university exempt from ad valorem taxes on campus, exempt from ad valorem taxes off campus, exempt from utility tax anywhere, whether it's to Duke or GRU, and so on and so forth. And then we're going to have private tax shelters jumping on the bandwagon, and nobody's asking about that? Really? I'm disappointed, but not surprised, because that's the way it works here. And the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Connish. All right, anyone else for general public comment? Not related to the hearing. Okay, we'll go ahead and close general public comment. Commissioner Prisio, you have the floor. I guess I just, I don't have a lot of, I get the water budget, and I'm very excited you all are committing to a water budget, and I'm very excited that you all are committing to using reclaimed water. I just, I don't, it's not about the commitment of the developer to do these things. It's about the long-term management of this. I'm watching in real time as a lot of the developments that were built 30 years ago, 25 years ago, that have been turned over to HOAs, and the HOAs are incapable of managing the, you know, the spaces, the common spaces, the public spaces, the other commitments that these developments put in, because they don't have mechanisms to do so. And I think when I look at what our goals were when we started with this special area study, like when we went down this path of the special area study, and the overall part of this, our biggest concern, in addition to the, just the development and the impact on those natural areas that we have, was water use, and the fact that that is a very sensitive karst area. I mean, putting in big ponds where you're going to put reclaimed water, it's a real concern that those ponds are going to end up creating sinkholes in that karst landscape. They have to do radar, though, before they do it. I know, I believe that they have the team that's going to be used. Which we've never required. I mean, that's like a best practice. I understand. Yeah. I understand that they're doing a lot of things that aren't required. They're also getting 2,500 units where they had about 200. So, you know, I'm. Sure. I want to make sure that in the long run, I've protected our county's water resources. Sure. And I'm watching people dump 600 gallons of water a day on their landscapes. Yeah. And that is not a best practice. No, we don't like that either. Yeah, we are. I want to make sure that we have the regulatory teeth in the long run to make sure that our water is protected and that people can't just overuse the water. And our only means of protecting them is this, like, 10-year drawn-out codes enforcement process and a magistrate. And, you know, like, that's going to take forever. That's not going to protect our water resources. That's not going to stop individuals from over-irrigating their lawns and landscapes. Commissioners, if I may. Good evening. Hello. How are y'all? Good. How are you? Good. I will say there's a lot that goes into the BMPs, which is in the PD level. Right. We're adopting of the comp plan we transmitted. My suggestion would be after an adoption of the comp plan, we get into a number of the BMPs, because I can assure you that with staff, we have worked relentlessly on a litany of those. This is one of them. Yeah, and I've looked through those, and I had some comp, and that's where I intended to bring this up. Sure. But I didn't catch that that 15% was in our comp plan. I'll mention to you, too, just to give you, maybe to bring us back, because it's been months, right? We've been working on this for a long time. But just to bring us all kind of back to give us some color on kind of how we got here. You know, the idea of what we've come up here with was the best of all solutions that we collectively could find that kept it realistic for the ability to water in small increments without the ability, for instance, to just say no across the board, and the next thing you know, everybody's got sprinklers plugged into their spigots on the side of their house, and they're running potable water. I mean, we've had these conversations with staff and, you know, some of you, and that what we were seeking to find was a long-term solution to a conservation-forward irrigation program, and we have that for you here, and the staff has worked relentlessly in making that work for the county from a staff level. I can tell you from the – there's so much we can go into in the PD that addresses the lining of the pond, to some of your questions, a littoral edge that some of the staff suggested and required to be able to continue to pull nitrates out even after we've received it at service level from GRU. I'll tell you, there's a master meter at delivery from GRU, so there's a lot more protection in the supply of that water than maybe you're seeing at a high level right now. There – not only is there a strict irrigation requirement from an allotment perspective, there's also – and water – and monitoring, not only environmental, but water volume monitoring that we report back to you guys. There's also a master meter and a ledger from GRU because they will be our sole source, which is why we built it in the BMP this way. They're our sole source of irrigation water, meaning we didn't – we are not allowing private wells, and we are not allowing potable water for irrigation. That was the key in bringing this forward in a conservation-forward program so that we did not have permanent irrigation by people sinking wells. It was very much in a tight regimented, only as allotted, only as allowed in these very strict confines of how you are going to get them. And then the second layer to that was how do we do it in a way that is also not cumbersome to the system? And so that was us receiving in bulk service from GRU at low pressures that Drew spoke about, putting it into a reservoir that is lined, and also building in those littoral edges to be able to continue to push nitrogen down and some of those other things. So what I would encourage – Who manages those systems? I mean, that's my concern. It's not the – We will continue to be in management of the system. And there's a number of ways. Again, we might be – at comp plan, this may be a little bit premature to talking through the mechanics. That's what I got told about the conservation management areas, too, and then I was told I couldn't protect the conservation management area on the UF property because it was now past time. So I'm trying to do things at every stage at this point because I keep getting told after the fact that I'm too late. Well, the only reason I say that is to say that we will continue to operate it. I've seen it done a number of ways. And some of what we use as inspiration for how to model this and just continue to make it better is there's other developments that provide irrigation water within. There's Bartram Ranch. There's the Sunbridge model, which is – I have an irrigation component and the landscape component. We kind of took all of those examples and just tried to take the best parts of all those. And then staff had the chance to add into those even more BMPs and even more restriction and or guidance in those. And so what I would tell you is this is not a – we're not the first in how to do this. We have tried to take the best of maybe how to do it. And so you can do it. You can have the CDD own said infrastructure, license back or lease back to the private utility that we will still be in control of. The commitment – I think it's – I'm not trying to gloss over your question. I think it's less important about who owns the utility and it's more about what are the infrastructures that we put around it to say these are your requirements, this is your budget, this is how you have to comply. And at any time in which you are not complying, not only do you guys have legal action against that, but there is a master meter at GRU. And turn it off. Can I – can I ask a question that's – Go ahead, Commissioner Roberts. And thank you, Mr. Wheeler. So you're – I assume you're working on some sort of contract with GRU? Yes, ma'am. Have you already got that? Not yet. Are they stipulating that you must take a certain amount of reclaimed water? It will be a both. That's correct. So there will be a – it will be a – it's not necessarily you have to take this much, but if we are saying we are going to provide, it will be an agreement that says, okay, if we're saying we have to provide and here's your watering schedule and a very limited, you know, issuance, we have to be able to get that amount of water from you at times. So there will be an agreement that says we – that they have to comply with providing that minimal amount of water. So in the past, we've had times when – I'm remembering one time back in the early 2000s when we had three hurricanes affect this area at four in one year. Sure. And we had pretty serious flooding all over town, and yet we still had neighborhoods that were under a requirement to use a certain amount of – so they were dumping water into already flooded areas that – GRUS? What's that? GRUS? Yeah. Well, no, neighborhoods were because they were required to use a certain amount of water. And so I just wanted – those are the kind of situations that I – There's a drastic difference in availability in what we have built. I mean, I think we would be shortchanging it to say that there's – the water budget we have agreed to is really cutting edge. I mean, this is not – you used Oakmont as an example. I think that's probably the prime example of what we are not doing. I think staff would all agree with me that that's what we – you know, I'm not saying it's anybody's fault. I'm just saying that is what it is. They are massive users of reuse water. Could I ask for you to, as you're negotiating with GRU, to have a clause in that contract that would make it so that you don't have to take water when there are times when it would be – You know, you're at capacity, basically. Yes, ma'am. And I think the key in that is that keep in mind it's not at high pressure. So we're at low pressure. We're filling a pond. We're filling a water reservoir. So when the pond is full and the water is coming out of the sky – We can only take so much. Yeah. I just want to make sure that you're not required to take it. Yes, ma'am. That's what I want to make sure of. Yes, ma'am. And would any of this go in the developers' agreement with staff with regards – Development agreement? Yeah. The PD actually handles these BMPs. It's in the – The develop – I mean, it's in – Right. There's a pretty lengthy sections in the PD that cover the compliance. We can definitely touch, like, legalese of any of that in the development agreement, which, obviously, we all know that there is a need for a development agreement on a number of issues, which when we get into the PD, we can talk about the things that will come back to you in the form of a development agreement. Okay. Commissioner Alford, do you conclude? I conclude. That was my main – Commissioner Wheeler. Yes, thank you. All along, I've been asking developers to show me something I've never seen before, and this is it. You know, I'm really glad to see it come to the end of the eight years that I've been here, that we're seeing something that's a model. And I know that your family's been involved in the kinds of – the ranching and the farming. And I feel like that you have – commissioners, I feel like that this team has gathered global experts together to come with the best solution that we have for this area that we've tried to protect. But it's only a matter of time that these areas are going to be developed. These folks, I feel like, have taken advantage of everything that's been offered globally. And I've watched these professionals in a huddle working together, and oh, my goodness, what a team of people that you put together. I don't know how you got them all together in a little bitty Elastra County, but you did. And I appreciate that because I'm excited to see where this is going to go. My disappointment is it's going to take a long time to get there, and I might not get to see it to the point where I can sit there and welcome people to the little store that's going to be on that site. You know, because the plans are exciting and the designs are exciting. The fact that you all put together people who care and are well-known for the work that they do, I don't know how we can care about what IFAS is putting. I've watched IFAS spray water on fields in the middle of a hot day. We're not monitoring that kind of water. You know, so – I beg your pardon? We're not allowed to do that. Well, the thing is, I'm just saying that there are people squandering – that's right. There are people that are squandering water in the area when we have folks who are trying to work very hard with us to give us what we know is best practices for this area. Absolutely. Our goal with this, and I think this is no secret I've shared with all of you, I mean, our goal with this was to build something that not only in the region, not only locally and in the region, but, you know, state and nationally you should be able to model. This is how you kind of take the next step on how do we conserve water, how do we – but realistically, right? Like, how do we do it right? How do we do it in a way that's conservation forward, that sets standards, that, you know, regionally at least, like, is not common and has not been implemented? And so that was our goal all along. I'm adamantly aware and sensitive to our water resources. I mean, we're, you know, in agriculture, going to be in that for a long time. We all need water, period. And so we are not trying to be, you know, bad stewards of that in any way. I think that this plan and the BMPs that we have in the PD will prove to you that we've taken it a step farther and then one more after that and one more after that in some of the cases. I think we've addressed a lot of your concerns in the PD BMPs. And my ask would be to, you know, transmit and adopt the comp plan so that we can – We already transmitted it. Yeah, sorry. To adopt the comp plan so that we can get into the details of the BMPs that are in the PD. Because obviously, as we all said from the beginning, we've got a lot in there. There's a lot of stuff in there, not only to irrigation. Well, that's the compromise that we've been asking for, too. Because we're restricted in a lot of ways by the state. Sure. And how land can be used or how we can restrict donors from developing their land, too. So, you know, I just feel like that they've done what they do. They've done their due diligence. And I'm ready to support it. You conclude? I do. Okay. Commissioner Prisian, Commissioner Alford, and then we'll open up the public comment. Or is that an old light? No, I guess I just want to respond to say that I, too, am very excited about what Everly has put together. And I think that it is a model of quality, thoughtful, and I guess what I would say is stewardship from as much as stewardship of a greenfield development can be. It is also an ask of entitlements that do not exist. And unlike you, I don't think it's inevitable that it gets developed. It's outside of our urban services boundary. They're asking for 2,500 units when, you know, their entitlement is, I don't know, 300 units. I can't remember what it was total. 