[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[19:47] Chair. It's one o'clock.
[19:54] Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for attending the special meeting that we are having today. It's one o'clock and we're going to get started with the invocation and the pledge of allegiance by Commissioner Jeff Canard. So if you're willing and able, please stand.
[20:12] Dear Heavenly Father, we come to you and prayer today. So thankful for the many blessings in our lives. We thank you for this opportunity to come together as a community and discuss issues facing us.
[20:22] We pray that you would give us the ears, mind, and heart to listen to each other, and
[20:29] ultimately to make the right decisions for our community going forward.
[20:34] Lord, our hearts and prayers, our thoughts go out to our first responders, both here at
[20:38] home and around the world.
[20:39] We pray that you would protect them and bring them home, ultimately to their families,
[20:44] safe and sound.
[20:44] We thank you again for blessing this community, this forward, Lord, and Jesus name we pray.
[20:50] Amen.
[20:51] I would listen to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which
[21:00] it stands, and nation under God, in the visible, with liberty and justice for our.
[21:08] Thank you, maybe seated.
[21:13] While we're gathered here for the special business of the Pine Ridge Circuit Court Order,
[21:21] It looks like we are making a motion of O. We were gathered here together today to decide if we will accept what the judge has ruled in the lawsuit or if the county wants to take part in that.
[21:36] I will tell chair. Sorry.
[21:39] Did you want me to do the role call?
[21:41] You know what? Why not?
[21:43] Okay. Sorry.
[21:44] That's okay. Let us know who's here.
[21:50] I'm going along the agenda here. Thank you. This is a special meeting of the
[21:55] Sitchers County Board of County Commissioners on the second day of September,
[21:59] 2026. In attendance, our chair, Diana Finnegan, first vice chair,
[22:04] Janet Barric, second vice chair, Jeff Kanard, commissioner Rebecca Bayes,
[22:09] commissioner Holly Davis, County Administrator Steve Howard, and County
[22:14] attorneys in East A Diamondland.
[22:17] Thank you.
[22:20] Well, it looks like we have Mr. Scott here also,
[22:24] and our own attorney that will probably
[22:25] want to say something.
[22:26] But you know, this board has had many discussions
[22:28] about lawsuit, and we don't need to-
[22:30] Engage and lawsuits. I know I read what came out, and what was said. I just don't understand
[22:40] the need for citrus county taxpayers to further spend money engaging on going against other
[22:49] citrus county taxpayers. I know, and I hate that there's some division in Pine Ridge, but like I
[22:57] had said months ago, some of those issues are HOA issues, and unfortunately, it's not for
[23:04] this board to figure those issues out, that is for your community to figure this out.
[23:10] So for that reason, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion to not engage in any further
[23:17] legal practice, not spend any more taxpayer money on this, obviously the other parties may
[23:23] engage in whatever legal battles they want to do, but my motion is leave it as it stands
[23:31] second. Motion by Commissioner Finigan, second by Commissioner Barrick. Any public comment?
[23:50] Welcome, Mr. Ayo. Oh,
[23:56] I'm sorry. My, my, my, I'm still a little bit on vacation,
[24:00] So you have three minutes at the podium to speak unless you have a letter on file and then you will get five minutes.
[24:06] I will look at the clerk and she will let me know if you actually have the letter on file with the clerk's office.
[24:12] She will give me a nod or a no her word is gold. Please keep all your comments respectful directed as me.
[24:19] The chair and please at this point keep it relevant to the motion that's on the table.
[24:24] Thank you and welcome.
[24:25] Thank you.
[24:26] Yeah, my name is Anthony A.O., I live in Pine Ridge, the States, and I wanted to bring up this issue because it doesn't make any sense to me.
[24:36] At the hearing, when we actually had the Board of County Commissioner hearing on this issue, the Pine Ridge Attorney and Attorney Lynn both dated that it was illegal.
[24:49] You cannot change a DRI with a PDC and I'm like wow, so that's what our attorney said and then it went before
[24:58] We had to take it before judge even though the the commissioners voted
[25:04] voted to
[25:05] To do to pass that and that was told that they were told it was illegal and they still did it and my concern is
[25:13] We the taxpayers pay for an attorney to sit in this room to
[25:19] give you legal advice and then the commissioners ignore it. Why should we the taxpayer pay for
[25:29] these legal fees when our attorney, the county attorney that we already pay for said no,
[25:35] it's illegal and yet the county commissioners violate that. I'm like, well, shouldn't they be
[25:41] hope for that bill. Not us. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.
[25:50] Anyone else would
[25:51] like to speak on this matter? This is your chance to speak before a motion is made.
[25:59] Oh, man, I'm sorry the motion's already been made. I mean, vote it on. Thank you.
[26:06] Hi. Hi. My name is John Devor, 1927 West LeBotte Circle Pine Ridge.
[26:11] I thank you for all the hard work you've done. It's a tough job and thank you for having this meeting.
[26:16] I am the environmental committee chair at Pine Ridge and I wanted to let you know that Pine Ridge
[26:23] recently passed new tree preservation restrictions to stop clear cutting and preserve mature
[26:28] tree buffers on all odds. It passed with a two-thirds majority vote and that was a real clear declaration
[26:34] of what Pine Ridge wants. Additionally in the board elections none of the candidates who stood with
[26:45] So I worked in my Butler County Ohio Township for 20 years in as a volunteer for a land use in zoning the committee.
[26:54] Most important thing I learned there was that the zoning rules and land use plan must be congruent, otherwise the rules become ineffective and have little value from managing growth leaves developers plenty of loopholes.
[27:08] We had a similar situation where a development was proposed by the commissioners who typically
[27:12] passed whatever the developers presented, but in this case 400 people showed up with
[27:18] major concerns that it was turned down for evaluation.
[27:21] The developer came back with a slightly modified plan that did not address any of the major
[27:26] legal issues and appropriately it did not pass.
[27:30] The today's meeting is being held because, quote, the court has determined that the board
[27:34] fail to observe the essential requirements of law.
[27:38] The court also emphasized the need to update both the LDC
[27:42] and the comprehensive plan.
[27:44] So here's cheerleading section here.
[27:46] Stitchers County cannot live up to its motto
[27:49] where nature and community thrive unless our LDC
[27:52] and our comprehensive plan match up.
[27:55] Then our leaders must direct the developers to comply.
[27:58] And they can obey the law.
[28:00] I appreciate that you have already recognized the need
[28:02] modernize both the LDC and the comprehensive plan and thank you for that. So as a designer myself,
[28:09] the two primary questions that I always ask and must be addressed up front in any plan are,
[28:14] what do you want to keep and what do you want to change? And according to our motto,
[28:20] what we want to keep is the nature coast and we want communities to thrive and that is the change
[28:26] that we should support. So around the world communities that support environmental preservation and
[28:32] cultural development thrive. They develop a reputation as a desirable destination for business
[28:39] and for residents. Our motto will not be attained by practicing the status quo for development.
[28:45] That only comes from vision, good planning, and not compromising on what it's important.
[28:51] But the developers will be just fine no matter what. By not appealing the judges' decision,
[28:57] you show good leadership and integrity. I believe you'll find much support from
[29:01] If you lead us towards our motto with your proactive leadership, we can keep the nature coast of the nature coast, and we can keep Pine Ridge Pine Ridge.
[29:11] Thank you for your comments.
[29:19] I love the enthusiasm, but we're going to need to get through everyone that wants to speak.
[29:24] So I failed to say at the beginning, please keep your applause on hold and then when the whole meeting is over, you can applaud or do whatever you want.
[29:34] Okay, we're just going to get through the meeting right now next speaker please and I shouldn't have to say no
[29:40] Boo in jaring, et cetera. We're all respectful.
[29:43] Oh, did you all take the in order to green herds number I'll start with one in case I messed up one two three four
[30:06] Good morning. Good morning. He's it afternoon. I don't know. I don't know. It's afternoon. I guess. I'm with you. Thank you, commissioner.
[30:15] And chairwoman. Just briefly, I want to say thank you for your service to the county. And for those exiting. Thank you, especially for your service. And just emphasizing the fact that this decision made to the county.
[30:32] today is going to impact the next board and going forward and going forward.
[30:38] So not to be, I'm not advocating one way or another on your decision.
[30:42] I think you got to follow your lawyers opinion, but there's, you know,
[30:46] Pennywise and Pound for Foolish.
[30:48] So as far as Pine Ridge is concerned, I just want to quote the philosopher,
[30:53] Kermit the Frog, it's not easy being green and the green people here represent,
[30:59] I don't want to speak for all of them, but represent a majority, I believe, in the neighborhood,
[31:06] but unfortunately, as the previous speaker said, the other side wants to say that they got the
[31:12] great support of the community, but they were actually elected and are in office with much less
[31:17] than 20% of the community voting. So that they don't really represent everybody in Piney Ridge, obviously.
[31:26] So, again, I want to thank you, I want you to seriously consider your next move, and again,
[31:33] I'm not, I'm not, I'm not forespending tax payer money, but the green shirts in this room
[31:38] would not have supported the appeal to the circuit court on your decision that you made previously.
[31:45] They would have set, let that stand.
[31:49] So, really, I thought, though, I fault those people for putting you in this position to make
[31:55] decision about spending money. It's really them that are the emphasis the catalyst that is putting
[32:03] you in this position to spending more money or not spending more money. At the end of the day,
[32:08] we'll see what happens, but I appreciate the time. Thank you. Thank you. Did you give us your name?
[32:13] Kevin Allen, 4 4 1 2 North Deckwood Drive Beverly Hills by Pine Ridge. Thank you. Number five,
[32:23] Number six, number seven, does anyone have numbers left to speak?
[32:35] What number are you miss out?
[32:43] I'm getting pumped.
[32:45] I'm getting pumped to today, I think.
[32:49] Is there any people in a different room?
[32:53] Okay, y'all are going to be wild today.
[32:55] I say this. Okay, fine. Well, we'll be wild today.
[32:58] I'm on record for five
[33:02] notes in silence.
[33:05] Thank you.
[33:09] Good afternoon.
[33:10] My name is Diane South, and I live on El Cam Boulevard in Pine Ridge.
[33:14] And I am the Secretary of the Pine Ridge POA.
[33:18] Madam Chair, commissioners.
[33:20] Once again, we are asking our county commissioners
[33:22] to acknowledge what residents have been saying since 2023.
[33:26] It shouldn't have taken a court order.
[33:29] Our attorney was belittled when he advised
[33:31] that the citrus staff had been off the mark for years.
[33:35] But on August 14th, the fifth judicial circuit court
[33:39] vindicated him and us.
[33:41] Today you're hearing from the POA board and committee members
[33:44] who were elected and appointed to represent
[33:47] the official position of the POA and the residents.
[33:51] We were elected to serve.
[33:53] We tune out the noise and fulfill our fiduciary duty.
[33:57] PeoA elections have also occurred during this time.
[34:01] The message from our residents was clear and make no mistake.
[34:05] The majority of Pine Ridge residents don't live on the golf course.
[34:09] We certainly remember you hearing us in January of 24 with the unanimous vote.
[34:15] And so what happened?
[34:17] We rewarded those running in August 2024 with our votes.
[34:21] Why?
[34:21] Because you advised, you understood the issues, and you would protect Pine Ridge.
[34:26] the master plan and the golf course. For our part, we stated that you should be paying attention
[34:32] to the processes of the land growth management and so did our attorney. We believed in your
[34:37] conviction being principled and your integrity and then comes August 25. We were stunned at your
[34:44] failure to support those who supported you. It went against everything we preached to our residents.
[34:50] We learned after the fact that it was Pine Ridge swinging a close election district three in support of Commissioner Barrick.
[34:59] We got visibly behind three candidates because of their stated understandings.
[35:05] It should also be noted that we supported Commissioner Bayes when she ran in 2022.
[35:10] Why? Because she had stated her commitment to residents in the 2022 Pine Ridge candidates form.
[35:18] The Citrus and Pine Ridge voters have spoken in 2026 and there should be no doubt there will be a close watch in the lead up to 2028.
[35:27] Another notable and trackable fact, people in Citrus County have been paying attention to what Pine Ridge says and does.
[35:36] Much to the regret of Pine Ridge, we lost a champion of the people in Commissioner Finnegan.
[35:41] We clearly did our part as Pine Ridge outperform citrus in supporting
[35:46] Finnigan over Worthington, Herndon Overbays, so we will be closely monitoring
[35:51] commissioners elect Herndon and Worthington, and based on their Pine Ridge
[35:56] candidate forum responses, we have every reason to be very optimistic. So today we
[36:03] want to put something formally into the record that we have already brought to
[36:07] attention. The BOCC should order a deep independent review of how land growth management is
[36:13] doing business. Perhaps a blue ribbon panel of citizens disconnected from the current ongoing
[36:20] flawed process. It's long overdue and the fifth judicial court weighed in loud and clear
[36:26] in an extraordinary 21-page decision. But whatever it takes, it must be objective. The current
[36:33] processes fundamentally flawed, unbalanced when developers can work with staff for months before
[36:40] a matter reaches the planning and development commission of or the BOCC, while affected citizens
[36:47] are left with an after-the-fact three-minute speech. This is not meaningful public participation.
