Land Use & Zoning Committee - Sep 15, 2026

All right. Good evening, everyone. It is 5 o'clock on September 15th. We are going to go ahead and convene the Land Use and Zoning Committee. And everybody ready? We do have a quorum. Let's go

ahead and start with introductions to the left. Good evening, Monet Holder at large group one.

Good evening, Reginald Gaffney, junior district eight. Good evening, Rockman Johnson, district

14, the west side. And I see so many church people here. I thought we was having church,

Mr. Chairman. Hey, good evening, Rory Diamond and George, district 13, the beaches. Joe

Carlucci, district five. Hello, raw areas, district 11. Randy White, district 12. Terrence Harvey,

office of general counsel. Susan Kelly, planning department. Aaron Abney, planning department.

Casey Cox, planning department. All right. Thank you, everyone, for those introductions. And we do have a few little changes on the agenda. And of course, we will kind of announce those as we go through them. So with that, we'll go to item number one, 2026-124 is deferred, the public hearing next cycle on 11-17-26. Item number two, 2026-125 is deferred, public hearing next cycle 11-17-26. Item number three, 2026-126, open the public hearing, no speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 10-20-26. Item number four, 2026-127, open the public hearing, no speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 10-20-26. Item number five, 2026-436, open the public hearing, no speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 10-20-26. Item number six, 2026-523, open the public hearing. No speaker cards. We'll continue this public hearing until 10-20-26. Item number seven, 2026-524, council members, please declare your ex-parte communication at this time. Seeing none, we will go ahead and continue this public hearing until 10-20-26. Item number eight, 2026-532. We are going to go ahead and, well, Ms. Pittman is here. Welcome, Ms. Pittman. Missed you on introductions. If you don't mind, we're going to go to two action items that are short and quick, and then we'll get to the star of the show, because I know you have another engagement tonight. Yes, ma'am. All right, so we're going to go ahead and skip over item number eight for now, go to two action items that won't take too much time, then we'll get to, and I was reminded that we also need to do an introduction of our page tonight, Mr. Hudson Williams. Let's give him a round of applause. Creekside High School, and he wants to go work for the FBI-CIA, so we want to get on this guy's good side. I love that. I love that. I told him it was probably one of the greatest ways he could serve his country, so thank you so much for being here tonight. Senior, Creekside High School. All right, with that, we skipped over number eight, number nine, 2026-556. Councilmembers, please declare your ex parte communication you have at this time. What you got? You got something? Councilman Gaffney, you recognize. Thank you for

recognizing me, Chair. I think this legislation, I'm going to defer this for another few weeks. I still haven't spoke with the developer yet, so I need to have a community meeting. I'm not sure if he's

here or not. Is Mr. Anthony Ike here? Okay, well, it's probably good that he is getting a deferral and out of denial, so we'll go ahead and honor that request, and we'll go ahead and defer this item. Yes, sir. Thank you. So we will continue this public hearing until 10-6. Is that the next one? 10-6? Mr. Gaffney, do you want 10-6 or 10-20? Okay, so we're going to go ahead and continue this public hearing until 10-20-26. All right, item number 10, 2026-557 is deferred, public hearing next cycle on 10-6-26. Item number 11, 2026-558. We have a few speaker cards, and then we will go to item number 12, and then we'll come back to your item, Ms. Pittman. So item number 11, 2026-558, we'll open the public hearing. We have three speaker cards who wish to speak. First, is Mr. Curtis Hart here? Okay, he's not here. So we'll go to Dr. Kishan Chambliss. Hey, good evening. I'm Dr. Kishan Chambliss.

I'm speaking today on opposing the development debt in that area, but high in St. Paul AME Church, there's a flood zone, and they want to put single, it will state they want to put single parent, single family housing there, and I don't think it will be appropriate at this time. And also, he wants to, it will state they want to do multi, single family homes, and I'm definitely opposed to that. This resident is a well-established resident, has been there for years. It was a historical area where A.L. Lewis first started his country club, the golf and country club there. And again, right now, there's different, there are definitely different houses there that have been there forever, ever, and the neighborhood is well-established, and bringing a multi, single family homes would be an issue, and may bring down the value of our homes, as well as that, that's definitely a flood zone behind St. Paul AME Church. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I want to go ahead and recognize

Councilmember Johnson. Mr. Chair, I apologize. I know this is unorthodox. There's a former elected in the audience, former school board chair, Betty Burney, Betty Seabrook Burney. I do not see a card from her, but if you could recognize her, and we'll get her card. Yeah, absolutely. Ms. Burney, are you

here? There you are. All right. Do you wish to speak? All right. Come on down. Okay. I'll relook for it.

Thank you. My name is Betty Burney, and my address is on file. I'm here to speak in opposition to 2026-0558 and its detrimental impacts on the adjacent Richardson Road neighborhood and on St. Paul AME Church. I'm also representing St. Paul AME's pastor, Dr. Willie Barnes, who is unable to attend due to travel. The proposal of an additional 40-plus homes poses a major public safety risk because it nearly doubles the density of the Richardson Heights subdivision, which is in a single-access, one-way-in, one-way-out neighborhood. When you combine that with documented flooding at St. Paul AME Church, wetland disruption, and emergency response risk, the result is a disaster waiting to happen. For years, St. Paul AME Church has experienced recurrent flooding issues, and the land behind it is part of a wetland drainage basin. Filling or grading that land will remove natural water storage and push stormwater downhill towards the church and towards Richardson Road. Florida's law is clear. New development cannot increase off-site flooding. Chapter 652 of the Flood Plan Management Ordinance states that there must be no adverse impact to adjacent properties and or stormwater retention requirements. We ask that the developer is required to prove with engineering that the project will not worsen the flooding of adjacent properties. Reverend Barnes has asked me to convey that the church was contacted by a representative of the developer requesting to use a portion of St. Paul's property for water retention storage. This is not a proper stormwater retention plan, and pastor's response is a full-throated no, the church is not interested in that being the stormwater management fix. The Richardson Road neighborhood has one way in and one way out. The city's zoning code requires that any zoning change must not harm public health, safety, or welfare, but this project absolutely does. At least 40 to 80 additional cars could be added to the traffic count that will be vying for access to Richardson Road. Even moderate flooding can trap residents, block vehicles, and prevent fire, police, and rescue from entering or exiting. We are asking for a study that analyzes New King's Road congestion, turning movements, intersection performance, and single-access neighborhood impacts on Richardson Road. In summary, this rezoning increases flooding. It endangers residents. It compromises emergency access and harms our historical community institution, St. Paul AME Church. It does not protect public health, safety, or welfare. The audience contains a number of people in blue shirts to show their opposition. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that this rezoning request be deferred. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Ms. Burney. And yes, this actually is technically deferred. We are not going to have any discussion tonight as the public hearing is continued until 10-6 of 26. And I announced that earlier at the agenda meeting. I know a lot of the community members said that they appreciated that and they're going to be withholding their comments tonight in lieu of speaking on 10-6 of 26. Council Member Johnson, do you have anything? You're still in the queue.

No, I didn't, Mr. Chair. I apologize. I'm pulling it out. But I just wanted to reiterate what you were saying. Like, for those that wanted to, I know I am very close. The pastor of St. Paul is my fraternity brother and dear friend. And I know a lot of the members of St. Paul are there. This is just underscoring. We're not voting on this tonight, but we're certainly looking for it. I understand that's in Councilwoman Pittman's district, but I know that Mrs. Burney was here earlier through, during, and finance committee. And so we chatted about it. I'm ex-parte-ing it when the time comes, just so we're sure. But I just am very thankful. And I know you are too, Councilwoman, for, you know, all the people from that district. That's like family to me. So it's just good to see everybody civically engaged like that. And we certainly will be giving this issue all of the time it deserves. Thank you.

Absolutely. And Ms. Burney, we did find your card, so you're good to go. All right. Next, we have Ms. Lydia Bell. Do you wish to speak? You are coming down, or? Oh, okay. And while you're making your way down, I'll just go ahead and call out the next couple speakers. We have Loretta Kopik, Omega Smith, and Joyce Clark Taylor. If you wish to speak, you can go ahead and

come on down to the front seats right here. Go ahead, Ms. Bell. Good evening. Lydia Bell, address on file, but I'm a little confused about what, which one we're supposed to be speaking on. But then it really doesn't matter. Because whatever, which one we're speaking on, the legal process is whenever there is an exception, request for rezoning, the planning development department surveys the area, and that report is passed on to the planning commission to review with the recommendation to accept or deny. The planning department then send out notices to residents who live 350 feet from the project and neighborhood associations register with the city of Jacksonville. The business state their purpose, and residents are given the opportunity to state whether their business is beneficial to the neighborhood or not. The planning commission then vote, and then it is passed on to you.

Ms. Bell, do you have comments on the exact zoning? Because we know the process.

I'm confused, because someone, which one are we talking about?

We are on action, we are on item 2026-558. Are you here for the concrete batch?

That's what we're talking about?

No, ma'am.

Okay, which one? It doesn't matter. It all does the same thing.

Well, it technically matters, because we can only hear items pertaining.

Well, what number are you on now?

We are on item number 11, 2026-558.

Okay, that's what I'm talking about, 6-5. Richardson Road.

Yes, ma'am, Richardson Road.

Okay, Richardson Road. So, whatever, you know, on Richardson Road, there's a process, and I find that when you all have that process, it is not legally done under the Sunshine Law. So, what I would like to see is that when you have the planning, I would like to see that planning and development report, and then I would like to see the planning commission transcript, and then I would like to see that voting record, and to make sure that this process is done correctly. Because from my experience, it has not been done correctly, and we need to make sure that people are represented correctly. Because in my situation, I was home eating Cajun peanuts, and from the children telling me what was going on in the community, the children do not work for the city of Jacksonville. And I would like to see each and every one of these procedures done correctly, and not for the benefit of just businesses, but for the benefits of the constituents who live in this area and in Jacksonville, the citizens of Jacksonville. Citizens are the people. You are our paid employees, and we wish that you all will follow these laws correctly, because we are suffering from the result of these laws not being correctly done.

All right. Thank you, ma'am. And just for the record, I did give you leeway on that. And so far, the process is being followed completely by the book. It hasn't gone to planning commission yet. It will go to planning commission, I believe, next week or the week after. And then we will see that, and it's been properly noticed. So, I just want to make sure the record's correct on that front. For the rest of the speakers who come up, please make sure your comments are directed towards the bill, not the process or procedure. That would be great. Otherwise, we're going to have to cut your time. So, next speaker, Loretta Kopik. Are you here? Do you wish to speak? Does not wish to speak. Is in opposition. Omega Smith. Does not wish to speak. Is in opposition. Mrs. Joyce Clark Taylor. Does not wish to speak. Is in opposition. Van Henderson. Is in opposition. Check. Does not wish to speak. Elizabeth King. Is in opposition. Does not wish to speak. Jeanette Ector Williams. Is in opposition. Does not wish to speak. Queen Williams. Is in opposition. Does not wish to speak. Lizzie Peoples. Is in opposition. Does not wish to speak. James Matchett. Is in opposition. Are you here? Do you wish to speak? All right, Mr. Matchett, come on down. Next, we have Lonnie Mills. And followed by Lonnie Mills, we have Vanessa Collins Hopkins. And we'll go from there. Go ahead, Mr. Matchett.