800 units. I can't remember what it is. But it was very many less than what they're asking us for. And so these best management practices and the things that they're doing to be a model are, yes, in part because Austin actually has a heart and a spirit for this community. And he cares very deeply and so do the Lees about this place, this land that they're stewarding and they're working towards. I understand that. But it's also a give and take scenario, right? It's a we're giving you the things that you expect of us so that we can get those entitlements. I mean, it's not a tit for tat, but it is, in fact, that conversation. That's the conversation we've been in. And we put in our SAS that we were going to protect all those conservation areas. We haven't done that. We also put in there that we were going to restrict irrigation on all of the residential lots. Now we're not doing that. We keep backing off on the commitments that we made to our public, to Alachua County, when we said we were going to move forward with developing this property. We're going to move forward with making sure that we did the best we could with this development. We put these restrictions in place to protect our public. And now we're backing off on those restrictions as we move forward. And so I understand, and I do trust this team to do the best job possible. It's the long term, and I want assurances. I want to understand how this works. Sure. Because it's easy to tell me that we've got these protections in place. We've got this valve that's going to turn it off. Do we get the key to that valve? Does Alachua County get to turn that valve off when you're using too much water? Does Stacy get to go out there and turn off your water when all of a sudden everybody's running their irrigation systems every day because it's hot in the summer and they want green grass? Because if that's the case, great. Well, I think that's a key part, though, in the BMP, to be fair, is that we do have a requirement to have master meter, master valve, so that there is not all-time pressurized lines. Like, for instance, you used the example of Oakmont, where if I decide to run my sprinklers 24 hours a day, I can just turn them on and they run 24 hours a day. And so a lot of that is in the requirements that we have built into the PD that say, you can do this, but here's your guidelines, here's your BMPs, here are the restrictions that are required in how you implement it. And so, to be fair, you know, I would say I disagree in that we are not meeting the spirit of that section. I very much believe we are, and I very much believe that, you know, in opposite of having, you know, rural lots or these lots proposed to have permanent irrigation available to them at all times, or private irrigation wells of potable wells pulling from our aquifer, I think we are actually meeting the intent of that paragraph. And I can tell you that, you know, the reason we've done it this way and the reason that we've spent so much time on the allocations was to take a bare amount to be able to successfully, you know, have things grow, but no more than we needed to, and only of water that GRU has to dispose of somewhere, some way, somehow, anyway, right? And so, we are no new water demand. We are no new water demand to the system. We are not adding, you know, like dropping a well and sucking out of the aquifer for new water in that way. In that way, but I think that's also, I mean, we don't need to get into semantics about reclaimed water and the demand work. We could sit here philosophically all day. I guess, again, my long-term issue is that I don't want a bunch of irrigation systems on 2,500 lots, all of which the homeowner has control of a time clock and is able to water whenever they want. Correct. And all of a sudden, you know, y'all aren't there anymore, and we don't have regulatory authority to control that use of water. We've got that covered. That much I think we can confidently say we have covered, and you'll see that in this next section. And keep in mind, and I know this is not the PD portion, but keep in mind the TDR program that we have built collectively with the staff is also, you know, a replacement of units moving from other areas that would or could have rural lots and could have wells and could have no restriction on landscaping and no restriction on water use. And so by the very nature of the TDR program in which we have built, which is another example of how to do this right, in my opinion, you know, as painful at times as this has been, it's been a thing that I think we can all be very proud of. And so I think when you think about the net gain on what it is we are doing in moving units from an area into another area, right, by acre by acre, if that makes sense, and making them come into an area that we have all these restrictions on, I think there's quite a bit of net gain to this. So what is your problem with me taking out that sentence? Well, if I understood you taking out that sentence, I thought the intent was that you were going to say everything we built by the BMP of the irrigation requirement would now just be there is no conversation on irrigation or reuse, no matter if it's bulk service or complies with any of these BMPs. Actually, I'd love to clarify. By omitting that sentence, I think your intention is to reduce the number of permanent irrigation systems. That requires at least 15% of the lots to not have permanent irrigation. So by getting rid of that, then 100% of the lots could have permanent irrigation. So I'm not sure that's going the direction intended. Oh, maybe I should support this. I don't want to do that. So I mean, I think the point here, and the lights are on so you guys get another back here, is that you want to limit the water being irrigated in the development. I think the developer has taken, with staff, immense steps to accomplish the spirit of that in the special area study. And so I would like that if you have additional concerns about that particular issue, I think the time to address that would be in the next hearing at the PD, and we can add conditions. But I'm very happy with what the developer and the staff have come up with to limit the amount of potable water that gets pulled for long. I don't, you know, I'm with you. It's just I want to handle it in the PD. Reclaimed water is also, I think that. Well, that's a different policy discussion. On reclaimed water is just, reclaimed water was potable water. You had to use potable water to get reclaimed water. And when you create a demand for reclaimed water, you're creating a demand for potable water. Like, that is the truth. Like, you don't get reclaimed water without it. And once it's reclaimed water, it has nitrogen, it has phosphorus, it has other potential chemicals in it that are loaded into it that you're also putting into the environment. So it's not like using reclaimed water, suddenly you can use as much as you want, and it's not a big deal. Like, that is just not the case. I'm going to deal with that. Okay, Commissioner Alpert and then Commissioner Wheeler. I'll be brief because I know we need to move along. I just had one question. Will residents be charged for the use of reclaimed water? I know you said you were creating a utility. Does that imply that residents will be charged with that? Certainly, yes. And then I just want to say that I've been in this, doing this, your kind of work for, you know, about 20 years. And I've been telling people that whole entire time that they don't need to irrigate. And I've had many, many clients that chose not to irrigate and have absolutely beautiful, beautiful landscaping in their yard. And I also told the public that you guys did everything we asked for. And now I have to go back and say, well, there was this one thing that I did. Well, it sounds like they feel like they've been in the spirit of it. And I do feel like y'all have gotten to the spirit of it. And I feel a lot better about it after having this discussion. I will admit that I do feel a lot better about it. But I just wanted to explain where I was coming from. Because it's, I kind of feel like I'm going back on what I said to. Are you withdrawing your second? I'm happy to withdraw my motion and have the conversation with the PD. But I want to be clear that I really want to understand how the regulatory authority and the long-term management of that water use is going to work. So that we can actually ensure that we don't have people permanently irrigating their lawns and landscapes. No, fair enough. And I think they have addressed in this stage the big concern that we had, you had, at the transmittal hearing about who owes the farm. You know, how are we going to control that? So I think that's... I do feel better about that. I feel a lot better about that, too. All right, we got Commissioner Wheeler. So you would draw your substitute. So we're back to your motion. Yes. Don't talk yourself out of it. Oh, I'm not. I'm not. I'm just asking, you know, on one side of the road, we're talking about, you know, how concerned we are about how the water is going to be used. But on the other side of the road, we have the golf course, too. So, you know, we don't have regulations. We gave them our touch, too. Just saying, no. We did. We put in requirements for them to have a water budget. Yeah, but. Yeah, but. And looking at all the developments that we have coming up in the city of Gainesville, all these high-rises, all these apartment complexes, is just going to be using GRU water, too. That water is going to be coming from those areas, as well, too. So there's overuse of water throughout the whole community. Oh, I agree. Not just here. So thank you. One wrong doesn't make another right. Did you have something? Mr. Chair, I just wanted to say, you will have to hear the PD conditions in the next hearing. However, there is nothing stopping you from hearing those PD conditions, those protections, during this hearing, if it would address some of these concerns. Yeah. I think we're past that, unless you want to do that, and let's, but thank you for making that. All right. We've got a motion, original motion, which is that motion. It doesn't lose 15%. We can always add more. And we've got a second. Now it's time for public comment on this motion. Go once. Go twice. All right. Let's bring it back to the board. Any further discussion on this motion? Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion is lose. Okay. Madam Clerk, let's move to the quasi. Next, we'll have our quasi public hearing. Public hearing for Z26-00008 Everly Farmstead Community Plant Development Rezoning. All right. So we'll have the attorney give his foot, then you'll do ex parte, and then we'll do swearing. Mr. Chair, I believe there are no parties who have requested party status here, but Florida law requires that any member of the public who believes that they are more substantially or directly, affected by an application, be given the opportunity to present evidence, testify, and have a more involved participation in the hearing. We do also have a policy that would allow someone to request party status today if they have not yet done so. Okay. Is there anyone requesting party status that has not yet done so? Okay. We don't have that. Why don't you go ahead and read your statement? Has any member of the commission received any? Oh, wait, wait, wait. I thought you had. Yeah. The date is already. I did the party addressing the party. Oh, that's the whole thing. Okay. Sorry. Go. Oh, ex parte. Sorry. Can I inquire if any commissioners have received any ex parte communications, and if so, disclose them now? I had a request for a meeting, but I was not able to attend a meeting. I've met with Everly Farms a few times on the overall conceptual plans of the project, but not specific to the PD. Prior to our last meeting, I met with them, but I haven't- No, no, just since the last meeting. Since the last meeting. Just since the last meeting. Since the last meeting. Yeah, okay. Yeah, I had a meeting with Austin about the TDRs, and I had a meeting with staff about- And I've met with Austin, and also spoken with Lewis and Val Lee recently. Okay. All right. I'm going to do swearing. Yes. At this time, anyone wishing to address this item, if you would please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Mr. Dawson, you have the floor. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Again, Chris Dawson, Principal Planner for Development Services at Alachua County Growth Management. This is the companion rezoning application to the comprehensive plan amendment that you just heard. Again, this is for a plan development rezoning for the Everly Farmstead community. And as you saw, this site, again, is located southwest of Hale Plantation along Archer and Parker Roads in the southwest portion of the county, just outside of the urban cluster. Again, the aerial of the site, I'm showing it kind of as it exists today. The current zoning of the property is the Agriculture A, and the proposal is for PD plan development. And, again, based on the previous action that you took, the adopted future land use map will be for the Everly Farmstead Community future land use designation. The comprehensive plan amendment associated with this request, and I'm going to go through this pretending that you didn't just hear this application, Mr. Chair, because that's sort of what we have to do in these quasi-judicial hearings is get all of that evidence in. The comprehensive plan amendment associated with this request, C-26-00005, designates 996 acres as the Everly Farmstead Community future land use designation, and included policies in objective 8.6 of the Hickory Sink Special Area Plan. In order to implement the new future land use designation, the zoning district must be created, and the policies require that that be done through the plan development zoning district. The plan development, if you approve it tonight, also has specific conditions associated with the PD, as well as an adopted zoning master plan. And then it also includes two best management practices documents that deal with water conservation, as well as landscape requirements for the property. Mr. Chair, we've analyzed the plan development for consistency with the comprehensive plan, and we believe it is consistent with the policies that were adopted for the special area study, as well as the policies in the, for required level of service in the capital improvement element. And there are four factors provided in policy 7.1.2 of the future land use element. Consistency with the plan as a whole, availability of infrastructure, relationship to surrounding development, and the range of densities that are considered in any rezoning request. We've provided up a review of that policy in each of those specific points in the staff report. And we find that the proposed amendment, or the proposed rezoning, is consistent with the comprehensive plan. In addition, Section 402.77 of the ULDC provides a set of criteria required to be analyzed for any zoning request. They're similar to the, to policy 7.1.2 of the plan. They deal with compatibility, impacts to surrounding uses, consistency with the existing land uses, access, and maintaining public health, safety, and welfare. Staff finds that the request as proposed tonight, with the conditions proposed by staff, is consistent with the approval criteria found in 402.77. It's the boring stuff, Mr. Chair. A part of this plan development rezoning is the zoning master plan, Mr. Chair, and I have a screenshot of that up. There's actually another page to this, which includes some additional development specifications, as well as the conditions that are related to the development. I'm going to go through this a little bit, and I'm going to ask you to excuse my art just a little bit. I drew all of this in PowerPoint, which, as everyone knows, is the best art tool that is out there. Only for engineers. And some planners. Mr. Chair, the zoning master plan does include the designation of the conservation management area identified during the special area study. That's shown as in the green color, very light green, apparently, on the screen here, and it's up in the sort of north-central portion of the site. Sort of flanking that area are the additional development standards area. These are identified in the special area study as needing some additional protections. Generally speaking, these areas that are shown in orange on the plan can be developed with uses that are consistent with the open space standards of the clustered rural residential subdivision. So those could be active agricultural uses, although not intensive ones. They could include things like stormwater, potentially, and it could also just be left for restoration purposes. Sort of working up the density scale, the next area is the farmstead area. And these are shown in purple on the screen right now. Generally, the density in this area is one dwelling unit per three acres. But in the very northwest portion, it actually requires clustering of development at a density of one dwelling unit per five acres from this purple and this orange. I know that's confusing. I did the math, and I can assure you that the units that are on the zoning master plan that are shown