[36:54] The 2021 BOCC has an opportunity to get it done right. We respectfully suggest the BOCC support
[37:02] their constituents. There is still time to rebuild the trust that was lost and perhaps
[37:08] somewhat ironically, you can thank the courts for providing the reason and the opportunity
[37:14] to do it. Please vote against the appeal and I thank you for your time and your service. Thank
[37:20] you very much. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.
[37:28] John Hyde, for not-
[37:30] 9-1 North Mulberry Loop, Pine Ridge. Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm the president of the Pine Ridge Property
[37:37] Owners Association and just to correct the one speaker before we had a 33% quorum on our last election.
[37:45] So, 33% of our voters voted. Like you, the directors, like you, the directors of Pine Ridge
[37:52] POA are elected by the residents. We represent. We run our records, our commitments, and the issues
[37:59] the matter to our community.
[38:01] For the past five election, the future of the golf course property, the Pine Ridge Master Plan and the proposed rezoning and development have been major issues before our voters.
[38:13] In each of those elections, a majority of Pine Ridge voters have elected candidates who supported continuity of purpose and action in maintaining the character integrity and long established planning principles of Pine Ridge.
[38:26] We're here today because, because Pine Ridge was putting a position that no community should have the face going to court to ensure that it's county government follows its own adopted laws and planning requirements.
[38:41] We filed a petition with the court and the court agreed with this.
[38:45] The court did not simply disagree with the board's decision on a matter of policy.
[38:50] The court found that the county failed to observe essential requirements of the law.
[38:54] The Court didn't grant a Pine Ridge's petition,
[38:57] caused the county's approval in ordinance 2025-A16.
[39:03] That brings us here today.
[39:05] You're now being asked to decide
[39:07] what the Citrus County should spend additional
[39:09] public resources seeking repellent review of that decision.
[39:14] I respectfully ask you to consider what decision
[39:18] would say to people you represent.
[39:21] Pine Ridge has spent years coming before the county
[39:23] participating in its processes, presenting evidence, asking that the integrity of our
[39:29] community as long as established master plan be respected. The circuit court has spoken
[39:35] and ruled that the process used to approve this particular application did not satisfy the essential
[39:41] requirements of the law. This distinction matters. I respectfully ask you to vote not to appeal.
[39:48] Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Mr. Hyde.
[40:08] Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Kerry Dean. I'm a relatively new resident in Pine Ridge.
[40:15] I want to speak briefly about something that goes beyond this one application and this one property.
[40:20] Pine Ridge is an established community developed under a longstanding DRI and master plan.
[40:26] But what makes Pine Ridge special is not simply its age, it is its character.
[40:32] The way the community was planned, the open spaces, the recreation areas, the equestrian
[40:37] character, the golf course property, the larger lots.
[40:41] Together, those things created a place that thousands of people deliberately chose to call
[40:46] home.
[40:47] They didn't simply buy houses, they invested in a community.
[40:52] When a community has existed for decades under a vested DRI master plan, I believe the standard for fundamentally changing that plan should not be higher, and not lower, it should be higher and not lower.
[41:07] Please don't make it easier to dismantle the very features that made these communities desirable in the first place.
[41:13] If someone wants to make a major change to a long standing DRI community there should be a compelling reason.
[41:21] and there should be a clearly demonstrated benefit to the community being affected.
[41:28] Not simply more density, not simply greater financial return,
[41:31] and not simply because a new owner believes another use would be more profitable.
[41:38] The question should be, what does this change give back to the community?
[41:44] Does it improve our quality of life? Does it preserve the character residents relied on?
[41:49] Does it preserve the character residents?
[41:53] Relight, does it provide recreation, open space,
[41:56] some meaningful community benefit?
[41:58] Or does it simply remove something that serves the community
[42:00] for decades and replace it with something more profitable?
[42:06] Because once these communities assets are gone,
[42:09] they can never be brought back.
[42:11] The Pine Ridge Golf Course Properties of Perfect Example,
[42:14] for approximately 50 years,
[42:16] it has been part of the community and the planning of this community.
[42:19] that historic should matter, the master plan should matter.
[42:25] And thousands of people who invested here rely on that community should matter.
[42:30] Commissioners of growth is important.
[42:33] Property rights are important.
[42:36] But stewardship is the most important.
[42:40] Your responsibility is not only to decide what can be changed,
[42:43] sometimes your responsibility is to recognize what deserves to be protected.
[42:48] Please, do not lower the standard for changing the established DRI communities, raise the standard.
[42:56] Require a meaningful benefit to the community for fundamentally changing that community was built upon.
[43:02] Protect the community, protect the character, and protect the people who trusted the plan that was put in place for them.
[43:11] Thank you.
[43:11] Thank you.
[43:12] Next speaker.
[43:24] Just state that in the microphone and then I'll check with the clerk. Your name and who you're representing and I'll check with the clerk.
[43:30] I'm Jim Reynolds and I'm on record as a speaker for the POA.
[43:34] Thank you.
[43:35] Good afternoon commissioners. Again, Jim Reynolds, I live in Pine Ridge, not on the golf course.
[43:42] I want to address what can easily get lost when this issue is reduced to acreage density calculations and
[43:49] and development procedures. Pine Ridge is not simply property on a zoning map. It's a community
[43:55] of 12,000 residents that has been developing for nearly 50 years. Thousands of families have
[44:02] invested their savings, purchased homes, paid taxes, and built their lives here based on the
[44:08] established character and planning framework of this community. The golf course has historically
[44:16] been part of that framework.
[44:19] The Court's order recognizes that this 221 acre property was historically developed as a
[44:25] golf course and is part of a previously approved developmental impact.
[44:32] The application approved by this board sought to change that property from a planned development
[44:37] overlay for golf course use to residential use permitting up to 80 new homes.
[44:44] That is not an ordinary zoning change.
[44:48] It's a significant land use change within an established community.
[44:54] Pine Ridge was planned with residential neighborhoods
[44:56] and community amenities, including a question.
[45:00] Three infacilities, recreation, open space, and the golf course. People relied upon that character when they chose to invest in live here, including me.
[45:12] So, when residents say, protect the Pine Ridge Master Plan, we are saying established communities deserve reasonable certainty that their adopted planning framework will be respected.
[45:27] Otherwise,
[45:29] what does a Master Plan meeting, a zoning designation, a DRI, what do they really
[45:36] mean if we can't rely on them?
[45:41] There's another important consideration I'd like to mention.
[45:45] We're not asking citrus county taxpayers to purchase or operate this golf course.
[45:50] private parties have expressed interest in restoring and operating the property.
[45:59] So, alternatives exist that preserve the recreation, the green space, and the historic character of Pine Ridge, without placing any burden on county taxpayers.
[46:11] We understand, Citrus County is growing, but responsible growth requires balancing new development
[46:19] with the legitimate expectations of people who are already here.
[46:25] We homeowners our investors too.
[46:28] Our property values matter, our quality of life matters, our reliance upon county planning
[46:34] decisions matter, and our voices should matter too.
[46:38] The Circuit Court has quashed this approval.
[46:43] We feel rather than spending additional tax payer funds appealing that decision allow
[46:50] Pine Ridge to pursue solutions that require any and require any future proposal to follow
[46:59] the legally authorized process from the beginning.
[47:03] Please vote not to appeal.
[47:05] Thank you all.
[47:06] Thank you. Next speaker.
[47:21] Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Ron Walser. I live in Pine Ridge,
[47:26] I'm North Mile of Circle and I serve as a committee chair. For nearly four years now,
[47:34] Pine Ridge residents have been burdened in this process.
[47:39] We've attended meetings and hearings.
[47:42] We've submitted evidence. We spoke before this board. We've even had to hire experts and
[47:49] attorneys. And we have followed all the rules. And when our concerns were not heard, we were
[47:57] forced to go to circuit court. We did not ask for this and we did not start this. This
[48:06] is not something our community wanted to do. But we had to do it because we believe the laws,
[48:13] The land development code and the protections surrounding our community matters and should
[48:19] be protected and court agreed.
[48:24] The result was not ambiguous.
[48:26] The court found that the board failed to observe the essential requirements of law.
[48:32] The court granted our petition of writ of surgery and the court cost the ordinance.
[48:39] It said, judgment not to be recorded.
[48:44] This is where I believe this board should stop and consider what has happened here.
[48:51] Pine Ridge residents have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of our own money, simply
[48:56] to obtain a court ruling requiring that the lawful process be followed.
[49:03] Now we face the possibility that our own tax dollars will be used against us to challenge
[49:08] the very decision we had to pay privately to obtain.
[49:13] At some point, commissioners, the people who live in this community have to be heard.
[49:21] Residents who raise legitimate concerns about their neighborhoods should not simply
[49:26] be dismissed as Nimbis standing in the way of development.
[49:30] We are homeowners, we are taxpayers, we are voters, and we are investors in citrus county.
[49:38] We built our lives here, we invested our savings here, our homes are often our largest financial asset.
[49:46] When decisions are made, that fundamentally alter our established community, the people who already live here deserve a meaningful seat at the table.
[49:57] We let county commissioners to represent us and to safeguard the laws and planning framework upon which our communities rely on.
[50:07] We should not have to hire attorneys and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just to make our voices matter and to protect our community.
[50:17] We know growth will happen, property rights matter, development matters, but the people who are already called citrus county home.
[50:29] Hold on one second you have you have to state that that you have a letter on file so I can check with
[50:35] So if you have a letter and file, please state that so I can always check with her if not
[50:43] I don't know if you're speaking it for yourself or for
[50:47] An organization
[50:49] Two more minutes
[50:52] But the people who already call citrus county home should matter to our property values matter
[50:59] our communities matter, our way of life matters, and our voices deserve respect.
[51:06] The court has now spoken clearly.
[51:10] Please, do not spend additional tax payer money continuing this fight, accept the ruling,
[51:17] do not appeal, allow the parties involved in opportunity to find a lawful and lasting
[51:23] solution, and show the residents of Citrus County that when we speak, our elected officials
[51:29] are willing to listen. Thank you.
[51:32] Thank you.
[51:33] Next speaker.
[51:45] All those numbers.
[51:46] Get up when I heard 95.
[51:50] I
[51:54] have to have the noon.
[51:55] My name is Cliff Quattowski.
[51:57] Here we are again.
[51:59] In hindsight, we could have wondered what was there another path.
[52:04] You have Pine Ridge P.O.A.
[52:05] The developers, Pine Ridge United.
[52:07] None of them seem to want to work together.
[52:10] We have a situation left over from a deltona bankruptcy.
[52:12] The property is on residential, but the judge says that you can't have residential homes.
[52:18] Maybe not in so many words, but he did overturn your approval.
[52:22] We have a recreational overlay, aka a site plan that allows for a golf course,
[52:29] even though it has been...
[52:30] Stated here that the golf course was the main intent. It was not. It's a recreational overlay. Ironically, we could have a gold cart track there as recreation or a campground. I don't think any of these people living on a golf course would like that version of it.
[52:47] Pine Ridge P.O.A., say they want to call golf course, but they don't want to buy a golf course. The golf course businesses can't survive and have failed eight times.
[52:56] the developer wants to change a site plan, aka the overlay, to homes on residential property.
[53:02] Pine Ridge, POA, and the developer can't seem to agree. We can't make everybody happy.
[53:08] So what to do? They are making you the Board of County Commissioners, be the parents,
[53:12] trying to reign in the children. My thoughts on this as a consultant in procedures and past and other
[53:19] things. I read the judges decision and I agreed with everything except the
[53:26] quash part of it. It didn't seem to make sense. You have a DRI. Have you really
[53:32] looked into what that means? Residential zoning. Residential homes. How is
[53:39] their conflict? The only conflict is in the overlay. A.K.A. A site plan.
[53:44] Pine Ridge itself has an overlay, a site plan that allows for homes, homes, homes,
[53:53] where's the discrepancy? So my only, I don't really, I'm not really for either side.
[54:02] And those of you who know me well know that I'm a person of common sense and I address things
[54:08] in a common sense way. But I really caution you to do your due diligence when you're trying to
[54:14] Look at this, is it really an error?
[54:18] Because the way I see this is it's a discrepancy.
[54:22] You need to satisfy the discrepancy
[54:24] that the judge pointed out and then resimmit it.
[54:27] This may simply be regarded as a clerical error,
[54:31] because the overlay on a residential zone property
[54:36] for homes, I don't see where it happens.
[54:39] So I'm just a cautionary point here.
[54:42] do your due diligence make sure you're not just going along with the because there is a lot of the vision here.
[54:48] We need to kind of end this division in Pine Ridge.
[54:51] We need a satisfactory solution that everybody kind of agree with.
[54:56] Thank you.
[54:57] Thank you.
[54:57] Thank you.
[54:59] We're getting a little restless and when the speaker speaking, if you all are talking back there,
[55:05] it's difficult for us to concentrate on the speaker.
[55:07] So please remember to either very quietly whisper or just please keep silent. Okay, next speaker
[55:17] Anyone else would like to speak on this matter?
