I'd like to call this meeting of the Charlotte County Planning and Zoning Board to order. If the secretary would please call the roll. Michael Gravison. Here. Doug Iso. Here. Steve Vieira. Here. Philip Smallwood. Absent. Clint Baker. Here. Okay, you may continue. Okay, we have four out of the five here, which constitutes a quorum. Unfortunately, the minutes for October 14th were not completed and circulated, so we don't vote on that. I'd like to repeat that the police turn your cell phones off or to silence, so they don't interfere with the meeting. And any announcements from the staff? I know sir, not at this time, thank you. Okay, the only quasi judicial petition is number two on our agenda and the petition one and two are presented together. So if you're going to make any comments or plan two about these first two petitions, please rise and take the oath. The third petition is a legislative one and does not require an oath. Anybody from the audience wants to speak? I'm hearing. If you're wishing to speak, we need you to stand up and take the oath. Okay. Item one or two. Item one or two. Okay. Not, not item three. Okay. Not moving. Not moving. I think it's going to make it right. Okay. Okay. All right. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you about to give the truth, the whole truth, and up and up and but the truth please say I do. All right, thank you solemnly swear the testimony about to give is the truth the whole truth and up and but the truth please say I do All right. Thank you. Maybe she didn't Okay, so first petition, please Good afternoon for the record. J. Schall, committee department department and my planning expert qualification is attached to staff report as exhibit one. The applicant, Lake Lonely LLC, is requesting PL-23-0005, and the rezoning petition number Z-23-41-19. And the transmittal hearing is scheduled for June 10th for the large scale PL-23-00005 only and both petition are scheduled for the adoption hearing on September 9th. The requested large scale plan amendment is from agriculture AG to mineral resource extraction, MRE, and the rezoning, as I mentioned, which will be presented to the Board of Account Commissioners on September 9th. And the rezoning is from agriculture AG to excavation and mining EM. And the subject property is located in commission district 1. The notification of public hearings for these two petitions was sent to the property owners and adjacent property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property. This is the subject property which is generally located in the east county area. And this is the area image of the subject property at the met range, the subject property located to the east side of stay road 31. This is the full range of the subject property. The site contains approximately 223.14 acres. The stated purpose of these two applications to allow the property owner to apply for commercial excavation permit for sand, shower, and walk commercial excavation. On the screen, this is the 2050 free-moor map. The entire site is designated as agriculture and rural. And this is the existing fusion end-use map destination. The subject property is designated as agriculture. and this is the existing zoning. The site is owned agriculture. And I give you a little bit the area for the subject property. So the property located in the middle to the south, our subdued property has an existing commercial excavation operation under excavation permit in 2004, the permit. So to the east, there are approximately 159 acres of land designated as a MRE. And far to the east, there are approximately 478 acres of the land designated as MRE as well and across state road 31 to the northwest. October 2020 the board approved a large scale appointment for for MRE for approximately approximately 53.59 acres of land also across they wrote 31 to the west. There's also a property is designated as a MRE for approximately 536 acres. So, the board also approved all the reasonings for the surrounding properties to EM to match the future and use map designation of MRE. On the screen, it's a proposed from designation of MRE if the border proves the requested large scale plan amendment. And the subject property will be zoned EM if the border proves the requested EM reasonably. There are specific requirements and special provisions under the proposed MRE future new map designation. So now I would like to discuss whether or not the proposed changes meet these requirements and preservation and requirements and provisions. I'm sorry. The first we talk about the location requirement. The subject property is located in the rural service area you can see on the screen and the site is located outside of the MRE prohibited areas. You can see this is of Jake, the purple areas at the area which are prohibited for MRE. And also we can see on the screen, the subject property is also located outside of half mile setback of the quick system. So this is half mile, they are located outside. And also the subject property is located outside of the prime aquifer recharge area of northeast of Sharikami. Therefore the subject property meets the location limitation requirement of the proposed MRE featuring the new map designation and also also, as I mentioned before, the subject property contains a total of 223.14 acres, which meets the minimum acreage of 50 acres under the MRE from designation. Second, I would like to discuss about the submittal requirement. You can see on the screen, it's a submitted off site features within half miles. So there are five residents located to the south, one residents located to the west of the subject property, and one residents located to the northwest of the subject property. Five homes are located within 500 feet of the subject site, and there are two residents that are located beyond 500 feet and within the half mile of the subject property. So there are also two isolated, which are located to the southeast of subject property, and within half of the subject property and one isolated wetland is located to the first southeast of the subject property and the beyond half mile of the site. The subject property is located within the flood zone X. So on the screen is a proposed concept plan, which shows the proposed excavation related setbacks, pit bottom, and the depth of the proposed excavation. Sorry. The proposed changes were not increased or decreased the residential development rights for the subject property. So therefore, student generation is not expected to change as a result of the proposed land use change and EM rezoning. So the county's public works department reviewed the applicant's traffic impact statement and the request and updated one to be submitted prior to the BCC transmission hearing on June 10, 2025. And according to the TIS, a turning improvements are recommended at a project access point. So therefore it is also, sorry, the subject property, a portion of subject property is located within the critical wildlife corridor, critical linkage area. So therefore, there is a conservation easement must be submitted and approved as a part of prior to the commercial excavation permit. So therefore, it is staff's professional opinion that the proposed large-scale plan amendment and the request of the EM rezoning meet and are consistent with all requirement and overall goals of objecting the policies as set forth in the county's comprehensive plan and also section 163, 3177 for the law and the county's code of laws, ordinance and any other applicable guidelines. So I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff? Okay, then we'll hear from the applicant's representative at this point. Good afternoon. Derek Rooney, Ray Robinson Law firm on behalf of Lake Lonely LLC. I accept J. Schauss testimony, her expertise and joint in the staff report and its recommendation. The only comment I have to add is, as you saw from the various various graphic exhibits you saw with the the comp plan feature land you series you see that this is an area of concentration of mining within Charlotte County given the protections given for waterways, wildlife and everything you'll see that just the aerial maps this is the area that is becoming the congregating site for excavations within the county and conversion of agriculture, which is no longer viable and I would submit that this is an appropriate use given the citing criteria in the comprehensive plan and recommend that you vote in favor. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Rooney? Do you accept or preparing to do the exceptions that they're asking you to do? No, and we already have the updated TIS, we'll be ready. You've got those things. Those requests are already completed. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. We'll open up public comment, anyone who wants to speak about these two petitions please come forward. Do I need a sign in? Please. Hi my name is Chris Rosyler. Do you need my address? Give it to the record please. 29 23 4 Hilok, HILO, OCK, Pana Gorta. I actually work within a quarter mile of this. Actually, I have multiple jobs that I work for. I do work for a sanctuary that is definitely well within a quarter mile of this. I do have a few things to say. I didn't know about this until today. We do have other minds. It is definitely a concentration of minds in that area. I can attest to that. I know since one of them has shifted the way they work is changed the hydrology on the property that I work on. I can tell you that there are ponds, canals, as well as other water features that have either disappeared or in the rainy season have actually flooded us out in that area which hasn't happened before and yes I know it's a watershed in that area but like the kind of flooding we've seen is definitely coming from that mine Which is not this mine, but is it adjacent mine? So this would be adding to that as well as I've seen a Lot of increase in dump truck activity. I know I almost got unalived like three times last week by dump trucks Just pulling out on the 31 31 is kind of a dangerous road by its nature. It's been that way for a long time. But with the increased thumb truck activity, it has definitely up the, you better pay attention to what you're doing because they're not game. There's a lot of wildlife in this area. I know we got it nearby Wildlife Quarter, but there's actually a lot of wildlife within this area as well. I see Mexican Eagles there all the time, as well as a variety of snakes. I just saw it there last week, being harmless mind you. Doing its thing. So there's a lot of wildlife, but I definitely would look into how this is, as well as the other mines in the area impact the The water situation in the area because I've definitely seen just in the last few years a huge impact And not just because of the current drought we're in but just an impact in general as well as flooding during some of these major storms in the summer Last summer the two hurricanes we had as well as Ian and absolutely the property out there absolutely flooded that out. And that all came from the existing mines. So we're now talking about an additional mine. And I don't know, they're saying agriculture's kinda dead out there. I'm saying maybe it just needs to change out there. So maybe put a little extra thought into whether more mining is needed or not. And against it I would just like a little more due diligence in the making sure that this is the best fit for this area. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak about these two petitions? Make a motion. We close public comment. I have a motion and second to close public comment. All in favor aye public comment is close Time for discussion or questions for the staff Just for the public that Just used to be out in the rural ag sector you could do mining you didn't it took a permit Yes, but it didn't take a rezoning change. This was changed a few years ago, 10, 15 years ago. 2007, the board created EM zoning and 2008 the board created MRE, featuring end use map designation. Just to let you only need apply for the commercial expiration permit under the land is designated as agriculture. Okay, thank you. Just a couple of thoughts on traffic in the report. It talked about a left hand turn or access into the mine was needed in review of the traffic survey. I'm thinking about exiting the mine area. And it's probably ahead of myself. It's probably site plan reviewed the dictates of those items, but it's not mentioned anywhere in the report. And I'm curious about the flooding situation. I know that we got an inordinate amount of rain because of the storms that we received last year. And that is that an area I think that historically floods out in that area because of the nature of the topography out there. So I don't know how we can address that or attribute it to an adjoining mine causing the flooding because the existing mine would have some sort of flood control measure. Wouldn't it would it In it? Yes, there's Sean Cullin in Planning and Zoning Official. This is step one. They can't do any of that site planning or permitting or any of those reviews where the both state agencies and our counties engineering department would review that until and unless they get approval from the Board of County commissioners for the plan of men and men resounding. They there are a lot of restrictions on mining and my understanding is very strong oversight by the Southwest Florida Water Management District and those entities review all the all the plans and make sure that that should not happen. In addition to SwiftMud, are there any local boards or committees that review this before? It comes to P and Z as there. An rack or any of those groups involved in any kind of determining factors related to this project or any other project like that? this time time no, but we are, we just had a meeting with Ann Rack last week and we will at least be giving them notification of these items and if they so choose to discuss them they may do so. So, so their involvement comes after a determination has been met at made at this meeting before it goes to the county commission. Moving forward, it will be presenting it prior to coming before you. And that was just discussed with them last week with the county attorney. And so what would the present situation be? Do they get a bite at the apple before it goes to board of county commissioners? Or would they present their case at the Board of County Commission meeting? Tom David County assistant county attorney. Since it's a quasi judicial item and we have a hearing they would have to present an open hearing just like everybody else. So there would be an opportunity for anybody to rebut it that had a different perspective. Okay, but they also have the ability to look at the agendas and to decide if there are issues that they want to comment on. I think it also passes a resolution or a motion or whatever and sends documents to you. Those are all possibilities. All right. Thank you. I had a question kind of going off of the first question you mentioned, the traffic flow and the turning lane. I heard that again, this might all be the wrong time, you know, as it moves forward. You can get more information, but is there going to be another updated traffic study? Yes sir when they when they go for their actual, if approved by the Board of County commissioners, they would then have to go through all the requirements for excavation and mining through the county's engineering department, at which time traffic studies and other things like that will determine what kind of improvements need to be made if any. But there is technical oversight by the county's engineering and public works. And the state too, right? Yes, there is a large scale. So what we transmitted to the state, including for the Department of Transportation, and state wrote 31, their management in. So they will review it and provide comments. I thought I heard that, I just wanted to make sure, because I there has been a lot of new building and traffic added to the area since the last study. So they're going to be doing another one that's great. Any other questions or any further discussion? I'll entertain the motions. Let. Chairman, I'll make a motion to forward application PAL-23-00005 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval based on the findings and analysis of the staff report dated May 3rd, 2025. Shalikani, Shalikani's comprehensive plan and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing before the planning and zoning board. Second. I have a motion in a second. Any discussion on the motion? All the favour and motion say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. That goes forward. And as the second part of the motion, it would be a motion of forward application, Z-23-41-19 to the Board of County Commissions with a recommendation of approval based on the findings and analysis in the staff report dated May 3rd, 2025. Charlotte County's comprehensive plan and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing before the planning and zoning board Second, I have a motion in a second any discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion say aye Any opposed say nay that goes forward to the VCC with recommendations for approval Third eye upon the agenda please Good afternoon again for the record, J. Shell, Community Development Department. POTY growth is requesting petitioned TCP-24-4, which is a tax amendment to the county's comprehensive plan. And this, the transmission herein for this large-scale tax amendment is scheduled for June 10th, and the adoption hearing for this item is scheduled for September 9th. The requested large scale plan amendment, tax amendment, is to amend future land use flume policy 3.1.4, standards for rural sediment area overlay district, and also to amend flume appendix 1, land use guide section 4 overlay districts, land use overlays by revising rural sediment