Good afternoon. James Matchett. Address on file. It's a reoccurring theme. In our community. Zoning. Is supposed to protect us. And yet. We come in here. And find ourselves in opposition. With most of the zoning. Yes. We're not saying that he don't have a. Right to build on the property. As it is. We're saying. This building is going to affect the residents. By having a one-way in, one-way out. The traffic study that they done was on Kings Road. And not Richardson Road. Richardson Road is the road that's going to feel the most impact. From this development. The city has a long history of making promises. And not coming through. Developers. Have a long history of making promises. And not coming through. And no matter what he said here. And say he's going to promise. Whatever y'all decide. You deal with it once. We the residents. Going to have to deal with it. For the rest of the time that we're there. We'll have to deal with that congested. Richardson Road. We have to deal with the safety issue. Of trying to get out on. On a new Kings Road. We have to deal with the flooding. Now again. His mitigating measure. Was to reach out to the church. To put a retention pond. On the church property. To mitigate flooding. That might happen in his building. There are clear examples. Of developers. Going into entities like this. Low lining areas. And not putting the proper fuel in there. And houses are continuously flooding. Look at the impact. On arms their road. That was such a development. That the city had to then come back in. And spend millions of dollars. To rectify that. By putting in. Drainage. We got draining issues all over. Let's save the city money. And turn this down. Listen to the people who are most impacted by this. And again. They might not be as eloquent as speakers. As you the lobbyists. Or the developers. But they are intimately. Tied to this process. From the time you make your vote. Until they decide to leave. Or transition. So with that. I respectfully ask you. To oppose this. Because it serves the community. No good. Thank you.

All right. Thank you sir. Next we have Lonnie Mills.

My name is Lonnie Mills. And my address is on file. And I'm going to speak on behalf of St. Paul Church. The zoning request that the developer is requesting to go from a 60 feet wide development to 40 feet. The zoning, the building code says that the houses have to be 10 feet apart if you go 60. But if you go 40, they only have to be 3 feet apart. So he's increasing. He wants to increase the density of homes in the area which is going to create more water. More of a drainage problem. And I want you to consider that. We've already flooded. And if this passes, we're going to flood even more. There's no place to catch the water. And I respectfully want you to consider that. Thank you so much.

Thank you sir. Next we have Vanessa Collins Hopkins.

Good evening. I'm Vanessa Collins Hopkins. 3283 Edgewood Avenue West. I live about a mile away from these planned development. I'm here to stand in solidarity with Coach Mashett and also with St. Paul AME Church. This development should not occur without adequate safeguards as it relates to the flooding. So there needs to be a plan around that that you and the planning department actually can look at. And if you don't have the expertise to really assess what they're going to do as it relates to the flooding, you need to call in consultants with expertise. In addition, the issue of Richardson Road truly is a problem. One way in, one way out, narrow two-lane road. We're talking about at least 40 more houses. The houses, according to the developer, are going to run about $200,000 to $300,000. In my community, that means that they're going to be multi-generational houses. You're going to have a lot of people in those houses and a lot of vehicles. And we need to take into account the increase in vehicles that are going to occur on Richardson Road. The usual traffic parameters are not adequate for the load that's going to occur on Richardson Road if, indeed, the developer does the 40 or more homes. So, again, it's a new day. But we have old problems of not really working with the community to come up with a solution that benefits the entire community and that helps people reach their dreams. You need to either deny this or defer it until the developer, St. Paul M.E. Church, and the community sit down and decide what's possible. Thank you.

All right. Yes, ma'am. And I will, all right, so we're not allowed, you're not allowed to clap. You're not allowed to have any public displays of pro or against. But with that, I do just want to add that it is technically deferred. We're not voting on this tonight. We're not debating this tonight. So just want to make sure that everyone is on the same page of that. Next, we have Dr. Renard Peoples.

Good evening, Renard Peoples. 1-0-6-5-0, Wingate Road, Jacksonville, Florida, 3-2-2-1-8. All that I had to say has been said, and I no longer wish to speak.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Next, we have Avis Sweet. Do you wish to speak? All right. Avis Sweet is in opposition. Reginald Gaffney Sr. is in opposition. Does not wish to speak. LaShonda L.J. Holloway is in opposition. Does not wish to speak. India Butler is in opposition. Does not wish to speak. Does anyone else wish to speak before I start calling? Well, there's a couple of check marks on here. Dr. Renard Peoples. I think you might have filled out two cards, but double opposition. Jamie Travis Leonard. Come on down. What's that? Okay. Wish to speak. You're the last speaker, I believe. Come on down. If you wish to speak, come on down. No problem.

Okay.

Go ahead, Jamie.

Good evening, City Councilmembers. My name is Jamie Travis Leonard. My address is on file. We've got quite a crowd here today. So, I come up in opposition of 26558. I was at the community meeting that Councilwoman Pittman held. Thank you so much. The developer did speak at that meeting, and it seemed like they did not adequately address the community's concern. I understand this public hearing is being continued, but time and time again when I come to these meetings, I hear you all say, oh, well, there was no opposition. Clearly, there is. So, I expect in the future, specifically with this bill, we will not hear that phrase. But that is why they are showing up, even though the hearing is continued, because we don't like hearing that. We don't like hearing that when the community is here talking, they're not being heard. So, what you've heard from them is Richardson Road. There's a high concern for flooding. I think there's some remediation that can be done in that area to hopefully address that through the developer. He didn't seem particularly open to that. Also, there was a big concern about access point and safety. Specifically, right now, Richardson Road is a dead end. So, there's one way in, one way out. And adding another neighborhood adds more bodies to that one way in, one way out. So, there's a big safety concern if there's an evacuation, if there's an emergency situation where paramedics, EMTs, police may have to get in and out, and there's a high traffic situation. I understand from that perspective, the developer doesn't have much control over that because that is the city's responsibility because they are city roads. So, my recommendation to the planning committee, planning department, and LUZ is, is there an alternative that can be worked with through the developer? I know you all will have to approve it to add an access point. So, at least one of the items the community has repeatedly told you is a huge concern for them can be addressed. So, my public comment is mainly to come up and request that everybody listen to the community. They've told you what they want. They're not necessarily opposed to the neighborhood as a whole. They're opposed to it for very valid reasons. They don't want their homes flooded. They don't want their church flooded. They want to be able to safely get in and out of their neighborhoods and not have to worry about congestion or emergency situations. Please listen to them. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. And next, ma'am, if you'll come down and state your name and address, that'd be great. Thank you.

Hello. My name's India Butler. I am a epidemiologist, and my address is on file. I'm coming to you for a public health safety perspective. And I want to also make sure that you have on record the Jacksonville Ordinance Cold Chapter 652, the Flood Plane Management Ordinance, and the City of Jacksonville Land Development Regulations. It specifically regulates development in a flood-prone area to prevent adverse impacts adjacent properties, which is St. Paul A.M.E. Church, that already suffers from the severe drainage issues. Under local design structures and standards, a developer cannot discharge an additional volume or increase the runoff velocity until adjacent properties that are already documented drainage deficiencies. Another law that wants to address the Jacksonville Ordinance Cold Chapter 656 Zoning Cold Lot Coverage Limits and City of Jacksonville Comprehensive Plan of Future Land Use Element, adding high-density asphalt roofs, parking lots, introduces massive impervious surfaces. Under Chapter 656, the lot coverage limits and stormwater quality treatment are legally required to prevent the off-site flooding. Replacing the natural wetland absorption with impervious surface directly threatens both the church and the Richardson Row area. Now, the other law that I want you to have on file is what she just previously said. This is Jacksonville Ordinance Code Chapter 654, Code of Subdivision Regulations and Assess Ingress of Florida Fire Prevention Code. The City Subdivision Regulations and State Fire Safety Codes mandate clear, unobstructed, and continuous emergency access. One way in, one way out. Just any certain, when severe weather occurs, the emergency people are not going to be able to get to where they need to get to because there is going to be obstruction with the new bill. And allowing this development, that's a regular flood that the single-point entry area and the Richardson Road compromises the life, safety, and blocking the police and fire department from getting to where they need to get to. Now, the last Jacksonville Ordinance Code Chapter 5-6, Zoning Code, Public Health, Safety, and General Welfare Clause. The fundamental purpose of the Chapter 5-6-6 is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare in existing residents. Forcing traffic cues that block intersections creates immediate hazards for our neighbors, the seniors, the children, the school buses, trying to enter and exit in a safety manner. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. And the following speakers all checked that they do not wish to speak or are here for questions only. LaShonda Sawyer is in opposition. Marva Tyson is in opposition. Paul Forehand Sr. is in opposition. Melinda Ross is in opposition. Brenda Forehand is in opposition. Samantha Ceres is in opposition. Cynthia Joseph is in opposition. Janice Simpson in support. Check, does not wish to speak. Brent Joseph is in opposition. What?

Okay. Oh, okay.

Well, Janice Simpson just confirmed that she's in opposition. Because someone's about to meet you outside, if not. All right. And Brent Joseph is in opposition. Valerie Bailey is in opposition. And Russell Jackson is in opposition. Mr. Jackson, did you wish to speak? Okay. You're the last one. So bring it home for us.

Good evening.

My name is Russell Jackson. My address is on file. One thing I wanted to say is that the developer, because of a little bit of greed, he highlighted an issue with the coding, because the reality of it, if the area is already zoned for 32 homes, he tried to elevate that to 40, and it highlighted an issue to the community. So the issue is that whole area with the planning department need to be rezoned so that no development can be done in that area without the support of the community, the church, and all the other stakeholders. Because right now, if the developer was the lead, and a year later someone else came and wanted to develop in that property, and instead of 40, they wanted to do 20, we're not here today. So the reality of it is that that whole area with the planning commission need to be rezoned as a wetland or something else to make sure that no development take place in that area without the stakeholders being made aware at the table so that we won't have this type of discussion in the future. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, sir. And that was the last public speaker card we had. So the next public hearing will be on 10-6 of 26. So all the speakers, just put a note, I guess, on your calendar for October 6th of 2026. That is when we will be voting on it. And there's a public, or there's a planning commission meeting on when? When is that, Mr. Harvey? To be this Thursday. Okay. This Thursday, planning commission, they'll be voting on it?

That is correct. Well, recommendation to this body.

Right. Okay. So planning commission will be voting for the recommendation on this Thursday. What time is that at? One o'clock? Okay. So one o'clock, planning commission. It's in the Ed Ball building. First floor. First floor. Yep. Okay, man. They got their notes. Okay. They're ready to go. All righty. Thank you all. And we will go to one more, Ms. Pittman, and then we'll come back to the star of the show, as we've called it. And we want to welcome Councilmember Clark Murray. Thank you for joining us. She snuck in on us. All right. So with that, we'll go to item number 12, 2026-559. Councilmembers, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Going once, going twice, seeing no one. Okay. I have ex parte communication. I spoke to Paul Harden today at four o'clock, and we discussed all the details of the project, and this paperwork is going to be filed with legislative services. With that, we'll open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you. 2026-559 seeks to rezone approximately 5.14 acres located at Zero Phillips Highway from PUD 2025-861 back to CCG2 in order to restore the property's former commercial zoning. The PUD approved in 2025 limited the site to private automobile and vehicle garage condominiums with a binding site plan, and the owner now seeks to return to standard commercial entitlements. Staff finds the requested rezoning to be consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan. CCG2 is a primary zoning district within the CGC land use category and supports a wide variety of commercial uses typical of major corridors. Surrounding zoning and uses support the request. North, east, and south of the property are all zoned CCG2. For these reasons and those outlined in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. The item was heard at the September 3rd Planning Commission meeting, where they voted unanimously for approval.

All right. Thank you so much. Do we have any speaker cards on this? Nope. All right. With that, we have no speaker cards, so we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and second on the bill. No discussion. Let's open the ballot. Court's your vote.