[55:21] Come on
[55:30] After words just state your name and where you're from I get three minutes, man. Yes, sir. Perfect
[55:35] Hi, good afternoon. My name is Mario Leon. I moved to the Pine Ridge area about 10 years ago
[55:41] I own property here my parents also moved here and retired here
[55:45] So now I call, such as county my home. I've seen a lot of you involved in the community,
[55:53] looking to continue your seats. I recognize this venue. The last time that I was here was about
[55:59] two years ago, on a day that there was a tornado warning. Schools were let out pretty early.
[56:05] And we had what three floors, additional courtrooms filled with residents,
[56:11] Adam in about how to proceed with this decision.
[56:17] I'm surprised to find myself here again two and a half years later,
[56:21] after the population that spoke pretty unanimously.
[56:24] We elected you folks as our voices and representatives
[56:28] in terms of how we wanted everything to be,
[56:32] I guess, to be stewards of our community.
[56:35] And frankly, I'm disappointed that we have to be here again today.
[56:39] It's difficult for a lot of us to attend.
[56:42] During a weekday, a lot of people work.
[56:45] Some of us are retired. Those are King.
[56:47] Here, thank you for attending.
[56:50] But I think the question is very, very simple.
[56:52] There are alternatives to this property.
[56:55] It doesn't have to be from 85 to 80.
[56:57] I'm not sure how five houses and a fence.
[57:00] Switches very much.
[57:02] You folks know the exact details as the residents
[57:04] in terms of what the negotiations have been back and forth.
[57:08] But to me, it's very simple.
[57:10] This is about money, power, and influence.
[57:14] We've elected you to represent us.
[57:16] We've spoken in terms of as a united community.
[57:20] We've spent our own money from our association.
[57:25] To stand up for what we think is right.
[57:27] I see some of you campaigning and pushing issues forward.
[57:30] And we take notice of the ones that do things
[57:33] that make sense to us and don't.
[57:35] So to me, this is more than, well, this might be
[57:37] clerical error, or, you know, be careful what your decisions are.
[57:43] Property in the area is at a price because of the community.
[57:48] You can't buy an acre for $5,000 in Bill the House that you want.
[57:51] 80 additional houses is going to depreciate values for everybody.
[57:55] That's a fact.
[57:57] I'm a finance major.
[57:58] I studied at a top university and that's what it is.
[58:02] So for everybody that's moved here and counts on you to look for our best
[58:06] entrance. We're counting on you. And we're taking notice. So please, respectfully, I asked that
[58:13] the original decision of five nothing, five county commissioners foreign in zero for that
[58:18] plan to move forward with the construction. Be upheld. I'm not sure how the master plan or how
[58:23] the new proposal switched, but I respectfully ask that on behalf of myself, my parents and all
[58:29] of our residents. Thank you. Thank you. Remember to fill out that card next speaker.
[58:51] Good afternoon,
[58:51] My name is Mark Tupuy, I live on Pink Poppy Drive in Pine Ridge, with great power comes
[58:58] great responsibility. We all know the super story, the superhero story, someone is given extraordinary
[59:05] power, and suddenly that person has the ability to change the course of events not just for themselves,
[59:11] but for everyone around them. But there's always a catch with great power comes great responsibility.
[59:17] In our county, we don't have five superheroes flying around in capes.
[59:23] We have something much more real, and in many ways, much more powerful.
[59:27] We have five county commissioners.
[59:29] Five individuals who are given the incredible amount of power and influence over the future
[59:33] of our county.
[59:36] Five people who can make decisions that affect our taxes, our property values, our roads,
[59:41] our neighborhoods, our growth, our quality of life, and ultimately the direction our
[59:45] take for years to come. And here's the important part. We give them that power. We vote them
[1:00:00] We don't elect them to represent outside interests. We elect them to represent us, the taxpayers and the residents of this county.
[1:00:08] We trust them with our voices, we trust them with our concerns, we trust them with our property values, we trust them with our communities.
[1:00:16] And we trust them to listen to what their constituents want and need to make decisions based on the best interests of the people they were elected to serve.
[1:00:25] Now, here's where the super hero analogy really matters.
[1:00:30] Having power doesn't make someone a hero.
[1:00:34] How you use the power does.
[1:00:35] Their superhero can use the abilities to protect people,
[1:00:39] where they can use those abilities for themselves.
[1:00:43] The same is true of anyone sitting on the county commission.
[1:00:46] They can use their position to listen to their constituents,
[1:00:49] protect the interests of the taxpayers,
[1:00:51] and make decisions with the long-term well-being of the county in mind.
[1:00:57] Or they can use the power and waves that leave the constituents wondering.
[1:01:02] Who are you really representing?
[1:01:05] Because every vote has consequences.
[1:01:07] Every decision can change the direction of our county.
[1:01:11] And every commissioner has the opportunity to show us what kind of public servant they intend to be.
[1:01:16] When we walk into that voting booth, we're not simply choosing a name.
[1:01:20] We're choosing who we trust with the power.
[1:01:24] And once again, we give that power
[1:01:26] we have every right to expect them to use it responsibly.
[1:01:30] To remember who put them there, to remember who they work for.
[1:01:33] And to remember that public office isn't about what you can do
[1:01:37] because you have the power.
[1:01:39] It's about what you choose to do with the power,
[1:01:41] the people have entrusted you with.
[1:01:44] So perhaps the question is not, who has the power?
[1:01:48] We already know the answer.
[1:01:49] The question is, how will they use it?
[1:01:53] Thank you, Mr. Jepray.
[1:01:54] Thank you.
[1:01:56] Next speaker,
[1:02:00] last call.
[1:02:02] Okay, I'll close the public portion.
[1:02:05] There are public comment.
[1:02:08] Okay, board.
[1:02:10] I just want to remind everyone here and board members,
[1:02:14] we're not re-trying an application.
[1:02:18] We are deciding whether we are going to put money
[1:02:21] and pursue a lawsuit. Obviously, I've put the motion that I did not feel like we should pursue
[1:02:28] a lawsuit. Whatever, Pine Ridge on either side does from there that is going to be Pine Ridge's
[1:02:36] responsibility.
[1:02:39] Commissioner Canard. Thank you. I'll go ahead and chime in. I agree actually
[1:02:44] with most of the speakers and that we should not spend another dollar on this. I'm adamantly opposed
[1:02:51] to the county spending money on lawsuits that seem to just drag on and on and on.
[1:02:58] I've been very clear about that for many years sitting up here and that hasn't changed
[1:03:02] for this or with this.
[1:03:05] However, I do think the judge got it wrong.
[1:03:08] I think we do have a tax amendment that we need to address in our LDC and hopefully we will
[1:03:15] doing that very quickly. I'm curious as to how we're going to go about curing previously
[1:03:27] modified DRIs and without spending another dollar on attorney's fees, I would suggest
[1:03:37] that the county join as a co-petitioner should the applicant decide to appeal this.
[1:03:47] Provided that the county would not be exposed to any legal fees for the prevailing party or any additional fees.
[1:03:57] Then I think if the applicant decides to appeal, I would support the county be in a co-petitioner.
[1:04:04] So, for that reason, I won't be supporting your motion if it passes, so be it.
[1:04:09] If it doesn't pass, then I'm prepared to make a second motion.
[1:04:13] Madam Chair, Commissioner Davis.
[1:04:16] I concur with Commissioner Canard. I think that that is the Liza's course of action.
[1:04:20] There is a legal precedent with the DR, with old DRIs that are going to
[1:04:27] payroll home rule I believe and I'm adamantly opposed to spending any tax paid dollars on this again and you know I appreciate you as
[1:04:36] for Scott your service to the county don't want to pay any more bills that we don't have to and courts are not
[1:04:44] infallible none of the five of us have a legal degree so you know take that as a layman's opinion but I
[1:04:52] I'm with Commissioner Connard, I think they got it wrong.
[1:04:57] Commissioner Bays.
[1:05:02] I would like to hear from our county attorney,
[1:05:06] apparently we're here today because we have outside council here,
[1:05:10] and it appears that there was some concern on this vote
[1:05:20] on where we're going with it and that's why you're here.
[1:05:23] So why are we here if we have outside council here
[1:05:29] did you feel that it's necessary to pursue this, to cure any past votes?
[1:05:37] You have,
[1:05:39] okay, I don't know about that's the part you added at the end.
[1:05:43] In order to only have 30 days to appeal a decision, in order to appeal a decision,
[1:05:49] the board has to give authority to whichever lawyer is representing you on whether or not you
[1:05:54] appeal it. So we had to come before you to ask you what you wanted to do with the judges decision.
[1:06:03] So I had no conversation, no briefing, and I'm little perplexed by this because
[1:06:12] I raised the question about the DRI versus the PUD distinction on record and opposing council
[1:06:18] answered and the court later built it's really on that exact gap. And so when I raised that question,
[1:06:26] was there a section of the LBC or the compound that could have been cited at that time?
[1:06:34] If you're asking me, I don't know that this is the time or the place to re-litigate what happened
[1:06:39] at your meeting. You have a judges decision that says what you did was incorrect. And now you guys
[1:06:45] have to decide whether you're going to let that decision set or whether you're going to appeal that
[1:06:49] decision. I think that if you hear from Mr. Scott, he will tell you that he does not agree
[1:06:54] with the judge's decision either. He can certainly correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't
[1:07:00] believe that he agrees with the judge's decision. So whether or not you guys decide to appeal
[1:07:05] it, those arguments I assume he'll make in the brief, if you decide to appeal it or not.
[1:07:12] Well, good we hear from Mr. Scott, of course you can.
[1:07:16] It's wise here.
[1:07:17] Good afternoon.
[1:07:19] One of the benefits of the position that I'm in is I don't have to consider the political issues that you all consider that as up for you to decide.
[1:07:30] And I try to confine my review of an opinion, or an order like this, truly to the legal ease of the order
[1:07:38] and whether in my opinion, opinion upon an opinion, but whether in my opinion, it is supportable.
[1:07:46] And it is my opinion that it's not a supportable ruling that the court has reached mainly, and I'll really get right to the nub of it,
[1:07:55] And that the court found in many ways accepting the argument that was offered by Pinerage
[1:08:03] in the Sertuary Appeal, or the Sertuary Proceeding, that there was no, you'll see the
[1:08:09] word express, express process, provided in the LDC or in the county regulations to amend
[1:08:17] a DRI that is in the first instance itself not terribly accurate in that the comprehensive
[1:08:25] plan provides that major modifications to existing developments are handled through the
[1:08:33] Atlas Amendment process. But more importantly or more fundamentally in terms of the law
[1:08:40] that applies in a case like this is the law.
[1:08:45] Does not require that the board, or that the county,
[1:08:48] excuse me, have a directly express explicit process
[1:08:53] that says something to the effect of DRIs
[1:08:57] shall be amended by XYZ process.
[1:09:01] That simply is not a requirement that exists under the law.
[1:09:06] That is an argument that was raised by the attorneys
[1:09:08] for Pine Ridge that is an argument that was accepted by the judge who presided over the case
[1:09:15] that circuit court, but that is not a supportable pre-text or pre-cept, excuse me, of law.
[1:09:23] And that is an argument that we would be offering on appeal that that is an incorrect ruling.
[1:09:29] In fact, under the law, in handling quasi-judicial matters such as this and aboard a city
[1:09:38] Council, Accounting Commission, that handles a quasi-judicial consideration of a request to change
[1:09:44] zoning, or more generally a request to allow a form of application or development.
[1:09:53] The law is more lenient than I believe the court, and I'll say, I'm hesitant to, in some
[1:09:59] ways, to get into these things, because they do get into attorney client work product
[1:10:03] type considerations.
[1:10:04] But I think it's important to, at some level, discuss them.
[1:10:07] But the law is a bit more forgiving, if I can use that term, in terms of the process that the government
[1:10:15] aboard or a council goes through in considering an application process.
[1:10:21] Now, I understand the argument that was made in the pleadings and in the process of saying,
[1:10:27] while there wasn't an explicit express process that was provided for and followed,
[1:10:31] and you almost get into a situation where an argument is repeated over and over and then it's accepted later by a court and then it's repeated perhaps following the the issues of the ruling.
[1:10:43] What you'll find that's interesting in the in the court's ruling and you'll find interesting in the petition as filed before the court is the lack of legal citation to authority to support that proposition.
[1:10:53] Now, why this is important is not, at least from my point of view, and I would suggest to you is not that I'm supporting or against, I have zero stake in the political question of whether the pine reagent men should be allowed or the golf course.
[1:11:09] However, I would suggest there is a fundamental governmental interest from your point of view in having the proper court versus government or court versus county BOCC balance being struck.
[1:11:23] In terms of whether you all are permitted to execute your duties without concern or risk of judicial entanglement in the decisions you make and whether you are being made to take actions or not take actions based on rulings that may not comport with what the law specifically provides for.
[1:11:45] So in terms of, it would, from my point of view, I would say a, an appeal is supportable and it's not because of any consideration of what the folks here have said or the political considerations as to whether the development is supportable.
[1:12:00] But it does appear to be an incorrect ruling. It does call into question other activities that the board has done or will do with regard to considering DRIs.
[1:12:11] our eyes, although I will state just to be clear for the record, this ruling simply applies to
[1:12:18] this individual action of the board, and this ruling costs solely that individual action.
[1:12:23] There's no injunction, no declaratory relief, no striking of those provisions, or any provisions
[1:12:29] of the code. That said, it does inherently call into question or offer a bit of a
[1:12:41] the future or we're passed with regard to D.R.D.R.I.'s.