in that area equate with those different densities. All I think confusing is I see that as blue. Blue, purple, I mean, it's all in that same end of the spectrum, Mr. Chair. I see the hamlets as blue, but, I mean, purple, but, okay. It is. There you go. It's periwinkle. I would call that plum, Mr. Chair. It's periwinkle. It's periwinkle. I don't know if there's an argument over plums and purple, but that's what I was thinking was purple. Yeah. Mr. Chair, a majority or a large portion of the population is in the hamlet character area. Again, this is an area that's developed at one dwelling unit per five acres maximum. I'm sorry, five dwelling units per acre maximum. It does allow for some very small non-residential uses, but generally this would be considered the sort of outside the transit supportive area in our TNDs and would probably mostly be residential subdivisions. Okay. So that's five per acre? Five per acre. Okay. Up to. Okay. The reddish area that came up just now is the village edge, and, again, this equates to the transit supportive area in our TND, traditional neighborhood developments. This is generally commercial, probably multifamily, could potentially have maybe attached single-family dwelling, relatively higher intensity and mixed-use development. And then in the sort of lightish blue color is the village core. And, again, there's two of each of those, I would say. One node sort of located along Parker Road, that's in the phase one of the development, and one node located on Archer Road that's in the phase two of the building. Okay. I'm going to say, Mr. Chair, that I didn't try to go highlight all of the areas that were in between and draw a shape that matches that. Generally speaking, that area is identified for sort of open space greenway. There actually is a cell phone tower in the southeast portion of the property, and there's a condition that deals with allowing that to continue to exist. But sort of through this central portion, this is a greenway that's intended to connect those neighborhoods and would contain potentially recreational or amenities for the development, also potentially stormwater, those kinds of uses in there. But generally is an undeveloped, not residential, not commercial. That's my artwork, Mr. Chair. Good artwork. This table is on page one of the, sorry, this is on page two of the Zoning Master Plan, and identifies the acreages in each of those character areas on the development plan. And I did just want to highlight a couple of the specific lines. One is the farmstead character area. The policies adopted in the conference plan require a minimum of 400 acres to be in that farmstead character area. The applicants indicating that they're providing 400.4 acres. Again, that's over 40% of the development area or the project site. And then the policies also require a minimum of 50% of that farmstead area to be the farmstead reserve. That's the sort of open space areas, open space for a clustered rural residential subdivision. And the applicant is indicating that 200 acres, a little over 200 acres, so over 50% of that farmstead character area will be in that. Page one, I got ahead of myself. Page one of the Zoning Master Plan includes the project phasing. So the project proposes four phases geographically. I would anticipate those will be broken down in much smaller batches as the project moves through with the anticipated completion dates. And you can see that out toward to 2040 date on here. It's a pretty long-term project. And each of those phases includes a unit count, so the number of residential units that would be provided during that phase, as well as the non-residential units. These are potentially somewhat flexible. There is language in the development specifications. You have a stormwater basin that it moves a little bit for whatever reason, or a road that is in a particular location that is right on the edge of a phase. It's possible that there could be some flexibility in those unit counts. But this is generally what staff will be reviewing in that situation. But phase one is 120, 10 per acre, 500, 5 per acre. I'm sorry? The 660 units in the first phase, yeah. Right, but the majority of those, 620, are going to be 5 per acre and 10 per acre. So, right, Mr. Chair, in the phase one, and really in all of the phases, the majority of the development, just like the majority of the units overall, you can see the 1,730 units are in that hamlet character area. That's out of the 2,750. So, well over half of the units are in that hamlet area. In the farmstead, they're proposing 100 residential units, with the remainder split between the village core and village edge. Okay, thank you. I'm going to go through some of the policies and the way that they are implemented in the PD. So, specifically, as it relates to water resource and development, best management practices, this is actually one of the two BMPs that are included as attachments in the resolution. This implements policies 8, 6, 6, 15, and 16. It establishes a rationale for stormwater management design and includes the use of low-impact development and green infrastructure. And I'm going to say, Mr. Chair, that if there are questions about these documents, we do have staff here who are available to answer those specific questions. I would just ask, yeah, I would ask that the applicant dig in on this part when we get to it to address what we just addressed in the comp plan, trans-adoption. The other best management plan is the landscape best management practices plan. It implements a range of policies that were adopted in the comprehensive plan, limits the amount of supplemental irrigation, requires native and flora-friendly plants, and establishes operation and maintenance standards, both for the irrigation utility as well as for other irrigated or landscaped areas and for their water supply. I did just briefly want to go through some of the conditions that are being required. I'm not going to hit every one, although if the commission has questions about any specific condition, I'm happy to answer those. Condition number 8 deals with development in the hamlet, village edge, and village core areas. And as required in the comprehensive plan, these will be required to be developed with intensities and densities in the zoning master plan, but with the design standards of our traditional neighborhood development. So it's not necessarily exactly what's in our ULDC for TND, but it is, from a design standpoint, will be very similar to what we're doing in the rest of the county. I have a question about that. We have max, they have maximum units per acre, but are there minimum units per acre in each of these zones, or is that because of the design standards, there would sort of be de facto minimums? So there's two ways that I would address that. In the village core and village edge, there are both minimum unit counts and maximum densities. So in the mixed-use portions, there are minimums and maximums. There's no minimum in the hamlet, but if you took the maximum number of units that were allowed in the farmstead based on the density, you'd end up at that unit count in the hamlet. I don't think, sort of once I got to my, on my own to that sort of, there's only really so many ways you can divide that up. I became less concerned with what that minimum density would be in the hamlet character area, because you can really only fit so much in the village edge and village core, and if they fit more in there, that'd be awesome. They probably won't, but if they did, it'd be great. We would anticipate they probably build out the units in the farmstead area. That just leaves you with the remainder in the hamlet, and so that probably works out to somewhere in the three and a half to four units an acre range. Condition number seven, and another condition that you'll see here in just a little bit, deal with the transfer of development rights. Condition seven deals specifically with if the applicant does not use a fee-and-lose system, so if they chose to acquire land on their own. The rate here is two acres of acquisition per market rate unit, and that, Mr. Chair, is just based on 2,500 units, 5,000 acres. It's a very simple calculation on staff's part. I can do that math. I don't need an engineer. I can do that one, too. Yep. So that's really where we came up with that, and that would be enforced at final development plan approval. So the applicant can come in, go through final development plan review, and then show us, hey, I acquired this easement for, you know, however many acres is required. And of course, they can go ahead, but they can't fall below. Okay. Condition 17 deals with affordable housing units. Generally, they're provided consistent with 713E2, which, in our comp plan, deals with sort of spreading them out through the development, making sure that they're not, you know, sort of downrated from normal affordable units. We understand there's some difference, probably, but, and they're not shoved into a corner by themselves. And they're phased in, too. They're, yes, and then the policy also provide, or this condition provides for phasing them in after the 250th residential unit. That really gives the developer the opportunity to sort of burn through some market rate units in funding their infrastructure improvements, and then they have to play a catch-up game after that. Okay. Mr. Chair, conditions 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16 deal specifically with transportation design, connectivity, and transportation capital improvements. It requires portions of projects designed for urban densities and intensities to provide multimodal design standards. And there's a specific limitation on development program to 50% of build-out, as I mentioned in the comp plan discussion, until that 100, the 24th, that State Road 24 is four-laned to 122nd. That project has to be in the capital improvements, or in the five-year work program for FDOT, prior to building more than 50% of the development. So, prior to 50% of the development. I understand there was also, but there was also a provision for a potential fee in lieu. So, that is mentioned, and I think anything like that would be dealt with in a development or developer's agreement that would come back to the board. That would be a pretty big lift, I think. But I suppose if the development got to that point, it really needed to continue and wanted to make it happen, they probably could. Essentially by phase three. In that ballpark, Mr. Chair. Okay. Condition 18, there is a policy in the comprehensive plan that requires additional open space that's sort of not in that farmstead area. So, this would be additional community green space, likely within the Hamlet, Village Core, Village Edge areas. That's an additional 60 acres. And this condition 18 requires that that be identified at the preliminary development plan stage. Okay. Mr. Chair, I'm going to talk about two things that are not in your staff report. They're late breaking, and so no commissioners have seen this. One of these is Development Specification 2 that's included in the zoning master plan that's in your packet. In continued discussions with the applicant, the attorney's office, with ourselves, we identified this sort of issue in Development Specification 2 that created a little bit of a conflict with the other condition about affordable housing, and also would have created some confusion about the implementation of TDR. Essentially, the changes just remove the sort of by right idea that's in this development specification and defaults to the conditions that are included in the development plan, or in the PD. So, it's not in both places? It's not in two places. That's correct. Okay. And then, Mr. Chair, staff is proposing an additional condition 21. I don't want to speak for the applicant, but I believe we are in agreement on this. And I'm going to read that just for the purposes of getting it in the record. Again, this is not included in your packet. But for the purposes of calculating the transfer of development rights fee-in-lieu for this project, the per-acre acquisition cost shall be $2,490. Beginning January 1, 2028, this cost per acre shall be adjusted annually according to this core CPI-U. And we have a series number in there that I'm not going to read out, but it relates to a specific CPI calculation for the preceding 12-month period. I'm just going to break that down. We agree that there is a sort of basis of a cost per acre for acquiring land for the purposes of transfer of development rights fee-in-lieu. And we agree that that cost is going to be adjusted on an annual basis going forward. Sort of that cost is as of January 1, 2027, if you want to think about it that way. And then annually, we adjust it up from there. How that gets used specifically in a transfer of development rights fee-in-lieu is still to be worked out at the development or developer's agreement. But this is sort of the basis number that would be used in that. Mr. Chair, with that, staff recommends that the plan... Oh, I didn't miss it. We just crossed out plan. ...that the Board of County Commissioners find the application consistent with the comprehensive plan and the Univant Land Development Code and recommend that the commission adopt Z-26-008 with staff's conditions as included in the staff report and as amended in staff's presentation. And the Planning Commission... Planning Commission recommended approval four to one, I believe, Mr. Chair. All right. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Also, the applicant is here. Yep. And probably also wants to make a presentation. All right. Questions for staff before we get to the applicant? Nope. Commissioner Wheeler? I don't know if this is for staff or not, but I'm trying to understand, you know, as people... You are? As this thing is developed out, folks are going to be buying places with wide-open spaces. And it seems to me they would have to be very careful applicant in making sure that people who are buying know that it's going to be developing around them. Because sometimes we get complaints from people who think they're in, you know, in nature's haven, and then all of a sudden there are things that are being built around it, you know. So I think that y'all need to make sure that people know if they are buying, it's going to come. But also, I'm trying to understand, are other... Are parcels going to be sold and someone is developing it other than your group? Are... Or is this group going to develop the whole thing so that they're not anybody else coming in to build? Are you using other builders? So that's for the applicant? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's because I'm trying to understand. Because I can see how that somebody might buy a lot, a buyer would buy a lot, and then want a lot next door to it that might interfere with your design. And I didn't know if that was... So we'll have them answer that when they give their presentation. Okay. Okay. Anything for Chris? Mr. Chair, I did just want to respond to that first part and say one sort of good thing about this particular location is that it is... I know it's a lot of acres. I know it's almost 1,000 acres, but it is relatively compact in this portion of the cluster. It's really pushed up against the cluster with the golf course to the north. And a majority of the parcels that are in the general vicinity are already developed with single-family homes. There's not a ton of extra big acreage out there that's likely to create other new developments. So I'm not saying that this won't affect other people in the area. I just think in terms of the idea of people moving in next to it, I don't think there's that many spaces where that's likely to happen. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Alford. I'm sorry. Commissioner Prezio. Okay. So for condition six, the best management practices included appendices C and D. I'm assuming that by adopting these conditions, we are adopting those best management practices as what will be done. Mr. Chair, that is the intent, yes. Okay. And that it carries the force of our zoning, rezoning of the property. Okay. So one question that I have in those best management practices, the landscape best management plan, it talks about buffers being maintained as national vegetation or landscape utilizing 100% native materials. We're currently in the process of dealing with several neighborhoods and developments that have these buffer areas that aren't being maintained. And so I guess I'm interested to understand if staff have any recommendations or the applicant has any ideas for how we can ensure long-term maintenance of those buffer areas and other common and natural areas in developments. So that's a question. I would say from staff's just general perspective, maybe not as it relates specifically to this development, but sort of generally, where we have developments that have a permitted buffer, either natural, and I would just be cautious to say sometimes that's on an individual lot and sometimes it's in common area. I mean in common area. But where those are permitted, they often have a plan that goes along with them or some sort of requirement for how it's maintained and the county maintains enforcement authority through our code enforcement process. So where that's identified as an issue, the county certainly has a mechanism to enforce maintenance of them. And is there, it does the surety bonds of the development, the other things, do those cover those, like if we have to go in and do cleanup, does the HOA have, or are we able to recoup the costs of that cleanup? So Mr. Chair, typically the timing of a surety bond is once infrastructure is installed and prior to our final acceptance of it. And that sort of allows the county to, if things went wrong and the developer went away, we could fix it. Once that period is over, it's typically a year, but sometimes can be a little more flexible, we don't really have another way to go back in as a sort of county fix it. The county does have the ability, the commission has the ability to allocate funds to do, Missy, I'm going to let you see where that goes, but to do cleanup in certain kinds of situation. I don't, I'm not aware of a HOA sort of community-wide situation where that would be applicable. That's normally like a single-family home. Well, I guess I, just to the applicant, if there's some way to address that, we do have, I do have concerns. It's come to my attention more than once in more than one development across our community where once the developer's gone, the development's done, it gets turned over the HOA. The HOA has no funding mechanism to cover the cost of those common areas and just kind of lets them go. And when, as you know very well, somebody who's had to manage lots of land, when you just let something go, invasive species come in and weeds grow and vines grow all over the place. And it goes from being a nice natural area with a lot of native vegetation to becoming a viney, weedy mess pretty quickly. And it becomes sort of a nuisance to the neighbors who are adjacent to those common areas. And we're bumping up against that in more than one development across the county. So I'm trying to figure out, you're unfortunately getting the, bearing the brunt of that happening now. So not necessarily, you know, expecting you to solve the problem immediately, but just a thought exercise of are there ways in which we can ensure that those common areas get maintained long term, especially since you'll have so many of them with the farmstead and the greenways as well as the other 60 acres of common area. Certainly financially incentivize the main area. Yeah, that's true. Certainly with the neighbors that you'll have, probably they care very much about it. But okay, of course number six, for me in this plan under the best management plans under 2.4 is the minimum of 15% of the residential lots. We're going to get to that when the applicant gets up. I guess we're going to talk more about the irrigation systems. Yep. My other questions, limits of disturbance. Under the limits of disturbance, for some reason, under commercial and multifamily, we have a 25-foot buffer, which makes a lot of sense to me, like just, you know, because you have to have space to move equipment around and build. But then when we get to the residential lots, it goes up to 50 feet, which seems like the reverse of, if you have big multifamily development or commercial development, you think you would be moving more stuff around than on a residential lot. And at 50 feet, that's like the whole residential lot at that point. Mary. Hi, Mary Zoka, water quality professional engineer in EPD. So if we look at this compared to the UF golf course property, they did 50 feet flat. So we requested that we, a tiered approach from the applicant, and this is kind of like what they came back with. So I'll let the applicant speak to why 50 was set for the residential area. Okay, yeah, I'm really interested. I mean, at that point, to me, it's sort of like what non-limited of disturbance would there be? Because, I mean, a quarter-acre lot, that's pretty much the whole lot. If you do the math, like 50 feet on every side, you're kind of at, you know, like scale-wise. So just interested to hear more on that from the applicant. I guess that's all the effort. That's all I have on. That's all the post-it notes. That's all on the best management practices, yeah. Okay. I mean, staff questions, though, I do still have. Precise timing, I guess, question about the timing for the shared use paths and the connection to the Archer Braid Trail and the connection to the Southwest 46th Stub and the UF Golf Course, like when that timing of that trail would come in. We've had another recent development where we haven't really had the connections to those trails that we wanted or needed in a timely manner, and it's really making commuting difficult for people who are trying to get through those areas. So I'm wondering if we have any. It says that precise timing is to be determined within the mobility plan, but I don't, you know, I don't know what that means. I guess I'm hoping that that means earlier rather than later. Mr. Chair and members of the board. Allison Moss, Transportation Planning Manager. So the mobility plan for this project is sort of a special bespoke element that will be required at preliminary development. And the idea being this is a thousand acres. There are lines on the map on the zoning master plan that the applicant put forth for our consideration, but we don't feel as staff that we have adequate information to commit to the road network, to commit to what the collector roadways are, and precisely when trails, specifically the connection to the Archer Road Trail would be accomplished within this plan. So we are, for lack of a better word, kind of kicking the can, but until we have more data and more information, so staff will still be able to dictate when those things get done. And we'd like them to be done especially shared use path in this area that's otherwise relatively disconnected. Before the phase two? Sooner than later. Yeah. We initially had a very specific development trigger, but we couldn't quite come to consensus on that, so we decided to defer into the mobility master plan. That'll be really a transportation master plan for the entire site, so we'll get really into the nitty-gritty in terms of transportation, sort of traffic generation, and what specific improvements will be required per phase. So that comes back to as a preliminary development plan is what you're saying? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Last question for staff is regarding the, all the things that we're requiring with regards to low impact development and landscaping within the best management practices, how are we proposing to have an understanding of the impact of these and the monitoring of these practices over time? Great question. So a lot of it, we'll be able to look at water use data. So for that, we feel pretty good that we'll be able to, you know, look at what this neighborhood and what these individuals are using compared to other neighborhoods. Oh, my. Yeah. It's right next door. The prohibition on fertilizer, you know, it's really challenging to use water quality monitoring data to then evaluate policies. You know, we have a regional network. We've got 20 wells across the county that isn't going to have a fine enough detail. There is some language in the BMP where the applicant has, you know, committed that if there is an existing well that works, we can do some monitoring there. I think that in combination with the monitoring that's happening at the golf course and at the infiltrating wetland, you know, we start to get an idea regionally what's happening. Although it is very tricky to determine, you know, if we are seeing nutrients, is it the reclaimed water? Is it past agricultural practices? Is it something that a homeowner's doing? Is it something ag is doing? It will be challenging to parse that out. But I do feel confident, especially with the prohibition on the fertilizer that, you know, we would expect this neighborhood to have less of an impact on water quality than a comparable where fertilizer is allowed to be used. The four months out of the year that we do allow it. And, you know, we have had conversations with the state to see if we can get our Basin Management Action Plan, our BMAP allocation next time, next iteration. You know, hoping because of having this language in the CCRs and this commitment that we won't get an urban turf fertilizer allocation for this neighborhood. So hopefully it will help us in the future there. So as far as monitoring, I think it's challenging because there's so much going on at a site and in neighboring sites to really parse out with water quality data, if that answers your question. Yeah, I think so. Well, I guess, again, to the applicant, I know it's all on you all now to present, I guess. But I will just say, you know, I think we all want this to work. And as you mentioned earlier, that we want this to be a model for the state and potentially the nation on ways to do this. To do that, we need data. To do that, we need a story to tell. To do that, we need people from IFAS, we need people from UF, researchers that want to study this, to come in and be able to provide us with those monitoring opportunities so that we can tell the story. Because I think what you are building is really, really unique. And, you know, from the TDR, which fee in lieu, which has never been done, to the native landscaping and water budgets, which haven't been done, really, in these ways, I think we have an opportunity to use this as a model. But that's really hard to do if we don't have the data and monitoring. So I would just ask that we keep working on that, not so much from a regulatory, like, finger, hand on the man kind of thing, but more from a let's capture the story so that then we can share it. And if it's not working, we can adapt the model so that it does work to do all the things that we're all trying to achieve to begin with. I'll yield. Okay. All right. Thank you, Commissioner. Anything else for staff? All right. Let's bring up the applicant. Welcome. Good evening. My name is Carl Soderholm with England Tinsa Miller. And with me, we have our team from Coal Partners, as well as AgMenity, along with the rest of the ETM team that can really help answer any questions. But first, I wanted to mention that not only have I been working on this plan and the design for the last year and been very honored to do that, but I was an Alachua County resident for a very long time. In fact, I grew up not far from the site, so I know the area well. I used to ride my bike down Parker Road, which probably is not advisable anymore. But I wanted to take you back and kind of touch on some of the history here, because there's a long history associated with this land, going back to really the Lee family and their stewardship of the land for nearly 100 years, moving on to when Alachua County designated the property as part of the Hickory Sink, and then more recent times moving into the special area study, and then the state's acquisition of the land on the west side of Parker Road. And then you know what's happening with UF Golf. Specific for this project, it's been a heck of a year, and one of the things that I wanted to highlight is, and something that I think you will see in the PD, is that not only are we checking the boxes, but we are going above and beyond. And that started with how we wanted to approach community involvement on this project. We are required to do one workshop. We have done five community outreach events, along with answering questions along the way. This is our fifth public hearing. We actually did a pit stop at EPAC, and spend a good hour, hour and a half answering all of their questions to get them comfortable as well. And how does that kind of tally up? I mentioned the workshops, and we also had a field trip with our friends over at Hale Plantation. We had a website set up with over 1,300 visitors, and as a result of that, I think not only do we have a better plan, but we also had 150 letters of support for this project. So to give you some additional context on the land, and I know you've seen the different maps and so forth, this shows the Everly Farmstead piece in context of the full 4,000-acre Lee family holdings. Within our 997 acres, we have 16 acres of conservation management area, along with about 150 acres worth of that strategic ecosystem area that you will see carried forward in our PD. So as we wanted to pull forward the policies that were adopted, we wanted to really focus on five strategies that get carried forward in the PD. And that starts with the zoning master plan, and in that zoning master plan, we pull forward the character areas, the development program, as well as a lot of the commitments that we made to the public and the neighbors in the area. Then we have the development program, which really comes to life because of the TBR program. And then, as we've mentioned, the water resource and the landscape, DMP is really working in tandem to elevate the standard for this project. And then lastly, touching on the transportation element and how we can work on a threshold-based mitigation approach to create an interconnected system that is transit supportive, provides multimodal access, and provides a great connection between Parker Road and Archer Road. So moving to the zoning master plan, we have the four character areas, beginning with that farmstead that was mentioned previously, generally larger lot type products, pushed generally to the edges. We do have the family homestead in the middle of the site, which is really an anchor for the whole project. We have the hamlet, which is centered around a pedestrian scale type neighborhood development with pocket parks and green spaces throughout. Then moving to our village edge, which is a transitionary zone between Hamlet and the village core area, which elevates that density. And then the village core, which is really the focus of most of our non-residential uses in higher density residential. One of the things I wanted to point out on this map, and it may be a little bit hard to see, and kind of to your question about the buffer widths, we do have some very large buffers. And I agree that in normal planning thoughts, you wouldn't do that, but that is one of the things that actually came out of our public input. And as we work with the residents, especially with a lot of the larger lot rural residents in the area, they wanted to see the larger buffer. So we wanted to make sure that we incorporated those into the plan, and they are now memorialized in this PD so that we are, again, showing that commitment that we made to the neighbors. Drilling in a little bit more, one of the great things about this project, we had the opportunity to have a great charrette led by Dover Coal as town planners. And really working with the site and working with the plan to create a special place, a place that's sensitive to the site context. We have areas such as our primary working farm, although we also have a smaller farm further down in the site. We have an interconnected street system and the buffers and a trail system throughout as well. And then these are some character images to just give you a sense of the feel that we are hoping to achieve in this community, really pushing that farm forward as a very visible feature of the community, providing those green spaces, differentiating the