Five yays. Zero nays.

By your action, you've approved 2026-559. All right. Committee members, we're going to go ahead and turn back now to page six. Page six. We're going to go to item number eight, 2026-532. If council members will declare their ex parte communication at this time, Council Member Gaffney, you're recognized.

Thank you. Through the chair, I want to declare ex parte. I attended Councilwoman Pittman meeting last week with the community. I made sure everything got filed with legislative services.

All right. Thank you so much. No one else is in the queue, so I have ex parte. I spoke with Kristen Reed on September 11th, 2026, at 1 p.m. We discussed the community meeting that they had and the details of the project, and this paperwork is going to be filed with legislative services. With that, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you. This is PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-0532, requesting to rezone 16.7 acres from industrial light to a PUD. The proposed PUD would allow for the development of a concrete batch plant and rail terminal, including material storage and distribution by way of the rail line and truck routes. The permitted uses within the PUD will generally follow those allowed within the industrial light zoning category, with the addition of two uses that are found in the IH category. So that's going to be the concrete batch plant and then a railroad terminal and switching facility. But generally, all uses are found in the IL category except those two. The site is designated with light industrial and heavy industrial land use designations, including approximately three acres of the property already within the heavy industrial land use category. Where heavy industrial uses, such as the concrete batch plants, are consistent within this category. So this use would only be allowed or limited to the boundaries of the HI land use designation. This prosperity is also located within the industrial situational compatibility zone, which is an overlay designation intended to preserve strategically located industrial lands with direct access to rail and trucking routes, and is deemed most appropriate for locations of these types of uses for industrial. Staff finds the request consistent with the comprehensive plan by supporting infill developments on long-established industrial lands. It promotes redevelopment and supporting existing industrial areas of the city, rather than expanding these uses to other parts of the city. The operation is appropriately located along an active railway surrounded by existing industrial uses to the south and east, which does include manufacturing, storage, and several IH zone properties. The PUD meets internal and external compatibility criteria. The site is appropriately buffered from residential areas. There's a natural wetlands along the northern boundary providing a substantial separation from residential uses that are farther north, with those residential uses over 1,000 feet away, far exceeding any distance regulations in the Code for Industrial Uses. You have a railway, right-of-way, and adjacent industrial parcels providing other physical barriers to the west and east, and then also there's surrounding entitlements of industrial uses that are zoned IL and IH, which is also reinforcing compatibility. The PUD is seeking a waiver from portions of the landscape code of Part 12. They're seeking to waive interior vehicular use landscaping and certain perimeter landscaping requirements, because industrial rail operations and material storage areas limit where landscaping can safely be installed. The application was reviewed by our city's landscape architect, who recommended retaining interior landscaping from the employee area, stating this component does not conflict with industrial operations and provides important visual relief and functional buffering. So we did forward a condition in the staff report related to that landscaping criteria. Transportation impacts are minimal and appropriate for industrial corridors. There's capacity on all surrounding roadways, and a traffic study will be required as conditioned in the staff report. Application was also reviewed by our Environmental Quality Division, who did not have any major concerns as permitting for batch concrete plants are handled by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and they will be required to receive all the appropriate permitting, which would include receiving an air general permit through their department. So for these reasons and those outlined in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval with two conditions in your agenda. Application was heard by Planning Commission on August 6, where there were no speakers in opposition, and discussion revolved around the need for the second condition for landscaping. If the site was for employees only and not viewable from the public right-of-way, they ultimately decided to remove that second condition based on that discussion, so they voted unanimously for approval with only one condition, and that condition is the traffic-related one in your agenda. Thank you.

All right. Thank you so much for that. First up, we have Ms. Kristen Reed, and we'll give you three minutes, and then we will also give you time at the end for a rebuttal. Go ahead.

Thank you. Again, my name is Kristen Reed. I'm an AICP-certified planner with 26 years of professional planning experience. My address is 12740 Grand Bay Parkway West, Suite 2350, Jacksonville, Florida, 32258. Chief Abney did an excellent job explaining the proposed use and the consistency with the criteria of the land development code for the PUD rezoning. So I won't rehash that, but what I do want to talk about is the community outreach and our responses to that. So we did two things over and above typical community outreach. One, on September 9th, I went out and walked the length of Mockingbird Road. There are 32 homes down there. I went to each one. I left information. Part of what you're getting is the information that I provided to the homeowners. There's an aerial of the surrounding uses and the location of the site, as well as a site plan. I also gave them information about the community meeting on the 10th that Councilwoman Pittman hosted, and I also gave them my contact information because I wanted to hear from them. I did have an opportunity to speak to about five property owners while I was walking the street. I did not receive a lot of feedback that day, but just some questions about the environmental that, again, came up at some additional hearings. In addition to that, I attended the community meeting that Councilwoman Pittman hosted on September 10th. That was a very well-attended community meeting, and I'd like to go into some of the things we heard there and how we can provide responses. So, first, the community meeting provided us with an opportunity to understand the community's concerns regarding this use. We take their input seriously and are working to be transparent by providing the following information about environmental permitting and controls required to be in place prior to operation of a concrete plant. The zoning is not the final step in permitting. The use is also regulated and permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, or FDEP. Their goal is to ensure environmentally sound operations as it relates to groundwater, surface water, and air. The FDEP is the state's lead agency for environmental management and stewardship, protecting the state's air, water, and land resources. The FDEP employs subject matter experts that design and enforce permitting requirements and development standards to protect the state's land, air, and water resources. Some of these experts they employ include engineers, biologists, and environmental specialists. There are two permits that are required specifically for concrete batch plants, and they're required through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The first is the general permit. The general permit relates to stormwater and wastewater. There are actually, in addition to the normal stormwater requirements that you would permit through St. John's River Water Management District, you see a stormwater pond and a residential or commercial parcel.

All right. Thank you, Ms. Reed. We will give you time for rebuttal. Next, we have Dr. Chambliss, followed by, and if the following, is Dr. Chambliss here? Okay. And if the following speakers will come down and sit in the front row, because we're going to have a lot of speakers tonight, so we want to make sure that everyone kind of gets in on time. So, Dr. Chambliss, and then we have Andre Washington, come on down. Lydia Bell, come on down. India Butler, Vanessa Cullens Hopkins, Samantha Ceres, and we'll stop there for now. If you all come on down, we have reserved seats in the front. That would be great, Ms., or Dr. Chambliss.

Okay, we're ready. Okay, yes. So, definitely oppose it. The C-Med Company will- Can you state your name and address? Oh, I apologize. It's okay. All right, I'm Dr. Kishan Chambliss, and my address is on file.

Thank you.

Okay, so definitely oppose it. The emissions from the C-Med Company that they want to place there, they're going to be placing elements that are not healthy for our bodies. Number one, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide. So, the ones that really will be, the main concerns are our elderly as well as our children. So, it's definitely not, it's not, it's definitely a health risk, and I want to make sure it doesn't happen. And also, I want to go back to being notified. On August the 6th, when they did have the planning commission meeting, we were not, we didn't know about that one. But my main issue is, again, the things that's what's going to happen, things that was going to be placed in the air from the C-Med Company is going to be detrimental to our health. I would love any kind of business to be in an area that's going to be health conscious for us, but not a C-Med Company. Again, having nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide is not good for us at all. And I choose to live in that area, and I do not want my lifespan to decrease because of bringing companies like that, that would be harmful to our bodies. So, I'm definitely getting it. Again, this is Dr. Keyshawn Chambliss. Thank you.

All right, thank you so much. Next, Andre Washington.

Good evening. My name is Dr. Andre Washington, and my address is on file. I'm here tonight to pose this rezoning request. So, several speakers tonight will speak from a health perspective. I'm here from speaking to you guys from an economic perspective. This is not simply a zoning decision. Beginning in the 1930s, federal agencies created maps that graded neighborhoods based on race. Black neighborhoods were routinely labeled hazardous, restricted mortgage credit, investment, and the ability of black families to build home equity. This practice became known as redlining. While redlining has become a buzzword lately, what's often ignored is what is on the other side of the red lines. And oftentimes, what exists on the other side of the lines are high industrial zones. Jacksonville has its own documented redlining history, and those records specifically identify proximity to an industry as a detrimental influence on property value. Under a capitalist system, wealth comes from capital, and capital compounds value. Historically speaking, systematically and systemically, blacks have been pushed away from wealth-creating mechanisms. Black neighborhoods were denied investment, and industrial proximity was recognized as something detrimental to property value. Now, decades later, we're being asked to put a concrete batch plant next to people's homes. This is absolutely an environmental issue, but this is also an economic issue. In 2023, a peer-reviewed study found that concrete batch plants are disproportionately located in communities where higher shares of black, Hispanic, and low-income residents, and research on major industrial infrastructure has documented significant declines in nearby residential property values up to 11%. A home is a family's largest asset. It's retirement security, money for college, and the wealth that can be passed to children and grandchildren. We're currently entering one of the largest intergenerational wealth transfers in American history. Two-thirds of the middle class obtain wealth through continuity of private property. Middle-class homeowners are projected to transfer roughly $17 trillion in wealth in the form of home equity over the next two decades. So when we talk about property values, we're also talking about generational wealth. So here's the uncomfortable truth. Redlining took wealth away from the black communities by suppressing homeownership and home values. Industrial siding can strip wealth away from those same communities by undermining the value of homes they finally managed to build wealth through. Different mechanisms, same economic pressure. Don't make the families who were denied generational wealth yesterday sacrifice the wealth they built today. We want to protect the value of our homes equal to any other American. Reject this proposal. Protect the homeowners. Protect generational wealth. Thank you. All right. All right. Thank you, sir. And next we have Lydia Bell.

Lydia Bell, president of Metro Garden Neighborhood Association of Brentwood. When you have a situation where you just come in and build a morgue three feet from our home, 32 feet from a school, but yet you don't, you tell me not to talk about the procedures. If the procedures are done right, then these things won't happen. How do you control concrete when the air comes up and spread in the community? People will be breathing concrete. The lady said that she went to the 32 homes. She left the information. How about going to some land that does not have homes and build it there? Jacksonville is the largest city in the world by a square mile. But for some reason, all the degenerate things has to come in a redlining already area. Find a place. I got lost on one of the roads out there, 500, Florida State 500. It was so much dirt out there. You could put anything out there. But for some reason, these companies want to come in and put it around residential homes. It is enough space in Jacksonville to put a concrete block, a patch, anywhere in Jacksonville, not around people's homes. I speak of the sunshine laws because it seems like when it's time to vote for these things, you all ignore the environmental compact, the environmental studies, and what the residents want. If the residents are saying this is not a healthy thing for us, then you all should listen to that and take these degenerate businesses somewhere else and stop voting for these businesses. I wish I didn't have to be here, but it is a continuous problem in the redlining area that we are constantly coming. Don't put this here. Don't put that here. Don't put this here. When do we stop having to come up here and ask you all not to put things in our community that shouldn't be there in the beginning? And if you'd follow the law and if you do things the right way, then we don't have to continuously come back up here asking you not to put a concrete patch in a neighborhood. You can't control that. And someone told me it used to be an asphalt company that used to be there. So it does not need to be in a community. And we ask you to not allow this to happen and stop putting these things in redlining areas over and over and over again and get rid of that morgue.

All right. Thank you. Next, we have India Butler, followed by Vanessa Collins Hopkins, and then Samantha Series.