area overlay district, the short term is RSAOD, and the subject property is located in Commission District 1. So the notification of public hearings for this petition was sent to the property owners and adjacent property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property. And this is a general location of the subject property. The subject property contains approximate 4,900 acres and is located in the east county area. We should locate it to the east of US 17 and immediate south of the South County and the Soda County line. And this is the subject property. And this is the framework of the subject property. The subject property is designated as agricultural rule. But this is the overlay district. Actually, the properties located inside urban service area. And you can see as of today, the future land use map designation of the subject properties agriculture. And the zoning is RE with understanding. There is an overlay for the subject property and the base density for the subject properties of one unit, put in a curse. So the base density for the rural sediment area OBLA district is 490 units. And the entire subject property is located outside of the coastal high hazard area. And also, subject property is located in both X and A flood zones. I would like to provide the little history of the rural settlement area over the district. So back to 2008. So in order to establish a set of strategies to maintain and enhance the appearance and environment quality along US-17 corridor and provide land use guidance to manage growth, development and redevelopment along the US-17 corridor. So the same year in in 2008, the county initiated the US 17 corridor planning study. So in July 2010, the US 17 area plan was accepted by the Board of County Commissioners and incorporated as FluM data analysis appendix G. And also, the FluM objective 6.3 and underneath policies were adopted to implement the US 70 area plan to provide land use guide in order to manage growth, development, and redevelopment along US 70 and quarter. And as part of the US 17 area plan, the rural sediment area overly district was created as a way to transition urban uses into the agriculture and preservation uses further to the east by establishing meaningful planning guidelines and standards. So therefore, the development rights and development requirements for the rural settlement area overlay district were adopted as part of future land use appendix one. Land use guide section four overlay district land use overlays. And also the flume policy 3.1.4 to guide non-agricultural development of this specific area of the US 17 corridor. So we all know this area is still vacant, and today the applicant would like to move forward with future development within the rural sediment area overlay district. So there have been 15 years since the plan was originally approved. So the applicant would like to implement the plan, the rural sediment overlay district plan, and also requested some changes in order to meet the current government trend and better fulfill the established vision and intent for this area, which is raw sediment overlay district. So now I would like to go over the major proposed change. The first change is to amend flume policy 3.1.4, which is called standards for rural sediment area overlay district, to require adoption of a pattern bulk and development guidelines and implement them through the plan development reasoning process. So you know as of today, the count has not drafted any land-run regulations for this area. So the property owners, within the rural settlement area, over a district would like to move forward with this development. So they already submitted a mass development plan with a patent book, including vision and development guidelines in order to implement the provisions as establishing county's comprehensive plan. So staff has no objections to these changes to clarify the requirement and the process. The second major change is to increase the maximum density and intensity within the raw sediment area over a district. So the development rights of 6,000 units, 500,000 square feet of commercial uses and one-minute square feet of regional economic development uses were established in 2010 with adoption of the county's current comprehensive plan. So basically I tried to make sure as of today, I will now extend as of today, in the county's comprehensive plan, the county adopted the maximum development rights for the raw sedimentary overlay district, which means the development rights are 6,000 units and 500,000 square feet of commercial uses and one million square feet of regional economic development uses. So however, there have been no applications for any department in this area until now. So staff understood that Sharkhani, we did the Shari Khan in interactive growth model, predicts that Shari Khan should allocate more land for future industrial development to increase employment opportunities, balance the tax base, and make the county more competitive with adjacent counties. So we should support the Africans plan to, Africans proposing to increase the maximum density from 6000 units to 8000 units and the maximum intensity for regional economic development uses from one minute to 1.5 minute. So there's no change in proposed for the commercial users, which is half-minning. However, staff believes that the board should consider the identified demands for additional departments when it decides whether the proposed increase of residential and rights and regional economic development entitlements appropriate and justified. So, staff and no, not recommendations. So, staff believes keep the original one, but the board should make decision, whether the request to increase the development entitlements appropriate or justified. The third major change is to revise the provision of necessary infrastructure. So we all know the North Shark Waterworks Inc. is a receiver of the sound river utilities. So the applicant is proposing update the utility provisions to reflect the new chart water works ink as a utility provider and to ensure that sent to water and sensory services will be available for this development and to serve the property located across US 17 to the west of subter property which are located in the urban service area. So the only change the language to reflect the new utility provider and want to make sure the water and sewer must be available when the developmental occurs for the site. And the fourth change is the applicant is requesting to adopt the proposed mast development plan, which the mast development plan includes five components. So first is the mast concept plan.CEPT plan is proposed to illustrate locations for residential, commercial, regional economic development, mixed use, open space, greenways, flowways, and green belt. So you can see this is a proposed MASTER CONCEPT plan. I want everybody to be aware. The proposed rule area that have very specific requirement regarding the developerable area only 50%. So the entire site contains 4,900 acres. Only half of that could be developed. And another half, 50% must keep as open space. So you can see this is a proposal. They have the regional economic center located around US 17 and have some commercial uses and also have residential. And the same time they're proposed the flowways. You can see this is a flowways. I believe it's connected to the Lee branch and they have very specific requirements regarding the width of the flowways and greenways. So basically, it's 20% of length of the flowways or greenways, the minimum is 200, but the remaining 80% of the flowways and greenways, the minimum width must be 500 feet. I go back, actually. Also, the uphand and book is proposed to establish the vision of this department as well as the development and preservation principles for regional connectivity, open space, flowways and greenway, residential development, regional economic development, public services, and the style for the development. And also, an interconnectivity plan is also created as part of the patent book. The applicant is also provided the infrastructure financing strategies for the development within the rural settlement over a district. I believe you can see the package as exhibit three. And the applicant is also provides the method to demonstrate greenhouse gas emission reduction for the development within the rural settlement over a district. And the last one is the applicant is also submitted an open space management and funding mechanism, which needs the master development planning requirement. So this hour, you show that to this proposed master concept plan. And the fifth change is to revise the requirement of density transfer. So rural sediment area over the district was included in the urban services area as part of the Candice Comprehensive Plan rewrite in 2010. So the main goal of this density transfer requirement was to provide a planning tool to move density in the area which was to, which were removed from urban service area and placed in the rural service area as part of the county comprehensive rewrite in 2019, in 2009 to 2010, which was adopted by the board July 20, 2010 and took effect in June 15, 2011. So, basically, see this area, which is red and green area, that area was removed from the urban services area and placed in the rural service area. So because as part of the rural settlement area overlay creation, so we added the rural settlement area inside the urban service area. As I mentioned, as a planning tool, or aging thought is they can certify the density from this area because we discourage which they dev development in this area. Either they have platter lots, or they have immermed sensitive resources. So we want in the planning tool to certify density from this area and that density can eventually be transferred to the rural settlement area over the district. But however, since this plan was adopted by the board, there have been no CSC application from this area to serve a density unit. So which will potentially stop implementation of the intent and vision of the rural settlement area over the district. So therefore, staff has no objection to add an option to allow transfer density units from rural service area in the east and south counties. So basically, expanded the potential density could be certified and could be transferred onto the rural settlement area over the district. And the sixth change is to revise the open space requirement. So the applicant is proposing to amend these requirements to request for wet and management plan adopted as part of PD rezoning to better manage and maintain the open space area as well as restore and preserved on site weapon. So staff believes that this is a positive change to this requirement. And in addition, the applicant is proposing a potential golf course as an alternative open space with additional requirement. So as I mentioned before, this raw sediment area overlay district required 50% of the land must be under the open space area. But however, if they provide alternative, which if they want proposal golf course, so the open space, the percentage will be increased to 60% of the project area shall be designated as open space with a minimum of 35 conservation restoration in perpetuity. And also because if they propose alternative golf course, so the golf course must be subject to restrictive confidence and the environment best management practices. And also try to make sure they have the open space because the goal of the rural settlement area over there is want to have some development but same time try to protect preserve the open space in that area. So just they place the specific requirements. If the golf course in the future want to other uses, the only other use can be, maybe converted is to passive recreation uses. the seventh change is to revise the regional economic development and commercial development standards. So the applicant is proposing to revise the fees in language to ensure that there is enough land reserved to accommodate non-residential uses. So that's more practical and more flexible for the development, more realistic for the development because in the existing the phasing plants, you have how many units you must have 50 sound score feed of commercial. But sometimes you cannot achieve the commercial and not come to the side. So that's why we make it more flexible to reserve the enough land for the region economic users and commercial users. And also the residential can move forward. And also the applicant is proposing to remove the lead certification. So they are very specific for lead certification. Instead of do the lead certification, they want to do the, try to delete that specific requirement and want to use, still keep the sustainable best management practice requirement, because that's trying to achieve that instead of one certification, lead certification, they kind of make it more flexible to achieve the same goal. And also, the eighth change is to lead the rural village standards, because, just mentioned before, the Alpkin is already concurrently submitted to the master development plan. So which includes the vision and development standards and guidelines for development within the rural settlement area over the district. So there is no need to keep the rural of edge standard anymore. They already submit their proposal, the concept plan. And the next change is updating transportation system requirement. So you can see on the screen is an inter connectivity plan, which has been submitted to address the transportation system within a rural sediment area over the district. So therefore there is no need to duplicate the requirement of the interconnectivity. So the last change is proposed to update the wildlife crossing requirement. So there are four box covers installed on US-17 within the US-17 area plan. And actually there's one box covered has been built on US-17 along the western boundary of the rural sediment area over the district. So therefore we add additional language to provide flexibility and alternative options to this requirement. So I just presented to all major nine major changes to the rule seven area over the district. So it is the professional opinion that this application in general and sufficiently consistent with the intent and vision established in Shara County's comprehensive plan and Shara County code of laws and ordinance and section 163.3177 for the loss and other applicable guidelines. So I would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff? None of this time. So we'll open up to the applicants go to the presentation. Derek Rooney again with Gray Robinson on behalf of the applicant pulled the development. I'll do I know that you have a lot of people here today and I understand you're going to be strict with the timing rules so I will be briefing and introduce our team. I do have representatives from TR Transportation, Pathroll and Associates for Environmental and Dan Delise is going to be making a presentation as our planner. But what I do want to focus on and in Jay's explanation, because there's a lot of information there, a lot of people here trying to translate that information is the current entitlements for the property are 6,000 units, 500,000 of commercial and 1 million of regional economic development. The request today is in three parts. One to clean up some of the policies that in the last 15 years have changed, for instance, the transfer development units. There was no county framework map, the 2050 comprehensive plan where units were moving from different parts from inappropriate areas to more appropriate areas, did not exist at the time of this plan's development. Things like that are brought in. There is a request for 2000 additional units. Part of that request is learning from the experience on Bernstore Road, where there is significantly more homes in development in the area. And yet the neighbors, the Bernstore coalition, and the people in that area have been seeking additional households to support commercial necessary for the region. They're commuting quite a distance to get that area. We have a commercial component to this project. We believe it will work in the first phase with that extra density. And then the third point I want to point out is that the adoption of the master concept plan. So what you see in this portion is this applicant is taking the lead on this project. They're moving forward the master development plan. That's the requirement of the Comprehensive Plan. We're essentially implementing the plan that was adopted in 2010. What will be in this portion, which is only representing one third of the entire development, is the majority of the commercial, the majority of the economic development, and they will be taking the lead of bringing the infrastructure necessary to this site as well. So with that I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Delisee and I reserve time after the public comment to have additional discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a click or something or you're just going to change the slides? Okay. All right. For the record, my name is Dan D'Alecia. I am a land juice planner and I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I've been working as a land juice planner in this area for quite a long time. Go to the next slide. I'm going to start out giving you a little bit of background on the US 17 area plan. Then I'm going to move into the proposal, what's being discussed, who's proposing it, and the process moving forward. Just from my own standpoint, I was one of three consultants on a consulting team that put together the US 17 area plan back in 2009, 2010. So I have a lot of familiarity with this that US 17 area plan is that whole area in pink. I worked on this with Jay. Jay was the county staffer at the time. And then there was also an environmental consultant planner out of Sarasota that the county had