architecture to provide something that is really hard to find in the market. Were these done by your watercolors? Were these done by your watercolors? There may have been some AI use. Okay. Okay. Because I did see a watercolor artist, too, and it was very comfortable. Thank you. Thank you. So then getting to our trail connection, we wanted to really enforce that idea of having that experience of being to move from nature to town and how you can link that throughout the community. And that may be areas along the trails where you may have blueberry bushes and kind of build your own trail mix along the way. And as we kind of pull that forward and look at what trail system within Everly would really equate to, it's about 15 miles of trails. So it's a significant trail network that would include paved trails as well as natural earth trails in more sensitive areas. And then here's some additional character areas where you can kind of see some of the community elements that we want to look at as far as places for gatherings. Maybe you have barn jams on Saturdays. You have the farm club where people can be more engaged in the farming activities. And then that picture on the lower right hand there really starts giving an idea of how that strategic ecosystem or the strategic ecosystem area could be used and activated in a more passive use. That could be the place that people go to stargaze and kind of enjoy the special character in that area. So then focusing in on the development program, we've mentioned the 2,750 units, 200,000 square feet of non-residential units. Obviously, they do not show up overnight. And we have broken this project into four phases, which will take a long time to build out. And to further emphasize how long these projects take, we kind of lay it out from today, moving through the preliminary development plan process and through permitting and then construction, the first residents of Everly we anticipate being out there in about three years from now. So it is still a long way to go and a lot of steps working with staff and with you to really bring this plan to fruition. Now to give a little bit more detail on how this development program comes forward with the TDR process, I'm going to bring through it. Carl. This, as many of you have noted, would not be possible without the work that was done with your staff on TDRs and really the methodology that we went through with them, looking at comparable sales, establishing a conservation easement value, working towards inflation adjustment, screening those properties statistically, and then ultimately coming up with the final valuation. So as, you know, Chris put forward in the presentation, that $2,490 per acre, if that were applied across the entire 5,000 acres, would be a $12.5 million commitment for the project, which we believe is tremendous. The best management practices, which we talked about, and I'd love to get into in more detail, but groundwater protection, as we talked about, was a key element. Reducing that potable groundwater demand, implementing low-impact stormwater design, minimizing site disturbance, which we have a slide just for that one. Landscape and farm, looking at the Florida-friendly, 100% native or Florida-friendly landscaping, prioritizing water conservation and reducing our irrigation demand. And nutrient management, so prohibiting fertilizers, like we discussed previously, at the kind of homeowner level. Sustainable landscape maintenance, so minimizing runoff through best management practices. And then using FDACs as the kind of guidebook for responsible farm operations as well. Part of that starts with really the retention of existing tree canopy and existing vegetation, where applicable and allowable. We talked a lot about some of the great tree landscapes that are really on this property already. And if you notice kind of the side-by-side imagery, and Dover Coal was instrumental in kind of pulling this forward from a town planning perspective. Victor has a saying that's very much beaten into my brain. You start with the green areas. And so, if you look at that, and we had the opportunity to drive the site on several occasions. The areas where we identified, you know, more mature trees, specimen trees that were worth saving. Those are the areas that we highlighted as greenways, as trailways, as locations where we wanted focal areas for residents to linger and spend their time in. You'll notice that kind of through the center of the property, and then along the buffers and edges as well. So, I know this question came up specifically from Commissioner Parizio regarding how we established some of the limits of disturbance. And, as Mary alluded to, we kind of came up with a tiered system across the different anticipated development products. In this scenario, I mean, when we look at a potential house on some of our larger lot that would be up against the CMA, that 50 foot actually serves to provide kind of additional buffering against the CMA. And so, we believe that's a good thing. There are instances where there, you know, the 50 foot may include the entire lot. But I believe there will be plenty of other instances where the 50 foot does not, you know, encumber the entirety of the lot. And would therefore require, you know, retention of the existing vegetation and tree canopy and limit the disturbance across the site as a whole. We did that purposefully, really, as it relates to right-aways as well, so that we limit the amount of area outside of the roads that we're going to be clearing. We want to leave buffers where we can leave buffers within reason. And, you know, provided we have enough room to put in utilities and grade back to existing gray and things of that nature. Just another example on the right-hand side of how we can implement low-impact development for retention of stormwater along, you know, swales, bioswales within the project. Do you want me to ask that? I can wait. Yeah, we can wait. Okay. We'll ask at the end. From a landscape standpoint, this was also brought up and wanted to drill down on this a little bit more. But obviously in traditional landscaping, you know, not the same in terms of the requirement for Florida native and Florida friendly. There is a, you know, regulated fertilizer application and your ULDC allows for up to 50% of the lot to be irrigated. And that does not speak to whether it's potable or reclaimed water. Everly, obviously that 40% irrigation component is 100% reclaimed water. It is 100% Florida friendly or native. And there is a prohibition completely on fertilizers on the residential lot level. Just some examples of what that Florida friendly landscape may look like. A lot less turf grass than you're probably used to seeing. A lot more low growing ground cover, native trees, vegetation. And obviously a lot of these example images are a little bit earlier on an establishment. And so with time, these grow up into maybe a little bit more of a wild looking place than we're used to. And we believe in the team believes that that's a good thing. Moving on to transportation, wanted to take a minute and walk through the good work we did with staff. Obviously, we have committed as part of the conditions to do traffic impact analysis and really phase mitigation. Looking at doing a full build out TIA of the entire development, which we've already really put a lot of hard work and effort into. And then ultimately, a commitment at certain intervals along the way to provide really updated TIAs as new development comes online that's allowed for. We have also committed to an Archer Road to Parker Road collector, which would provide a complete street between Archer and Parker, which we see as much needed and will serve a lot of the needs of the development internally. Regional and neighborhood connectivity. So part of the zoning master plan and also identified in the conditions were multiple roadway, pedestrian, and other connections along and adjacent to the development, including Logano and several others around the site. As Allison alluded to just a moment ago, we've also committed to a comprehensive mobility master plan. And we believe that mobility master plan will really answer a lot of Commissioner Parizia's questions that will be submitted with the preliminary development plan, which includes really the timing, the location of not only roadway, but also other multimodal transportation methods. We'll really work to establish, you know, connected pathways, greenways, and really look at it from a scale of more of the neighborhood scale than the whole development scale. So that information will be used to create that mobility master plan. Additionally, you know, we've estimated from the mobility fees with this development, approximately $20 million in mobility fees will be generated. And that, as we've talked about earlier, that State Road 24 gate requires that the funding be in the five-year work program before more than 50% of the project can move forward with development. And this is just illustrative of that, the phase one and that 50% gate, which would include both the residential and non-residential components. And then the current thoughts in terms of the operational improvements that are needed on State Road 24, which includes some widening and additional operational signalization improvements. So, you know, as a whole, I mean, we see this in several public infrastructure buckets in terms of transportation. I spoke earlier on the $20 million to be paid in mobility fees. All of the county roadways operate at the adopted level of service based on the traffic impact analysis. GRU has confirmed that they have adequate capacity to service the project at full build-out. We have obviously prioritized the use of reclaimed water, have established water budget and best management plans and practices, and promote low and no irrigation landscapes. We are committed to public safety and the donation of a fire station site within the development. There's an estimate out there for the school planning that we will generate about $7 million in annual ad valorem taxes. Additionally, the schools have capacity for this development. The Archer Braid Trail connection that we talked on earlier will be made along Parker Road. We see that as about a two and a half mile segment. Carl mentioned earlier over 15 miles of trails within the development and parks and open spaces for both residents and neighbors alike. Some back of the envelope math on the commercial elements and the surtax that will be generated and committed to wild spaces and public places. Places that number at about 500,000 annually at build out. And we spoke earlier on the rural land preservation program. So in summary, we would ask for your vote on this project. We find it is been a pleasure working with your staff and it has been a pleasure having the opportunity to speak with you on this project this evening. And we would be welcome to any questions that you may have. And you're good with the added condition that staff added? We are. Okay. All right. Thank you from the applicant. We've got some lights. We have Commissioner Prizia and then Commissioner Alford and then Commissioner Wheeler. Commissioner Prizia? Yeah, I guess I'm still interested, I guess, in understanding the structure. I mean, you even had it on your own slide, low and no irrigation landscapes. I guess I'm just still interested in why there's such a drive to want to put in permanent irrigation systems. I understand what you're talking about with having the water budget. You're spending all this time and money putting in native landscaping and Florida friendly landscaping and putting organic matter on all the lots so that you don't have to have irrigation. So I'm just interested to understand your feelings about the needing the lots to have permanent irrigation systems installed. Certainly. If I could. I can tell you. Ultimately. Ultimately. Also, if we can make sure we're. Yeah. Ultimately, keep in mind that we are planning for a 15 to 20 year project. Right? I mean, this is a master plan approach to what we want this area of the county to look like over a very long period of time. And so we've just seen time and time again that there are consequences to policy at times. And so we want to make sure that we are creating a framework that works. Right? And that through the BMPs, I think that we've aligned interests and that it being optional and trying to drive people into the direction of what it is you're talking about. But having absolutes via policy traditionally can be a, you know, a bit of a big of a stumbling block at times. So how do you, so how can, can you talk, walk me through how you propose that this is regulated? Like who has the switch? Who gets to turn the water off? Who has the ability to, you know, what are the triggers for? Certain lines or for any kind of, you know, I mean, are we going to have to take you through 10 years or, you know, 10 years of codes enforcement before, you know, it gets stopped? If somebody, you know, half your lots are watering every other day, you know, how do we, how do we go about getting to the goal that we're all trying to get to? I mean, like you said, you've spent a lot of time putting this together, but I'm worried that by installing an irrigation system at every house and telling them, turn it on, your irrigation needs it. And we're literally installing irrigations or landscapes that don't require it. Right. Yeah, so I think, and I appreciate that feedback, Commissioner, I think there's a couple of really gates that I see, one of which would be obviously GRU as the source and the provider of the water. We don't control GRU. I 100% understand. There are commitments that will be made in what Austin alluded to earlier, what we have been working with them on the last nine months and have been meeting with them really every two weeks on looking at what a developer's agreement could look like with them in terms of how much water we would receive, how much water we would not receive. And so if we don't have the water to distribute, we can't over irrigate. And so ultimately, I mean, we would build a system that, yes, has some reserve capacity because that's always a good thing. But we would look to that agreement to provide some safeguards in place that we're not receiving too much water or too little water. Yeah, I'm talking about us. We are the ones that are providing you with a development approval. I want to know what regulatory authority, what controls we have as a county commission to enforce the water budget that we're putting in place. Corbin, staff, you all, somebody needs to answer me. What controls do we have in place to enforce the water budget that we put in this bus management? Corbin? It would continue. Besides code enforcement. Unfortunately, it would primarily be codes enforcement in a reactive kind of way as far as getting the data and then seeing whether or not that is compliant with the standards that you've put in your development order. That's our traditional mechanism. If you were to get data and find that there's a violation or have any reason to think that perhaps, you know, throughout the course of the year that there's a violation, that's something where we could potentially seek an injunction. But injunctions are pretty extraordinary. I mean, you're not, that's not typically where you start. Is there anything in the developer agreement that we could point to once we get to that point? As far as additional reporting standards perhaps, you know, more frequent access to the data and some sort of a consequence as far as what happens if there's a violation. Okay. So I see exactly what Commissioner Prizia is asking about, what the problem I'm having is, is how do we go and try to enforce a neighborhood that by design is using a fraction of the water of the neighborhood that's immediately to the north Oakmont, that we have no enforcement district. Continuous improvement. Yeah. I mean, right. We have developments that we're asking to do things now that we weren't asking 20 years ago in our compsman and our codes all the time. I mean, it happens. It's just what happens in progress. We learn, you know, we also have a bunch of neighborhoods that have permanent irrigation that we never had irrigation. Look at all of Gainesville, the