Hello, India Butler. Today, I just want to briefly discuss the public records request that was submitted regarding the proposed concrete plan. I believe it's like eight committee members of the LUZ. I included everyone that is a city council official on that email thread. And so this request was made under Chapter 19 of Florida Statues, Article 1, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution, which provide the public with the right to access government records. Florida law requires agencies to promptly acknowledge public records, request, and respond in good faith. That was sent September the 11th at 12.04 p.m. I thought Jacksonville had a rule or something that you had one or two business days to respond in that email. Out of everyone on that email only got a response out of two people. And just the purpose of this request is simply transparency. Residents are seeking records that would determine whether appropriate community notification occurred, environmental and public health impacts have been evaluated, whether residents have been given a meaningful opportunity to participate in your decisions that may affect this neighborhood. And specifically, I have requested records related to mailings, a ledger. You should have something on record of who you sent these notifications out to. You should have something on record when they were sent. Now, I'm going to just tell you, also, we requested records for environmental assessments, health quality assessments, silica exposure evaluations, particular matter analysis, any environmental documentation that is associated with this project, and nothing has been submitted or responded to the email. Now, you know, I requested records regarding any involvement with the Jacksonville Environmental Protection Board. And I got a response from James Richardson, which is a program administrator. He informed me just yesterday, on September the 14th, that Christian Reed, which is that planning lobbyist, I believe, of preferred materials, have not contacted him. And on Thursday, she said on the panel that she had, you know, she had plans on contacting the Jacksonville Environmental Protection Board to perform this assessment. But nothing, he confirmed nobody has contacted him. Additionally, the other person who contacted me through that email was Jimmy Pelosi's office, which they provided an application to me. The application was submitted on April 29th of 2026. And I'm assuming that the PDF hex was created on May 18th, because that's what the document property stated. It said it was, so in five business days, you're supposed to inform your community of this project. And so additionally, when I looked at these documents, I also see that a modification was made on September the 11th at 1.53 a.m., which is right after we had the community meeting on Thursday. So who went in there and made that modification to that application?

Thank you, ma'am. That's time. Next speaker is Samantha Sirius. Also, somebody's got a light on in the back row. Can you all turn the light off, please? Thank you.

Samantha Sirius, address on file. I do not live by this area, but I was at the community meeting on Thursday, and Mr. Gaffney was actually there. And I really appreciate that, because no one else showed up, and I think that should be something that all city council members should look into. I have a couple of comments. Obviously, I oppose this ordinance request, and I don't understand how our city environmental management group didn't really have concerns about this, but then in the next statement stated, oh, well, it goes to the state, so that's why they don't really have an issue with it. I think that's a problem. I don't understand why we're just offloading that to the state. Oh, they have to get permits. Oh, they have to do this. Okay, but it's in our city, so shouldn't we have an opinion on that? Another item I would like to say is that, yes, the planning commission may have not had anyone in opposition, but that's because the community did not know about this. And it was said in the community meeting on Thursday, CPAC had no idea that this was happening. So I think that that's a concern, and I don't think that having no opposition on the planning commission, which is in the middle of the day, obviously, which is very difficult to get to, most of the people here that are in opposition work, and it's not easy to get to a 1 p.m. meeting. So I have a couple of questions for Ms. Reed and through the chair or however you want to do this when she does her rebuttal. Is the plant going to be indoor or outdoor? I think that's a really big concern about the community has because particles, yes, there's a buffer with the wetlands. Particles go past that. You know, you can look that up online, how far particles can go. Like, it's not that hard. And then during the community meeting, it was stated that this plant will only be used partially, like only sometimes. So why are we even building it? Is there really a need by this company that needs a concrete batch plant if they're not going to be using it all the time? And then what are the actual times they plan on using it? I don't understand what is up with that. I also know that there are that wetlands, but who owns those wetlands? Because what are they going to do? Oh, they just decide, oh, I want to rezone that net in a couple of years. Okay, so those wetlands are going to be gone because we know they're going to get passed, that the rezoning is going to get passed. So I don't think that that's a fair use of that wetlands because I don't know who owns that. You know, I'm not sure if the owner of this concrete batch plant that they're requesting for, like, do they own that? And they're going to say, oh, we promise never to ever develop this and we'll keep that buffer. Because what we know and what we see happen, oh, this gets rezoned and then the next portion gets rezoned and then the next portion. And they use the previous rezonings as reasons to allow the rezoning. So, you know, we see it happen. We're not blind. And that's why I come up here in opposition. Even though I don't live in this area, I can see when injustice is happening. And I think you all can too. Thank you.

Next is Clansell T. Brown II. Come on down, sir. After that is Reggie Gaffney Sr., LaShonda L.J. Holloway, and then Eunice Barnum. If you all want to come down. We'll just go through the list. Go ahead, sir.

My name is Clansell T. Brown II. I'm in opposition to the batch plant. Some years ago, I did work at Old Castle Concrete Precast. It's located there now, which the facility will be directly behind. I can tell you in all honesty that a batch plant is not a clean environment. As we stated earlier, you have the issue of dust. You have the issue of runoff. You also have the issue of noise pollution. A concrete batch plant does not shut down. It runs 24 hours a day. The reason being that any entity or consumer that would be purchasing ready mix, depending on when they need it, the batch plant will spring up and start working. When I say that, concrete is usually, there's a 90-minute time from the time it leaves the batch plant to the time it's going to, the individual that's going to use it. That being the case, because we have the heat in Florida, the batch plant may start up at 12 midnight because they don't want the concrete to set up inside the tumbler. You also have the issue of traffic. You have the issue of the chemicals that will be used in these custom-designed concrete mixes. So you have any number of plasticizers. You have any number of retarders. You have any number of corrosion inhibitors. You have any number of plasticizers, so on and so forth. So again, this is not a clean environment. You're definitely going to have fugitive dust that's going to leave the site because it's an impervious area. Because you're going to have certain materials that go into the concrete that's going to be on the ground when you get a rainstorm, all of that slush is going to ride into the three ponds that are going to be located there. When it's an arid and dry environment, the dust is going to be taken out by the wind. When it's a wet environment, it's going to run overground into the pond. And again, you're still going to have noise pollution. That being said, the last hearing that we, or the last meeting that we went to, these events, these issues were not properly addressed. But I say again, when you're working in a concrete batch plant, everyone is using, at some point, some type of breathing, eye protection, and others because of the number of chemicals and the breathing environment. Those individuals who have PPE, those who live on the outside, they will not. I want you to keep that in mind because whatever leaves that site, and it will be, it will leave that site, and it is an open environment, it will be an impact on the individuals who live near. Thank you.

Reggie Gaffney. Got it. Ms. Holloway's gone, you said. All right. Eunice Barnum. Yeah, and she opposes.

Good evening. Dr. Eunice Barnum. And yes, I am in opposition. And I want to ask, why you won't take it to your neighborhood? You don't have any space where you live? I am, I don't understand why we're paying for all this expertise, and we're paying all these salaries. And the normal people, like myself, who are not scientists, why don't you have them here tonight? Where are they? Where are the EPA that you said agreed? Did I understand you to say, Ms. Abney, that EPA agreed? Where's the health department? Where are the people who know exactly what we're going to be exposed to? Because I don't think any of you are really up to par. I know I'm not. But I know that there are people who get paid, who are supposed to have gone to school and got degrees, and supposed to really know what kind of chemicals and what are the effects once you have been exposed. We want to know before the exposure, not after we all dine out. We're sick and tired of paying for services not rendered. We're sick and tired of having to pay salaries and people, you're at work taking home checks, but the jobs are going undone. We're sick of that. Now, if you know all of this is so, we want to hear from the experts. We want a meeting, Rep Pittman. Bring them to a meeting, please, and let us be able to ask EPA. Let us be able to ask the health department and the scientists and all the people who are supposed to know what short-term, long-term conditions would be once you've been exposed to this kind of chemicals. Because guessing don't do us any good. We need to know. Knowledge is power. Thank you.

Next is Jamie Travis Leonard, followed by LaShondra Sawyer,

followed by James Metcalf.

Good evening. My name is Jamie Travis Leonard. My address is on file. So I am here to oppose 26-532. I was at the community meeting when this was discussed as well. I commend the developer and Ms. Pittman. There was a lot of emotion. Understandably, this is about people's health, their wellness, their livelihood, their legacy, because there are homes near here. I know that the developer said that they were 1,000 feet, but that's not a lot in the grand scheme of things. I think the main issue, and last time I came up to speak about this, which I think was now a month ago, I handed out a chemosphere report for cement plant emissions and how across thousands, but even dozens, of specifically studied surveys, meaning they dug deep into the data, there are respiratory issues for anyone in the vicinity of a cement batch plant. I know concrete isn't quite the same, but it does give off similar emissions. So the people living near this are going to have health issues. That's the bottom line. So the question I ask this committee is do you care about the public health of the people in District 10 and the people around here? And I know that they said, and we did get a lot of questions answered at the community meeting. I do want to give props to that. Like, I think they're trying their best, but the thing is, this is just an unwanted item. Nobody wants this in their community because it does have health risks. So they said, oh, well, it goes to Florida for the emissions and they have to get these certifications. That's great. I appreciate you telling me to trust the government when we've rolled back emissions testing and we've rolled back environmental protections over the last five to six years. That makes me feel super comfy. But also, I did look up some of the information. So it talks about the testing that happens. It's within 60 days of the first certification and then annually. That's the required testing. So there could be a whole year where there's poor emissions testing and we won't know. And on top of that, there's this little part that says facilities in Broward, Duval County, City of Jacksonville, Hillsborough, Miami, Dade, a few others, have to, excuse me, frequency testing, may have more requirements than frequency testing. But from what I'm hearing from the Planning Department, Planning Commission, we don't have that. So we apparently, according to the state, have the opportunity to impose more rigorous testing and we're not. If you want the community to get on board, I don't know, friends, maybe look into that. Thank you.

Next is LaShonda Sawyer. After that is James Metcalf, parted by LaVon Brown. Name and address, please.

Yes, my name is LaShonda Sawyer. My address is on file. I do want to state that Dr. Collins did not get her chance to go yet and she was in the queue to go before me. And I also want to just bring up the fact that at the community meeting, I do appreciate you all that came out and shared. I just wanted to say that. And I wanted to say that in that community meeting, we uncovered a larger issue which spoke to the way the process is handled and things are done and how it's implemented. We need at the beginning of the process to become aware of what's happening in our neighborhood and it needs to be more than 350 feet. It also needs to be more than just a mail-ins because times have changed. That means the way we receive information has changed. So that needs to go. And I do have a couple of questions and I do have things that I would like to request. First, I would like to request a deferral of this rezoning so that we can get some questions answered because not all of our questions and concerns were addressed at the community meeting. I would like to have a city-required independent environmental and cumulative impact assessment done by professionals because myself, nor my community, or the city council can answer those questions professionally and accurately. I also, because preferred materials mentioned on their website that they have, they want to be a good neighbor. So they said that they do community tours. We would like to be on one of those tours to see what is actually coming into our neighborhood. We also requested a safety data sheet for all chemicals and mixtures that will be on that plant. And here are my questions. And I'm going to try to rattle them off fast. What independent evidence supports the statement that this project will not diminish surrounding property values or negatively affect nearby residents? What specific materials could be stored under the provision allowing up to 250,000 gallons of flammable or combustible products? What private water and sewer systems are proposed and how will those systems interact with the groundwater and nearby private wells because that is one of my major concerns? And finally, what does the final plant look like at full build-out five years from now, not just when it opens on rezoning day or whatever that goes? So thank you.

Thank you. Next is James Metcalf or probably Matt Clitt. One up, sir. After that is Dr. LaVon Brown. Oh, thank you. I appreciate that. You can school me right here, sir. Name and address, please.