brought on. And I believe Mr. Graves, you were on the planning board back then. But it was quite a while ago. There was a lot that went into that planning study. So Jay moved to the next slide. In that planning study, there was just a lot of community outreach that we conducted. We did community workshops. We held design shiarets. And we looked at how gross may occur along the corridor, what redevelopment opportunities were on the corridor, what people wanted to see over the long term, what they didn't want to see, how they wanted the area to change. Because we know that areas are constantly evolving. Nothing is ever the same permanently, right? You either are growing or you're shrinking or you're improving or you're deteriorating. Things are always happening. And so what we were trying to do is capture what the residents and the business owners wanted. you know, improving or deteriorating, things are always happening. And so what we were trying to do is capture what the residents and the business owners wanted to see along the US-Land corridor, Jay, next slide. We also had a lot of stakeholder meetings, individual stakeholder meetings where we sat down, we asked people what they wanted to see. And there were a lot of themes that emerged from the court or from the interviews. And some of them we've heard of late. I've heard one comment recently at a recent hearing on a proposal along 17 about, you know, why do we get all the bad stuff, so to speak, right? There was a general feeling that what was coming in along the 17th corridor was neither beneficial for the neighborhood or things that people really wanted to see. You know people wanted to see more investment into the area. They wanted to see new neighborhood commercial uses places that they could go shopping. We had some discussion about wildlife corridors and and environmental restoration opportunities and mixed use development. And as part of that overall planning effort, the rural settlement overlay area was created, as Jay said, it was one of several strategies to bring in new investment along the corridor create create an incentive to extend utilities, for example, and to bring new commercial uses. Because as we know, new commercial doesn't happen without the rooftops and the demographics to make it happen. So that rural settlement area was created. That's 4,900 acres. So when we think of 6,000 units, that's over 4,900 acres. That's 1.2 units an acre roughly to give you an example with your low density, future land use category. That's up to five units an acre. What you term low density is up to five units an acre. The rural settlement overlay district was 1.2 units an acres, what we established. And as Jay talked about, density is only allowed through the transfer of development units. So you have to move density from one area that's more environmentally sensitive in the county to this area, which isn't environmentally sensitive. Jay, next slide. So the comprehensive plan requires. One of the requirements in the comprehensive plan is that before any development happened in the rural settlement overlay, an overall common plan for this entire 4,900 acres has to be developed. And so we have to go through a complaint amendment as part of this just to implement what the role settlement overlay District requires so as part of this just to implement what the role settlement overlay district requires. So as part of this we're proposing the master development plan that that Jay just showed you. Now PULTI who is the applicant has under contract the area in orange that's 1885 acres. So it's a little over a third of the entire rural settlement overlay district. Pultie, just a moment on Pultie, I think Pultie is a real opportunity for this area. They are a higher end developer. They are a developer that is very attentive to details. They come out with a really nice product, they elevate property values in areas around them. And it's an opportunity to set a very positive tone for the corridor, having the first developer in being of this stature is certainly a positive. But the other positive that's really important and we shouldn't lose sight of is that you have someone proposing to develop a third of this rural settlement overlay. They have the ability to create a fully integrated community. So all of the things that we thought about within the US 17 area plan, where we're going to put the new public facilities and where we're going to put new schools or fire EMS stations, emergency medical services, police, all of that sort of stuff. If people come in and smaller increments and 200 acre developments, no one wants to locate those public services on their site. It's too much of a loss of land. and you just never get them located. With Paltiers E.C., 1800 acres, we just located them on here and you program them in. And so we have reserved sites for schools, for fire EMS, police, all the services that would eventually be needed out here, including, and most importantly, the commercial. Now, the increased, the increased in density that's coming on the Pulte site. So it's really for what's shown as area B. And so that area goes from 1.2 units in to 2.1 units an acre. Still incredibly low within the context of Charlotte County. And my guess is it's lower density than the density you find on the west side of US 17 in the homes. Because remember, we program in water management lakes. We put in, we have all the green ways in the flowway restoration and all of the open space. And so that's where the density increases coming from. Next slide. The goal of the community and Paltese vision for this property is a very highly amenitized residential community. And the benefit there is it adds value to the residents of the rural settlement overlay district, but it also adds value to the entire corridor. When you have something, even the golf course that Jay talked about, we put in a requirement that it be auto-bond certified, so that you know that the nutrient application is limited and you're not going to create any offsite discharges that cause pollutants downstream or anything like that. There are water quality measures in place, but because it adds cost, it also adds value and it adds price and that gets built in with the value of the homes. So, again, highly ameneditized community maintains the values along the corridor. The plan also moves forward and implements the environmental restoration goals. So the greenways and flowways were restoring, were expanding, and we're creating those areas for future wildlife movement and greenway areas. Next slide, please. Non-residential, as Derek mentioned, PULTI is working intently on creating a neighborhood commercial center that's going to serve the residents along US 17, or working with a commercial developer. And this is a big part of the proposal. For the economic employment opportunities, economic development opportunities, they're asking for an increase because they believe that they can attract more industrial users to this site. And this is in line with the Metro forecast study, which specifically said, and if you watch the presentation that they gave before the board, they're very clear that wherever you have the opportunity, you should get as much economic development as you can. And the reason for that is economic development brings jobs, but it also brings tax base and it brings economic value to the entire county. US 17 is one of only a very small number of strategic intermodal systems, SIS, corridors in Charlotte County. You have Ponte Gord airport, you have I-75, you have US-17, and then 31 is considered a minor SIS facility. But you only have those. And what those are, those are F-DOT designated areas that they concentrate on utilizing for the movement of goods and services. So you have a very unique opportunity in Charlotte County to capture that from the standpoint of attracting new economic development opportunities. And I don't think you should minimize that. You should maximize that to the extent possible. Let's go. The Master Development Plan aims to provide an integration of the properties. So we have to, we included both a pedestrian and roadway interconnectivity map, which you see before you. The benefit of this is what we're trying to do is create an integrated community where people don't have to go out to US 17 for their daily needs. So when you have the commercial in place, it's a live work and play environment. Internally, they can go to the commercial, they can shop where they live. They don't have to access US-17. And then, as I said before, it's a fully integrated plan. We have residential, commercial, light industrial and public facilities. And again, the benefit of having a single developer, developing a large chunk of this is we're able to integrate all of those uses in a way that's compatible. If you tried to locate an EMS facility in an existing neighborhood right now, you'd get a lot of opposition to that because of the noise. Here we're able to put the EMS facility within our community and develop it around it so that we know it's compatible and people know it's there before they move there. Next slide. I'm just going to summarize now and just say that a lot of the criteria, a lot of what we're looking at for the text amendment is based on some outdated criteria from over 15 years ago. Some of it was put in by the Department of Community Affairs at the time. It wasn't part of the public process as we were developing the plan. But most of it, at this point in time, doesn't make a whole lot of planning sense and doesn't achieve the goal set. The plan was trying to achieve. Let's go to the next slide. Over the last 15 years, very little has occurred. In this area, again, as I said, the design criteria is out of date. The proposed development form doesn't implement on public interest. Utilities have not been extended. No new commercial has been put in place to serve the neighborhood and promote revitalization. And again, your either as Friend Mind One said, your ease are growing or you're dying. And so we're trying to promote something that creates economic investment along the corridor. So the benefits of this are to attract neighborhood commercial, restaurant shopping, grocery store, someone we're working with, restoration of the flowways and greenways, public trail along the blueway area, create an integrated plan so you have that internal capture of trips, extend utilities, create a high value, highly ammanitized community that has a mix of housing types and new economic development opportunities. And with that, that's my presentation. If you have any questions, we'd be happy to answer them. Thank you. Any questions for the applicants? So we'll open up public comment. Those wishing to speak please come forward. Sign in. Don't even swear in. No. Okay. Do not need to. in. No. Okay. Do not need to. This is legislative. Okay. My name is James Thomas. I'm a. My name is James Thomas. I'm a resident in Prairie Creek West. Thank you very much. This afternoon for letting us have some time. And for your consideration, I'd like to read the following statement. Let me be unequivocally clear. The proposed zoning changes outlined in TCP 24-04 are an egregious assault on the very fabric of our community and a blatant disregard for the delicate ecosystem we call home. This proposal which seeks to cram an additional 2,000 dwellings units and a staggering 500,000 more square feet of commercial development into our rural landscape is not just ill-conceived. It's a destructive and shortsighted endeavor that will have devastating consequences. Your proposal demonstrates a shocking lack of consideration for the abundant wildlife that currently inhabits this area. Bobcat, deer, sandhill cranes, groufer tortoises, scrub jays, Florida Panthers, and coyotes. These are not mere inconveniences to be swept aside in the name of unchecked development. They are integral parts of our natural heritage and your plan effectively sentenced in them to displacement into residential neighborhoods where conflicts are inevitable or almost certain death on our already overburdened highways. The inclusion of a re-numbered wildlife undercrossing's provision is a poultry and insulting gesture. A mere drop in the bucket compared to the wholesale habitat destruction this proposal will unleash. Furthermore, your parent obsession with transforming every corner of Charlotte County into a congested coastal metropolis is deeply offensive to those of us who have intentionally chose to reside in the eastern portion of its tranquility for its tranquility in space. We invested in properties with acreage precisely to escape the suffocating density and incessant noise that plague more developed areas to suggest that we all aspire to a coastal community lifestyle as an arrogant and baseless assumption. Some of us value peace, quiet, and the natural beauty that you are so willing to sacrifice at the altar of relentless expansion. The current state of traffic congestion in Charlotte County is already a nightmare, a direct consequence of this board seemingly insatiable appetite for development without any corresponding investment and infrastructure. To exacerbate this problem with thousands more vehicles on our roads and they will not stay in that subdivision, they will come out onto our roads. Is not just poor planning, it's a dereliction of your duty to ensure the safety and quality of life for your constituents. Let us not forget the glaring inadequacy of our local healthcare system. We don't even have a hospital. How can you and good conscious propose such a massive influx of residents without addressing this critical deficiency? This proposal is a direct threat to the quality of life we have painstakingly built in eastern Charlotte County. It's a slap in the face to those of us who prioritize space privacy and the preservation of our natural surroundings. Make no mistake. If this ill-conceived plan moves forward, many of us, excuse me, many of us will have no choice but to sell our homes and seek refuge in communities that value responsible growth and environmental stewardship. We did not move here to live in another West Palm Beach, or Miami, and we will not stand idly by while you attempt to force that reality upon us. This board must understand the gravity of this situation. Your decision on this matter will have profound and lasting consequences for our community, disregarding our wishes and the devastating environmental impact of this proposal will not be forgotten. We urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject these zoning changes and to prioritize the preservation of our natural environment and the quality of life of your existing residents over the insatiable demands of unchecked development. I have 50 seconds, so I'd like to continue with one more thought please. And that's the last comment I'd like to address in this forum is that this board's recent historical recommendations, and if you include today, have been 108 petitions recommended for approval and only two petitions recommended for denial. So at minimum, this is suspicious and at worst, it's scaled corruption. I would encourage concerned individuals such as myself to submit ethics complaints against each of these board members. And with that I appreciate your time. Good afternoon. Page Kriggle. I... Good afternoon. Page Kruegel. I formerly represented Charlotte County in the Florida Legislature for eight years. Currently my job is to get up in the morning and do what my wife tells me to. I want to thank you all for this opportunity to speak to you. I'm going to be brief because there's a lot of people here who want to be heard. A lot of these people are going to say this is classic urban sprawl and it's pretty hard to argue with that. I will say in being transparent here that during my time in the legislature I worked a lot with Mr. Delise and I do respect him. And I have nothing personally against the farmer wanting to sell his land for the highest best use he can get out of it. I have nothing against developers building houses. I happen to live in a house built by a developer. 8,000 units, Mr. Delise, that's quite the ask. Yeah. A little bit audacious. There are people who will say it's gonna have a terrible impact on the roads and I believe that's inevitable. 8,000 units, probably 16,000 cars. Half those people are going to get up and go to work in the morning. That's 8,000 new vehicles on the US-17, unless they somehow restrict their home sales to unemployed fathers and stay atat-home mothers. As laid out currently, it's going to impact negatively the city of Pundigord water supply, but I think they're going to weigh in on this separately. I have spoken with the utilities director there. And it will certainly impact for the worse, our currently rural, way of life. I noticed all the employees, her emphasis on wildlife, but 8,000 units, 16,000 cars, 20,000 screaming kids. I don't think I have to worry about the wildlife. It's really not going to be any. My gut feeling is that the bulk of the people here today are not here to support your project, Mr. Delisey, but could be wrong. Nevertheless, I'm going to be brief and let them speak. At some point there's going to be an opportunity for dialogue with the affected parties and negotiation and maybe some compromise. At that point in time, I'd like to be part of that discussion. And I thank you for listening to me. Yeah. Applause. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Excuse me if I read, I'm not accustomed to public speaking. My name is Jennifer King and I'm speaking today in strong opposition to petition TCP 2404 from this point or refer to as the petition. It terrifies me this and if it doesn't terrify, it should. Let me be clear, Charlotte County is fast tracking towards a development crisis. And I know where is that more evident in our water supply or imminent lack of it. Your response to this petition has the capacity to pivot the trajectory of this crisis. Researchers trending towards longer dry seasons, shorter wet seasons. Our neighbours, Lee and DeSoto counties are recording the dryest year-to-date in 131 years. And statewide, we are seeing a loss of aquifer Recharge areas due to development extreme rainfall events causing destructive flooding aquifer levels at a wreck at record lows and at risk of salt water intrusion There is research Residents experiencing reduced well levels in consistent water pressure, even warnings from the county for water conservation as I speak. Yet this petition is asking the county to approve maximum intensity development, erasing the original vision from 17 years ago, as you said, and the intent for this land use is incomprehensible. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Future Water Assessment report from 2023 indicates a chronic shortage progressively over the next 20 years. This development conservatively demands, apparently, 1.1 million gallons of water per day. It is not sustainable without impacting existing and future residents' water supply and water quality. Increased capacity of supply is still not a solution. Water is finite. Mathematically, this does not make sense. I am not just here to speak about temporary inconvenience, but rather long-term sustainability. This petition is requesting more units, more strain and more pressure on an infrastructure system that is already at breaking point. There is no detailed independent water capacity analysis provided, and most importantly, no assurances that existing residents will not be impacted. And let's talk about trust. This community's confidence in this planning and zoning board is rapidly deteriorating. We are seeing petition after petition recommended for approval despite overwhelming public concern. Phone calls and emails not acknowledged or returned. I'm sorry, not acknowledged or returned. We see obvious infrastructure gaps, including the water supply issue. It is not a matter of if or when, it is not a matter of if, but when we run out of water, a recommendation to approve this petition would be one more example of the board prioritizing unchecked growth over a responsible long-term planning and public interest. We are not anti-growth, We are pro-sustainability. The county must guarantee safe, reliable, long-term water supply. And this position of the implementation of the Area 17 vision, the recommendation to this petition must be no, not delay, not compromise, no. Make no mistake, this development will sell a dream and deliver a nightmare. Our water is fine out, our trust is fragile. I implore you to do the right thing, reject this petition and prepared to speak. But I think I thought the consultant there made a pretty good case, but not for the developer, but for the residents. You know, the the infrastructure there is already stressed. The traffic on 17. You can try to get on the freeway in the morning down there at 17 and 75. It's a total mess. And put another 8,000 vehicles in that mix and the other guy was right too. Nobody's going to stay right there. Nobody stays in their community completely unless they're old and retired and don't have anything else to do. But this is kind of disgraceful to be honest with you. I see our tax dollars being wasted and you know, basically it's going to cause more of a county expense to try and do this. I mean, there's no utilities out there for that. And it's just kind of disgraceful. And I'd like to know, do any of you folks have a background in building or land development? You don't want to answer? Yeah, I'm pretty sure you do. Oh, sorry. Well, I'm pretty sure you do. And I think that's kind of a conflict of interest. So I think some ethics need to be looked into here. Things just don't seem right. So sorry, I didn't come prepared to speak, but I'd be great to know. Please say something. Say your name for the record please. Christopher Thomas. Thank you. APPLAUSE Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Fred Dodd, and I'm a resident of Charlotte County. I'm fairly new on the scene. I've only been here about three or four years, but I have extensive training in wildlife biology. That was one of the reasons why I picked this area off of Washington, New York, because of the massive amounts of wildlife and the beautiful scenery. It just took me and I couldn't get emotional just even thinking about it. But anyway, I want to go and record as opposed to this. I've worked with this before. I've seen it all the promises and then once they get in it's Impact on infrastructure our current utility systems were designed for low density rural living adding thousands of new units will Inevitably strain water sewer electricity infrastructure. How does a county plan to upgrade this? Who's gonna at what's going to pay for this? Traffic and road safety. This increases in development will bring significant traffic congestion to our roads. I'm sorry, a lot of this I know I'm being redundant. It's always been gone, but PMEO. There will be increased traffic brings road wear, safety concerns, and longer commute times. What plan is in place to accommodate these pressures, environmental concerns? Our area's ecosystems and wildlife habitats are delicate. Yeah, that's better. With this development, deforestation, pollution, disruption of native species is inevitable. The statement that's made that you can put systems for wildlife to pass on the roads, and things like this, doesn't work. Okay, you can see a Gulf of Tottas walking across the Gulf, of course, to go find a way out. No. Property values and quality of life. Those of us purchased properties in this world setting did so with the expectation of privacy and space. The increased density will reduce property values. As future buyers may no longer want to seek this area as the original peaceful nature. And I know that in my neighborhood, I've already heard several people telling me that if this goes through, they're out of here. That's not right. And the other thing is the water supply, if I understand correctly, the city water comes from not shell creek, prairie creek. And that's already an issue. If development must proceed, I urge the commission to consider compromises, larger lot sizes, designated green spaces, large enough to create significant distances from rural neighborhoods. The stronger zoning protection to ensure rural character remains intact. I urge you to consider the voices of the people who live in this area. Please vote against us. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is Anne Finkler. I live on Blackjack Court North, which backs right up to this. And I will be impacted. Absolutely. I came with the script, but I did want to address something I heard today that we need change. We don't need change. We are all happy where we are out there driving back and forth many miles every day to get where we live because we love it out there. We love the wildlife. We love the rural setting. We love looking at the stars without interference from lights. And I don't know if you guys kayak, which is a wonderful sport. Grab your kids, your grandkids, rent or better yet buy a kayak and head out to Shell Creek. You can get there through halfway park off Washington Loop and take a paddle up East upstream and you may understand what I'm talking about. But I'll get back on script now. Someone has to care about Florida. We have to be good stewards of this special world that we have down here on this amazing but delicate peninsula. You know, we depend on our representatives to do this for us, but unfortunately for them they are looking to get their butts voted out because they're not doing such a good job. There are just too many building projects going on and our wonderful little paradise down here to be supported by this ecosystem that we live in. I know there are people that say, oh, well, you can have it, but someone else can't. Well, I bought in an older established home. My whole family is down here. They did the same. They bought existing buildings. We didn't destroy anything. And I think, yes, we have to limit growth, you know, when it's full, it's full, and we are getting there. So we have to say enough. We live in this wonderful rural countryside we don't want to have some big dense population growing forcing our already endangered wildlife out causing unnatural pollution noise invasion of our privacy and the forementioned road destruction vehicles the whole thing. I have horses and I do not want to be forced to become an attractive nuisance, which is a legal term, meaning that I become liable for any harm that might come to another person because they're attracted to my animals. That shouldn't be forced upon me and I will have that in my backyard for sure if this goes through. I don't want to be liable for unknown and unknowing kids that come around, you know, gawking and letting themselves get hurt or haven't forbid hurting my animals. So no, I did not sign up for this. As most of us did not, we want to keep our quiet country lifestyle and we don't need growth or anything else. Thank you. Good afternoon, board. My name is Mike Downs, 28506, Sable Palm Drive, and the Palm Shores Neighborhood. We are just two short miles from this proposed large-scale development. We also own property on Brian Way within a thousand feet where we plan to build our home. I'm a local first responder fishing guide and a father raising a young family here. We chose to live here because it feels like Florida, not the overdeveloped version with traffic sprawl, but the near coastal small town community with room to breathe. The area east of 75 is one of the few places left in the region that has been swallowed up by development. And that's what drew us here, and that's what we risk losing if this development moves forward. To be clear, I'm not against growth. I know it's inevitable, but growth needs to be responsible and sustainable. And this proposal simply is not. As heard, this development would increase density from 6,000 to 8,000 homes and expand commercial industrial space by 50% all to justify infrastructure costs. The applicant states plainly that 6,000 homes is not profitable enough for the support of the utilities and public benefits promised. To me, that's a right flag. If a project only works financially by overloading the area with more people, buildings, maybe it does not belong. We are already seeing the consequences of unchecked growth across the county, strained infrastructure, traffic delays, overburdened services, and I would echo what has been said before me. The open spaces and natural land out there just aren't details on a development plan. They're what make this area special and worth preserving. Once we pay you over rural land, we don't get it back. No amount of master planning or pattern books can recreate the character that draws people to live here in the first place. So I respectfully ask that you recommend denial of this amendment. We have the responsibility to future generations to preserve what's left of the natural Florida, not just for recreation or scenery, but quality of life, public safety, long term sustainability, and this development does not meet that bar. Thank you for your time today and for your service to our community. Good afternoon. My name is Dave Klassen, CLAW SON, and I live at 1-3-25-0 Oakwood Court, which butts right up against that. I live on a water flow that during rating seasons and hurricanes is at max. So to put, that's in there is just going to flood me out. So any recommendation for this is a total disregard for human life. Our community is located on the east side of US 17 in eastern Charter County on the north side of Washington Loop. Our rural house, horse community with a minimum of five acres has private wells and septic tanks. Most people bought out here to escape the urban spraw of Pantongord, Fort Myers, Sarasota, for example. We enjoy our quiet setting in wildlife sanctuaries and estuaries. Specifically, our property is next to a flood control greenbelt ditch and in events of heavy rains or hurricanes this did is almost almost overflows. Our main concern is the runoff that will happen if this development is allowed to continue. As this property is approximately 10 to 18 feet higher in elevation than all the properties along northwarch Washington loop. We are concerned about our properties. We'll be subjected to extreme flooding and erosion problems. Currently this open area acreage has standing water and high rain events so for community to be built it will require a major buildup, which will likely increase the runoff issue. Additionally, this will disrupt the natural habitats of the deer, cody, sand hill, crane, and many others that live in this area. Second, the issue of potable water and sewage availability needs to be studied and an environmental report needs to be completed and provided to all the residents before approval of additional housing units. Our concern is that our wells could either run dry or be contaminated from this proposed residential and commercial property. According to a report's Smart Charlotte 2050, this is currently not enough water or sewage treatment. There are not currently enough water or sewage treatment plans to accommodate this increase amount of people. The addition of these houses units would require additional fire station services. I know land has been appropriated for hospitals and everything like that, but will they be built? Finally due to the last two hurricanes, which caused major flooding in Punta Gorda, Siddled Dynamits, our only hospital was flooded and subsequently closed. A class, the closest hospital is approximately 20 miles away. We feel that the zoning and planning commission should be focused on finding an area that does not flood and rebuild a hospital for Pantagorda and the surrounding areas. That should be your focus. As well as finding out how to stop the flooding of Ponte Gorda before expanding housing and commercial development where it is not wanted. Thank you. I am Marty Grove. I'm Mark Degrove. The rural settlement area, overlaid district from 2009-10, it was intended to provide necessary infrastructure as well as preserving the rural nature of the area. County Comprehensive plan formed by the 2009 US 17 quarter planning study emphasizes preserving the rural character and transitioning urban uses gradually into agricultural and preservation areas east of US 17. The second speaker spoke about all of the time and effort and connections with the community and forming this plan and now it's not good enough what we're calling improvements and revisions are basically weakening and exceptions from this RS-OAD which was again carefully done initially. Now it's not good enough. At that April 15th meeting with the commissioners, Dave Watson from CCU stated they'll need about a million gallons of water a day. That's over a third of a billion gallons a year from our river. If you guys have ever been out there and seen the water quality as it is now, you would understand concerns about taking this amount of water out of our river. It will return with pesticides and fertilizer and fecal pollutants in it to the river eventually. Also I don't know if there's a definite plan whether this water is coming from to Soto County or Charlotte County according to that meeting on April 15th. Concerns about the water, the wildlife, the traffic, the hospitals, the schools. The development is very inconsistent with the comprehensive plans policies to preserve rural character and manage growth that violates Florida statues and risk urban sprawl in the East County. Florida law requires that comprehensive plan amendments ensure public facilities such as roads, water, sewer, and schools are available with concurrent development impacts. Charlotte County's infrastructure and capital improvement elements mandate that amendments demonstrate infrastructure capacity to support increased density or intensity. Pulse proposed increase to 8,000 residential units and 1,500 square feet of commercial space and rural area east of US 17 could significantly strain our existing infrastructure, especially given the areas of limited road network and distance from urban services. So the displacement of wildlife and endangered species in the destruction of their habitat is a major concern. We're calling a underpass a wildlife corridor. As I understand it, the only ones available are in DeSoto and not Charlotte County if I'm correct. This proposal of a golf course as an open space inviting for wildlife kind of reminds me of the mosaic picture where they show a sterile landscape that was once heavily treated. It's got a body of water and a few waiting birds and they're claiming they restored the landscape. You can compare a golf course as a place for wildlife to the heavily forested wild area. There is there there is no comparison. The PULTY will be okay without this development. Their net income was 2.6 billion in 2023. Their stock prices doubled the past few years. They're not hurting. You know why we all bought our homes out here. Most of us living in the eastern part of Charlotte County have chosen the quiet, uncrowded, peaceful, rural life and they get inconvenience of not having local access to many amenities is our preferred way of life. As Charlotte County government officials continue to push for us to end up as another Palm Beach or Miami many of us will leave. I am mystified by how many people who would readily donate an organ to their child or grandchild will not be inconvenienced in any way, especially financially, to leave a habitable world behind for their children and grandchildren. As a third generation native Floridian and 42-year resident and business owner in Charlotte County. It breaks my heart to see the continuous, and the great driven over development little different