majority of neighborhoods in Gainesville, none of them have permanent irrigation systems. And they have beautiful landscapes and they're just fine. And then it became a standard of practice to put these things in. And now we're realizing that we're using massive amounts of water on lawns and landscapes that isn't necessary by and large. It definitely is a problem from an environmental standpoint. So now we're trying to migrate back. But we need some kind of teeth to be able to like, I mean, we have a lot of standards in this best management practice. And if you're telling me that the only enforcement authority we have for these BMPs is codes, that just doesn't fly for me. That just doesn't fly for me. That's saying that this entire commitment that we're making on trust, it's fully on trust. And that we're going to have to go through a codes enforcement process for every time something in this best management practice isn't followed. We'd have to file a code violation on an HOA. I just, I don't see how that works. I guess I just need to understand that we have some better structures for enforcing the BMPs that are being put forward in this plan. And as I mentioned, as part of the developer's agreement, we could work in some of those standards and then come up with some sort of damages that are associated with violations of it. But it's going to continue to be reactive in that sense where something has happened and we're having to respond to it. Right, yeah. I mean, yeah, it would have to be reactive. I mean, I am trusting that they believe in this as much as they say they believe in it. And so far every evidence is that they do really believe in these ideals and these concepts and they care as much about it. I know many of you were born and raised in this community and care very much about this community and the long-term quality of our water and our environment. So I don't. So you're looking for something in the developer agreement that they would commit to? Yeah. Okay. We'll see what the applicant says about that. The other question I had is about the buffer and the limits of disturbance. I mean, okay. First, I'm going to challenge you on the side that you need a buffer from the CMA. People live up against natural areas and inside natural areas all the time. You don't need a buffer from the CMA. And I don't think that clearing land completely and doing moving soil, you know, and clearing soils and bringing in engineer, bringing in like builder sand and stuff on 50 feet around an entire lot is necessary. I mean, I hear you on like maybe they want areas for grass or maybe they want areas for kids to play or dogs to run or whatever and not just have it be forested. But I think that the bigger issue is that when you clear the native soil away and you bring in builder sand and you bring in, you know, and you move and you do all that, you're removing a huge layer of soil that's supporting an entire ecosystem that's there. And then you're having to bring in all that compost and all that other stuff and try to reestablish a landscape. And so what we're trying to do is limit that, limit the movement of that soil. And I guess I'm still not convinced why you only need 25 feet for your multifamily and commercial, but you need 50 feet for your individual houses. Certainly. So I think one thing that would hit earlier on the CMA conversation was like we're not the intent there is not to create a buffer from the CMA. A lot of folks that are going to buy lots along the CMA like the CMA. Yeah. I think what we're saying is we're enhancing the value of the CMA by providing additional buffer adjacent to it. With regards to the distance itself, I mean, ultimately I would say that we don't want to remove any more dirt than we have to. You know, as an engineer, that's something that we are commonly chastised on by developers is having to move more dirt than is absolutely necessary. And so trying to work with, you know, the current topography of the site and how, you know, the soil is arranged, how elevations are arranged on site, and also utilizing the existing vegetation so that we don't have to pay tree mitigation, so that we don't have to cut down additional trees, so that we don't have to pay, you know, $6,000 for that 24 inch live oak. That is very much a goal of this project. Nobody wants to put in any more development costs into a project than they have to. And so they want to make sure that we retain that vegetation, we retain that tree canopy, that we keep that cost down, that we minimize earthwork and disturbance, and that we come up with a product that, you know, a home buyer and a builder can build to. And a lot of times that means that we have to have a little bit of room to work around the site. It is not just, you know, the four walls of the building. I understand. I'm just asking you why you only need 25 feet to move around in when you're building a multifamily building, or a commercial site, but you need 50 feet when you're building a single-family home. I would say, ultimately, we see that that buyer is a little bit different, and they may want a little bit more of a backyard than potentially- I'm not talking about a backyard. I'm talking about clearing away the native soil and bringing in builder sand and moving the dirt. I mean, you can create a backyard without doing that kind of clearing. You don't have to clear an entire lot and then bring back in dirt. You could just leave what's there, to your point. You could leave the trees and the canopy or have plant grasses in the area. I mean, you may need to remove a tree and pay your tree mitigation, but you're not necessarily clearing the soil and engineering the site. Correct. Yeah, I mean, I think one thing that we should be clear on is just kind of what that limits of disturbance means, and it means that we're not going scorched earth on all 50 feet. And if we are able to and, you know, can retain some of the existing vegetation and the existing trees, that's what we're going to do. That's what we want to do with the project. I feel that if 25 feet is big enough for commercial development, it's big enough for residential development, and I would like to see us reduce that level to 25 feet unless there's some significant reason. I mean, if you have an engineering concern, if there's an elevation concern. Certainly. I mean, part of it is grading. I mean, you know, we always have to elevate building pads for flooding risk and for, you know, just making sure that those pads drain. So there's always a concern about tying down to existing grades, minimizing the insulation of retaining walls, which is even more invasive and things of that nature. So, yes, I mean, I think when you look at it in terms of are we looking for a little bit of flexibility here? Absolutely. Are we going to look to identify that limits of disturbance on the plan, the final development plans that we put together? Absolutely. Are we going to try to minimize that to the- You're afraid they're going to disturb too much, Lane? I mean, we'll have another look at that at the final development. I mean, I think that when we, again, this goes back to the special area study. Like, I'm trying to live by what we told the public we were going to do when there was actual public in the room. Yeah. And they were asking us to protect our natural resources. Like, the things that our professionals have told us is that the things we can do, the number one issue is irrigation. How much irrigation people are using. So reducing that. You all are doing that with the landscaping you're putting in, with the compost you're putting in to hold the water. Hopefully, with the limiting irrigation, permanent irrigation installed in the, across that development. The other thing is limiting disturbance. Natural soils are the best funds we have. And this is what staff recommended? Staff. No, this is not the number staff recommended. This is the number. You have to understand that everything that is in this report has been the compromise of conversations that have happened behind the scenes. I understand that. So I don't think this is what they recommended to staff. This is what they sent back to staff was 50 for the house. That's what Stacy said to me recently. And that was 50 for the house and 25 for commercial. And I'm asking why do they need so much more space for the house? Commercial development, theoretically, if you're building a big multifamily or a commercial, it would need at least as much or more. 50 is not big. It's not very big. 50 feet. 50 on every side of the house would be the whole lot. On a quarter acre lot, it would be the whole lot. Yeah, it's just not, it's not, I mean, 50 feet is from me to not even the end of the building there. It's not a lot. It's the whole lot. But basically what it would tell me is if they were allowed to clear 50 feet of space all the way around the house, a quarter acre lot. So basically be able to do exactly what everybody, what Horton Homes and DL Williams, all those home companies that come in and scorched earth the place. They clear the whole thing, every single lot, all the way through. And then they come back in and they grade it and they build their homes. And then they plant some trees and they plant some grass and they walk away. And theoretically, I know we have also have all the native landscaping stuff. I'm not saying you're doing that, but theoretically you could clear all the lots in the entire hamlet and rebuild at the 50 foot level. And there would be nothing that we could do about it. And meanwhile, we've said that we're committing to limiting the disturbance. So I'm trying to get to, yeah, it's easy on the large lots, but tell me how you're going to limit trees. Yeah, but I mean, I would argue there too, there is a requirement for, I believe it's 25% retention of tree preservation canopy. There's also, I mean, I think there's a lot of other components at play there that would limit that ability to just go scorched earth. I think if you took it at its most literal sense of 50 feet, potentially, yes. I think one thing that we worked with staff on originally, and this very much was an iterative process, was, you know, to the extent possible, to the extent practical. Staff was concerned that there wasn't enough teeth there. Ultimately, like a lot of this will get worked out with final development plans when we establish real elevations. And right now, the best that we can do is establish thresholds, which is, wasn't asked from staff. Those numbers, as mentioned before, were the ones that were carried over from UF Golf. And then we got even tighter, as you'll notice on some of the ones for right-aways and open space and parks, and for multifamily commercial developments. And so we got even tighter than that on what we did for the property to the north. But at the end of the day, the limits of disturbance is ultimately set by a couple of things. The site plan, the topography, the trees that we're trying to retain. And we are not operating at a scale right now that is fine enough or granular enough to say we can save this tree, this tree, this tree. We can limit disturbance on this lot. Because, quite honestly, we haven't drawn everything out yet at this point in time. And so. We'll get there. We'll get there at the final level. Yeah, I mean, we will get there. So, I mean, I think this was a reasonable compromise between, you know, staff. I hear you and we'll get there. I just think you have to understand, you all, there's been a lot of promises made. And then there's been a lot of, at the end of the day, we can't enforce those promises. I understand. And this best management practice, we're adopting this today as what they can do. So they can, we can talk about what's practical or what's theoretically good and we can all work on it together. But at the end of the day, when we're all gone and all these staff are gone and retired or moved to Bermuda or, you know, done something really great with their lives. They're all gone to Bermuda. They're going to be left with these documents and that's all they're going to have. That's where I, and so to me it's about getting it in the documents. And they're right. The staff aren't wrong. We're practical and we're practicable. Like the end of the day, like that doesn't have a lot of teeth. We're building on a trusting relationship with you all based on the things that you've already brought to us and shown us that you actually are working hard and trying to build this thing. But when we get to limits on things that we've promised our public in our special area study that we're going to do, to me those need to be as narrow and as limited and as tight and as regulatable as possible. That's where I'm at. So I'm happy to wait until final development plan. But I better see that that practicable got really well implemented. Sure. Yeah. Well, I think you're actually going to see it at the preliminary first and then at the final. So, because we're going to see it preliminary, right? Yeah. Yeah. We're going to have a couple options here. Okay. You got more or are you good? Just the monitoring side. No, I'm good. Okay. Commissioner Alford. Okay. My questions are a lot easier. I love the stargazing slide. I thought that was great. It also implies that you'll be able to see the stars, which will require a certain amount of limitation of lighting. Yeah. And I've been a proponent in many neighborhoods of turning off street lighting at a certain hour. Are we, is that something that we're committing to doing? Yeah. I think that's something that we would consider doing and something that we would be, obviously we're balancing public safety. Of course. With light pollution. And so there's a balance to be struck there. Commissioner Alford, I think specifically with that image, our intent there was, you know, some of the, the off the beat path areas of the project that would be up in that strategic ecosystem, where we have, you know, significant amounts of space and room and lack of development and open space. And that, um, those would be ideal areas to put, you know, a stargazing center like that into the development program. Well, light, light pollution is sort of insidious, you know, it, it, it, it can, now that I live way on the edge of the county, I can see so much more than I could see when I lived in an area that did have pretty limited street lighting, but it was close to town. So, um, I, I think that would save your, your development money if you could turn off lights at a certain hour. And I think that you're probably attracting the kind of, um, of clientele that would appreciate that. And, um. We have light and night sky requirements. Yeah. We do have night sky requirements, but I've, you know, asking for an extra mile, I'm just pointing it out. I'm not asking for anything here. Yes. Um, I, I am curious though on the Florida friendly, a hundred percent Florida friendly native landscaping. Is there room in there for edible landscaping at all? If I were to have a house, would I be able to plant a pear tree or blueberry bushes as part of my landscaping? Certainly. I think that would be an expectation and would be welcomed, uh, within the landscape. Okay. Yeah. Because that would not fall into the traditional Florida friendly landscaping. So you might want to work on the wording just a little bit there. Uh, agreed. And back, back to. Some, but not all. Yeah. Back to your comment about the light pollution and so forth. Uh huh. I think one of the things that we can do is, uh, dark sky. Oh, that would be fabulous. Which we have done in under those. And it's really comes down to the selection of light fixtures. And, and being on that as a condition. Okay. Yeah. Being on the edge of our development and actually over what we, you know, our urban services boundary, which we had originally established, I think that'd be not only really wonderful, but really appropriate. Yep. So. Oh, thank you. Thank you for that. Okay. Um, you talked about a, uh, connection to neighborhoods and, uh, I know there's a, that you touched the, uh, in the Northeast corner, you touch hail plantation. Will there be connections there as well? I know the neighbors there asking me. Yeah, certainly. So the, the connection there that specifically is Southwest 46 Boulevard is actually on the UF property. So, uh, we