James Matchett, address on file. Before I begin, I'm going to ask the same couple of rhetorical questions that I asked at the meeting. How does this proposed concrete batch plant specifically comply with Jacksonville's 2045 comprehensive plan and its policy regarding to compatible land use, protection of residential community, public health, and environmental qualities? Why is it that economic development in our neighborhood looks like high-density residents, heavy industrial facilities, or those entities that bring health harm to our community? The question here is simple. This zoning will follow a trend of zoning in Jacksonville. A Florida Department of Health Inventory identified 138 land reuse environmental sites in Duval County. This is including 33 Superfund sites, 2 hazardous waste sites, 58 waste cleanup sites, 2 dump sites, 10 former dry cleaner sites, and 76 of those entities occur in Health Zone 1. Let me repeat that. 76% of the 138 sites are in Health Zone 1. If you do the quick math, that's about 104, 105 of those sites are in Health Zone 1. This concrete branch plant is going in Health Zone 1. Zoning has gotten it wrong at least 138 times, and today, the city is still paying for it. They paid some entities that got sick, they paid them off. They had to remediate sites. We got unusable land now because it still have contamination, and now we're going to let this go in. I work with fly ash. You don't let stormwater take fly ash into retention ponds. You put them in processed sewers. Fly ash contains all your heavy metals. It's come from coal. Unburned coal is fly ash. So everything that's in coals that's toxic and hazardous to yourself is in the fly ash that they use to strengthen concrete. You heard them ask for the SDS. That's where your answers lie. I don't expect y'all to know this. Get the SDS seats and you'll see how harmful it is to the community, and that should be the metrics which you say this does not belong in our community.

Next is Dr. LaVon Brown followed by, ooh, man, I'm going to mess this up, Clanzeria Brown.

Good evening, Councilwoman Pittman and members of the city council. My name is Dr. LaVon Brown, and I'm here tonight as a public health professional slash educator, but I'm also here because this community is part of my family's history. My great-grandmother, the community knew her as Mama Maud in the 60s and 70s. She and my grandfather owned five acres off of Moncrief. I remember the pecan trees, the produce, and the way our family shared what we grew with others. It was a good living. So when I look at what is being proposed in this area, I cannot look at it as just another development property. I think about the families who live here. I purchased a home. I came back home and purchased a home at 32219. I think about our children. I am that person. I don't have children, but I ask the kids, how was your day in school today? What are your grades like? So I think about the children, and I think about what this community will look like years from now. I also think about Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. Rachel Carson reminded us that we need to pay attention to what we put into our environment and think about the consequences before problems become too difficult to reverse. I'm not saying that the concrete batch plant is the same environmental issue as Rachel Carson that she addressed, but I am saying that the lesson of prevention still applies. As an educator slash public health professional, I have some questions. How many trucks will enter and leave the facility each day, and where will that traffic go? We've heard these questions before. What will dust and particulate matter be controlled? How will it be controlled? And what about the air quality and noise? How will stormwater runoff be managed? What materials will be stored on that property? And if these safeguards do not work, what happens then? I understand that Jacksonville needs economic development. I'm not against businesses coming into our community. I am asking for responsible development. Before this project moves forward, I believe the community deserves clear information about the potential impacts and the protections that will be in place. My grandparents owned land in the area. They could not have known what this community would look like decades later, but they understood the importance of taking care of what we have. This is what I'm asking us to do tonight. Let's look upstream. Let's ask the questions now while we still have the opportunity to make informed decisions because once a development is built, it is much harder to go backwards. Let's not wait for the problem. Let's prevent the problem. Just this Saturday, a bald ego landed in my community. With this batch, it wouldn't happen.

Thank you, ma'am. Next is Clanzaria Brown and then Vanessa Collins-Hopkins calling you again.

Good evening, everyone. Whew. This is very heavy and it's sad. First of all, let me say that as the developer spokesperson went out and went a day before, I've been going out for four, three to four weeks and have spoken to over 10 people and they knew nothing about it. My understanding, my biggest complaint for the people that stay off Mockingbird Lane was water and sewage. They said that they're running water. They can't even use the water to drink from because the water comes out red, brown, and black. Everyone has bottled water or they have a water system, but they can't use that. That being said, I also was told that the reason why everyone's pushing this development is to have a concrete batch plant close to the new subdivisions that are being built. There are seven in total. We went over that during the meeting. Everybody's talking about this is good for economics, development, money in your pocket for the developers, but what about the people that live there? The people that were there before the six, seven subdivisions. The subdivision that is up to be built next is King's Preserve, and those houses start at $300,000. The concrete batch plant has also, from what I understand, purchased Old Castle precast where the trucks with the product, a cement, will be leaving out that way. And so my thing is, who knows? There's 29 acres right by the plastic plant that they're purchased. Who's to say that they will purchase that? Meaning it will be 40 acres. And so if you all pass this and don't honor engagement with the community, then health disparities are going to run amok. Environmental unsound will be there. I did not hear the developer talk about a reclaimed water system. I understand if you have a PUD, you have to have that. So, I'm sorry, if you have a concrete batch plant, you have to have safeguards in place so nothing will touch the ground, water, or anything else. So I am vehemently opposed to this and the erosion that it will decimate the north side. Last thing fugitive does in my evidence-based research as a social worker for 32 years, it will land within a quarter to a mile from the batch and then when the wind goes, it has up to 50 miles to travel. So that's from US 1 past Dunn Avenue. Please reconsider. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. And next speaker card is Vanessa Cullens-Hopkins.

Before we start, I have Matt. And I've been told to leave my bag so it's going to take a little bit of time for me to get this off and to get it on.

We'll give you your full time.

Okay.

Matt, please pass Matt out. A potential impact. My name is Vanessa Cullens-Hopkins, 3283 Edgewood Avenue West. I also am vehemently opposed to the concrete batch plant. The issue is not one of needing to have increased development in the area and to take advantage of the industrial use. The issue is concrete batch. It's very dangerous. And the reason why it's dangerous is because of the small particles that people have already talked about that can be dispersed through the air for many miles. Now, one thing you've heard over and over again from the planning department, and again, they do not have expertise in environmental science. But what they have said is that the residences are at least a thousand feet away. Well, the bottom line is that when you review the literature around this, it's safe only when you are at least three to five miles away. This particular map that I passed out shows concentric circles from 7167 Old Kings Road, which is where the plastics material factory is located, and which is part of this land. Now, Preferred Materials doesn't own this right now, but it's part of the PUD, meaning they're going to try to buy this if you all pass this, if you approve this. Now, if you look at 7167 Old Kings Road and look out to concentric circles, I want you to first look at Pickett Elementary School. Pickett Elementary School is less than a mile from 7167 Old Kings Road. Those are kids. They're going to have the particulate matter around constantly. They're growing. They're going to end up having all kinds of lung disease. This particulate matter causes silicosis. Silicosis is an extremely bad lung disease. It causes the lungs to not be able to expand. It causes them to get very brittle. This is dangerous and it potentially can lead to cancer. Look farther out among the circles and you will see that there are a number of other residences other than what you see at Mockingbird Lane, which is about 1,000 feet away, as Aaron Abner has mentioned, and also Bob O'Link. Bob O'Link is less than a mile away, and actually it borders some of the land. This is dangerous. You need experts. Bring the experts in to tell you.

Ma'am, thank you. All right, and the following speakers are, they check, do not wish to speak, but are in opposition. Oh, wait. Miss Betty Burney, you do wish to speak? Okay, come on up.

My name is Betty Burney, and my address is on file. I learned about this after the meeting that Councilwoman Pittman had, and I had an opportunity to sit down and do some research and studying from myself, and I learned a lot from some of the people who have already spoken in here. It sparked my interest because other than leaving Jacksonville to go to college and graduate school, I have been in Jacksonville for seven decades, and I would be hard-pressed to find anyone in Jacksonville who loves Jacksonville more than me. However, sadly, there have been specific areas where residents in Jacksonville, Florida, have serious health issues because of dumping, storing, and or digging hazardous materials in their neighborhoods, in our neighborhoods. You heard the talk about fugitive dust, those fine particles that escape into the air when large areas of soil are disturbed or when heavy trucks travel over unpaved ground or when rock and concrete are cut. This dust doesn't stay on the construction site. As has been stated, it drifts into nearby neighborhoods. It settles on homes, cars, porches, gardens, anywhere. And then, what we have to be concerned about that I would like to know is with regards to the fugitive dust that was talked about and the crystalline silica, a mineral found in soil, sand, and rock. And when they become airborne, it can be inhaled deep into the lungs. And that's where the danger becomes permanent. Breathing that dust can cause silicosis, an incurable and progressive lung disease. Silicosis scars lung tissue, makes it harder and harder to breathe over time. It increased the risk of lung cancer, COPD, chronic bronchitis, kidney disease, and autoimmune diseases. There is no cure. Once the damage is done, it cannot be reversed. This is a nuisance and a public health hazard. A project of this scale located close to homes, churches, and dare I say, schools, where anyone who knows me know that I love children. And that concerns me because we don't want them to be exposed to those kinds of things that will be life-lasting for them. And so I am just requesting that you fully evaluate the dust generation potential of this project, that we get to hear about what strict mitigation measures are going to take place and the health of this community is protected before any of this moves forward.

All right. Thank you. Next we have the following speakers to check they do not wish to speak. Mark Shelton is in support. Van Henderson is in opposition. Wells Todd is in opposition. Dr. Bernard Peoples is in opposition. Lizzie Peoples is in opposition. Melvin Williams II is in opposition. Valerie Bailey is in opposition. Come on down. William Sweet Jr. is in opposition. Marva Tyson is in opposition. Melinda Ross is in opposition. And Janice Simpson is in opposition. And come on down. State your name and address.

Melvin Williams. Address 7529 Wava Road. I'm a resident and I work in the area not even a quarter to a half a mile. So this, as far as the concrete batch, I'm going to be living in this and working 24-7. as people's already listed multiple times with health concerns. I work. There's trucks non-stop when it's dry. The entire Sootel and Old Kings is just flying with dust and dirt. So that's just going to even be more with concrete and the chemicals that are going to be coming off. As well stated, as far as what's listed in the proposal is that, you know, there won't be any extra congestion. In 2027, there's going to be Pickettville Elementary opening up. That's going to add to the congestion. We're gridlocked with railways and train tracks, which at any given moment, the trains just sit on the train tracks and stop for 30 minutes to an hour. So that's just with the chemicals coming off on the railway system, it's going to be more traffic just on the railway system. as well with all the properties that are listed on Mockingbird, north of Mockingbird Road is zoned for rural residential. So pretty much everyone has some type of animal, livestock or something and they grow and eat off their own land. I'm one of those people in those areas in the residence. I raise my own animals to, you know, that's how my family eats. As far as the chemicals that are coming with the concrete batch plant, that's going to affect myself and what my family eats. We moved to get out of this type of environment to get away from the chemicals and to get more to a natural lifestyle and it seems like that's coming more to what, you know, rural residential, everybody is trying to get away from that. The health concerns is going to be life lasting. You know, everyone's already mentioned multiple times as far as the dust particles in the air, the water runoff, everyone in the area is running off a well system. So there's no city. It's well water. Those water, the chemicals are going to be drawn off into the water. That's going to be, you know, as someone's already said, you know, there's no drinking water. You know, that's something we're going to have to live with. I'm a father. My kids are going to go to the Pickettville Elementary. So this is something that, you know, this is going to affect me 24-7 nonstop. As well, I drive past this site plan four to six times a day and I have not seen not one sign or notice of where this place is going to be located. I went out, I still, unless I look on a map, I would not know that this, you know, have any notification, anything, without going to last week's meeting with Ms. Pittman. You know, as she mentioned that she went in, you know, walked Mockingbird Lane. I'm at home multiple times. I'll work right around the corner. I have not seen and spoken to anyone that has spoken to the proposal.