tack right now. It'll bear with us. My name is Howard Cunick. Ellen and I live on Hidden Valley Circle in Buried Creek Park off of Washington Loop Road. Prairie Creek Park is a 300 unit ranch equestrian and wildlife preserved oriented community consisting of green bell trails roads and rural estate living off of Washington Loop Road. The Prairie Creek board met on May 8th to discuss among other items. The proposed master plan development of 4,900 acres south of DeSoto-Colonig line in East of US 17. Our comments and input are intended to strengthen staff comments and add value to the project development. While the proposed project seems to be generally consistent with the vision of the 2009-2010 U.S. 17 area plan as well as the county's comprehensive plan. Such large-scale comprehensive plan amendments are handled on a case-by-case basis and do not set precedent. It is imperative that if approved, it does not provide an incentive for further encroachment into Prairie Creek Park, as well as our sister neighborhoods down the road from us, Prairie Creek Estates and Prairie Creek West, residential estates zoning classifications. The team of Palty and Delicier experienced and master plan mixed use developments in Southwest Florida. That provide a mix of residential types, commercial and open space in an integrated manner. The developer requests and county staff concurred to bring to the Board of County Commission a mixed increased maximum residential density from 6,000 units to 8,000 units, maybe. But before any density is increased, beyond 6,000 that they're currently allowed right now, the developer needs to demonstrate economic justification based on infrastructure costs that have yet to be determined. The developer request at county staff concurres to move forward to the Board of County Commissioners increased maximum regional economic development, commercial and light industrial, and the regional economic development from 1 million square feet to 1,500,000 square feet. This will could add value to enhanced employment and shopping opportunities in an underrepresented area of Charlotte County. The county shall not improve part of the recommendation. Any final detail site plans for development unless availability of central water and sanitary sewer can be demonstrated. In addition, no building permits will be issued after the first 200,000 square feet of non-residential or 1,000 residential units until central water and sewer is extended to the Peace River Shores, Peace River and Peace River Highway subdivisions west of the project area along US-17. And the extensions are to be funded by the developer, collective owners, and the area utility provider. This is not well and septic. This is central water and sewer. This recommendation is nothing short of critical. In that it continues the county's proactive program of septic to sewer. Enhances our ecosystem in water quality by not building any more wells and septics and does not allow for well-inceptic installations for residential and commercial development in the project area. The county shall require master development plan approved by county commission prior to development to include design guidelines, infrastructure financing, open space management and maintenance. A minimum of 50 percent already? Well, let me go to this. Instead of the golf course, an alternative of 60%. Let's see, this is an area that offers the county an opportunity to amend its recommendation and require the developer to set aside sufficient land for a regional park as envisioned in the county's 2024 Parks and Recreation Growth Analysis. This document identifies such a park in the area as shown on page 10 identified as FR-B. In addition, a community center integrated within the park could serve as a designated shelter during storm events as well as provide a period of programs and recreational activities for an underserved population in eastern Charlotte County. Funding for this could come from passage of an infrastructure sales or task extension referendum, if approved to move forward by the County Commission and approved by the voters. The initial traffic study by the developer's consultant determined that US 17 has capacity to handle the project development. Maybe a more updated traffic study needs to be undertaken to determine the impact not only on us 17 but also the surrounding neighborhoods one last comment just no You have a chance to wrap it up. Sorry. Okay. I'll let somebody else say it. Good afternoon, members of the Planning and Zoning Board. My name is Alicia Downs, and I'm here to oppose petition number TCP-24-04. I was raised here in Charlotte County and now I live at 28506 Sable Palm Drive in the Palm Shores neighborhood where my husband Mike and I are raising our young family. We also plan on building a home as he mentioned just a couple hundred acre or couple hundred yards from this proposed development. Our way of life like so many others here is tied to the water, the land, and the character of this community. You have an important job shaping how and where our community grows and making sure that growth aligns with the vision of this community. I wanna thank you for that responsibility and for the seriousness that you carry it with. We have something in Charlotte County that the cities to our north and south can no longer claim. We have open space, kind of clean water, and a rural identity that still feels like Florida. That's not just our lifestyle, it's our value. It's what draws people here and it's what fuels our local economy and makes this place worth protecting. This proposal threatens that. It calls for thousands more homes, hundreds of thousands of additional square feet of commercial and industrial development, and a rollback of the very standards that were put in place to prevent this area from becoming just another quarter of sprawl. The original vision for this overlay was to provide a thoughtful transition from urban to rural, not to pay over what's left of it. We've seen what happens when development gets ahead of reality, like the Sunseeker Resort that was marketed as a transformative project, nearly 700 million invested over 700 rooms with big promises for job creation and tourism. And just one year in, that resort has struggled to deliver on those expectations. Occupancy has fallen short and the surrounding community has seen little of the lasting benefit that was promised. Why? Because it was built for a vision that didn't reflect the values, the scale, or the rhythm of Charlotte County. Bigger does not mean better. And growth that isn't rooted in the needs of the people who actually live here does not last. Meanwhile our county is still recovering from some of the worst storm seasons in our history. We lost a hospital due to Hurricane Saline Milton. Some small businesses have not reopened and there are many families who are still trying to rebuild even from Hurricane Ian and possibly even from Charlie. And now we're being asked to approve a development that would dramatically increase demand on emergency services, roads, utilities that are already struggling to keep up. That's not responsible planning. It pushes ahead without solving the gaps and the challenges that we are already facing. And the cost will fall on the people who live here, not on the developers. These amendments prioritize short-term developer profit over long-term community well-being. They accelerate suburban sprawl, weaken environmental protections, and gamble on the idea that more growth will somehow pay for itself later. But once the land is cleared, once the concrete is poured, we don't get that back. Now is the time to invest in recovery, not in overextension, to strengthen the local businesses that are already rooted here, not chase rapid growth for short-term returns. To protect the natural assets that make our county unique, not trade them for promises of infrastructure later. That's sustainable growth. That's how Charlotte County can stay competitive without losing the very identity that makes our county desirable in the first place. So I respectfully urge you to reject this petition, listen to the people who call this place home, who will live with the consequences long after the developers are gone. Thank you for your thoughtful attention to this matter and for the responsibility you each carry in shaping the future of Charlotte County. Good afternoon. I'm David Sussman. I'm a commercial photographer, turned to environment. I've been documenting the beauty of Charlotte County ever since I've been here. I've been published all over the place. It's the building that you've done so far is gorgeous. I love it. But this area, I visit this area almost every other day. Imagine going there first thing in the morning as the sun rises and here comes a sun, San Hill Crane lands and another and another. By the time it was done, 300. Are they gonna land in that? No. Scrub Jays, you got 10 family of scrub jays in the back area of this. Travel along Live Oak Road. It's a dirt path. Anyone can go there from sunrise to sunset. And the crazy thing is you also have the Prairie Creek Preserve. Wonderful facility, but I see more wildlife there than I do in that preserve. Let's preserve the beauty of what we have and not let it go. I'm going to leave it at that. Thank you for your time. afternoon gentlemen my name is Turner Ralph a resident in Charlotte County year round they property owners that own the properties surrounding the area is potentially developed can all share a story with you about how it will negative they will be negatively affected by this massive project but we know stories alone are not going to persuade you so I'm going to focus on just a few things and I'll make it quick. Currently there's estimated to be around 200 to 661 residents in Charlotte County. According to the Federal Reserve economic data as of May 1st of 2025, 4,871 homes were on the market for single family. In January of 24, that was 3216 in March of 22555. That is over an eightfold increase of houses currently on the market compared to three years ago. The average home value in Charlotte County is down 8.9% over the last year. ATTOM, who's a curator of real estate analytics, released its special housing risk report, showed the foreclosure rate in Florida is ranked 10th among the 50 states. The top counties in foreclosure rates included Charlotte, Dixie and Lake. Charlotte County has one in 198 properties that are facing possible foreclosure. Underwater mortgages, Adam found, has one of the highest underwater rates at 14%. There are all kinds of developments throughout Charlotte County. All one has to do is travel on Tucker's Grade, Bernstor Road and others. I won't go into all of them because you're well aware of them. You were here when they were approved. You were here when they were requested. There's a myriad of potential issues related to these developments. A lot of people who are far more eloquent than I'll ever be will have traffic and dress and in road access. 17 is a state road. The county won't have a responsibility for maintaining it. If I say anything that's incorrect, it's not by design. It's because of ignorance. So feel free to correct me or to know the difference. We'll have disturbance to the natural floor and fauna. We'll have flood risk. Strings on the infrastructure such as water and sewer service. And a lack of retail, commercial and medical infrastructure to support all these new residues. I do not think any of us here today are naive enough to think we're going to stop the growth of rural Charlotte County. As it is highly desirable type of rural town that attracts people looking for once affordable lifestyle. What we hope to accomplish, I can't speak for everyone, but for me is to stop the increase in density and slow down the approval rate of these developments proposed. Prior to approving this development off highway 17, the issues of providing water without forcing current residents to pay for it and give up their well water supply, having adequate wastewater treatment, something that's going to be a huge issue soon, along burnt store, road corridor having adequate access to medical care schools and making sure the roads are adequate for hurricane evacuations and will not be overburdened by the number of heavy equipment. And the question is is there really a need for homes at this particular time and we would ask you to please vote no on their proposal. Thank you. I'm going to make this shorter than it was because everyone has so eloquently covered most of my concerns. But I do have a few things to come from the heart. Good afternoon. I am Colonel Mary Ann Tipton, United States Air Force Retired. You don't need to thank me for my service as often people do. Just show me. Show me and all of the other veterans living in and around the Prairie Creek communities where the Pulted Development will negatively impact. We served, we saved, and we found our retirement community. For us, our families, and for some even our horses. Noise and light pollution today are non-existent. But will that be true if TCP-2404 is approved? And same with the lead of this, the lead all of this, the lead all of this. How would your family feel? How would you feel about a large scale development in your their backyard? Is this where you would want to live with your family, children, parents, grandparents, when you believed you had found and purchased the perfect place for your retirement. I realize as county employees, you do need to find ways to fill the coffers. And tax revenue from a large project such as this does fit your needs. When I was in the United States Air Force, I served at the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the Director of Programs, Plans, and Resources. In briefings, I often respectfully, of course, told the admils in general, and excuse me, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. So I ask, even though you can approve TCP-2404, should you think about it? And please carefully consider this before voting yes. Thank you for your time. My name is Camilla Spicer. I live off of the south side of Washington loop. I'm going to be really brief here, but I support the comments that my neighbors have made. I just like to say a couple things. So everyone of us that came here today for my neighborhood, it takes an hour and 15 minutes to drive here, hour and 15 minutes to drive home. We're two and a half hours invested, plus our time here. I appreciate all the hours time here too. A lot of us probably were not involved at the time of the Plan revision in 2010. It didn't affect us if we didn't live there at the time. It probably was like distant. We have other jobs. It's not our job to me representing the community on the planning and zoning board. And we're not the developer whose representatives, it is their job. It's their job to go and have the stakeholder meetings and talk to people and compile the data. But all the stakeholders really can't be there. Every resident of Charlotte County is truly a stakeholder in what happens in the rural areas of our county. So I'm just saying all these people here, there's probably many, many, many more that can't be here. And because we are jobs, they have jobs, you have a job. You all have a job on the board. And it's to hear everybody, it's to provide service to your county for the taxes that we pay. And so even though the Complan revision was that, that doesn't mean that you have to follow that today. I don't think it really promotes revitalization. We're not growing or dying. We could just stay the same out there. And also, I'd just like to comment that open space, screenways, and flowways in this subdivision are not wildlife habitat. They're not good for the wildlife at all. I live out there. This wildlife is all over my place. It's not living in the subdivision. Thank you for their service and your consideration. And I really urge you to oppose this proposal today. It doesn't have to be done today. It certainly doesn't have to be done today. Good afternoon, my name is Justin Pace. I live on Washington Loop. In the about the middle of that on the south side, I border live oak, but I would be bordered on two sides of my property by this development. As commissioners, I ask y'all not to look at simply the economic value benefits, but look at the residents opinion as well. I've lived there since 94. I've owned my property since 2017. I'm raising my family there now. And other than just the plain fact, I don't want to see a development in my backyard. There's three natural flowage ways on the south end of that. Two, dump into Prairie Creek and one dumps into Peace River. Not to mention Lee Branch on the North End. Nobody here has talked about what this development is going to do. Fertilizer runoff, drainage from all this development to the north. We're going to turn into another Clusa Hatchey River. Peace River is clean right now for the most part. So with that being said, you know, what's what are we going to do about the runoff? All these developments have some type of HOA or D. Restriction. They got to have green pretty yards year around. That's fertilizer and water that's going to go into these runoffs. On top of that, they talk about firing EMS. They're going to build a new station in there for these 8,000 homes. That's great. Station 16 is pretty much central of their district right now. Palm shores in 17. They put another station in that development. They'll close that one. It's a longer response time for units to get out of a subdivision and get to Ridge Harbor, Washington Loop, other areas. The county's not going to have to station the mile two miles apart. That's something to think about. Been mentioned a bunch, but once again water supply and sewage disposal. Yeah, they could do well and put in an aquifer, but that's going to complete ground levels. So I think there's a lot that needs to be brought up, but for the majority of it, look at what the community wants. I heard one person from the neighborhood stand up here and say they want this. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you for your time. My name is Dwight Dean. I live at 6651 Cypress Grove Circle and Prairie Creek Park. And with your permission, I'd like to extend, Mr. Kubik's remarks reflecting the discussion that our Association Board Meeting this last week, by adding the following comment in the context of what we would ask you and your colleagues in Charlotte government to seriously consider and impose upon the applicant include this. The applicant is required to submit a comprehensive stormwater management plan that ensures on-site capability. It is imperative that an approved that an approved plan and application mitigate sheet flow onto surrounding areas. While we have confidence in the ability of the applicant's team to meet this requirement, it is incumbent that the appropriate government jurisdictions with mud, Charlotte County, and all of its aspects. Take immediate action to remedy off-site flooding caused by the project and not leave it up to adjacent individual property owners to incur the cost. I would add four summary points Florida is growing. know Everybody knows that. There are five states in the country that are picking up population at a rate never seen in the history of the country. Florida is one of those. This county is a natural location and kind of in the target zone for where people when they come to Florida where they begin to look for property or to establish their residency. All of the comments that you've heard here reflect why that is a reality for Charlotte County. At the current household medium value $291,000 per household, based on census data, this project reflects a $2.3 billion project. 8,000 units at that average price, and I suspect this is not going to be an average development, it's going to be even inflated beyond that. That does not take in any of the economic, commercial development, and the possible costs that are derived from that. The issue, if I'm listening to the comments, and I'm trying to think what you're trying to do, proportionality. 40% of the residents of Charlotte County are 65 years old or older. The average household income in Charlotte County is 72,000. That's average. People above, people below that. If you think about what your challenge is, what you have to take on the role for is to figure out how you're going to grow as our colleagues from the consultant folks advise us either you're growing or you're dying. Well, that's true. But if you grow, you should not grow in some haphazard manner or you're in chaotic matter, you should grow in a manner that is positive for those current somewhere in the neighborhood of 204,000 people who inhabit this county today. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name's Casey Dubarry. I'm a fourth generation resident of Charlotte County. My family's been here since 1890 so this is very important to me. I would like to bring up a quote, like a direct, the amendment justification from PULTI from the applicant. It says that the development criteria for the arsaud is numerous and costly. The cost of extending utilities along the corridor is significant. Increased open space, conservation, energy efficiency, and other form of development criteria also add cost over and above the typical costs of TDUs that are unique to Charlotte County. This has prevented development from providing larger public benefits such as extension of utilities and the precision provision of neighborhood commercial uses along that were envisioned in the U.S. 17 plant in order to spread out the unique and significant infrastructure costs additional units are necessary to provide the necessary critical massive development. If you read that in common sense, I would sum that up to greed. And I would also, that also bodes the question of the integrity and the high reputation that ColULTI claims to have when in 2019 they were investigated by the Florida Attorney General's office and agreed to a multi-million dollar settlement addressing construction defects in its Florida homes. Homeowners often complained about issues such as cracks in stucco applied to wood frames, stucco delamamination, and improper installation of wheat-screed. As a part of the settlement, PULTI paid $4.7 million in restitution to cover out of pocket cost expenses to those homeowners. Also in 2021, homeowners in a COE are expressing frustration over unresolved drainage issues in their PULTI home's properties. Residents have experienced flooding that reaches their sliding glass doors during rainfall. Despite documenting the problems, they claim that PULTI has delayed necessary repairs. In response, PULTI attempted to address the issue by digging a swell between homes to divert water, but homeowners report that this solution has led to additional problems, such as creating swamp-like conditions and limiting access to parts of their yards. So the land where you guys are looking, those flowways, that's flood zone A, that's going to flood bad, because it's supposed to flood in a category one hurricane, but yet we've been hit simultaneously by three or above category hurricanes. Also, if you look at the National Wetlands mapper provided by FWC, all of that is wetlands in some way, shape or form, so low-lying land. So essentially you're going to have these drainage issues and you're going to have multi-million dollar issues when you have people coming in and their homes are crap and the drainage is crap and then you've built up the land you've raped the land and destroyed it. Whether you have 2500 acres of open green space or conservation. Once you permanently alter that land it's done. You've raped it. It's done. You can't bring that back. Whether you put in a golf course, whether you put in conservation, whatever have you, you're driving that out. I just don't understand. I would really question the integrity of that and also just the simple fact of it's supposed to bring an economic revenue. What commercial buildings are gonna be? A publics, restaurants, what kind of jobs are those? Those are minimum wage jobs. If the average salary is 72,000 here, minimum wage doesn't even touch that. So what realistically, what value is that actually bringing besides destroying the land? And also to be completely, frankly, honest with you, if the boards and the commissioners continue to not have the alignment of the current constituents, best interest at heart, then maybe we need to do a little revamp in. have people come forward that would have those interests. Thank you. John Martin, Washington, New Prode, I don't think I can follow very good with that. Right in the center of that map, that little hoop right there. Okay, I live there. And I'm going to keep it pretty short with the water situation. I'm not educated like a lot of these people are, but water flows south. And I'm going to be directly affected by that. The people that sold the land to Pulti and them are gone. They left. Now what's going to happen is Pulti's going to come in here and it looks that that one brochure they have really looks good okay. But they're going to sell all that land. They're going to do this and then they're going to go somewhere else and screw that place up. The ones to the right, the area to the right, the area C, okay. You and I are both not foolish in thinking that when this area is developed, it's not going to go to area C with another board and a little bit of whatever and get it taken care of, okay? I live there, I don't live in Babcock Ranch. If I wanted to live in Babcock Ranch, which this is trying to be, okay, I would have moved there, okay? It was brought up about somebody's backyard and everything and I understand okay Everybody's got rights and we got ours now. We don't want them to have ours But what I'm trying to the point I'm trying to make is they have rights for their land their owners rights But what about our rights as owners? Okay, y'all are sitting there right now a deer in the headlight look Okay,. My butt's hurting from sitting here too. But you guys better start paying attention what's going on around you. Thank you. Okay. Please. I'm trying to be respectful. But this is nonsense. And let's not forget, tag and that other nonsense that you guys voted in with the RV park, okay? And when you look at this thousand resident within a thousand feet, everything? Okay. All the meetings are already scheduled. What's that tell you? This stuff is already being passed through and we have no say about it and I'm tired of it. Common sense. The president's in doing it in the United States. Why can't we do it in Charlotte County? Thank you. Hi, my name is Derek Vienn. I live at One Woodland Drive right off of Prairie Creek, adjacent to the graphics and the map and the zoning maps that you've seen here on the screen. I believe I speak for everybody when I say that we moved out there for a quiet, rural, agricultural way of life. We enjoy the wildlife and the endangered species that inhabit the area and this planning, this development, intends to destroy that. I urge you to oppose this plan and reject. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Debbie Merns and I live on Terilane Drive, which is right off Highway 17 and it's south on the west side of this development. I just wanted to I agree with what everyone's saying here, so I won't repeat, but there is one issue that I've heard that I've not heard mentioned today, Lee Branch flows right behind Terrelaine Drive along the railroad tracks and flows straight into Shell Creek. Now, if there are fertilizers, all of that is going to be dumping straight into Shell Creek, which goes straight out to the Peace River. Terilane Drive goes straight into an area called San Suci, and this flow goes back along the railroad tracks and straight into Shell Creek. I do have photos of this sheepflow, and it happens not during hurricanes, it happens during heavy rains. So I respectfully ask that you decline this amendment. I was not prepared to speak, but I did want speak on that behalf because you know I remember back in the 60s I left here for 63 years lived on Terrelaine for 40 and I've seen such a change burrowing owls or gone. There's so much wildlife that is gone but I remember back in in the 60s when there was a big spill in the harbor and all the fish died. And now, you know, on bright moonlit nights, you can see phosphorus on the water. It's sparkly and it's pretty. But anyway, I just wanted to tell you about my concern with that because we're destroying our habitat, which is destroying our waterways. And it is nice out there. I do understand wanting to develop this property. Develop this property, I understand the Hudson's wanting to sell it because cattle isn't a thing anymore, not in our area, because we are all developing. So anyway, I just wanted to speak my concern, and I appreciate your listening. and thank you very much. Hi Tatiana Svetchen, Teriline Drive as well next to Debbie. Excuse me, I'm not used to this, but this is clearly important enough for me to do. So I'm just going to read off, dear members of the planning and zoning board. I strongly urge you to recommend Nile the large scale plan amendment, TCP 2404, for the rural settlement area overlay district in East County. This proposal, which would increase density to 8,000 residential units 8,000 residential units in commercial and since intensity to 1.5 million square feet on 49, 4,908 acres of east of US 17 threatens our rural community water resources and infrastructure. It violates Florida law and the Charlotte 2050 comprehensive plan for three critical legal reasons. Each tied to significant impacts on residents, well water, water supply, and Duncan Road traffic. First, TCP-2404 is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan's rural preservation goals, violating Florida Statues 163.3194. The 2009 US-17 corridor planning study, Incorporated's UFLU data and analysis appendix G established the RS-AOD to transition urban uses into rural areas not to urbanize them. The repose 33% density increase and 50% commercial intensity increase coupled with the deletion of rural village and residential development standards special provisions item 7 and 8 risks transforming East County into an urban sprawl. This conflicts with FLEU policy 1.21, which promotes low density rural development and FLEU policy 2.11, which prohibits urban sprawl. Residents face a loss of rural character, which with increased noise, light pollution, and disrupted community identity. The Master Development Plan and Pattern Book while proposed, lack proven effectiveness to maintain the rule vision set by the community in 2009. Under Florida Statutes 163.31943A, this inconsistency renders the amendment legally invalid. Second, TCP-2404 fails to demonstrate infrastructure concurrency violating Florida Statues 163.3180 and INF Policy 1.1.1. The addition of 8,000 units could generate 64,000 to 80,000 daily vehicle trips on US 17, a strained corridor, while 1.5 million square feet of commercial space adds 15,000 to 30,000 trips. The deletion of transportation provisions, item 9, sub item B, and vague infrastructure financing strategy, Exhibit 3, provide no assurance of road upgrades, risking severe congestion and safety hazards for commuters. Residents could face longer travel times, reduced emergency response access, and higher taxes if public funds cover improvements. The amendments water demand, which would actually be two to three million gallons daily, threatens the peace river, Manasota authorities capacity, as seen in recent chlorine adjustments to maintain supply. Without traffic and water capacity studies, TCP-2404 fails to meet concurrency requirements, a standard upheld in Pinecrest Lakes Inc. versus Shidell, 793SOSD, Florida, 4th DCA 2001, and burdens residents with unsustainable growth. Third, TCP-2404 lacks adequate environmental safeguards violating Florida statutes, 163.3177, 6G and AENV policy 1.1.1. The 4,908-gurts site likely includes wetlands, which it does, and habitats critical to the mid-Hothorne aquifer, which supplies well water for East County residents. The proposed golf course and revised open space provisions, item 5, risk nutrient runoff, contaminating wells with nitrates or pesticides, forcing residents to install costly filtration systems. Increased water demand could lower aquifer levels, reducing well yield and imposing mandatory utility connections, code section 3-8-233, with these fees up to $5,000. The single enhanced box culvert for wildlife item 10 is insufficient for a site this size threatening species and aquifer recharge Which also impacts municipal water supply without a hydro geological study or robust wetland management plan the amendment fails to protect natural resources Risking legal challenges under Martin County versus you some 690SO, 2D-1288, Florida, 1997. Just really quick, those impacts, those impacts, loss of rural lifestyle, traffic gridlock, and compromised water security, prioritizes developer interest over what residents well being. The Charlotte Interactive Growth Model, April 2025, does not justify this scale in a rural area and the lack of prior RSAOD development since 2010, questions its necessity. I urge denial of TCP-204 and request comprehensive studies on traffic, aquifer impacts, and water supply. Residents deserve a future that preserves East County's rural heritage protects our water and ensures safe roads. Thank you for consideration of our community's voice. Good afternoon gentlemen my name is Jeff Cruzy. I didn't intend to speak but Phil compelled to do so. I spent most of my career in this type of arena. It has been my experience that large track developers over promise and under deliver. My wife and I spent four years searching where we wanted to retire here in Southwest Florida. And we chose Port Charlotte here in Southwest Florida. And we chose Port Charlotte because of Port Charlotte. We live in a subdivision that was developed in the mid 90s and has probably developed to maybe 15% and there's an awful lot of them in Port Charlotte. You know, I just don't see any huge benefit. You know, if we're not growing, we're dying. Well, this is not a local developer wanting to put up a 150-house subdivision. This is going to have a huge impact on everything that everybody has discussed here. And it's obvious that there's overwhelming support for this project. I mean, it's clear. You know, it's a great PowerPoint presentation. And part of their goal is to gloss over as much as possible. That's part of the deal. That's their job. But I'm asking you folks to do the right thing and not approve this. This done nothing but a recipe for a big mess. As far as tax base, we've only been here a short time, but our taxes have almost doubled. I don't know about anybody else. So that's notans of Plan was developed in 2010, while it may have been the best plan then, is it really the best plan now? There have been considerable changes since then, and with any good stewardship recognition of those changes, and being able to adapt and change course is essential. The environment needs and character of the community have changed and evolved, and plan be adjusted to reflect those current situations There's so very many reasons why this density should not be allowed The comprehensive plan clearly states its goal is to stop urban sprawl I Quote It says discourage urban sprawl pursuant to section 163.3177 of Florida statutes. All of us on the Route 17 area in question chose to be rural for a reason. The protection of the median danger species inhabit this area, once they are gone, there won't be coming back. I probably wouldn't mind that with respect to the indigo snake, but it serves a purpose in our ecosystem. The focus group used for the 2050 comprehensive