don't actually touch it, but our intent would be that if there is a pedestrian connection there to be made, we would tag into the UF property and also utilize that. I was pretty sure of that. I, I, but I wanted to double check. Huge amenity for them. Yes. Yeah. It's a huge amenity for the hail. The hail neighbors are actually very excited about this development. So, um, at what phase will the affordable housing units start being built? So I, I think there, I asked that already, but I couldn't remember the answer. No, I think the affordable housing units are, uh, intended to be built along with the development program. There is some language that is in the PD, I believe that speaks to, uh, we can't get too far out ahead. Right. In terms of, uh, non affordable units before the affordable units have to come online. Obviously that'll be working with staff to kind of establish what that threshold is. But, uh, I really suspect that, you know, it will be on pace because we don't want to get in a situation where we're building them all at the end. Right. Because ultimately that won't comply with intermixing them kind of throughout development. Okay, great. And then I'm a little concerned about, um, a neighborhood like yours with so many different requirements can have some pretty, uh, challenging HOA fees. I, how do the HOA fees, uh, are they staggered for the different types of units that people have? Is it based on square footage? Do you have that worked out yet? And would that be different for affordable housing units? Yeah, that, that's something that we are, have not worked out yet. Okay. Full transparency. I, I encourage you to think about that. Um, you know, we've dealt with on this, everybody on this commission has been around since the, for instance, the condominium fell in South Florida. And we saw all these seniors that live on the coast and what they thought was going to be an affordable place for that. Right. They could live the rest of their life, find that they could no longer afford their HOA fees because they were down subject to all these new requirements. And, um, that's, we've seen HOA fees rise in so many places. I just don't want to have our affordable housing turned non-affordable because of HOA requirements. Certainly. Yeah. And I think that's something that we are definitely willing to look at, whether that be by kind of character area or square footage or other components in terms of what an appropriate structure is for that. Um, and, and potentially for an exemption there on some of the affordable units or at least a significantly reduced rate. So I think those are all great ideas. I, um, a long time ago, I used to do lead certification for residential homes, haven't done one for quite some time. And I actually don't even push the program much anymore, but I, um, one thing that they, they used to have, I don't know if it's still there in their guidelines was that, you know, when you remove the topsoil in order to do, um, land contouring or whatever you need to do, that you retain that topsoil and then put it back. Is that something that y'all are considering? Yeah. So that's commonly utilized. Um, you'll see that a lot of times the top six inches of soil as commissioner Prizzi alluded to is not suitable as structural film material. So something that can go under a building organic. Yeah. Right. But a lot of times that is going to be utilized across the remainder of the site that may be planted with those Florida friendly and Florida native landscapes, uh, in landscaping islands and right of ways. Um, or back in the yard where you were back in the yard where you took it from. Yeah. Yeah. And that would be ideal of course, to, to maintain that, you know, it's so sad to me when you go to a new neighborhood that's, you know, covered with builders standing, you don't see things like mushrooms or, you know, dung beetles or other fun things that you want to point out to your children. Yeah. That should be a major part of like what you, you know, are looking for in your community. So, okay. Thank you. That's what I have. All right. You conclude commissioner Wheeler. Before I move approval of the application. I have one question for you about how these, um, parcels are going to be sold off. Are they going to be developed, built on and then sold? Or are they going to have lots that are sold? And then a builder is brought onto the site. Yes, ma'am. Um, so the, the next fun part of this endeavor is actually getting this brilliant team who I have somehow gone into helping us through this great project to pull together all of our design criteria. And I'm going to answer this because I know you asked this a second ago. So it'll be a mix of things. There'll be property here we develop. There'll be lots we sell. There will be a multitude of lots we sell. And so having the flexibility by market, you know, will be important. But to answer your question, this will be something that I stay in. We stay involved with the entire. And so there will be an opportunity for individual lot or individual to come in and be builders to be able to come in. And then the, the, the real meat and potatoes of the go. And we get to set our design guidelines and our criteria for what implementation of not only what this, uh, what we've set out here today, but then what we want them. So that's, that's the next step. Okay. So with those designs, then you would offer those designs as a requirement or just as a guide? As a requirement. As a requirement. Yeah. Cause I, there's some really neat designs. You guys ain't going that I was excited about. Yes, ma'am. It wouldn't be a problem if somebody came in and bought two or three lots. But that's not until 2029. Well, I'm just trying to understand if you wouldn't mess with your design at all. We're, we're years away from that. They wouldn't, wouldn't, wouldn't, wouldn't interfere with the plan. It'll still all have to be compliant. Okay. With that good fit. All right. Thank you. Well, I, I move staff application. Second. Okay, staff recommendation. Whatever that is. We need additions. One is the condition they agreed to for dark sky compliant. Second is that on number six, under the best managed practice including appendices and D of this report shall be applicable to all development boundaries of the plan development. And a regulatory process for these BMPs will be developed in the developers agreement. I think it has to be added. Okay. All right. Well, hold on one second. So we've got a motion for staff's recommendation and a second. And then we're going to, I'm going to turn it over to you to see if we can add some things. But I need to ask also the quick question. On the, can you put up the timeline? Or can somebody put up the timeline? Okay. So right now we're in 2026. So finalized preliminary development plans. When would we have the developers agreement before us? We hope that, well, we'll have to first work through legal and before it comes to you. So we have to have that to you in the coming months. I mean, I, I don't know what a realistic timeframe is. I haven't done one in this county before. Chris, do you ever think about that? Mr. Chair, I can't imagine you'd see it before January. No, no. I wouldn't expect it. All right. So early next year. I would say early next year is when, prior to the preliminary development plan. And then when would the preliminary development plan come before us? That depends on when they submit it, Mr. Chair. Yeah. Austin, have you put any thought into that? Because we're going to get your stuff in a minute. When are you anticipating you and your team submitting the preliminary development plan? I would anticipate that we are sometime in the first half of next year after the development agreement. Okay. The development agreement, you know, will be our focus for the next two to three months. Yeah. To be candid. Okay. And one of the things that you had said is you're open to the night sky requirements. That's right. And then are you open to working out some of the irrigation issues in the development plan in the developer's agreement? Could you clarify that? I already said it. I mean, I guess I don't, I don't. Could you clarify it then? Yeah. You all said that we would be figuring out the regulatory processes for the BMPs in the developer's agreement. So I'm saying that that needs to get added to condition six that we're going to do that in the developer's agreement that we're going to come up with a plan for how those BMPs are going to be enforced. We were talking, Lindsay Hager for the record, I think we were talking about the development agreement would establish how the TDRs would be implemented because we had the fee structure here for one of your conditions. And then the other part is about enforcement. You have compliance now in your BMP that talks about how the county can be involved. And then Corbin was walking us through how it catches back to code enforcement. Yeah, and I'm not okay with that. So I'm not willing to vote yes on this right now. If you want unanimous vote, I need more regulatory teeth in the developer's agreement for those BMPs than code enforcement. It's not acceptable to me that we'd have to come after you all with code enforcement processes and a magistrate over years rather than having an actual plan for we're committing to this, we're going to do it, and if we don't do it, the county has an ability to come over to us and say, hey, you're not doing what you said you'd do. So do we need a recess so you can talk to staff? I mean, they're going to talk about it during the development agreement. I'm not asking them to come up with the- So we don't have enough to pass that vote? Enforcement now. Well, I don't know. It would really be up to Mary. I'm just saying we need to have some way to enforce that. We have these BMPs that you're committing to, and we have no way to enforce them other than codes, which to me is- I mean, yeah, our intent was that you would have enforcement allowed to you that the county already has with any of the conditions that are made, you know, in any environmental condition, BMP, other projects other than ours. I don't hesitate because we're running from anything, and I definitely don't hesitate because it's in print, right, in the conditions of what it is that we want to do. My hesitation is the legalese of what it is we're committing to, so I might want to understand that first, just because, and not the way you read it, Commissioner, but- Yeah, no, I know what you're saying. I guess there's just other places where- We'll get to an open-ended, not really sure what the answer to that is. It is a bit concerning to kind of leave us floating. It's in here. I mean, it's in, I guess, either way, we'd have to come, I mean, in here, it's in here for the TDRs that we're going to get to it during the developer's agreement. Yeah, so the development agreement would really be primarily focused around the TDRs, how they get paid, funding get paid into, et cetera, and the details on the fire station donation. Those are two things off the top of my head. Correct. And parks. And parks. Parks. I just- This is adding a new component- Where the rubber hits the roads on this development is in these BMPs. Every single bit of it's right here. Yeah, I'm good with them. How they're doing it. I am too. I am too. I know, I'm good with them. I'm 100% good with them if they're being enforced and if they're being done. We don't have any control over that utility. We don't have any control. All we have is- We don't have any control over any of these developments come through like that. If they get past us, they get past us. Unless we have somebody with their eyes on all of these developments that are coming up, we don't have any way except codes. Yeah, but in those other developments, it's a by-right development scenario. They have the rights to do that development. We're handing over the rights to build- anyway. I'm just- All right, so we have a motion status recommendation. We have an applicant that has agreed to add the dark sky condition. Are you okay with that in the motion? Yes. Yes. Okay. And we have a second. And now, discussion. So, Commissioner, would you say what you would like added and we'll see if Mary Hillen will add it? I would like added the dark sky that there'll be a 21, 22 would be the dark sky compliant and that there would be added to Condition 6 that there would be a discussion and agreement in the developer's plan about how the BMPs being committed to in this plan are being enforced by the county. A discussion? You're asking for a further discussion? I'm asking for them to come to terms on how we are going to enforce the best management practices that they're committing to. Well, having terms is different from having discussions. When they come back with their development agreement, I want to understand how we are going to enforce the best management plan they agreed with. Can I ask a question? So, we're asking them to come up with how we should- No staff. Our staff to come up with it. Staff and them are going to work on the developer's agreement. I'm asking them to do it together to come up with how we would enforce the best management practices that are being outlined and that they're agreeing to. With something other than- Okay, hold on. Before we get to Austin. Corbin, you were going to interject or no? I was going to say, as far as working it into a developer's agreement, you can certainly do that. We don't have any sort of consensus at this point is what those damages would be. Right. Because that's what the enforcement, that's what the teeth are. So, coming up with what is the fine, what is the punishment, what is- To me, what I see as a solution tonight is we refer that component to staff and the developer to work through some suggestions, some recommendations that they can then bring back to us as part of the approval of the development. But we don't- We're not going to require because you all need to work with them together. Austin, did you want to add to that for Missy? Yes. We can do that. Condition or not, we can do that. Well, it wouldn't be a condition. It would just be- Because those are requirements. I mean, whether you include a condition tonight or not. So, all of that stuff is already required and we, as the county, can say how it's going to be enforced. Obviously, we'll agree or we won't have a developer's agreement. Correct. Which means they don't develop. So- That's how I would rather operate. The reason I'm hesitant is I don't want to get in a position where I am somehow putting in an agreement what your codes enforcement does from a county perspective. I'd rather that be a county- Something we have to work through with you and staff is what I'm hearing. Yeah. We've committed to the guideline. We've committed to- Looking at this again at the developer agreement? Yeah. That's what I'm asking to put in here. Is that- Well, but it's different than a condition for the PD. Right. Instead, what you're saying is you're referring to staff and them to work out an enforcement mechanism that we will then improve. We'll have a discussion about it. Yeah. Mr. Chair, I think what the standard that the staff and I believe the applicant could probably commit to, it wasn't clear before tonight that we would definitely be dealing with irrigation in the developers or development agreement, that we can make clear tonight that we will deal with it and we will specifically deal with enforcement and what the terms of that enforcement will be. Obviously, you will all have a say when it comes back and you'll- Okay. All but one of you will be here, unfortunately, Commissioner- Yeah. No, I was hoping that we were going to be able to tie this up and set it off. No, but the major issues are tied up. But that issue of enforcement, and I think staff is hearing the conversation. I know the applicant is hearing the conversation. And we can come back with terms, starting with our code enforcement and then going beyond that to talk about, you know, different- Yeah, I mean, I can remember talking about this before the transmittal of the comp plan. And my discussion with the applicant was they wanted to have some agreement with GRU to where, if we were in a drought, we could limit, you know, what could even get to the pipes to