All right. Thank you, sir. And with that, we have no other speakers. Ms. Reed, I did tell you you would have time for rebuttal. So come on down and you can have three minutes for rebuttal.

Thank you. Kristen Reed again. Just want to quickly go back through where I was on FDEP permits again. These are your subject matter experts that have specific standards for addressing land, air, and water quality. They have two permits. A general permit that addresses stormwater and it has treatment of stormwater runoff from the facility that far exceed any normal stormwater. It's a four-step system whereas you typically have a one-step system. They also have closed-loop recycling for vehicle and equipment washing facilities so that also cuts down on both water use and groundwater and surface water pollution. The DEP also has an air general permit specific for concrete plant. It lists precautions and equipment required and has to be prepared by a licensed professional engineer. They address equipment filtration requirements that reduces the particle dispersion into the air, management of roads, parking areas, stockpiles and yards, drop points to trucks, use of water application, all related to dust control. They also have to get a consumptive use permit from the water management district so they're going to look at the drawdown from the water in the area as they do this and they're going to follow their standards on minimum flows and levels. This is not a cement plant. There is no combustion emission. This is a concrete plant and they have no heat. This is weighing, blending, mixing and adding water. Silica dust. A lot of concerns about silica dust and understandable. Silica dust is primarily the result of mining, crushing, blasting and concrete demolition activities which do happen on a property to the east. The facility that we're talking about is not going to be doing any of those activities on site. The material on site has been previously processed and rinsed prior to arriving to the property so that silica dust is not the concern. There's discussions about studies that they've done. Relating to cement plants it's not really applicable but also there's no clarification on these studies and the references regarding the potential impacts of the proposed concrete plant. It's not clear what the facts are for those studies, where the studies were based on and if they were on the same proposed uses and subject to the same permitting standards that FDEP has for these for the proposed use here. We've provided standards developed by FDEP experts specifically for the concrete batch plant use that we are proposing. There are other concerns about water well supply again, consumptive use permit, proximity to residential uses. Again, this has a substantial distance between it. It's already industrially zoned property and the property to the north is industrially zoned. That thousand plus acres is industrial land use and zoning. This site was chosen because it's where the city has said industrial overlay, industrial land use, industrial zoning. It has access to the south through the Old Castle and Sutelle Road is only at 39% of its capacity.

Okay, thank you. With that, let's see if we have any, no one's in the queue, so we'll go ahead and we will close the public hearing. Miss Pittman, did you want to speak? There it is.

I do. Go ahead. First of all, I want to thank you for deferring this bill before and I'm going to ask you to defer again. I want to thank the residents for showing up. On September 10th, we had a meeting with the residents. I learned a lot then and even more so tonight. And as you all know, this is a quasi-ordinate, so I can't make a decision one way or another, but I can say that deferring this will allow me to hear more and an opportunity to get the subject matter experts to do follow-up and to be transparent before any development is done. You know, tonight I heard more about, and Kristen, I know that you shared what you shared tonight and you also shared information at the community meeting, but this is a big deal. And as I said at the meeting, health is over, should be over, environmental issues. And so with hearing everything and listening to over, we had about maybe four dozen more residents at that meeting and I appreciate you coming as well, Councilman Gaffney, just to hear the voices of the people because it does matter. To the church and to hopefully, I'd like to have an opportunity to talk to Mr. Richardson with the environmental department here as well as outside experts with the information that you shared and the information that is pertinent to the groundwater. You know, someone mentioned about build-out after the project is completed and just the institutional knowledge of individuals that have worked in those communities and lived in the communities. So those of you that know me, you know, I do the research first as Councilman Rotman always say, but this is beyond more than I thought. So as a council person for District 10, when we find out information, when we know better, we want to do better by the residents and by individuals who may live even further. I saw a lady who came to the meeting who don't live in the area, but she's concerned. So we got to look at not just now, but the future. When I'm not here, I want to make sure people, you know, are safe and you all are being heard. So if you don't mind, can we defer this maybe two cycles? I don't know what that would be. Is that October 6?

It'd be 10, 20, 26.

10, 20, 26. That'll give me enough time to also get with the planning department to maybe have the health department. I think I heard that as well that we need to probably talk to in the DEP and any other entity of the city and or outside of the city of Jacksonville. So if you grant me that opportunity, I would really appreciate that.

Okay. Thank you. Well, I want to hear from a few of my committee members who are in the queue before I make a decision on that. So we have Council Member Diamond, Council Member Johnson. If anyone else has any opinions on that, I'd appreciate hearing from it. Council Member Diamond, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I mean, personally,

I'm ready to vote now. And let me explain. I just don't think that we can develop the record anymore. But I want to be more clear. I'm ready to vote no now. That's where I'm at based on the confidence, substantial evidence in the record today. I understand if not everybody is there, that's fine. I have no idea what this vote is going to be. I've just like, for me, I'm like, okay, I know enough. I've seen the record. Council Member Johnson,

you're recognized.

I have a bunch of questions. I'm not sure. Mr. Chair, you haven't made a decision on the deferral at this point, correct?

No, I just wanted to hear from all y'all.

Okay. I just had a few questions. The capacity, can you confirm through the chair to the, oh, sorry.

Let me hear, yeah, let me hear on the deferral. Oh, just on the deferral?

Yeah, let me hear on the deferral first. I got like specifically. Okay. Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, because I do have a bunch of questions, which I'll probably send over to you, Aaron, Ms. Abney, and your team, because this is an interesting issue. I just find it, we got to get the data, the real data. This has been languishing for a while. I know I was, you know, I had some medical stuff, so I couldn't go to the meeting last week. I want to get this information that we have. I don't think it would be hurtful to defer it, as I just don't want to make sure, I want to make sure that it is not on the same night as the other issue in that district is happening, and obviously, if the councilwoman has asked for two cycles, which would put us in the 20-something of October. 10-20. Yeah, that should not conflict with the 10-6 number of the Richardson Road Project, so I'm certainly

okay with the deferral. Thank you. Okay, Council Member White, you're recognized, and then we'll go to Council Member Gaffney.

Yes, sir, I'm certainly okay with the deferral because I've heard a lot of things, and if I've got this correct, this is on industrial light right now, and a batch plant has to be on industrial heavy, so I think it should be deferred, and we need to, I'm pretty close to where Councilman Diamond is right now.

Okay, I understood, and I know you had one earlier, maybe two years ago, a year ago, industrial heavy versus industrial light with the fuel depot, so.

If you'll give me two minutes, I was in early on, and I still get beat up about it even though it didn't happen in the first place because of the industrial light, the second place industrial light, and I made the statement then if they found a piece industrial heavy, I would support it, and they did, and this is not industrial heavy here, and so I have a problem with that.

I understood. Okay, Councilman Gaffney, you just put on the record where you're at. Okay, all right, good, good to know. Ms. Reed, it looks like you're a bit outnumbered.

Can I ask a question?

Yeah, yeah, of course.

So if we were to remove the concrete batch plant, which is everyone's issue, could we move forward with the PED rezoning? That alleviates everything everyone has talked about. We would take that use out and take it off the site plan.

I mean, we gotta have time to think about that. That's, I mean, yeah, that's a substantial change. You'd have to get re-noticed. Mr. Harvey, how does that work? Because that seems like a, where does that land us?

So it is a change, but it would be a less intent, so it wouldn't require you guys to go to do a re-noticing or re-advertising or anything. It's a less intense use because she's removing the intents of use from there. But if you need the time to consider the application, that is still within your discretion.

Okay, so let's do this. This is what I want to do because that's a substantial change, I think, kind of threw everyone for a loop a little bit. That was all the comments I heard was the issue with concrete batching plants. How about, this is what I would like to propose. Ms. Pittman, if you can kind of go have a conversation with Ms. Reed in the green room, maybe with one or two representatives from the community, just see if y'all can get to some type of agreement tonight in the green room, that would be amazing. That way we don't have to go out and have a community meeting based upon concerns that are being offered no longer concerns. Would you be willing to do that?

Yes, if I can call out the individuals that I would like to meet with me, the gentleman who lives in the area who grows his own food, Mr. Matchett, if he's still here, and also Ms. Bernie, Ms. Betty Bernie. Thank you.

All right, there's three individuals, Ms. Reed and Ms. Pittman will go. Yeah.

Oh, Mr. Clanzell? Yeah, the one that worked at the Kestel, yeah, that worked at the other site. Yeah, if I can meet you all and maybe either India, one of you all, either India or Ms. Sawyer, one of you all that did the radio, so I'd like just one representative from that group, okay? All right. Thank you.

And we'll just do three, otherwise we're going to have a full-blown community back there. Yeah, I just want to make sure we have an entity. Yep, yep, that's fine. Okay? Fine.

So if y'all can all meet in the green room with Ms. Kristen, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Just don't do my other, I got one more bill, I think, on there.

You guys have 10 minutes in the green room. All right. Don't get too bogged down in the weeds. This is a big change, but it can be a simple change. So with that, we're going to go ahead and do we need to table that, Mr. Harvey, technically? Okay, we're going to table 2026-532, and we're going to move on to action, or no action, on item number 10, 2026-557 is deferred, public hearing next cycle on 10-6-26. Item number 11 has already been taken up. Item number 12 has already been taken up. Item number 13, 2026-566. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Council member White, you're recognized.

Yes, sir. I'd like to declare ex parte communications. I deferred this last time. It was a gentleman that spoke that had some issues with this, and I visited the property and looked at it, and I was gone for eight days, and then I just met with a couple that's trying to get this waiver. Whatever the property they're trying to get the waiver on is their property when that was the dispute, and all that will be filed.

All right. Thank you, sir. We're going to open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you. 2026-566 seeks to reduce the minimum required frontage from 35 feet to zero feet to allow for the development of a single-family dwelling on a three-acre property located west of Maxville-Middleburg Road. The parcel was originally part of a larger 36-acre tract and has since been subdivided into two lots. Access to the site will be provided through a recorded 30-foot-wide ingress-egress easement extending from Maxville-Middleburg Road through the parent parcel at 9140 Maxville-Middleburg Road. Staff finds the request consistent with the criteria for granting a waiver. The property meets the AGR zoning district standards aside from road frontage and strict enforcement of the requirement would prevent development. The waiver is not based on reducing development costs and will not alter neighborhood character or diminish property values. The proposed single-family use will comply with all other zoning regulations and is not anticipated to create nuisances or conflict with public health, safety, or welfare. For these reasons and those in the staff report, the department forwards a recommendation of approval.

All right. Thank you so much. We have one speaker card, Amy Lee. She has checked. She does not wish to speak. She's here for questions only and she is in support. Council Member White, you're in the queue still. Is that from earlier? No one in the queue? Let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote.

Six yays, zero nays.

By reaction, you've approved 2026-566. Item number 14, 2026-618. Council Members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report.