plan mentions a door- door survey. What were those survey questions? What neighbors did they survey? No one recalls being a participant in a door to door survey in this community. The very community that is being targeted. Whose opinions were used to develop the comprehensive plan? The list at the end of this appears to be people who would benefit most from the development. And they are people in real estate. Don't get me wrong. My husband and I are commercial real estate brokers. We are licensed in seven states. We make our living on development. Both commercial development and residential development. There are always people who don't like a project for the sake of not liking big business. However, in this situation and the many projects that are being slated for this area along 17, the issue for everyone that is most critical is the water, or the severe lack of water. Anyone can research that there's a water issue. It's blatantly out there. I don't think we need to be a Cape Coral, where our water is being meteredered and there's restrictions in place because there is not enough water for them. They've over developed. It's inconceivable to me and I'm in the business that a developer would disregard these dangers. It's a much greater concern that our officials, our representatives, would entertain this at all. Water is vitally essential and not to be concerned about that is irresponsible. Water aside, as everybody has stated, we chose this area because of the open spaces. We chose this area for the wildlife and the cows in our backyard the birds we could have chosen Babcock Ranch or Kate Coral or Sarasota but we picked here because the density that currently exists one home for 10 acres gives us open spaces gives us clean water. In an area so vital to the water supply of the city of Punagorda, you can't in good conscience allow this to go forward, where the water source is going to be affected. Last thought, it's important to note that the comprehensive plan is not the current zoning. It's not a guarantee of blanket approval. The future land use map establishes a long-range maximum limit on the possible density and intensity of land use. It does not simultaneously establish an immediate minimum limit. A comprehensive plan established a right range of allowed uses, densities, and intensities, including a maximum amount of development. It is not an entitlement. I think all of us here urge a no vote on this plan. And I think in good conscience, you need to do that for your community. Thank you. We start another page. It looks like, well, maybe not. I brought a document here earlier that was approved by the NRAC committee last week. And I don't know if you've received it or not, but I hope that you get to chance to glance at it. But I'm Lindsay Harrington. I've been a realtor here in Charlotte County for 46 years. I served in legislature for eight years and doing that period of time about four of those years I was on an agricultural committee. I represented four Southwest Florida counties that were agricultural counties including Charlotte and Lee County and I'm here today and also I serve on an RAC committee and it's a great committee And I think we've dropped the ball sometimes in the past when we should have been picking it up and run with it. I currently serve as a chairman of advisory committee at the Florida Gulf Coast University at what we call the Center for Agrivisors. And so as you can see, I've been very involved in selling land and I've loved selling agricultural land, vacant land out in East County. Anything east of 17 here, down to 75, including the Charlotte Ranchettes, is rural lands of Charlotte County, it's agricultural area. and the previous owner of this property, Larry Hudson, when he sold it over to the Swarth Properties Charlotte, the Charlotte, I think they had probably at that time one home per 10 acres and then eventually I believe went to one home per one. They have a right right now to build 4900 units. That's the problem. It's going to cost the taxpayers of Charlotte County and have to pay for that. But anyway, if I may go and I'm out of my, I'm not following up what I want to do here. I'm here to speak to the board today because you have your taxpayers watchdog. You're the policeman. Take care of the future Charlotte County. Your job is to make sure there's an early development within a county according to our comp plan and future land use as stated in yourizing ordinance, from time to time you may need to amend and revise the comprehensive plan. What does time to time mean? Actually it means occasionally but not often. Comp plan changes are carrying much too frequently in Charlotte County too often in my opinion. This is my opinion. Before you today's large scale amendment to amend and men and vise increase in DOP and delete portions of the future land policies within the rural settlement overlay area. The above changes have not been administratively addressed according to Charlotte County Ornard's section 1-2-1-13, which states that the EnRAC committee will act in an advisory capacity on matters of rural land use, natural resources, agriculture and property rights. These proposed changes have not had an administrative opportunity for a review by NRAC. I say to the board that these studies being used, that there are studies being used that were prepared possibly maybe 15 years ago or earlier. Without any updating to my knowledge, should an impact of this nature required an update of those studies? I bring for you a fact that in 2010, under Smart Charlotte 2050, a planning guide was provided to advise on the future of rural lands. Was the guide consulted in this preparation? Before county staff, The public in this board has had only seven days to review this proposal. It's over 200 pages large. This is it right here. Even I who's been around real estate for a while has a hard time getting my hands on this and understanding it. Maybe they're going to remove it from the end right now. But anyway, the point I'm making here, just for you all to look at and understand it is difficult. And now I've heard some great presentations of people who've done some wonderful studies. I'm concerned that the notifications that were sent out for a thousand feet around the property did not include those responsible area and peace river shores. That subdivision is going to be impacted immensely because guess what, they're putting in commercial up there. So why not live in peace river shores, not in Punnogord because the public is going to be across the street. Has that study been considered? Has that impact been looked at? So I'm real concerned about that. All negotiations on this application were done behind closed doors without public knowledge of request and they give and take them negotiations. How has sound reasoning by the applicant convinced staff to agree to the many changes being proposed? They're talking about 5,000 units. They're talking about increasing 63% to 8,000 units. A burden is being being placed upon the Charlotte County Taxpayer, who has no idea what is being asked of them. The applicant states that they need an increase in units to offset the minutes, expense of development of the property which include the cost of the land. I say that the applicant already knows the per unit cost of cost of developing this project and if only 5,000 units can be built upon the project, then a question gets raised. Is the seller asking to have a price for the current capacity and compound guidelines? As a realtor, I see this debate every day in buying and selling real estate. So why is it different for the applicant? And the question that follows, why are the taxpayers joining property on just burden with the sellers overpricing of this property? Am I right? I don't know. The question is one that should be considered by the board and the applicant. I'll give you a good example that fake and land downtown punnig order. It's too pricey. That's why it doesn't sell. Overpriced land. In conclusion, I have no issue with the property rights that this property has. It has 4900 units. It can build some place. If we don't let them build us in some point in time, we're going to pay for this taxpayers. So it's got to be some give and take here or they sell those back to the urban area. That's another proposal that could come up. But I just argue with you that this project needs to be turned down for the moment and given consideration. That has been a lot of great questions here ask and needs to be put back for study and reconsideration. last week, and working with Sean Colinan, Charlotte County needs to consider the current men power needs of his department planning and zoning. They are overworked, and that's a rarity in government, my opinion. Sean does a heck of a fine job. He works hard. Thank you. Thank you, commission. Thank you. Thank you commission I live in peace over shores You spoke once right? I did oh not this on a different issue. Sorry Not a problem Thank you, gentlemen. I took the off work here, but I'm kind of glad glad because it's really raining out. First of all, I'd like to say I do understand your all's jobs. Actually understand your position pretty well and what you have to do. And I do understand that you do have a fiduciary responsibility to all the stakeholders up into including the property owner. So I do understand that. That you can't just say no. That you don't have that ability. What you do have is the ability to say, well, you're good for 6,000 units. We're not gonna give you eight because we've already jumped it up many times to 6,000 units. So you do not have to give them eight. That's not your job. It's your job if you want to be, but you aren't required to. But you are required to honor there certain property rights, but you don't need to give them additional ones. I'm a biologist, environmentalist, animal care specialist. I have lived in Charlotte counties, on and off since I was kid in the early 80s. I did move away, I moved away to Cape Coral, Germany and a few other places. I will say that if I wanted a publics down the street, I'd have stayed in Cape Coral. I actually had a publics down the street. Cape Coral's one of the worst places I've ever lived in my life. And that publics down the street wasn't worth the difference between the 20 minute drive I got now and the 5 minute drive I had when I lived down the street from publics. It's not and I'm sure most of these people live out here and are opposing this because they don't mind driving to a publics because they moved out here for reason. I moved back to Charlotte County for a reason. And it wasn't that have a publics across the street, it wasn't that have Disney land, fake community across the street. We definitely, I would love a Costco, that's not the right area. Maybe that mall over at across the street, that's not doing anything. That would be a great area for a a Costco But I don't think out any rural area is a good place for a Costco You're talking about economic development the jobs they put up there. They're low-end retail jobs that nobody wants I'm a biology thought we weren't I'd rather go on TikTok and cheek my booty than get one of those retail jobs. Because mostly because those retail jobs wouldn't pay my bills. I never hear in any of these meetings, hey, let's get some more people like Colin Zero Space or somebody like that where they're skilled jobs. I hear a lot of, let's get publics because that's economic development. I mean, retail wise see, I can do here. Boop boop boop boop boop boop boop boop boop boop boop boop boop boop boop boop boop boop boop boop why a lot of these companies are going belly up. That's why, you know, bed, bath, and beyond all those companies don't exist anymore. So I mean, our economy is doing great right now. It's starting to come on a decline. Not to get any details because we don't want to go there. But we're going to see a lot more of these companies, you know, your Pinera breads, your Wendy's, all that was closing down locations, not opening more. I think we probably hit the bubble on car washes Maybe not storage units, but definitely car washes and as far as Residential I can tell you right now the markets pretty saturated we have a lot of availability out there My dad passed away in September. I've been trying to sell his home since then. It's actually almost two acres and it's hard to sell. So cookie cutter homes, you're going to add a whole bunch more of those when we just added Jones, yeah, Jones loop. Now Tucker's great, sorry. And a bunch of those, I mean, we already have the inventory. We don't need more inventory. What we have is a road that's getting more and more packed with a Walmart Distribution Center right down the road, which I know you guys don't not control the Walmart Distribution Center because it's in a different county. But we already have where they're pulling out in front of people and there's already a mortality factor in there. Most accidents happen within five miles of homes. That distribution centers within five miles of that. Plus, I mean, so I got to pay for, because they exist, I got to pay for the water coming out there. These people got to pay for the water coming out there. Why do we got to do that? Maybe, and I get that they have a right to the property, but maybe the developer and the lawyer, and they seem pretty good compared to other people I've seen in here. Maybe they need to come up with a better plan that fits everybody's needs, including their own. I mean, maybe the CEO only needs five Bentley's instead of six Bentley's. But thank you. Did you sit your name for the record, sir? Sir, did you sit your name? Say again? Chris Rosayler. Thank you. Oh, nice. My name is Courtney Mason. I live in Peace River Shores. It is apparent that the residents of Charlotte County in all of Florida have had enough of the massive destruction of our environment and our peaceful quality of life by these developers that aren't even residents in our county. I have noticed that the same attorneys seem to represent multiple large developments in Charlotte County. These attorneys also serve as Charlotte County Code Enforcement Magistrates at the hearings. Charlotte County residents want to know that there is no corruption and biases when dealing with these proposed large developments. I also hope that the Planning and Zoning Board today will make the right decision and not base their vote off of past personal experiences that happened in their own community. I spoke with an environmental attorney this morning with over 35 years of experience. What I got from that conversation was Florida Land Use Law is entirely consistent with private property rights law. The Florida Supreme Court squarely rejected the argument that a land odor had a property right to be granted a rezoning approval at the maximum use, density, or intensity, potentially authorized by a comprehensive plan. I haven't had a chance to look, but does this applicant even have any building rights today since it was approved years ago? They already talked about the sewer services, the water. They do not have a letter from any water facility saying that they will have a supply. And that's what the commissioners want. The North Charlotte facility does not have a supply of water. They provide the connections. The county does not have enough supply of water that they get from the P.S. River Minnesota Water Authority. Maybe Commissioner Jotizio will know because he serves on the board of that piece of every water facility. Okay, since the county did not provide me with a wildlife protected aspecies assessment, I will talk more about the wildlife at the next meeting after I consult with my environmental contacts. I do want to say that the applicant has included a research article trying to prove that a golf course would be a better environment for wildlife more than their natural habitat. That was pretty interesting read, while that was pretty funny. So also the fact that culverts and 500 feet wide trails are being considered as a courtesy to the wildlife from our developers is pretty sad. And I think that is it. So thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak? Make a motion. We close public comment. Second. Have a motion and second. Close public comment. All in favor say aye. Aye. Public comment is closed. Mr. Rooney, you have Thank you. I think what I'll do is I'm going to actually start off by saying I understand completely why the neighbors in this area have got their antennas out. We all saw recently, it was just a few months ago, the TAG Lakeside project came through, which is directly across from this piece of property. And unlike that property, unlike this piece of property, that was one that had not been long-term plan for growth. They came in 130 acres according to Gulf Shore news, 250 go-for-tortuses on site, wetlands on site, and asked for nearly nine units per acre. I just want to put that in perspective as opposed to this piece of property which over or nearly three square miles has 20 go-for-tortise burrows on it and is asking for 2.1 units of acre of density. Now what I like to focus on really is where we are in this process. Young lady here indicated that this is a racing 17 years of planning. No, the reason we are here today is because the comp plan specifically requires us to implement certain provisions of the master planning for this property as a result of moving forward with development. And so that is the purpose we are here today. There is a plan development, which will come through later. So if we take today's approach and and look at say that this is at 10,000 feet and 17 years ago we were at 10,000 feet looking 15 years into the future. Will we going next at the next level be the 1000 foot level and at that level a lot more focus in detail will come into conditions storm order run off a lot of the concerns are raised here today. So I