irrigate. And I got very comfortable that that meant we didn't have permanent irrigation that was controlled by the homeowner. It was actually controlled by consultation with us, GRU, you all, about how we control that irrigation. So that's, so if we're going to talk about that as part of the developer's agreement, I'm good. And Mr. Chair, if it helps, I mean, I think having, we can add that as a condition that that enforcement of the irrigation BMPs will be included in the developer's agreement. Okay. And we can make sure that happens. Yeah, I just, I don't understand why we've got that kind of eyes on this project when GRU is also using water. Are we asking GRU to justify to us how they are using their water? They're not. I'm not regulating GRU. I'm regulating. I understand. My job is approving this development, Mary Helen. Okay. I understand. I understand. Okay. So, um. Can we get a repeat of the motion? Cool. There's a request to repeat the motion. Yeah. I would, I would like to know what the exact wording is. Yeah. I'm going to, I'm going to repeat it. Add enforcement of the best management. Also, are you okay with this? The developers agreement. There we are. I apologize. Did you, what? No. Are you okay with what Jeff just said? Adding that as a condition as part of the developer's agreement. Chris, if you want to read, if we're going to, if we're going to add a condition. Yeah. So hold on. So the motion is staff's agreement. Staff's recommendation. Staff's recommendation. Staff's recommendation. Staff's recommendation. Adding night sky as a condition. Dark sky, yes. Dark sky as a condition. And what you're about to read. Go ahead. And Mr. Chair, I was building on what Commissioner Prizia had suggested, which is in addition to condition six, but it could be a separate condition as well. This is my quick draft. The development or developer's agreement shall include a section related to the enforcement of irrigation requirements. You okay with that? I'm not. I'm really not. You're the maker of the motion. I didn't put in a second motion that added all of that. Okay. Okay. I just feel like that we keep adding more. This is eight years of adding more and more and more, every just down to the finest detail. I'm not adding more, Mary Helen. I'm just asking them to commit to doing what they say they're going to do. Are you okay with this, Austin? Or no, he's sweating blood. I'm looking at him. I know. No, he's not okay with it. It's been a long road. Yeah. We are committed to it. You know, I'm hesitant on adding conditions and motions and just continuing, you know, to go down a path of unknown. You know, that's my hesitation. It's only. My hesitation is that we have a whole document here of things that you're committing to, but no way to enforce you committing to them. Agreed. Yeah. And I might, I think this is a reasonable, you know, add to say that, hey, there will be a section in the development agreement or developer's agreement that addresses enforcement. I will say, I don't know what the county is willing to do from the enforcement's program. So that's why I'm hesitant because we're committed to it. We're committed to meeting to it. I think we spent a lot of time talking about something that won't actually happen, but I do understand your concern. It's not that we aren't committed to it. It's a little bit of a nuance where you're asking for teeth that I can't create to some degree. It doesn't sound like the county can't do this. It's a county's codes enforcement and we're committed to the policy. The development agreement has to come back to us. And so staff has heard the concerns. The developer has identified that they're going to work with our staff on it. And so if they're in agreement, I'm in agreement. If you don't want to add it, we don't have to add it. We can do a separate motion. We'll just see if we can get a unanimous vote. Are we just talking discussion? Yes. Is it the word discussion that staff is just discussing with the applicant? Chris, read it again. So, Mr. Chair, the language that I wrote is that the development or developer's agreement shall include a section related to the enforcement of irrigation requirements. See, that's the shall include. That's not a discussion. That's not a discussion. That's not a discussion about including it. And that's where I'm having a problem. I don't know why you're having a problem with me requiring them to create enforcement. I'm not having a problem with you. I'm having a problem with the word. Okay. Well, with including enforcement mechanisms for something that they're committing to. They're committing to these irrigation requirements in this BMP. I know. And right now we have zero enforcement authority. Zero. I understand. And it's really important to you that do that, but I'm not so sure it's- Well, not zero. We have codes. Important to the rest of us. I understand- You don't care if they actually do what they say they're going to do? Man, I don't put words in my mouth. I do care. But I trust- You just said that. I trust this team of people to do what we've asked them to do for the last eight years. Well- And adding one more thing at the last, change the word to discussion, not shall put it in there. May. But I mean, I hear them both being committed to it, so I'm not hung up on that. And our staff is even saying that we don't have- I mean, the only thing we can do is send codes in to validate whether they're doing what they're saying they're doing or not. Mr. Chair, we can- we're not going to write in there that they're going to go through the code enforcement process because they already will. That's our code. We're going to enforce every single thing you approve tonight and in the future, right? I think where Commissioner Prizzi is going is that's one process, but how do we ensure that? How are we going to know? We're going to get the annual reports if it's just about irrigation. We can write into that developer's agreement other things like performance standards. If your annual report shows that you're doing this, it's not going to be on individual homeowners, it's going to be on the development as a whole, then this happens. You turn the water off. Probably not that extreme, but for example, those kind of performance standards or damages or something like that that get built in if they are in violation and we have to go to code enforcement or get Corbin to do an injunction and none of this is going to happen. That's right. Yes. None of this is going to happen. That's right. So is that comment directed to the inclusion of this language? Or is your intent in that, is that that was a part of, did that now be a part of this motion or? Better language is what we're looking for. Well, we're asking SAP to develop that on the plot. That's kind of hard. I think that language allows us to develop that. That language requires us to make sure we put something else in there, I would say, that that language works. And also if we're only talking about extra stuff for the irrigation standards, because that is very . Are you okay with that? Do you want to recess to talk about it? Yes. No, we're good. We're committed to that added language. It's your motion. Can we add it? If you are. You are. Because I'm here. This is my last. This is your motion. You are responsible for it. I know it is. I know that. And I came prepared to be that. And that's why I'm. We appreciate that. I'm looking at your eyeballs. Yeah. This is our teaching. We do appreciate that. All right. Mary Helen has added that to the motion. Does a second or agree? Yes. I think we're going to get a unanimous vote, Austin. That was the goal. I think that's what we needed. Okay. All right. So we have a motion. Does everybody understand the motion? Public discussion to the motion. And once gone twice as the crowd runches to the podium. Okay. Back to the commission. Further discussion. Commissioner Prizzi, is that an old light? Yeah, that's fine. Okay. Any other discussion? You sure? I'm just going to say that to this team, a huge thank you. You know, we've gotten and we've added a condition that I think we were going to handle anyways. I have full confidence in this team. I've seen things in these conditions that in my short 12 years, I've never seen. We've got a lot of firsts in how the developer can work with our staff to come up with something that not only this commission is excited about, but 150 comments and countless community meetings. It's really a historic night. And I just want to tell all of you, thank you. There's still so much work to go. The first house doesn't get built until 2020. And there's going to be a lot more discussion. And I just really appreciate the level of professionalism and the team that's here to work with our staff and hear our concerns. And I know Commissioner Prizzi may be the bad guy tonight. She's just expressing the concerns of our community. And I appreciate all those discussions. So with that, did you want to say something before we vote? Just that. I'm sorry I have to be the bad cop today. It isn't you all. I do really appreciate all the work. And I've really enjoyed working with your team. And I've never had a development that's had 150 letters of support come with it and very few letters of not support. But I have had a lot of conversations for SAS time and all the people that came in to represent. And those SAS conditions were in there and those people believed that we were going to hold to them. And so that is why I'm sticking with this and pushing so hard. It has nothing to do with a lack of trust for you all and the work that you do. I think you have integrity and I know that you are committed to building the best possible development you can. And I know that all of us may not be around in 20 or 30 years. And this development has a 40-year time horizon. So I just want to make sure that it can be everything that's possible and that our community can be proud of it in the long run. So thank you for letting me be bad cop tonight. And we're going to let Commissioner Wheeler wrap it up. I feel like I didn't fight hard enough for you guys. I'm sorry. You need to go through one more hurdle with all of this. But I think that one of the things that this board and this community is going to have to understand, that the climate conditions are changing here. The working conditions are changing here. Farming conditions are changing here. And as we develop land, we're going to have to pay attention to those things. It's not the old Florida that it used to be, you know, where we could depend on rain and sunshine on a regular basis. And so to be able to have a development that's coming in to try to utilize the land in a way that has the best of both understandings, you know, for me was exciting. It's still exciting. And I appreciate you being willing to be flexible enough to accommodate, you know, people who are still counting on Florida to be what Florida's always been. But I can't wait to see it. Let me see. I figure I'll be 97. And all of the old people in my family lived into their 90s. I had an aunt that lived to be 100. So, you know, and an old cousin back in the day, 102. So, you know, just get busy, y'all. Just saying, just get busy. But, no, I'm excited to see what you have to say. And it's been really fun to see such a professional group of people working together in a team for something so creatively beautiful. And so just work fast. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. Do you conclude? I do. Thank you. All right. I have a motion I need to make that has nothing to do with any of this. So we do have some business. Yeah. So we have. So our agenda is done. But we're going to have one more Sabbath commission comment. And so, Commissioner Alfred, you're recognized. All right. As you know, I was chair of the Regional Planning Council last year. And as chair of the Regional Planning Council, I got to see firsthand how things were working kind of behind the scenes. And I also got the opportunity to talk to many different leaders in different counties and cities about issues they were having with the Regional Planning Council. And with that, I want to make a motion that while Alachua County will, as required, maintain membership in the North Florida Regional Planning Council. And I'm not, I believe it's an interlocal agreement that we have that stipulates that, but that we will withhold payment that is owed to the Regional Planning Council until such time as there a change in management. And when there is a change in management, we will reconsider paying our bill. And secondly, that we write a letter to not just the Regional Planning Council, but to each county and city within the Regional Planning Council, letting them know of our decisions. And explaining our concerns. Our concerns are, but not limited to, first, in comparison with other Regional Planning Councils in Florida, ours is doing the bare minimum, despite Mr. Coons being the highest paid director in the state. He makes more than $300,000 per year. A review of the website of other Regional Planning Council shows how little is actually being accomplished in this one. Secondly, communication is lacking when talking to other members of the RPC. And in my own experience as chair last year, I learned that phone calls were not being returned. Checks were not being written, such as the check to the family of, oh, the guy that used to run the MTPO, that young, the guy that died, remember? His family was owed a rather large check from the Regional Planning Council. It took him over almost a year to write that check. I learned that emails were not being answered with the result of some cities losing funding and losing access to grants. Thirdly, I don't believe true regional planning is taking place as evidenced by, for instance, a large development was approved in Levy County. I believe it was about 20,000 houses. When I asked about impacts to Alachua County, I was told that they were only doing an analysis 15 miles from the development. I know there are not 20,000 jobs in Levy County, so there was obviously going to be impact to Alachua County. We were, actual planning also seems to be lacking just regular planning, not just regional planning, as evidenced by the approval of the cement plant by the Regional Planning Council in the city of the Center of Archer. Who are our current representatives? Did you just second it? I am. But our current representatives are me and Commissioner Wheeler. I agree with everything you're saying. Is there an executive committee? I am on the executive committee and I relayed all this in my evaluation of Mr. Coons a few weeks ago. What is the other, do the other members of the executive committee? Most of the other members, the only other member of the executive committee that I've talked to was the other previous president, which was Commissioner White and Archer was the chair before me. Yes. And Archer is also withdrawing their membership in the Regional Planning Council. Have you talked to the city of Kansas City? I have, and Harvey is in complete support of this. Okay, so we have a motion, a long motion, and a second to basically continue under the statutory requirements of being in the Regional Planning Council but withhold funding until changes are made. Yeah, because I believe that they are not meeting their agreement, so why should we pay for it? Okay. Mr. Chair, just to chime in as far as that goes, we do have an agreement that says there will be fees. As far as this motion goes, we're essentially saying there's a breach of that agreement. They're not providing the services and therefore we're going to put them on notice and not pay. So, Commissioners, I'm not on the Regional Planning Council. I'm kind of relying on you and Mary Helen. Mary Helen, are you in support of this? I agree with everything she's pointed out as being problematic. Okay. All right. So we've got a motion and a second. Anyone from the public? I'm sure you all came for this. I'm going to speak to this. All right. We'll bring it back to the board. This is going to result in some further discussions regarding the interlocal, I'm sure. Any further discussion from this board? Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion's unanimous. Okay. With that, we're adjourned. Thank you all. I could be adjourned.