2026-618 request to rezone approximately 0.95 acres located at zero timber core from RR Acre to RLD 50 in order to develop two single family homes, one on each lot. The proposed rezoning would allow lot sizes and development standards consistent with the RLD 50 zoning district. However, per the JEA availability letter, the property does not currently have access to centralized water or sewer and under LDR density rules, lots must meet a minimum of half acre if public utilities are not available. The combined acreage would only support one dwelling unit unless utilities are extended to the site. The property would be required to connect to both city water and city sewer to develop the property to the minimum standard of RLD 50. The applicant does intend to connect to both. Staff finds a request consistent with the comprehensive plan as RLD 50 is a primary zoning district within the LDR category and supports goals related to providing adequate residential land and a range of housing types within established neighborhoods. The surrounding area includes RR Acre and PUD subdivisions with similar single-family residential patterns. Staff finds the rezoning compatible with surrounding properties including the adjacent Barrington Cove subdivision to the north, south, and east developed with single-family homes on lots similar in size to RLD 50. For those reasons and those in the staff report, we forward recommendation of approval. The application was heard at Planning Commission on September 3rd where there were no speakers in opposition and little discussion and they voted unanimously for approval.

All right, thank you so much. We have one, we have two speaker cards. First speaker, Ramona Roberts is in support and checked questions only. And next we have Jamie Travis Leonard. Come on down.

Good evening, City Council. My name is Jamie Travis Leonard. My address is on file. I don't know whether to be quick or to prolong so we can give them in the green room some more time. But I am coming up in support of 26618. I understand that the, I read through the report and where these are going to be split. There are some other developments around the area that are PUDs. This is the kind of stuff I like to see in development. You know, we come up here and it's usually like massive land uses and the lots are 40, 30 feet. They're really small. So to see something where it's being split to the 50, I really appreciate that. I just wanted to come up and kind of show, a show of support in my area for when we do have these, what I would call more community driven, maybe like family designs. Thank you.

All right. We have no other speaker cards so we will close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion in a second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote.

Six yays. Zero nays.

By your action, you've approved 2026-618. Item number 15, 2026-619. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hand and get a staff report.

2026-619 seeks to rezone approximately .49 acres at 1739 Cassett Avenue from CCG1 to CCG2 to allow for an independent automobile dealership which requires the CCG2 zoning. The property historically operated as a used car dealership through a 2004 zoning exception. However, after ordinance 2018 538, CCG1 no longer permits independent auto sales and any new dealership must meet current code. The site has ceased operation so prior entitlements are no longer valid. The zoning code was updated by city council to remove these car dealerships from CCG1 due to the visual blight and its impact on commercial corridors. Staff finds the request inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. While auto sales are allowed in CCG2 under the CGC land use category, the rezoning would push higher intensity commercial zoning towards a neighboring RLD60 residential area conflicting with objectives and multiple policies requiring protection of residential neighborhoods from intrusive commercial uses. Approval would also create urban sprawl. The east side of Cassett Avenue includes lower intensity commercial CCG1 transitioning into single family residential. Rezoning this portion to CCG2 would be incompatible with the existing and desired development pattern and could establish a precedent for further intensification along this corridor undermining the transitional function of CCG1. While auto dealerships do exist in the general vicinity, staff knows this alone does not justify expanding CCG2 towards residential. The current zoning already allows appropriate commercial uses without introducing the higher intensity commercial category next to homes. For these reasons and those outlined in the staff report, staff boards recommendation of denial. The application was heard by Planning Commission on September 3rd where there were no speakers in opposition and the discussion focused on the property's history as a car dealership and on Cassett Avenue being an appropriate location for the proposed use and zoning given the surrounding properties. One commissioner expressed concerns about other uses permitted within CCG2 and they did not find the rezoning appropriate for this area and suggested considering a PUD instead. The commission voted to approve the rezoning request with a vote of 5 to 1.

All right. Thank you so much. Councilman Gaffney, you're in the queue. Do you want to speak?

Thank you to the chair. I'm going to make a recommendation of denial.

Okay, well, let's wait until we hear from the, we have one public comment card and then we'll, right? Yeah. Yeah, we need to get through the public hearing and then we can make that recommendation. So we have one speaker is in opposition, Bassam Baker, and he checked, does not wish to speak. Do you wish to speak? He wrote opposition. Are you supported? Do you support it? Okay, so you're in support. Um, okay. Why don't you come on down and you have three minutes to speak.

Good evening, council members. Thank you for having me today. My name is Bassam Baker and I'm here regarding the property on Cassette Avenue to rezone, to change it to CCG2. I want to focus today on the fairness and consistency of the city zoning process. My concern is that the current approach appears to allow brand new dealership to operate and get an exception on a CCG1 instead of denying a used dealership to obtain that license. While we went through the process, they told us we have to convert it to a CCG2 to be able to go ahead and open the business. We had denied from the city staff based on reasons of affecting the neighboring behind us, which at the same time they do allow brand new dealership to operate over there. So I don't know what's the difference between a used dealership or a brand new dealership. The issue is not simply the type of the business. The issue is whether existing small business owners are being given the fair and reasonable opportunity to invest in and use their commercial properties. At the same time, I have did deep research on the properties that are classified as CCG2 and they have residential homes, same case scenario as the property we have. First property is 1271 Cassette Avenue. Parcel number is 066399-000. 4853 Park Street and Zero Park Street. All three properties are CCG2 right next to housing. Same situation as us on the same commercial corridor on Cassette Avenue. I also want to... Sorry. So I am asking... I'm not asking for special treatments. I'm asking for a fair and consensus review based on the actual circumstance of my property and the same standard applied to compatible properties. And they mentioned that in 2018, they have changed the law and they stopped giving any exceptions for CCG1. I do have a copy contract on the same property a tenant took over for two years in 2023 2023 till 2025. So I'm a little confused about this city policies. They denied it in 2018, they stopped giving it, but in 2023, there is a tenant that already took over for two years till August of 2025. Then he decided to take a month-to-month lease till February of this year. And now we're trying to get the property re-zoned based on the commercial road and everything around it. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Let me go back to our queue here. Councilman Johnson, do you have a question for the applicant? Or do you want to...

I did. It's kind of simple. What do you plan to do there? Mr. Baker. Specifically. I know cars, but can you give me specifics of the auto repair? Can you be a little more specific?

Just a used dealership. No repairs. No repairs. We don't mind working with the city to make sure the neighborhood are protected, such as signage, puffering, landscaping, lightening. That's not an issue. And the property has been a dealership off and on since 2004 till 2026. No residents had any issue or complaints. No mechanics. No detailing. Just a used dealership.

Thank you. Question. You may stay for a moment. Mr. Chair to our council. I am a little bit concerned about the whole equal protection thing or what he said that there were other properties. Does that exist? Can you give me some feedback on what the gentleman shared about those properties where things were allowed to... Do you remember...

So I think he's talking about what happened before the code changed. Some of those properties were grandfathered in because you guys changed the code to prevent the used dealership blight. That was an issue back in the early 2010s. The council at that time enacted an ordinance and changed the zoning code to address what they considered to be a blight of used car dealership. The ones that were already previously entitled to those rights or operating were grandfathered under the code, under this new code, and were continued to operate... Were allowed to continue to operate until they cease, which is similar to the scenario that I...

new things like this would have to go through the process.

That is correct. They would have to... A used car dealership would have to go under CCG2 instead of being able to continue to operate under what would be CCG2.

That makes a lot of sense. So you want to... I just want to give you a moment to just please keep it very brief. You're going to say something quickly? Oh, absolutely.

It's just one question to him. Since the law have changed in 2018, why property, a used dealership, took in August 2023 to August 2025, if the law have changed in 2018, how they were able to get an exception?

I don't think he can answer questions from that because I think you would need to see the paperwork, but I do... I think you should share it with him. I'm still trying to get questions. I know there are other people in the queue, so I don't want to jump over them.

I have given a copy in the first election with the commissioners. They were supposed to post it on the application, but I do have two more copies on me as well.

Thank you. Okay, great. So, yeah, for the, you know, just audience and the general public, this is our time now that it is the public hearing's over. Ask questions. We can ask questions to the staff. We can ask questions to the applicant, and we can just have discussion among ourselves. So, let me see if we have anyone else in the queue. We do. Council Member Arias, you're recognized. Council Member White is after you. All right. Thank you, Mr. I just like to put

on the record, obviously the planning department is doing what we probably put in code, but sometimes you just got to deal with common sense. If anybody knows Castan Avenue, probably across the street from where he is, you could throw a ball. I could throw a ball and hit over a thousand cars. So, this is a common sense thing here to me, and I think we should move on.

Council Member Arias, you're recognized. Thank you.

That's why I let the Godfather go first. All right. Chair, I also think we should just move forward with however we're going to vote here tonight. You look at the Google Maps, you look at the uses permitted by CCG1 and CCG2. I'm ready to take a vote on this today unless anybody here has any heartburn on it, but if not, then I'll defer to all you guys to decide on that part. Thank you.

All right. Excellent. We have no one else in the queue. Did we get a motion and second? He didn't get a second. Do we have a motion to approve? All right. We have a motion and second to approve and we're going to close the public hearing and now we have a motion and second. Open the, oh, Mr. Diamond, you're recognized.

No, I'll always like to put my reasons if staff disagreed on the record, but if you Google this, there's literally three enormous dealerships across the road. This used to be a dealership. In fact, Google, like, road, like, stuff is still a car dealership, so good luck. Sell a lot of cars. Be nice to people. It's hard out there. Yeah.

We're trying. Yeah. Council Member White, you're recognized. Yeah, so I'd just like to put on the record that the planning department did what they're supposed to do by our own rules, so thank you all for doing that and it's up to us to make common sense decisions like a, so you just got caught up in something that we probably created, they did their job, and we just fixed it and we just fixed it as far as you're concerned or fixing to fix it.

Council Member Johnson, you're recognized.

And last but not least, thank you, Mr. Chair. The competent substantial evidence does exist and the evidence is when you look at it and look at the other zonings around the area, as was said, that is specific and we may need to go back and change the rule so that we can make sure that we are not putting ourself or people in this position again. Thank you. All right.

So the bill has been moved and seconded, so let's open the ballot record your vote.

Six yays, zero nays.

By your action, you've approved 2026-619. Thank you so much, guys. I appreciate it. All right. And Ms. Pittman, you are back to the dais. Do you have a verdict?

Thank you for giving us that opportunity to kind of huddle for a few minutes. What I will ask is to defer this to October the 6th. Give me an opportunity to meet with, the residents again and the planning department and Christian. And if we need more time after that, I will request. But thank you so much for giving us the time that we needed to discuss this important ordinance.

Okay. And I'll go to Council Member Johnson for one item and then I'll go ahead and make a decision.

I was going to ask through the chair to Council Member Pittman. Council Member, would you, I know initially you said two cycles. Would you be okay with that? Because that would be the same night as we're doing the Richardson Road site, which could cause October 6th. Your initial one was October 20th, which gives us time to deal with one issue there and the other issue separately.

Okay. Because we would have all three, I think, by then as well. But that's the conversation, the date that we've gotten from the planning department. So I definitely would not want to interfere with the date. So one cycle. Let's see, if we need, based on the conversation that we had with the residents in there, they were okay because they're looking at taking the batch out totally. So give me an opportunity to work it the way I want to and if I need additional time, I will come back to you. But I think it's going to be solved quicker than we think it will be.

Okay, so. Thank you. Yep, yep. And I think, I'll just speak very bluntly on this. You guys should easily be able to have this figured out by 10-6. We've already given one deferral. I'm willing to grant another one and continue the public hearing until 10-6-26. That was the major sticking point. This should be a very easy decision as far as what we've heard here tonight. It's going to be very difficult for this committee to hear anything different once that decision has been made by the applicant to remove basically all of the concerns that we heard tonight. So just keep that in mind. I'd like to hear it and I'd like for it to be a very easy night on 10-6. I don't think we need to hear from 50 people if the main concern has been removed. If there's still concerns and they're legitimate, then that's fine.