[1:12:46] There are also other considerations that one might question when you read, read in order
[1:12:53] like this. The order and also the petition, it doesn't answer the question, well if someone
[1:12:59] in the county were to have a D.R.I. how do they go about amending that D.R.I.
[1:13:05] bearing in mind that property owners, including property owners who own property with DRIs,
[1:13:11] they do have a right to consideration by a governing board of amendments or modifications
[1:13:17] of land use controls, and those could implicate potential concerns of other matters of litigation
[1:13:24] or liability down the road.
[1:13:27] It's not that I would suggest there's any of those considerations here, but these kinds
[1:13:32] rulings that aren't as based on the law as they could be, bring those considerations to
[1:13:39] the forefront and cause uncertainty from your point of view. I apologize for the perhaps somewhat
[1:13:45] long-winded response, but I would encapsulate my view of the ruling as that.
[1:13:53] Commissioner, please. Is there an example of potentially any time in the past where
[1:14:02] we did not defend a vote that this is a risen and we did not defend ourselves.
[1:14:09] I'm personally not not aware of any situations like this.
[1:14:17] I'm turning one.
[1:14:23] I'm trying to think I've been here 11 years.
[1:14:31] I don't think we've had any. Well,
[1:14:37] I would hate to answer because I would want to look and make
[1:14:40] before I I don't want to guess so I really can't say in the last 11 years I know we've had
[1:14:45] some appeals. I can't think of a situation where we've had a court actually
[1:14:48] quash an action of the board since I've been working with you all. I don't think we
[1:14:54] have at least not in the last 11 years but I would want to preface that by just saying I'd want to
[1:14:59] look.
[1:15:00] To be sure.
[1:15:02] Are you, Commissioner Barry?
[1:15:07] I see here, I listen to what Commissioner.
[1:15:11] Can I just say, as Commissioner Davis says, and I got a letter from an attorney.
[1:15:17] From, you know, Dixon of people that want to do the houses.
[1:15:21] I don't think that that is right for us to agree.
[1:15:26] If we say, you're going to say, no, you're going to come up with this other thing,
[1:15:30] and we're going to partner with a law firm,
[1:15:34] and it's the law firm that represents the people
[1:15:37] on the other side of this matter.
[1:15:40] That's wrong, okay?
[1:15:42] And it's 100% wrong.
[1:15:48] I think we should vote on this.
[1:15:50] And if you don't want to do, we don't,
[1:15:53] I don't want to spend anymore money.
[1:15:55] So I say we should accept, and that's why I seconded the motion.
[1:15:59] And if we accept it, that we just answered this point, and if Mr. Dixon has developed
[1:16:04] or accompanying it, all the developers want to go back to the attorneys, they can go back
[1:16:10] with their big pockets. We're trying to cut expenses in this county. Not add to them.
[1:16:17] And every time I turn around, you know, we need to be, for what is going on in this county,
[1:16:24] what do the people want? I didn't hear very many people say,
[1:16:28] Well, we want, you know, we want to go with Dixie's appeal, you know, we want everybody that came up today. Almost every single one came up and said they were happy. Please, you know, don't go any further. So I think we should vote.
[1:16:46] So for me, it's not about how many people are for something, how many people are getting something, it's just the process that we all are supposed to follow.
[1:16:56] And I'm shocked to my just made two of you think that it's okay to pursue a lawsuit and have the developers attorney pay for it.
[1:17:08] I think that is a very, very bad, bad look.
[1:17:14] Don't, don't, don't, don't, don't, don't, don't, don't.
[1:17:18] I don't know how you defend that in the future.
[1:17:21] I don't know how you defend that to the people that you represent, to me it makes sense
[1:17:26] if we have an issue that the judge has pointed out, we don't fight against the judge's ruling.
[1:17:33] We certainly don't say, yeah, we'll help you, you pay for it. When the person has been a known
[1:17:40] friend of some, that's about what we do is fix the issue and then, you know, I don't know where this
[1:17:49] up later if the developer comes back and, you know, under a new process. But again, for, for
[1:17:56] pain-rich being divided all that we all hated, we as somebody put like being the mom, right?
[1:18:04] We're, that's not our role. We are just supposed to do what we are supposed to do as a government
[1:18:09] body. Now, in the past, I voted against it. Again, not on being on one person side or the other,
[1:18:16] because my beliefs government shouldn't go into people's backyards and tell them, forget, forget your research and what you've done and how you've bought this property, we have the power to change it and we're just going to change it.
[1:18:29] I philosophically don't believe that's right and I certainly don't think it's right that we pay or let somebody that's on the opposite side against any of our people to pursue a lawsuit.
[1:18:44] that is that's wrong on so so many levels. So I hope, although I feel like this is fairly predictable,
[1:18:52] that somebody up here also would realize that and let them pursue this in the correct way,
[1:19:00] not in a way where we're on behalf of all taxpayers, not just anybody living in the
[1:19:06] pledge pursuing a lawsuit because we don't like a judge's decision.
[1:19:12] Madam Chair, Commissioner Canard.
[1:19:16] First of all, thank you.
[1:19:19] An excellent discussion about where we're at and what your position is on the judges' order.
[1:19:31] So, it led me to believe that rather than suggesting that we need to cure previously modified
[1:19:41] DRIs, that we need to protect past decisions on modifying DRIs.
[1:19:47] And if that means a board action on a text amendment for our LDC to do that, so that we
[1:19:55] don't end up having another decision like this that I wholly disagree with.
[1:20:03] That's not about picking sides one way or the other.
[1:20:05] Simply, I disagree with what the judge decided.
[1:20:08] And I think most unbiased legal opinions would arrive at the same decision.
[1:20:17] But I do believe that Miss Lynn got it wrong.
[1:20:19] we have, we have one of three options, not just to accept or appeal, I disagree with his decision
[1:20:27] and I think that we can appeal as a co-petitioner. As I said before, I don't want to spend a
[1:20:35] single dollar on this, but I disagree with it. I think the judge, a judge and a pellet judge has the
[1:20:42] opportunity should get the opportunity to demonstrate that that opinion was wrong. So again,
[1:20:48] I appreciate where you're at, but I won't be supporting your motion, and if it fails, I will be making a motion
[1:20:56] to enter as a co-petitioner.
[1:21:01] Anyone else have comments before I call the vote?
[1:21:04] Quiet, please.
[1:21:07] Quiet, please. Quiet, please.
[1:21:10] We don't have anyone in this room, again.
[1:21:12] Is that okay?
[1:21:15] Well, that all, law enforcement's not in this room, here, here we, here we are again.
[1:21:24] Okay, board any other comments?
[1:21:30] Okay, all those in favor?
[1:21:32] Hi.
[1:21:33] Any opposed?
[1:21:33] Okay.
[1:21:34] Motion fails.
[1:21:36] Three, two.
[1:21:38] Madam Chair, I would make a motion that the, that the county participates in appeal as a co petitioner,
[1:21:45] Commissioner provided that we would not be exposed to any fees of the prevailing party.
[1:21:53] Second.
[1:21:56] I have a motion by Commissioner Knart and the second by Commissioner Davis.
[1:22:01] Any public comment?
[1:22:03] We are not in number orders.
[1:22:06] So if you've already submitted a green card and you've spoken on the last motion,
[1:22:10] you do not have to submit another green card.
[1:22:24] That my motion, they're not going to respect you, so I'm in a-
[1:22:31] You're supposed to be listening and you're supposed to be in this room, so it would help me keep order. Hopefully they're listening.
[1:22:41] Okay, and for those that weren't paying attention, I made a motion and it failed. So now there's a new motion and now we are opening it, act up to public comment.
[1:22:54] Hello, Mr. A.
[1:22:57] Hi, I'm raiseable.
[1:22:58] Pirate just days.
[1:23:00] Okay, in this particular instance,
[1:23:03] you are telling me that the county board of commissioners
[1:23:07] would be co-applicants with Dix
[1:23:12] to appeal this.
[1:23:15] Now, what kind of liability does the county face?
[1:23:20] Okay, so what if
[1:23:22] I mean, this could go seriously wrong on your favor, okay, because remember anything
[1:23:30] stated in the court is illegal and can be challenged and could if they say something
[1:23:39] on your behalf that's absolutely wrong, defamation, whatever, whatever, you could
[1:23:46] being suit extensively. Okay, so I think you all should really think about that, because what kind of
[1:23:55] exposure are you leaving us the county residents in, I mean this is going to be serious if it goes to her.
[1:24:05] Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.
[1:24:12] I kind of see people buying the wall.
[1:24:18] I have three management.
[1:24:19] Yes, sir.
[1:24:20] State your name and where you're from.
[1:24:21] I get afternoon, Mario Leon.
[1:24:23] I moved to your 10 years ago.
[1:24:24] I'm a property owner.
[1:24:25] My parents live here.
[1:24:26] I own different properties in Pine Ridge.
[1:24:29] Also, I'm a volunteer coach at our soccer club,
[1:24:32] Citrus County, and Homassassa.
[1:24:34] I've been involved with the kids for an extended period of time.
[1:24:36] My son graduated high school at Lecanto.
[1:24:39] He's a freshman on a college scholarship, playing soccer.
[1:24:44] I've extensive ties to the community.
[1:24:46] I know everybody that is passionate about this is not here today,
[1:24:50] because it's one o'clock on a weekday.
[1:24:53] I'm sorry.
[1:24:54] I just hated to stop your time for minutes.
[1:24:56] I don't know if you need to walk out, but it's very distracting.
[1:25:01] Okay.
[1:25:02] Thank you.
[1:25:03] Sorry.
[1:25:04] So we're on the same page.
[1:25:05] I have extensive ties to the community volunteering
[1:25:07] at a local soccer club.
[1:25:10] My son is also recent graduate at a high school.
[1:25:13] So this is, to me, dear and passionate,
[1:25:17] I'm confused, extremely confused
[1:25:19] with a lot of our residents there in the area.
[1:25:23] So I'm to understand that this board,
[1:25:26] after originally voting 5-0,
[1:25:28] we've gotten to a point now where we're three, two,
[1:25:31] and favor of selling 228ers off market.
[1:25:35] property. That's a common space, privately, to a developer, pennies on the dollar, at less than $5,000 an acre.
[1:25:44] And then they're going to bring that petition to this board to develop 220 acres into 80 houses.
[1:25:51] You can do the math in terms of what the sales are and you're supporting that that's okay.
[1:25:56] Is that correct? Is that what this vote is three to two now? Two people say no. I don't want to do that.
[1:26:00] three people say yes, you're elected officials.
[1:26:04] We elect you.
[1:26:04] Some are getting re-elected.
[1:26:06] Some are not when your tolerance comes up.
[1:26:08] So I'm to understand that you're going to support now the opponent of this and say, you
[1:26:12] know what?
[1:26:13] We can't finance it.
[1:26:14] But we're going to let him finance us because he has the pockets, but you know what I agree
[1:26:17] with that decision was wrong.
[1:26:19] The people have spoken.
[1:26:20] We were here.
[1:26:21] Five-zero.
[1:26:21] Two years ago, what changed?
[1:26:24] A gate?
[1:26:24] Three houses?
[1:26:25] Five houses?
[1:26:26] What changed?
[1:26:28] How much more do we need to go through?
[1:26:30] we've spent tons of money where we could have been beautifying our community.
[1:26:35] The people that are here that are speaking against that understand.
[1:26:39] I don't understand why one, two, three don't understand. I don't, I don't get it.
[1:26:43] For the price of one house, what is it? 750 that the lot sold for the 220, 750,000?
[1:26:51] Is that right? That's what the public record is, right?
[1:26:54] $250,000 for $220 acres and we're going to let this guy come in and buy them why $3,000,000 an acre and then build houses and bring all the infrastructure and mind you.
[1:27:04] We're talking about residents that are in their final stages, right? The last part of their life, they work, they're whole life.
[1:27:10] They want to retire in peace in peace, not with construction trucks for 80 houses for 80 houses on a one lane road that goes each way.
[1:27:20] who's been on Pine Ridge Boulevard, to one lane, each way.
[1:27:23] Elkin, one lane, each way.
[1:27:25] You're going to introduce 80 houses in infrastructure, take out trees, take out really.
[1:27:32] We're at the point now where this board says, yes, we're not going to put our money there
[1:27:36] because my guys might get upset, but I'm going to sit down and go on the same stuff.
[1:27:42] I'm really out of loss.
[1:27:43] I'm really out of loss, but I'm not sure how else to frame this.
[1:27:46] I think we've spoken from as a community.
[1:27:48] And I think going forward, you'll have your conscious to do.
[1:27:53] Thank you.
[1:27:54] Thank you.
[1:27:55] Next speaker.
[1:27:59] I've heard this book, Kevin Allen.
[1:28:04] Thank you again for listening.
[1:28:08] But I do have to make a couple of quick points.
[1:28:12] The president of our current president of our board got up here and contradicted what I said
[1:28:17] channels what I said about 20% of the less than 20% of the vote. He said 33% of vote. That may
[1:28:23] have been who voted in our community, but they only won slightly over half of that. That's why I
[1:28:29] say, well south of 20% of our population have this board in place as it is today in making all this
[1:28:36] fuss.