don't want anyone to leave here thinking that whatever the recommendation of this board is, whether to increase the density, make the changes or allow things to stay the same, that there isn't going to be additional public input and meetings to address this issue. And the developers are willing to meet with the community to discuss their concerns. But what I want to focus on is what is the process? It's comp planning, comprehensive planning, which means this has been identified 15 years ago for a settlement area for future development and when you look at a plan, the density that's already coming to this site, along with any additional density that may be approved, is all coming from areas in Charlotte County that were deemed to be inappropriate for future development. So those are areas that are wetlands. Those are areas in barrier islands. Those are areas where there's lack of infrastructure. We have 1950s or 1930s in some case subdivisions that are planted in the middle of wetlands to the east of this property that may have a road but don't have power, don't have centralized utilities, they don't have resources. The purpose of the county's conference plan and the TDU program that was adopted after this program, was to say where are the areas in this county that are appropriate for development? And to focus development on that purpose. So the maximum entitlements that are currently existing are 6,000 units. The developer, whether they get they get the 8,000, they stay at 6,000 out they have to go out and find those units and sever them from what the county calls a sending zone which is identified in the comprehensive plan and take those units to move them here and in all cases the locations have to be like or worse for development you can't you can't take a piece of property and take a piece of development from poor charlatan, move it out to Inglewood and put it on the beach. That's not the way it works. The county went through many years, and there are many rooms with hundreds of people from all over the county who identified areas that they did not want to see development and that they were concerned about. And this is one of the areas that was targeted for development. Now what does that also mean? Master Plan communities. Okay. I understand a lot of people don't like the cookie cutter lifestyle of you know a community where there are houses next to one another but to do that they're putting aside 60 percent of the property for open space. So these are not five acre tracks with a yeoman's farm on each one. We're talking about a master plan community that will have infrastructure, which will have rows, which will have utilities, that the developer is paying for. The developer, in this case, is paying for everything to this site. The additional land that's been identified in the blue areas for public use, those could be, as Mr. Cudic pointed out, those could be shelters, they could be parks. We have been talking to the county in the school board about school locations and other facilities that would be appropriate. I'd like to hit all the points. I don't understand that I have limited time. With respect, if I could have just one moment discuss the utilities. With respect to utilities. The utilities, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, as interoper could you just direct the audience that everybody listen carefully and patiently while they spoke so if they could extend the same courtesy I'd be appreciated I Gaviled some time After an extensive period overextending it. So... I could wrap up very quickly. Please, just wrap it up. This is a process. It's a continuum. It has been going through this process for 17 years. It is not a referendum. It's a planning process. That is the process we're going through, and we will address the issues that need to be addressed in that process. Thank you very much. Okay. Discussion or any other questions that we want to direct to? We could direct it to Mr. Rooney or to staff. Excuse me, I do it for staff. Jay earlier in your presentation, you talked about extending utilities across 17 to the east side of 17. In the applicants application for financing strategy for the infrastructure, is that part, is that going to be part of the cost of the infrastructure to pay to move utilities across 17? And second part of my question is, are the people on the other side of 17 as the result of having these connections made available, going to be required to connect to those utilities once they're developed With respect to the second part once utilities become available to the property. Yes, and applicant or a property owner We'll need to connect with respect to the funding mechanism. That is something that would be a question for the applicant Derek, would mine? And I believe Mr. Vierre, part of this concern came up with the tag leg side presentation. I saw the concern. There was a lot of concern from neighbors on the west side of 17 that they were going to be mandated to be hooked up to utilities. So the process that the county commission laid out with respect to what is necessary for this settlement area is that the that the developer has to make utilities available. Now that means force mains under 17 but the actual extension to single family homes within piece of River river shores or other communities that would trigger the county's mandatory connection requirement, that is not being required. And I've talked to the receiver, representative of the receivers here, that is not in their plan to do that. They're not looking as a private utility, they're not looking to connect people up who do not wish to be connected. Okay. That gets me to another point that I wanted to break. I took a look at and did some research on the water utility, North Charlotte Water Works, incorporated, and there's no infrastructure there. They, I believe they have a single well. Their water capacity on a daily basis is 60,000 gallons per day. Their wastewater capacity is 50,000 gallons per day. They're available. I think they have 100. I think they have 117 ERCs available to them. There's no infrastructure there. Now over the last 11 years, I've had the opportunity to be have in the community. We have a lot of businesses that are working together to make the same thing. We have a lot of businesses that are working together to make the same thing. We have a lot of businesses that are working together to make the same thing. We have a money gonna come from to move water and sewer to this development? Where's that tens, and literally, in my case, I know that I'm talking over $40 million, and there's no wastewater component to it. Right, so I'll lay out the plan and address the North Charlotte Water Works issue. So that utility site is on the west side, south of Peace River Shore. It's an existing utility, it serves maybe 60 homes. It is essentially defunct. The public service commission who regulates private utilities transfer the operations of that to central state utilities who is the receiver from Sun River. The plan with this proposal is to shut that facility down. And to either extend existing utility lines from available regional sources, in this case, water from Peace River, Manusot water authority, and wastewater from Charlotte County, because the county is already committed to a nine, the 12 and then a 16 MVD wastewater facility on the west side of the river, which would be served by connecting underneath the river to these properties. If that happens, the existing plant would be shut down and those existing connections would connect into that into the new lines. Alternatively, because of the size of this development, onsite wells and a wastewater plant could be constructed onsite. However, because there is additional existing capacity in existing regional supplies, that is the route that the developers moving forward. Deputy Speaker, to another question, my understanding on the property is that there is a 99-year lease on the property and it's not owned by the utility. Is that correct? I don't know the details about that utility. Okay. I saw that. And I also saw that the lease agreement was actually started in 2003 and then amended again in 2015 with three ability, three terms to extend it by one year in permits. So the last time it was done was in 2015 and I couldn't find any record past 2015 for it. So I don't know that authority has the authority to actually construct on that property. So if there is a new plant constructed it will happen on the PULTI development site. There's adequate room to build facilities there. And on either case, the existing utility operation, which is deficient, will be shut down. And that's why I got sidetracked. Because in the package that we received, it doesn't say that Pulsi will construct the sewage treatment plan that will do that. That is currently not the plan. The plan, we have been discussing with Charlotte County the possibility of connecting to their facility and as with Ann Burvant-Gurrug. No, on the Eastport campus. There's existing lines that run up into Rio de Janeiro. All this was presented at the US 17 plan. There were discussion items about that in Dave Watts and the utility director discussed it. OK. OK. OK. I'm good. Any questions? Questions to staff? Without doing any comprehensive change, any text amendment change, this property can be developed with a density of 6,000 units and 1 million square foot. One minute, square foot for regional economics, economic center, economic development uses, and half-manning for commercial. For the development to occur, they would have to come back through with APD to... Yes, with APD rezoning? With APD rezoning. So this is just a comprehensive text amendment change, not really putting out what development would occur in what zoning or what uses there would be. This is just a conceptual. So in in the PD We talk about 6,000 density units or 8,000 Are they single family multi-family combination that's to be determined at a PD time? Yes, what determined the PD PD reason we stayed? Okay. Just for the public to know, it's Mr. Rooney, I think, stated or somebody stated, with the development rights, transfer of development rights, this county is closed as far as how many units can be developed. The only way more units can be developed or more residences can be in a place is to move that right from one location to another and somebody explained that well in the public hearing. So, Rhofe for Charlotte County is the limit for that growth already exists. It's already in the property rights of people. They can sell those rights to somebody else and move them from a less desirable location to a more desirable location. But Charlotte County's maximum density exists. It's not developed necessarily but it exists and you can only move it around within Charlotte County. And early on when this occurred Charlotte County and the staff can correct me is the only county in the state that has a cap? The only other county that has anything close to similar would be the keys. But it's actually twice as complicated. But Charlotte County is really unique in its density cap system that's incorporated through the comprehensive plan and the code. OK. And just my commentary is that a lot of the comments from the public read, I don't want it in my backyard because, by purchasing this, acquires certain property rights. And that's the development, but they have to come through with a PD to get specific development in there. That's still another process. They could do that even without this change to the tax amendment. And so, tax amendments get changed and updated to what things change. Because there's state laws that change over the last 15 years that dictate a little bit of the changes that may occur. And a comment to the public that's turned that we don't turn anything down. The attorneys don't come to staff and get something here that's going to get turned down. They get turned down in staff and they never come this far. Or if they do come this far, they're trying to play the odds that something else can change. We don't get too many that we reject here at this point because the staff is done an excellent job of turning them back or making corrections to what they want to do. Any other comments? I'll say'll say too, just to echo that. I mean, the county does work with the folks, the attorneys, the engineers, very costly. The county does target areas of development. That is an area of development, as the attorneys mentioned. It's one that's acceptable and it's looked upon as a good place to develop. Now property, whoever was the owner, sold it. Anybody could have bought it. As a friend of mine told me, if you want complete privacy Clint by 100 acres built in the middle of it. We can't control it other folks do around us. The county does lay it out. It is limited in the density units that we have. They do have to transfer those and that is going to be expensive. Their infrastructure is going to be expensive. One thing about it, private development does these days build better facilities than government. You can tell by road works it takes the county years to do works it takes the private developer months. So they know what they're doing I personally think that you can't stop I mean this is what? Thousands of acres and you've only got you got 6,000 homes're talking about 2,000 more for them to get their money. And I know some people refer to as greed. America's not built on greed, it's built on capitalism, and that's what that is. So to me, it looks like a viable development. And as you said too, they'll have to go through the PD process, through the commission process, to get the approval. And then they'll have to come back for the plan development, and decide on multifamily, single family, what they're going to build. So that's kind of the way it works. It's not up to us to dictate those things. Well, and we have the public hearing here where you get to express your opinions, you get to rehearse it before us, before you go to the commissioners. And reminding me of another question I have for staff, this overlay district of 4,900 acres, is that the complete, this overlay district, the 4,900 acres? Yeah. And they have base density 490.. Okay. But that's I mean that's a complete overlay that it's not like it's a portion of something that extends down US 17. So okay. I will say something just because everybody else did but I'll keep it short since. Go ahead. But I grew up here. I mean, I don't want development, especially in my backyard. But like what was said here before, there's not much. We can do this staff does a good job putting it together before it gets to us. And if we go against a good project, I mean, that could also open up the county to lawsuits, which is taxpayer money. So we're just trying to do the best we can in the letter of the law. Okay. Okay. Okay, then I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, since this is my district, I'll make a motion. I want to say before I do make that motion now that I Think the utility component. I think that the utility component of This proposal is murky at best something might happen if something happens We make it something from to so do county something might be built something not may not be I think that To approve developments tag was a good Indic indicator of what went on there. There was no it was going to be overbuilt as far as density goes, but there was no other utility requirement that was presented that satisfied the requirement to have it done there and I don't know if they're back working on that to regenerate and figure that out. But right now, which sticks with me mostly besides all of the personal comments that went on, and all of the comments are getting the wildlife and I agree with that sort of thing. I live in a neighborhood that's about to be heavily impacted by a major development myself. So I didn't talk to you. So I want to make sure that my reasoning for making the motion I'm going to make is that it's based purely on that. I think if we're going to do a development like that, the developer should have came to us and said I'll build all the utilities up front. I'll put those in, not that something will be delivered by another party or a third party or even a fourth party. So with that, I'm going to make a motion to forward TCP24-04 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial of transmittal of TCP, please. So, TCP-24-04 to the Florida Department of Commerce and other state review agencies for review and comment based on the findings and analysis of the comprehensive plan planning staff member and updated May 3rd, 2025 and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing before the planning is on board. I have a motion. Do I have a second? I will second the motion. Applause. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Applause. I need discussion on the motion. Okay, all in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. All of, against the motion say nay. Nay. Okay, so it's three to one for the motion for denial. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah we are. Yes, we are. Yes, we are. Yes, we are. Yes, we are. Yes, we are. Yes, we are. Yes, we are. Yes, we are. Yes, we are. Yes, we are. Yes, we are. Yes, we are. Yes, we are. Yes, we are. Yes, we are. I agree with, okay, that goes forward three to one. I agree with Mr. Villera's point of the utilities. If he hadn't made that point, I would have gone for approval. Because I do think that it's an appropriate change to the comprehensive plan text amendment. But it can go either way. It goes to the commissioners and they will have the opportunity to read the minutes. They will have the opportunity to watch the CCTV video and get all your comments and have a chance to have made their opinion and choice made known to this. So any other things from the staff? No, sir, not at the same time. We have completed our agenda. We are adjourned.