Well, I think because all of the rezoning issues are in the same vicinity and so I would like to make sure all three are addressed. if possible by the 6th, which I think they can be. So if we need anything past that, I will let you know. But I think we can handle this before or by October 6th, one cycle.

Okay, good. All right. Thank you. Good, good, good, good. All right. So 2026-532 is going to be, public hearing is going to be continuing until 10-6 of 26. So with that, we will go on to item number 16, 2026-620. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. All right, seeing none, I'll go ahead and declare my ex parte on September 14th. I had a phone conversation with Cindy Tremor about the legislation and this paperwork is going to get filed with legislative services. With that, we'll open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you. This is a conventional rezoning for property that's located at 331 Ashley Street West. They are seeking to rezone approximately 0.47 acres from a PUD that was originally approved in 1996 to the CCBD zoning category, which is the category for downtown. The downtown area was rezoned back in 2019, so about 90% of the properties within the downtown area were rezoned to CCBD. There were a couple of properties that were left out because of existing PUD entitlements, so they are just taking the property out of that existing PUD and putting it into the category of what all of downtown is zoned. This application was heard by DDRB on September 10th where there was little discussion, no one spoke in opposition, and they voted unanimously for approval of that rezoning. Thank you.

All right, thank you so much. We have one speaker card, Cindy Trimmer.

Thank you so much, Cindy Trimmer, 1 Independent Drive, Suite 1200 on behalf of the applicant. Aaron covered all of the merits. I will just add because we've had a few people ask, this is part of the Gateway Jack's assemblage on Pearl Square. The plans for future development of the site are for the office building that are part of that project. I'll stand by for questions.

All right, we have no other speaker card, so we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote.

Six yays, zero nays.

By reaction, you've approved 2026-620. Item number 17, 2026-621. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Thank you. 2026-621 seeks to rezone approximately one acre at 1923 Lane Avenue South from commercial neighborhood to CCG1 in order to unify the zoning across an existing 2.27 acre commercial site. The proposed rezoning would place the entire site under the CCG1 zoning district eliminating the split zoning condition that currently leaves the eastern portion zone CN. CCG1 allows a broader range of commercial uses that are already present on the site and aligns with its existing development pattern. Staff finds a request consistent with the comprehensive plan as the property is designated CGC. The rezoning is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The north, south, and west properties are zoned CCG1 and developed with commercial uses including offices, retail, daycare, and restaurants. Single-family residential dwellings lie to the east in the RLD 90 zoning district but are separated from the subject property by a commercial corridor. No adverse traffic or compatibility impacts are anticipated as the request does not expand intensity but rather align zoning with the long-standing existing use on the site. Lane Avenue South is also classified as a minor arterial roadway appropriate for corridor commercial uses. For these reasons and those in the staff report we forward recommendation of approval. The item was heard at the September 3rd Planning Commission meeting where there were no speakers in opposition, little discussion, and the commissioners voted unanimously for approval.

All right. Thank you. We have one speaker card. Stephen Wood is in support. Questions only. And we have Ms. Clark Murray in the queue. Yes, ma'am. You're recognized.

All right. Thank you, Chair. So I had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Wood in regards to what he wanted to do with the property and just like the staff report on the staff report stated that he basically wants, the applicant wants to bring this property under the same zoning umbrella. It's not spot zoning as you can see from Exhibit 2 that there is CCG1 across the street from the property, the subject property and the road is not at capacity just like, and I'm glad I got this right. I called an arterial road in my notes too. So the arterial road is not at capacity. So at this time, I don't have issues with this particular application. Thank you, Chair.

All right. Thank you. And with that, we have no one else in the queue. So we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote.

Six yays. Zero nays.

By reaction, you have approved 2026-621. Item number 18, 2026-622. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report.

2026-622 seeks to rezone approximately .32 acres at 4223 Moncrief Road West from RLD 60 to RMDD to allow redevelopment with multifamily residential uses. The corridor already contains quadplexes and townhomes built primarily in the late 1980s, and the area has a long history of MDR-supported multifamily redevelopment. The subject property sits within the MDR land use category in the Lem Turner-Ribault Scenic Drive Neighborhood Action Plan, which specifically identifies this section of Lorenzo Court and Moncrief Estates for ongoing multifamily reinvestment. Several nearby rezonings have already transitioned parcels from RLD 60 to RMDD to align zoning with the existing multifamily pattern. Staff finds proposed RMDD zoning consistent with the comprehensive plan as RMDD is a primary zoning district within the MDR category. The rezoning is compatible surrounding development, which includes townhomes, quadplexes, a church, and banket parcels all within the MDR land use designation, but currently split zoned RLD 60 and RMDD. Rezoning the parcel to RMDD continues the established development pattern along Moncrief Road West, and the request helps support reinvestment, neighborhood stabilization, and increased housing opportunities consistent with the adopted Neighborhood Action Plan. For these reasons and those outlined in the staff report, we forwarded recommendation of approval, and the item was heard at the September 3rd Planning Commission meeting where there was little discussion and the commissioners voted unanimously for approval.

With that, we've got a stack of cards here. Mr. Miller, did you fill out a card? Okay. Come on down and speak first because we've got a lot of cards. I don't know. There you. Okay. Yeah. You check, do not wish to speak, but I'm assuming you want to speak.

Zach Miller, 3203 Old Barn Court. Just to add to the staff report, this property previously had a quadruplex on it. It had a quadruplex right next to it. It has a quadruplex on the other side of it. The plan here is just to do two duplexes, so we need to change it to RMDD. While the area immediately surrounding it is RLD, as stated is MDR in the comp plan, if you zoom out a little bit more, everything around it is RMD. So we think RMD is actually consistent with the comp plan and consistent with the area. Talking with staff, we can't quite figure out why it was ever designated as RLD as there's no single family in the actual street it's on.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Next, we have Dr. Kashawn Chambliss. She's here? She's gone? Okay. Is in opposition. Lydia Bell? Gone. In opposition. Vanessa Collins Hopkins is in opposition. I don't see her. LaShonda L.J. Holloway. She's gone. She's in opposition. James Matchett, also gone. Is in opposition. I'm just going to call these out in opposition. If you're here, just come on down, because we've got a bunch of these cards. Clanzeria Brown is in opposition. Van Henderson, opposition. Melinda Ross, opposition. Lizzie Peoples, opposition. Lashandra Sawyer is in opposition. Dr. Renard Peoples, opposition. Ruben Aropo is in support. Samantha Sears is in opposition. India Butler is in opposition. Valerie Bailey is in opposition. Marva Tyson is in opposition. And Janice Simpson is in opposition. Did you wish to speak, ma'am? Okay. Come on down. State your name and address.

Clanzeria Brown. Address is on the sheet, but I live one block away from it. When those quadriplexes were being built, I guess in the late 80s or something, my mom was living then and she was opposed to them for the very reason of what it looks like now. My concern is it is a blight in the area because they're owned by separate owners. And so my concern is my ask to the L-U-Z and my ask to the builder that wants to come in, before he comes in, have we considered having a corrective action plan regarding trying to get everything that's going on there up to snuff? Because it's just not, it's an eyesore. It's not conducive to what the neighborhood is trying to bring itself back up to be. I brought up to the community meeting last week when our Councilwoman Pittman allowed us to speak regarding the trash. I understand that each unit is individually owned. I don't know why we can't have something as the L-U-Z committee to mandate the owner accountability. There is no one place for those people to put their trash there. Everything is in individual trash cans. And that I don't understand. I'm also asking for the systemic inspection to try to just clean that site out before the builder come. if that is voted on. And then also, in terms of a one-mile radius of the duplexes of what the rental capacity is. And then the last thing, when you say two units, can you answer at your rebuttal, what does two units mean? Does that mean four individual apartments? Or does that mean one individual unit? Thank you.

All right, thank you. We have no other speaker cards. Mr. Miller, do you want to add any? Yeah, we got you on the next one. It was written down wrong. 661? We got you. We'll fix it. Thank you. Sorry about that. Mr. Miller, do you want to add any rebuttal?

Sure. Just to clarify, it's two duplexes, so it would be four units total. I actually went to the community meeting last Thursday that Councilwoman Pittman put on, which opened it up to anybody asking questions. And I think the only question I received was from the very nice lady. So I'm actually a little surprised there's that many people who signed cards in opposition.

Yeah, no problem. All good. And with that, we have no other speakers in the queue, so let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Do we have a second? Motion and second on the bill. Well, any discussion? Seeing none, open the ballot. Record your vote.

Five yays, zero and a's.

By reaction, you've approved 2026-622. Item number 19, 2026-631, open the public hearing. Do we have a staff report on this, or is this just a normal bill?

You have a staff report, sorry. All right, we'll make it quick. Okay. Okay, I will make this quick.

All right, thank you. So we're going to go ahead.

Ordinance 2026-631 is for a text amendment to the central business district land use category of the future land use element of the comprehensive plan. This is basically just a correction, a corrective action, so that the number of slips that was approved in 2017 in the Manatee Protection Plan can match the central business district land use category, the number listed there. So really it's just to align those numbers. This is the transmittal round of legislation for this text amendment, so if it's approved by city council, it will go to the state for a review before coming back for the adoption round. And when it comes back, you'll see it again, and it'll have a new ordinance number. So with that, the planning department recommends approval. Planning commission heard this item on September 3rd and unanimously voted to approve.

All right, thank you. We have no speaker cards. We should have already closed the public hearing, but we're going to go ahead and do it now. Close the public hearing, bring it back to committee. Motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote.

Five yays, zero nays.

By direction you've approved, 2026-631. Item number 20, 2026-632. Open the public hearing. No speaker cards. All right, thank you. Ms. Pittman, thank you for joining us. And we have one speaker, Ms. Susan Kelly. Questions only. Do we have a motion? Yeah, do we have a motion? Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Okay, we have a motion and a second on 2026-632. Seeing no discussion, let's open the ballot. Record your vote.

We need you to vote. Council Member Arias. I'm Iron Man.

Five yays, zero nays.

By direction you've approved, 2026-632. The following items are deferred until 10, 6 to 26. Item number 21, 2026, 647, 648, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660. And that brings us to our last action item on the agenda, 2026-661. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report.

Can the planning department just have their own card that says that we're in support as well for this one?

Absolutely. We have questions only. So with that, we have one speaker card, Ruben Arreo.

Get the staff report on the record, though, for this one since this is a... Oh, okay.

Yeah, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Ms. Cox. Go ahead, Ms. Cox.

2026-661 seeks to reduce the required minimum road frontage from 72 feet to zero feet to permit development of a single-family home at 5875 Atlantic Boulevard. The 0.92-acre parcel is owned RLD 90 and meets all zoning requirements except for road frontage. Access to the site is provided through a shared 14-foot egress easement serving three parcels. And staff finds a request meets the standards for granting a waiver. However, it's not based on reducing development costs or avoiding subdivision regulations. Surrounding parcels include a variety of lot sizes and shapes, many relying on easements or unapproved right-of-ways due to historic development patterns, indicating the request is not out of character for the neighborhood. A valid and effective easement provides adequate vehicle and emergency access to Atlantic Boulevard, a public right-of-way, and the waiver will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, and all remaining zoning requirements will be met. For these reasons and those in the staff report, be forward to recommendation of approval.

All right. Thank you. We have one speaker card. Ruben Arroyo. Almost got it, probably. In support, questions only. We have no one in the queue. We'll close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and second. Motion and second. We have a motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote.

Five yays. Zero nays.

By your action, you've approved 2026-661. All right. That was our last action item. The following bills are on second reading. 2026-689-690-691-692-693-694-695-696-697. With that, anything else? This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.