[1:28:39] I find it on your behalf utterly offensive that people want to get up here and say
[1:28:52] a almost threatening comments about your elections going forward and who's going to support
[1:28:58] you and how much of a community support we have and I just I just find that totally offensive
[1:29:05] and I'm sorry that you have to hear those kind of comments from our community.
[1:29:11] Quiet, please.
[1:29:12] People are, uh, convote the way they want to vote.
[1:29:16] Uh, again, it's not for me to ask you questions.
[1:29:19] But one of the things that keeps popping in my mind is that this judges decision was based on DRI and my understanding from talking to Joanne several times of your staff that this property is not a DRI.
[1:29:35] So I'm a little confused by that. Again, I'm not asking you a question, but that might be some other fuel for an appeal of this decision because of its
[1:29:46] the foundation of the decision might be on loose ground.
[1:29:51] I do want to say that green shirts here are not pro development.
[1:29:56] We want smart development.
[1:29:58] This golf course is failed.
[1:30:00] Each time, people keep saying, we got to have a golf course. You know, this is part of the community and all this stuff. It's failed eight times. And our board and their supporters have been saying, for over a year and a half, we don't want to buy a golf course. We don't want any ownership and a golf course. We've got investors that want to own and operate a golf course. Well, come to find out at the last meeting we had, oh, now we got to have a majority interest in this golf course as a community.
[1:30:27] Because this great golf course is going to be so successful, may fail, and then we got a whole
[1:30:32] de property, crazy, crazy, crazy ideas, and I just hope that you vote in conjunction with
[1:30:40] your legal advice on this.
[1:30:41] Thank you.
[1:30:42] Thank you.
[1:30:43] Next speaker,
[1:30:48] excuse me sir,
[1:30:56] PJ Ophamor, citrus county, I really truly do not want to be standing
[1:31:00] at this podium right now.
[1:31:01] I didn't come here to speak. I came here to support my fellow community members and
[1:31:06] Pine Ridge who I respect greatly for the most part. I'm very much saddened that you all
[1:31:12] have chosen to part, neuro up, with an out-of-town developer who has proven already that
[1:31:20] he is not working in the community's best interest. We can look at Crystal Oaks. We can look
[1:31:25] at what he has done with that property that you have approved for development. His attorney
[1:31:30] He has done things that shouldn't have been done.
[1:31:34] One of you actually tried to shake him down last week.
[1:31:37] I'm not sure that you should be allowed to vote because of your comments about nimbiasm
[1:31:41] and your happiness to support everything that Dix and Mr. Batsl do.
[1:31:47] I think it's inappropriate and I think you are very wrong.
[1:31:51] I have heard numerous, numerous comments that Mr. Canard has spent an awful lot of private
[1:31:58] time with Mr. Dix and is very friendly. And I've also heard that Ms. Baze, who's trying to burn
[1:32:06] down the whole county on her way out because she's angry that a judge went against her,
[1:32:09] as did the voters. That she's family to Mr. Dix. I think she must be
[1:32:17] recused from voting on this issue. She has very evident, by her former not saying rumors that we
[1:32:24] I don't know, I'm sure.
[1:32:25] Is she not related to Mr. Dix through the Lamb family?
[1:32:31] Well, I can ask that.
[1:32:33] To me, please, OK, so I would request
[1:32:36] that she recuse herself from voting on this today.
[1:32:41] Thank you.
[1:32:43] Thank you for your comments.
[1:32:45] Next speaker,
[1:32:54] just state your name again and where you're from.
[1:32:56] Click with Towsky.
[1:32:57] I do live in Pine Ridge.
[1:32:59] Just hearing a lot of emotions here.
[1:33:02] hearing a lot of berating, hearing a lot of anger and a lot of disrespect.
[1:33:08] I kind of just wanted to give a little bit of respect to you all because you do serve the community.
[1:33:13] We are a republic, some people forget that.
[1:33:17] We are a nation of laws.
[1:33:18] Most people forget that, especially on the road.
[1:33:23] I just want to remind you, as I said before, to do your due diligence, which you are,
[1:33:30] and you ask the lawyer, you got the legal opinion.
[1:33:34] I already told you, I'm not for one way or the other.
[1:33:37] I'm for trying to bring out, bring about some type of resolution,
[1:33:42] some type of finality to this nonsense that has been going on for over five years.
[1:33:47] I've been there during the process, not living there, but building a home
[1:33:51] and I have watched this nonsense going on, I realize there's a process.
[1:33:56] You're following it. You must follow that process. That's your job.
[1:34:00] You will follow it legally. You will follow the law. You will do what the law states. You will do your due diligence
[1:34:06] And I agree with Mr. Canard that I don't believe the judge got it right and you say that the majority people are here seem to
[1:34:16] agree with the judge, but you have a noisy majority here and
[1:34:22] You can tell that and the disrespectful majority in a lot of ways when they don't seem to get their way
[1:34:28] Again, I don't care which way it goes.
[1:34:30] I just want to see the law followed.
[1:34:33] Do your due diligence, make sure this was right.
[1:34:36] I don't believe it was quashed as Mr. Canard said
[1:34:40] in the legal sense of the way.
[1:34:42] And it could cause problems from the past and in the future.
[1:34:46] And as I said, if it's just something
[1:34:48] that needs to be restated, rerun,
[1:34:51] you should be able to do this without legal cost
[1:34:56] If it's a procedural problem and you just correct rectify the procedural problem, you re-submit it or you correct the legal jargon, you probably heard they had to restate what's going to voting for the property taxes.
[1:35:14] They had to rewrite that because a judge said it was misleading. So let's rewrite this. So it's not misleading.
[1:35:20] One way or the other, satisfy the laws, satisfy the people, so that there isn't this argumentative
[1:35:28] argumentative process here that's being going on behind me, that you have to listen to and be accused and fingers pointed at that.
[1:35:36] That's not the way we do things.
[1:35:39] We're a nation of laws.
[1:35:41] We respect that.
[1:35:41] We follow that.
[1:35:42] We respect you.
[1:35:44] Thank you.
[1:35:44] Thank you.
[1:35:45] Next speaker.
[1:35:53] Hi, Ron Walser.
[1:35:54] I spoke earlier.
[1:35:55] Are you three or five?
[1:35:59] We can say five, but I probably won't use it all.
[1:36:02] I just wanted to talk about the motion that's currently on the table was completely unexpected coming into this meeting here today.
[1:36:14] It was never talked about.
[1:36:15] It was never referenced.
[1:36:17] But I'm getting the understanding that there was some type of correspondence that was given to the county from the applicants.
[1:36:27] attorney. If that's correct, and before things are voted on, the community has a chance
[1:36:35] to voice an opinion, and I think we should know it's in that letter. I think we should
[1:36:41] know exactly what the details of what Mr. Kanard's Commissioner Kanard spoke about. We have
[1:36:48] no idea what the deal you're voting on is with the applicant's attorney. To me, that seems
[1:36:56] like a conflict of interest right across the top, okay?
[1:37:02] We elect you to represent us.
[1:37:05] We don't elect you to join in Hitch-up with a developer
[1:37:12] on an application that was found judgment not ordered.
[1:37:17] You're not treating us fairly.
[1:37:19] We're here responding to something
[1:37:21] that we haven't been given any knowledge of.
[1:37:24] I think that before this vote goes through, I think that whatever that course.
[1:37:30] The response was, should be entered into the record. I think the public should have full knowledge of what it is you're voting on before you vote it. Right now, this is a last minute thing that none of us have been made aware of.
[1:37:45] And I don't think you're being fair to the people that have elected you to represent us. Thank you.
[1:37:51] Thank you.
[1:37:53] So before I forget to say, if the board all got an email
[1:37:56] that Commissioner Barrick said, I never got it.
[1:38:00] So I'm sure I would be left off of that,
[1:38:03] but I would also be interested if someone could
[1:38:07] forward that to me.
[1:38:08] I'd like to see what that says.
[1:38:11] I'm with many of you.
[1:38:12] I don't know what it says.
[1:38:15] Next speaker.
[1:38:17] Come on.
[1:38:18] I'm ready if you're ready.
[1:38:20] All right.
[1:38:20] on to the war, by and rich, well, this isn't surprise.
[1:38:26] I was curious if there was a precedent for anything like this,
[1:38:31] ever anywhere before,
[1:38:35] where county commissioners would work in tandem
[1:38:39] with a developer to, I mean, I so appreciate your surprise
[1:38:45] and confusion.
[1:38:46] Also, I would just say, and there's been a lot of here, say, expressed here, and I hate that stuff.
[1:38:54] It's one of the reasons in my previous comments, the LDC and the comprehensive plan need to line up,
[1:39:01] because that's where all this crap comes from.
[1:39:04] It's not clear, it's not well-defined.
[1:39:07] And therefore, developers have wiggle room around the laws, and that's what's happening here.
[1:39:17] Just, I do know, yeah, let's see, this would be here, say I won't say it, but I know that
[1:39:24] the developers are confident that this is going to be voted down.
[1:39:28] I know that knew that coming in here, that they were confident, I was hoping it wasn't true.
[1:39:33] I would be interested to know how you, Commissioner Canard, and I can't ask you a question,
[1:39:41] I don't expect you to answer it, but you are really well-prepared for...
[1:39:46] Direct comments to me.
[1:39:48] This was a very well-prepared statement about how he would counter this.
[1:39:55] And that you don't want to be suspicious, but it was really well-prepared.
[1:40:01] So, it just makes me nervous.
[1:40:04] I hope that if you follow through with this, that you are prepared for the consequences,
[1:40:10] because this is a big deal.
[1:40:13] This will hit the news more than the chronicle I would think.
[1:40:18] It's a big deal.
[1:40:20] So, anyway.
[1:40:20] Thank you.
[1:40:28] Renee Pasco.
[1:40:29] 43.
[1:40:29] Can you give me one section?
[1:40:31] Can you please follow this for me?
[1:40:41] He can't.
[1:40:42] He can't.
[1:40:43] He's with my email.
[1:40:44] So, Commissioner Barrack has an email that she feels it may be pertinent.
[1:40:49] I mean, that would be information that I don't have.
[1:40:52] I don't see Reece, I don't know if he's in the back, but is Reece able to pull that from her email and then give us copies?
[1:41:02] Hi, Reece.
[1:41:03] I
[1:41:08] came from Mr. Batzel today.
[1:41:11] I understand it was copied to all of you.
[1:41:15] Maybe it came, I mean, I checked all my emails this morning, maybe 11.
[1:41:19] Oh yeah, I went and received it.
[1:41:22] Okay.
[1:41:24] That'd be great.
[1:41:24] Thank you.
[1:41:30] Did everyone read this email?
[1:41:42] Forget me one second.
[1:41:44] If you want to sit, I'll have you right back.
[1:41:58] Well, Miss Lynn, maybe you should read it.
[1:42:11] Okay, quiet, please.
[1:42:15] I'll be sure that a copy gets to the clerk's office.
[1:42:19] Tiffany, I'll make sure a copy gets to you.
[1:42:23] I just want me to read this, please.
[1:42:27] Ms. Lynn, Mr. Scott, and all following our recent discussions and prior to today's special meeting.
[1:42:33] I am writing on behalf of Southern Oak's property group LLC to request the county commissions,
[1:42:38] support of an appeal of the recent order issued in the case referenced above.
[1:42:43] Because I am unable to attend today's special meeting due to a prior engagement,
[1:42:47] I have blind copied each county commissioner on this email.
[1:42:50] With all due respect to our circuit court, we wholeheartedly disagree with the outcome of the appeal and the reasoning upon which it was based, which disregarded the plaintext of a statute and ignored the county's constitutional and statutory authority to make quasi-judicial decisions based upon its comprehensive plan and land development code.
[1:43:10] I will leave it to Mr. Scott to further explain any substantive issues, but on behalf of my client,
[1:43:16] I will convey that we are proceeding with an appeal. We hope you will join us in this, excuse me.
[1:43:22] We hope you will join in this effort.
[1:43:26] You are very well represented by Mr. Scott, and I encourage the county to defend its position through a direct petition.
[1:43:33] if, however, the cost of an appeal is a concern, then we welcome the county to participate in our appeal as a co-petitioner.
[1:43:41] We are, we are, what, what, what, why, please,
[1:43:48] why, please,
[1:43:51] I really don't want to remove anyone I've never had to do that.
[1:43:55] So, please just let Ms. Lynn read the rest of the email.
[1:43:58] We are similarly situated in defending the validity of the Commission's actions and more broadly, the authority of the Commission.
[1:44:05] And in applying its comprehensive plan and code and the rezoning of certain properties through
[1:44:11] the PUD process thus, if you deem it best, if you deem it the best course of action,
[1:44:17] then we believe it would be appropriate for the county to join in our petition to be prepared
[1:44:22] by our council at my client's expense.
[1:44:26] We are very excited to be working with Halla Sandridge of Buchanan, Ingersol, and Rooney,
[1:44:32] who is board-certified in a pellet practice and whose resume experience and reputation speak for themselves.
[1:44:38] You can find more information about Miss Sandridge here and he's got a link.
[1:44:43] Thank you in advance for your consideration since you really robbed that.
[1:44:47] Thank you. I did not realize that that I stand even further on my position
[1:44:54] that that seems wrong on every level. But when it's time for the,
[1:45:00] Or members to talk to me every week and get another attorney's opinion on that.
[1:45:04] Oh, where's my lady? That was just up here. Oh, hi. Sorry about that. Thank you for
[1:45:10] patient. After that, I would still want to say anything. But I'm Renee Pasco, 4386 West
[1:45:16] Mustang Boulevard Beverly Hills. And I just want to make a comment if I understand correctly.
[1:45:22] That offered that you just read. Does that mean that he's doing the cost of legal
[1:45:28] and that the county would not be paying legal fees.
[1:45:34] And if I understand correctly,
[1:45:36] your legal counsel suggested that you appeal,
[1:45:39] and now I'm just thinking to consider that.
[1:45:42] You both were sued on both sides from our,
[1:45:45] our, our, Pine Ridge equally,
[1:45:48] so that's just how I see it.
[1:45:49] I would like you to consider.
[1:45:51] Thank you.
[1:45:53] Next speaker.
[1:46:01] Hi.
[1:46:01] round to Allen, four, four, one, two, North deck would drive Beverly Hills Pine Ridge.
[1:46:08] So I also would like to say that I'm not coming up here to rally votes for anyone here on the board,
[1:46:17] nor rally against votes for anyone here on the board.
[1:46:20] I just think that that is to me that was threatening, and that's just wrong.
[1:46:27] Anyway, that's all I'm going to say about that.
[1:46:29] It is also we have to keep focus on why we're here and what the what you guys are actually ruling.
[1:46:36] The decision is whether the citrus court, the circuit court has made the wrong decision in their vote.
[1:46:46] And it is my understanding and we listen to Joanna Kuto at the last BOCC meeting when we were here talking on the same topic.
[1:46:56] She had said that this property, this golf course property, is not a DRI, and it was designated
[1:47:04] before the DRI process.
[1:47:07] My understanding even was a thing.
[1:47:10] So this ruling, we're talking about not spending more money from the county.
[1:47:17] This ruling is going to have all of you spending more of our county taxpayer dollars because
[1:47:23] have to go back in history and look at the decisions that I've been made.
[1:47:28] So any which way, whether the decision is nay or favor or against, there's more money
[1:47:34] that's going to be spent in the county as a result of this decision in the circuit court.
[1:47:41] So in my opinion, I think we have to continue and go forward because it's going to affect future
[1:47:50] decisions. The DRI decision too was taken outside of the county in the Circuit Court.
[1:47:57] It wasn't made in this county. So I don't know what happened there and all do respect.
[1:48:02] I'm not a lawyer or a judge, but they made a decision that's going to affect everybody,
[1:48:10] including our residents. And it's not accurate as the attorney here was mentioning. Thank you.
[1:48:18] Just to reiterate that Madam Attorney, this doesn't affect any past decisions because they
[1:48:24] don't be past their 30 day process, correct?
[1:48:28] We don't believe it'll affect any past decisions, but it is within your purview to take
[1:48:33] remedial action to make sure that it doesn't affect any.
[1:48:37] Thank you.
[1:48:38] Hi.
[1:48:39] Welcome.
[1:48:42] Dale Svetten, Malah Circle, Pine Ridge.
[1:48:46] This just strikes me as wrong.
[1:48:48] I'm sorry.
[1:48:48] I disagree with you that I feel like you're using developer money to fight your own
[1:49:00] constituents.
[1:49:01] This just strikes me as wrong.
[1:49:03] That's just my opinion.
[1:49:06] Thank you.
[1:49:06] Next speaker,
[1:49:10] last chance for speaker.
[1:49:23] Welcome.
[1:49:25] Welcome.
[1:49:26] Thank you.
[1:49:27] I am more upset than I've ever been.
[1:49:29] Your name is Robin Orlandi.
[1:49:31] And I'm speaking for myself today, three minutes.
[1:49:36] I'm going to read because it's inexcusable that a last minute emailed documents submitted by a developer's attorney is again attempting to drive the outcome of a citrus county public meeting
[1:49:48] and disenfranchise the public and residential investment in both property and our local government.
[1:49:55] Find a different way to cure the implications of the circuit court decision.
[1:50:00] Joining with the developers attorney to save county money against the majority requests of the citizens present today
[1:50:06] and outstanding listening to this meeting will put a stink on public trust of this board that's not going to go away.
[1:50:13] Taking the time to decide the legality and cures for the DRI to pud language will delay
[1:50:19] pending may delay, pending developments, but there has to be a better approach and one
[1:50:25] that will allow you to create additional guardrails to amend outdated 40-year-old processes
[1:50:30] to better serve our communities in the contemporary era and better serve us instead of
[1:50:37] massively following a major developers attorneys lead.
[1:50:42] Take the lead out yourselves to protect the nature
[1:50:45] coast against unwise rapid development that fails
[1:50:49] to represent the stated interests of the residents
[1:50:51] before you today, and the long-term conservation
[1:50:55] and quality of life interests of citrus county.
[1:50:58] I know you guys know a lot more about this
[1:51:00] than the majority of us do, but please represent us
[1:51:05] and what's best.
[1:51:06] You've got other alternatives, I'm sure, to address this.
[1:51:09] And as a taxpayer, I don't mind paying for separate council.
[1:51:13] I know that that's a big issue.
[1:51:14] And amendment three is out there terrorizing everyone.
[1:51:18] But there's got to be a better way.
[1:51:20] Working with the developer, especially someone that said such
[1:51:22] a huge impact on this county, unless they change their
[1:51:28] $280 degrees, that's not the way to go, guys.
[1:51:31] So thank you very much.
[1:51:32] I'm glad I'm not in your seat.
[1:51:36] Next speaker,
[1:51:40] last chance for a speaker,
[1:51:43] closing the open to the public portion now.
[1:51:51] I wanted to ask you,
[1:51:54] so what kind of legal ramifications comes against the county if we're
[1:52:00] citing, I mean, obviously, even if there's no legal ramifications, I agree, Mr. Orlandian,
[1:52:06] they will be a stink on the sport that they will not get off,
[1:52:10] but legally what issues do you
[1:52:18] see.
[1:52:18] Having the developer, the other party pay
[1:52:21] for the legal fees for the county.
[1:52:24] I think what I think what is being suggested by way of that.
[1:52:30] Email, if I can offer my interpretation, because it's not an uncommon obiture that you may see in cases like this.
[1:52:38] It's not in the vein of let us handle and control the county's actions with regard to this appeal.
[1:52:47] The the obiture in the offer is that
[1:52:50] Southern Oaks is saying they are pursuing in appeal and they will file their brief, their petition.
[1:52:58] What they are suggesting or inviting is for the county to file what we call a notice of jointer
[1:53:06] or a some kind of document and it uses that word at the term of art, jointer, which we see a lot in litigation
[1:53:14] where one party will file a document with the court and we'll say
[1:53:19] We are adopting the same arguments as this other party, we're just not going to prepare an entire document that basically says the exact same argument.
[1:53:29] We're just going to file this one page notice of joiner.
[1:53:32] It's in the vein of the document that says we agree with the legal position and we submit and we submit that position as our own position.
[1:53:40] So I think that's probably, now the question is yours, that's to whether to do that, but I do think it's fair to frame the offer that's made in the e-mail to the extent it might be read one way or the other, but I think it's suggesting a classic notice of joineder in their brief if and when filed.
[1:54:02] Thank you.
[1:54:07] I wasn't going to speak, but since Miss Orlando did, I feel like I need to respond.
[1:54:14] Thank you for understanding how complex the job this job is about how many different things.
[1:54:21] And Mr. Scott, perhaps the one sentence layman version of what you said earlier was legal precedent
[1:54:28] that imperils home rule because the state keeps telling us what we can do and can't do
[1:54:35] and they don't have boots on the ground.
[1:54:39] For all those who cited the Tagline Renaturing Community
[1:54:42] Thrive, thank you. I actually wrote that and I do a lift by that. I lived in Pine Ridge for over
[1:54:50] four years. And those of you who feel betrayed by me, I'm pretty disappointed in you too.
[1:54:58] As you had 80 homes on a golf course, and I believe my math said you could have bought it
[1:55:03] for about 10,000 an acre, and then have a nature preserve in your backyard.
[1:55:07] That's what I really wanted for Pine Ridge.
[1:55:11] And so at the end of that court, okay, that 501, I said, you got your chance.
[1:55:16] go do it and you didn't do it and we can't just let that sit and sit and sit and sit and sit.
[1:55:24] So I've said enough I'm sorry that I disappointed some of you and doesn't really matter.
[1:55:30] I may or may not run again and I'm not taking any dicks money. I've already said that over and over again.
[1:55:36] So thank you. I appreciate the honor of serving.
[1:55:38] Do you have some of this?
[1:55:43] As I look at this, if the rest of you want to do an appeal, we do it for the county on our own
[1:55:50] because that we are the county.
[1:55:54] And that's how I feel, okay?
[1:55:56] We pay as a county and we move forward as a county.
[1:56:01] Now, we need to, in the meantime, decide to draw up a new DRI amendment procedures for
[1:56:09] amending DRI's in the future, and that's one of the biggest things we need to do.
[1:56:14] We have to say, yeah, we are going to write a new DRI amendment procedure for the future.
[1:56:22] Now I know it doesn't affect this one year, because it doesn't grandfather it didn't,
[1:56:26] But I think that's what we should be doing today.
[1:56:31] And I really think that this is a conflict of interest for a bunch of reasons.
[1:56:36] But at this point, I'm just going to sit back and wait for the vote.
[1:56:41] Anyone else?
[1:56:43] I don't know.
[1:56:46] Over the past, I would say probably a week or so.
[1:56:49] There have been, I don't know, not a lot of few conversations with our attorney.
[1:56:54] as I was considering what to do here.
[1:56:59] And a peel on our own was costly.
[1:57:04] I totally disagreed with the ruling of the judge,
[1:57:09] but did not want county taxpayers to bear the burden of that.
[1:57:15] And so as Miss Lynn and I talked about it,
[1:57:18] the options presented were,
[1:57:22] You can accept the ruling and disagree with it, but accept it, you can appeal it, or, if the applicant does file an appeal, we could do, you know, go as a co-petitioner, or she also expressed some of the words that day, I'll also use essentially saying, we agree with their position, whatever that paper and legal eases.
[1:57:49] And so coming into today, those were the things that I was considering, and disagreeing with the decision.
[1:57:58] I would like to see an appeal. I don't want to pay a dollar for it.
[1:58:02] But if the applicant is going to appeal it, then I would agree with their position.
[1:58:08] Anyone else?
[1:58:11] Commissioner Biss,
[1:58:14] I'm probably the outlier.
[1:58:16] I disagree with the ruling, but I do believe that we should defend our own ordinance and
[1:58:22] our own process standing independent.
[1:58:26] I don't really want to spend the money.
[1:58:27] Can you tell us approximately what you think this would cost?
[1:58:33] We don't have to ask Mr. Scott.
[1:58:36] If I just off the top of my head, 15 to 20,000 around there, maybe last, maybe more.
[1:58:42] Part of it will be dependent upon the various arguments made by the parties, any motions,
[1:58:47] filed whether we have oral argument, but if I truly back at the envelope, I'll talk my head
[1:58:53] 15 to 20.
[1:58:56] I feel like we're in a no-win situation. If we stand along and we just say we disagree
[1:59:02] with it and we do nothing and the dextdevelopment or whoever they are, Southern, they go ahead
[1:59:13] and they file their motion and we do nothing we're going to be criticized for that and if they
[1:59:19] And because we didn't defend our position, if we spend the money, we're going to be criticized because we're defending our position.
[1:59:25] I have no interest in being a party to their suit.
[1:59:31] I want to stay in stand independent on our own, so that would be where I would land.
[1:59:39] Well, that's not the motion at hand, so we'll see what happens with this one.
[1:59:44] Anyone else but if I call it?
[1:59:46] All those in favor?
[1:59:47] Hi.
[1:59:49] Any opposed?
[1:59:52] Motion fails.
[1:59:53] Three, two.
[1:59:58] I'd like to make a motion that we'd...
[2:00:00] Do the appeal on our own, and not to spend more than $30,000.
[2:00:05] Second,
[2:00:09] motion by commissioner barracks, second by commissioner Bayes, any public comment?
[2:00:23] Yes, I back again Tony A. O. Pymbridge. Okay, just so that you all understand what you're talking about.
[2:00:30] I am a taxpayer and Pine Ridge. I have to pay for both sides of this argument, which is pretty darn ridiculous.
[2:00:42] because you won't go back and fix whatever law or ruling or ordinances you all have.
[2:00:51] Why don't you do that first?
[2:00:54] Then all of this will be okay.
[2:00:57] It doesn't make any sense.
[2:00:58] We're going to keep a peeling back and forth.
[2:01:00] Okay, so one, we go to the pellet court, then what do we do?
[2:01:03] Go to the state Supreme Court?
[2:01:05] I mean, really?
[2:01:05] How far are we going to take it?
[2:01:07] Pineries has already shown you that we're not backing down.
[2:01:12] Okay, the people, the majority of us, are not backing down.
[2:01:17] We will take this all the way through if we have to.
[2:01:21] Okay?
[2:01:22] But you need to understand that me, the taxpayer, has to put the bill on both sides.
[2:01:29] Thank you.
[2:01:30] Thank you.
[2:01:31] Next speaker,
[2:01:36] last chance for a speaker.
[2:01:45] I'd like to offer a third choice.
[2:01:49] You mean, of course.
[2:01:54] You have already said that you'd like to reject it.
[2:01:58] And then instead of fighting it, rectify it.
[2:02:03] I keep saying that.
[2:02:05] If you correct the deficiency rectify it for any future,
[2:02:08] I've already said you don't think it will affect the past ones,
[2:02:12] rectify it for the future.
[2:02:14] make that your stand, you already know the one who proposed all this is going to fight it, let them go ahead and do that.
[2:02:25] If they come up with a positive ruling, you can go with that and he can refile.
[2:02:30] It may take a little longer for him, but you can say face that way, at least just rectify the DRI process.
[2:02:37] if that's what it needs, if I kind of hear that there isn't really a process that this was moved,
[2:02:46] but I've heard all of that. You may even go into it and find out, oh, the DRI process was moved,
[2:02:51] all as well, but how do you get rid of a judge's quash? That would be done by the person who proposed it,
[2:02:58] and you don't have to spend any money. As I keep saying, procedure, rectify it and move on.
[2:03:03] That should just be your internal stuff. You don't always have to use legal. You may have to use
[2:03:08] Use legal to file the new paperwork, but that's typical
[2:03:12] Just my opinion of another possibility. Thank you. I was my first possibility. Remember it failed
[2:03:21] Next speaker
[2:03:25] Last year's first speaker
[2:03:26] Come on
[2:03:39] Greetings once again. Cary Dean, Pine Ridge. I think I've heard this correctly. There's no exposure to past cases
[2:03:48] So, no one can come back and litigate against past approvals and developments that are complete
[2:03:57] because 30 days has passed.
[2:04:00] So, what we're facing here is, as soon as you put Citrus County commissioners or the
[2:04:05] county on a lawsuit with Dix, what have you done?
[2:04:11] You've created a bond that says absolutely all the jargon out there is we have a board that
[2:04:18] works for Dix. What for? It's over. Let it go. Let Dix do us things. He's already said he's going to do it.
[2:04:26] Fine. But keep us clean. Keep your reputations intact. Don't join us because it's a failed attempt.
[2:04:34] And it'll ruin the reputation of our Connie and our board. Thank you.
[2:04:41] Next speaker, no clapping, next speaker, last chance for speaker.
[2:04:49] Okay, I'm closing the public portion.
[2:04:52] Commissioner Barrick, I hope you don't, you vote against your own motion.
[2:04:56] There's no way I'm voting for spending $30,000 or less.
[2:05:01] I've taxpayer money to fight the people, so I hope you would reconsider that.
[2:05:07] Commissioner Barrick?
[2:05:08] I have one, okay, the only reason I came up with this is because we need to do something.
[2:05:14] I'd want to go back to the original that we don't do anything, okay, but it didn't pass.
[2:05:21] I really do not want to be tied with the developer, okay, and if our attorney over there,
[2:05:28] you know, Mr. Dale says it's going to be around 15 to 20 thousand dollars, it's a lot
[2:05:34] of money, but it's not a lot of money.
[2:05:36] Most people have a car and a car cost a lot more than $15 to $20,000.
[2:05:44] So the thing is, that's where I'm coming from.
[2:05:46] I'm looking, I don't want to spend any money.
[2:05:50] Now, if I have to always draw my motion and go back to our first motion to begin with,
[2:05:55] which was, do nothing and see if we can get a three, two vote.
[2:06:00] Because it's still the same meeting and I'm allowed to do that at this point.
[2:06:03] As far as I know, Greg, Mr. Mano Journey, it hasn't been voted on yet. So you all can, yeah, but I can take this
[2:06:12] way back and then we can as long as your second takes or second back. Okay. Because at this point, I really
[2:06:22] don't want to spend any money and I really don't want to do this, but if that's the only way we're
[2:06:28] going to do it. Commissioner, do you want to take back your second? I'll take back my first
[2:06:33] We'll go back to the first motion to not do anything at this point and let the developer spend all his money and we don't spend anything.
[2:06:43] I want one clarification.
[2:06:47] I
[2:06:50] am completely just made at the fact that we are setting.
[2:06:56] We're having a special meeting
[2:07:01] and if council thinks that we can they disagree with this,
[2:07:07] But if we just fix our code, our ordinance, that fixes everything, and we don't have to participate.
[2:07:13] So why weren't we communicated that before we ever got into this special meeting?
[2:07:18] That's where I'm perplexed. I find it outrageous that we haven't had those conversations
[2:07:27] and why we ended up having a special meeting if...
[2:07:30] This is where we're at.
[2:07:38] So what you're telling me from council is that if we don't join this, or if we don't file our own case, it doesn't really mean anything.
[2:07:48] It's just that we're doing it for the sake of saying that we disagree with the judges order. And all we need to do is go back and fix our ordinance.
[2:07:59] Well, the question of whether to pursue an appeal and whether to take any action to modify or amend the ordinance.
[2:08:05] There are separate questions legally. You can do one. You can do both. You can do neither.
[2:08:11] It is not uncommon in litigation situations, even if let's say we have prevailed with the circuit court.
[2:08:17] In the case where over that you could take a second look in any applicable regulations and decide we want to tighten these up.
[2:08:25] want to change them up and make them bulletproof, we want to make them read a different way.
[2:08:29] So that's an option that exists independent of moving through of the litigation.
[2:08:35] So it's not in either or situation. You can certainly amend and you can pursue the appeal.
[2:08:42] Oh, what does a pursuing the appeal do for us?
[2:08:46] Well, there may be questions. It is true that parties had 30 days in the past to pursue
[2:08:53] rates of surgery with regard to past approvals.
[2:08:58] But there may be, there may be ancillary legal ramifications
[2:09:04] with regards to past actions and rulings
[2:09:06] that this current order could possibly affect.
[2:09:11] Now, that's speculation, depending on what's
[2:09:14] happened in the past.
[2:09:15] It is that goes back to the point of ensuring
[2:09:19] the integrity of the current code as written
[2:09:22] and avoiding the uncertainties and risks of a ruling,
[2:09:27] which, again, I would view as having certain infirmities.
[2:09:31] But again, even though we may disagree with the court's ruling,
[2:09:35] if we may seek to have a higher court overturned the lower court
[2:09:39] and find that the county's regulations and process followed,
[2:09:44] we're in accordance with the law.
[2:09:46] That is not to say there's not always an opportunity for improvement,
[2:09:49] or clarification or efforts to make, to make better.
[2:09:53] Again, I don't think it's in either or,
[2:09:55] and I don't think it should be frameworked that,
[2:09:57] because it is typical and often occurs in litigation
[2:10:00] that decisions are made on the back end
[2:10:03] to change things, amend things, correct things,
[2:10:05] but that's not to say that warrants are justifies
[2:10:08] for going into appeal as to the current immediate effects
[2:10:11] of the ruling.
[2:10:14] And one thing that Dale didn't mention was,
[2:10:16] you also have to look at the underlying decision.
[2:10:18] If you don't appeal, that underlying decision of the court quashing your approval of the development stands.
[2:10:29] Now, the applicant is going to appeal, so I'm sure they are hopeful that they prevail
[2:10:34] and that would reinstate the underlying decision.
[2:10:38] But that is one big thing about the appeal that Dalton mentioned that I wanted to make sure you were thinking about,
[2:10:44] because if you don't appeal, that decision is quashed.
[2:10:48] So there is no approval of the development plan.
[2:10:55] That's there.
[2:10:55] That's not for us to fight.
[2:10:57] That's, you know, some of them.
[2:10:58] No, but I'm trying to make sure
[2:10:59] that we get a complete answer to the commissioner's question.
[2:11:03] So, you know, yes, you can absolutely change your code
[2:11:05] to fix the underlying problem.
[2:11:08] Excuse me, the wording that the court didn't like,
[2:11:12] but that underlying decision, the approval of the development,
[2:11:14] And that would be up in the air until the developer completes their appeal.
[2:11:21] And then there still is a potential that anything else that we've approved in the past
[2:11:29] or saying it's not that, but if somebody wanted to challenge it, that would make it easier
[2:11:34] for them to challenge.
[2:11:36] Well, there are a lot of creative lawyers out there that can come up with creative arguments
[2:11:41] as to how a ruling that's issued by a circuit court today may affect legal consequences as the
[2:11:46] things in the past. That's a bit speculative, but those kinds of arguments are not unheard of,
[2:11:54] but the way that the way that we do business right now is pretty much standard across the state with
[2:12:03] most counties. Generally speaking, yes. I would say every county is a little different,
[2:12:09] But, yes, generally speaking.
[2:12:12] I think that our staff looked at other communities to see.
[2:12:17] And I think the Lake County code was the only code that was found.
[2:12:23] And that was the one that Judge Semento was from Lake County.
[2:12:26] That's where he retired and that's the code that he used.
[2:12:37] I think we're just on a slippery slope.
[2:12:39] I mean, the legislature is coming hard and fast for local governments.
[2:12:48] We see the eroding of home rule at every turn.
[2:12:52] They're coming in and overruling what and taking away our powers at the local level.
[2:12:58] I personally feel like this is one that we need to understand because I don't think it
[2:13:05] ends here.
[2:13:06] I think this is going to be, if we don't make a determination out of this and appeal it,
[2:13:12] that this is going to have much far-reaching implications than just this case.
[2:13:22] So I'm going to stand by what the motion that's on the floor.
[2:13:25] So what happens if Commissioner Barrick pulls back her motion, does someone else have to,
[2:13:32] like you don't have an original motion maker?
[2:13:34] I
[2:13:37] think Commissioner Barrick would just vote against her motion if she wanted to withdraw
[2:13:42] at this point because the body has the motion because it's been moved and seconded.
[2:13:52] Anything else?
[2:13:54] I would just say that I would prefer to not pay, however, I do believe that the optics
[2:14:01] of it, even though it is a routine matter to join in with another appeal.
[2:14:07] I think that the optics are poor and it's about 17 cents per resident at the maximum and you're you may be coming in at half that so
[2:14:17] So I will support this motion and I think that we have to defend our authority our home rule authority and if we let us let a
[2:14:29] we are not defending what we do. And whether you agree with that or not, agree with the decision
[2:14:36] or not, that we very carefully consider this item and we need to defend how we ruled.
[2:14:44] So I'll be in favor of it.
[2:14:46] I don't know if the math is right at 17 cents, but I don't think any taxpayer out there,
[2:14:52] I shouldn't say any, but I think they're going to see 30,000 dollars is a lot of money for government to go into their people.
[2:15:00] We'll inside with the developer. Can we should I connect?
[2:15:04] Yeah, I said when I proposed my motion that I didn't want to spend a dollar of taxpayer money
[2:15:11] on this and I'm going to stand by that and vote against the motion. Whether it's $5 or $15,
[2:15:19] I'm not going to support going to court to appeal this. If there's an avenue to appeal it,
[2:15:28] again because I believe the judge got it wrong. I would support that. But if this again, I'll
[2:15:35] say if this motion passes, so be it. But if not, then I'll be prepared to make a different
[2:15:43] motion that would be very similar to where we started with, although I would add to that I want
[2:15:52] to make sure that we're changing or making a text amendment so that we can protect past decisions.
[2:15:59] Yes, Dan. Just following up Commissioner Kanard, we're at a special meeting so we would have to make an agenda item for you for the next meeting to get that done.
[2:16:09] Perfect. Why you do that?
[2:16:12] And something's go, sir.
[2:16:15] All those in favor?
[2:16:17] Hi.
[2:16:19] Yeah.
[2:16:21] Any opposed?
[2:16:22] No.
[2:16:23] motion carries, 30, I mean, 32.
[2:16:33] I'll be jumped on the right side.
[2:16:36] Okay, please excuse me, the meeting's not done.
[2:16:40] There's open to the public.
[2:16:43] And this could be about anything you want to talk about at this open to the public.
[2:16:47] Just make sure that you have board excuse me.
[2:16:53] Commissioner, people in the audience, I'm still conducting a meeting.
[2:16:57] So you have three minutes, unless you have a letter on file, let me know that you have a letter on file and I will check with the clerk, whatever she says is gold, please keep all your comments directed as me, the chair and keep it appropriate, and to board business, but this is not about just one subject now, this can be any county business that you have. Welcome, Mr. Bryant.
[2:17:19] Okay.
[2:17:20] Chris Bryant, LeCanta, what is going on here, guys?
[2:17:24] This is absolutely crazy.
[2:17:27] We're going to spend taxpayer dollars after you guys just fought for a right rudder
[2:17:30] to be dismissed because we're spending taxpayer dollars.
[2:17:32] Here we are spending up to $30,000 to litigate something else for a developer buddy.
[2:17:37] Had this been any other community in Citrus County, this would not be happening.
[2:17:41] It's because one person is friends with three of you guys on this board, four of you guys
[2:17:44] on this board, whatever the number is.
[2:17:46] We're here fighting that battle for him and helping him do that.
[2:17:49] The fact that we're getting emails from their attorneys the day of meetings with these different things and in the email he referenced
[2:17:57] Having conversations. I know you guys are having conversations with him. I've done records requests. Speaking of records requests
[2:18:02] Some of you guys aren't giving you records requests, so that's a whole different issue that we'll talk about later on
[2:18:07] We need more transparency in this county. You guys are up here. Just a willy nilly deal whenever you guys want to
[2:18:12] You know, I don't know what's going on here
[2:18:16] So just kind of think about that going forward
[2:18:17] You know, we've got issues here in City County,
[2:18:20] transparency is one of them.
[2:18:21] People don't trust government.
[2:18:23] Decisions like this, cause those issues
[2:18:25] to not trust government.
[2:18:26] When records your requests come in,
[2:18:27] and it takes you guys 60 days to get a record your quest
[2:18:29] for a personal call log
[2:18:30] because you guys have even so many phone conversations
[2:18:32] on your personal devices,
[2:18:33] and you can't differentiate
[2:18:34] which ones are personal, which ones are counting calls.
[2:18:36] That's a problem.
[2:18:38] So I ask you guys to consider those things
[2:18:40] of being more transparent.
[2:18:41] That's what we want here in City County.
[2:18:43] Thank you.
[2:18:43] Thank you.
[2:18:44] Next speaker.
[2:18:49] I'm Mark DePoe for a thing-poppy driving point-ridge.
[2:18:54] I'm a little bit out of my strength here, but I'm assuming that you all read every word of
[2:19:02] the judge's decision, is that a fair assumption?
[2:19:07] Good.
[2:19:08] Because what I recall is that if you do appeal it, you can't introduce anything new.
[2:19:16] And now what I'm hearing is that you want to introduce something new.
[2:19:22] So I think the best thing for everyone, especially the board, is to reconsider to accept
[2:19:31] the decision, then make the changes that you can make and go back and read, redo it.
[2:19:41] But again, I'm out of my strength here.
[2:19:45] But I think you're making a mistake by considering
[2:19:49] introducing new information because
[2:19:52] the judges decision, I think, specifically said,
[2:19:58] you can't bring in any new information.
[2:20:02] So, something to think about. Thank you.
[2:20:04] Thank you. Next speaker.
[2:20:07] While they're coming up, Madam Chair, Madam Attorney, can you address that because we're not
[2:20:13] introducing anything new?
[2:20:17] I'm not sure what he was talking about.
[2:20:19] I didn't hear you all trying to introduce anything new.
[2:20:22] What I understood Commissioner Carrt canard is going to want a agenda item at an upcoming
[2:20:28] meeting to address the language of our code.
[2:20:30] I don't think that has anything to do with the appeal.
[2:20:34] Thank you.
[2:20:36] Thank you for your patience.
[2:20:36] I didn't even run Dwyer and I live in Pine Ridge.
[2:20:39] I moved here to retire with horses and golf.
[2:20:44] When I got here at the golf course I closed.
[2:20:47] I bought previous year, but it took me a year to get moved.
[2:20:52] A couple things I'm seeing here that I don't really like.
[2:20:55] One is he doesn't get three to five minutes.
[2:20:59] He gets to talk all he wants.
[2:21:01] And for Dix to come in with the email, a couple of hours before this meeting
[2:21:05] as a last minute. Hail Mary to change your guys' ideas is crazy. If I was going to be in a
[2:21:14] courtroom and this is a courtroom, if I don't show up, it's my problem. He didn't show up. It's
[2:21:21] not that important at hand, but he can email you all you guys to influence you. I don't want
[2:21:27] to call this a kangaroo court, but it's looking more like that. This was crazy. Why our representatives
[2:21:34] would go against us with a developer.
[2:21:39] Pine Ridge is very unique.
[2:21:41] I took a year to have to find this location that had golf and horses.
[2:21:49] Don't ruin one of the very few places left in the country to have fees for people.
[2:21:57] And for you to take a community and just rip it apart for a few dollars is crazy.
[2:22:04] And as you don't vote, resign, please.
[2:22:09] But if you're going to go against us, remember, everybody here sees what's going on.
[2:22:18] And I am not fully collected, damn sure it will be one.
[2:22:22] If you guys take the motion to go against me, when I'm paying your salary, anyone of
[2:22:28] my employees that have...
[2:22:30] My own business for 30 years, that when against me got fired, you know, we do this with votes, and I'll be more than happy to do that.
[2:22:41] And Holly, I gave you a really good kick when you first started out, but I'm surprised you're living in.
[2:22:48] How many fine register changes? And I'm not going to make it any personal in that,
[2:22:55] but Janet, you're the only one up here with any comment sets. Thank you.
[2:23:01] Mr. Bear just said the motion, but he was going to bring it back to like our fairies.
[2:23:14] No, ma'am. He was going to bring it back the way we voted in the first place.
[2:23:20] But did I hear you incorrectly commissioner?
[2:23:26] I think you hurting correctly, Commissioner, that's why I was shocked.
[2:23:32] Welcome.
[2:23:33] Good afternoon.
[2:23:35] Can I have up to five minutes?
[2:23:37] Yes.
[2:23:38] Thank you.
[2:23:39] I wanted to respond to something that's been set a couple of times here by a member of the Board,
[2:23:48] County Commission talking about Pine Ridge and the fact that we were given a chance and that we didn't do anything with that.
[2:23:59] And I just wanted to, you know, every story has a couple of sides to it.
[2:24:04] And in our story is this, when we won the first hearing, five to zero,
[2:24:13] we tried to approach the bear in mind.
[2:24:16] In order to negotiate something, it takes two willing parties to negotiate an agreement.
[2:24:22] Well, the first thing that happened was the developer filed a request for relief.
[2:24:27] Then he sued our president with a civil lawsuit, and then he sued the PLA homeowners
[2:24:33] association.
[2:24:34] So we were in the middle of litigation at that time.
[2:24:38] It was kind of hard to negotiate over property issues when you're in litigation.
[2:24:44] And towards the end, before the second application was filed, he made a public offering
[2:24:54] to Pine Ridge that involved the golf course, Amber Ridge West, and Black Diamond Reserve.
[2:25:04] Being over our head, it took a while, but the board finally agreed on hiring somebody to
[2:25:09] negotiate the best interest of Pine Ridge in this situation.
[2:25:14] Well, Mr. Dix decided that he didn't want to negotiate with Pine Ridge's negotiator.
[2:25:23] So the chance that you gave us is not fair to say that we didn't do what we had to do
[2:25:28] to try and make that negotiation.
[2:25:30] We're still open to negotiating.
[2:25:32] We think there is a way forward.
[2:25:34] We have an offer on his table.
[2:25:37] There was meetings with him initially, but I don't know why he doesn't want to try and work
[2:25:43] something out with us.
[2:25:44] We don't want to continue to negotiate, I mean to litigate, we don't want you guys to have
[2:25:51] to go through this.
[2:25:53] We want to solve the issue and we want to solve it so everybody wins, but we have a settlement
[2:25:59] agreement on one of those properties and it's a court-ordered binding settlement agreement.
[2:26:05] And we're willing to work so that it can still protect
[2:26:08] Pine Ridge and allow the developer to move forward
[2:26:12] himself.
[2:26:14] But if we don't, if he won't talk to us,
[2:26:17] it's not fair to say that you gave us a chance,
[2:26:20] because nobody's given us a chance.
[2:26:22] And not even here today, we're seeing that.
[2:26:25] Okay, the other issue is that we had home owners,
[2:26:28] so frustrated with us going on, they decided,
[2:26:31] well, let's go to Mr. Dix and buy the property.
[2:26:34] like you suggested. Okay? James Dicks gave them an incredible price and then the only way he
[2:26:44] would approve selling it is if they could convince our board of directors to allow him to do
[2:26:50] whatever he wanted on the Amber Ridge property. So it's been a nonstarter for us. We're willing
[2:27:00] work something out. So I just want to make that clear. It's not that we're stubborn, it's not that
[2:27:06] we don't want to help or make a good, viable solution to a very difficult problem. We wanted to
[2:27:15] go away. I think that's why we see so much animosity in the group that's for and the group that's
[2:27:23] against it. One group just wants it to go away and hopefully act like it's not going to impact
[2:27:29] the community the way we're telling him that it will. And the other side is understanding
[2:27:37] what the land development code comprehensive plan and the impact that that has on a
[2:27:43] vested DRI, if we allow this change to take place, where we lose the overlay. And it is an overlay.
[2:27:50] And it's a parks recreation golf course.
[2:27:58] It can only be used at this point as a golf course.
[2:28:02] It can't be used for a go-car park or anything like that.
[2:28:06] It's designated as a golf course.
[2:28:09] It's always been part of Pine Ridge.
[2:28:12] There's one of the reasons that many have bought in there.
[2:28:15] We have the ability to try and resurrect this golf course and save our community as one of the unique gems and citrus county.
[2:28:26] A Mackel Brothers always developed their communities where they had dual major amenity uses, where you had a golf course, and you had an a question in the center.
[2:28:37] We'd like to keep it that way and I just, you know, I just wanted you to understand we didn't have a chance.
[2:28:43] Next speaker,
[2:28:47] General, open to the public.
[2:28:50] Yep, I'm back again.
[2:28:52] This time I want clarification.
[2:28:55] Okay, because it turns out sounds like things got muddled.
[2:28:59] That motion that you just approved, three, two.
[2:29:03] Wasn't that by Janet Barrick and then second by Bayes in order to pay the $30,000 for the appeal.
[2:29:10] Okay, and then it was a discussion with our commissioner from Pine Ridge that she was going to vote no against that because she did want to spend a money and this was a discussion because we're back and forth and now, when you had the vote, she voted yes, she wants to spend the $30,000 to appeal is okay, because I just want to make sure that we got I got that clear that it is our commissioner from Pine Ridge that voted to do this.
[2:29:40] Okay, so that's who I have to blame because my taxes I have to pay 45 that $4,500 this year.
[2:29:49] Thank you.
[2:29:50] Thank you.
[2:29:52] Next speaker.
[2:29:59] My name is Theresa.
[2:30:00] The force to hire a living, how you've drive, on how you've drive in Pine Ridge.
[2:30:06] I haven't heard anyone discuss the impact of all these new homes going, and there's homes
[2:30:14] going in, there's a brand new freeway, wasn't there when I moved here. When I moved here,
[2:30:19] there was nothing but angus pastures. And that's the only reason I agreed to move here. But it was
[2:30:26] because of the horses.
[2:30:28] I'm on horseback at least five days a week.
[2:30:32] In Pine Ridge on the 28 miles of trail,
[2:30:35] we cross, there's a couple trails that cross
[2:30:38] Pine Ridge Boulevard and Mustang.
[2:30:40] And those two roads are treacherous at dinner time.
[2:30:45] People are moving on going home.
[2:30:47] I'm a good rider.
[2:30:48] I've got really good train horses.
[2:30:50] Some of these people that I ride with,
[2:30:53] They're, you know, in their 70s, 80s, and many of them are just frightened.
[2:30:59] The traffic is something that needs to be really considered.
[2:31:04] And, you know, if this is a recreational subdivision, you know, horses have a mind of their
[2:31:11] own.
[2:31:12] They're not like a mini bike.
[2:31:13] You can just turn them off.
[2:31:14] And we've already got four wheelers trying to get on the trails and, you know, a lot of people
[2:31:19] walk their dogs, which I don't care about that.
[2:31:21] but the motorized stuff, the e-bikes,
[2:31:24] these people buy a house with big house
[2:31:27] and they go, oh, we have a acreage
[2:31:29] and there's kids right all over with e-bikes.
[2:31:32] And I get that too, but it's not allowed.
[2:31:35] And so the question you use is unique.
[2:31:40] It's not an extreme popular thing
[2:31:46] because not everybody puts horses in their backyard
[2:31:49] like I have for 50 years, you know, it's a lifestyle and that's why I came here.
[2:31:56] So I don't
[2:31:58] envy any of your jobs. I like to be retired, but thank you.
[2:32:04] Thank you. Next speaker.
[2:32:15] Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Alexis Wilkins and I am a
[2:32:17] property owner and taxpayer. First, thank you for your service and your decision today to seek
[2:32:22] a pellet review. I want you to know that Pine Ridge property owner's association does not speak
[2:32:28] for all of the Pine Ridge residents. Many of us believe that 80 homes on more than 200 acres
[2:32:33] is a sensible, low-density compromise. What concerns me is that this fight increasingly appears
[2:32:39] to be how much money or value our POA can extract from the developer. At a POA sanctioned meeting
[2:32:45] just this past Saturday settlement discussions included compensation from the developer acquisition
[2:32:50] of the golf course property and other potential financial benefits to the association.
[2:32:56] At some point, we have to ask, are we protecting Pine Ridge or are we using
[2:33:00] opposition to development as leverage to extract a more lucrative deal?
[2:33:06] Please remember that we are Pine Ridge too. We are homeowners, we are voters, and we are taxpayers,
[2:33:11] and our voices deserve to be heard. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker?
[2:33:15] I
[2:33:25] have to do commissioners up. I've been up a few times. Take my three minutes.
[2:33:34] I'll ask a question.
[2:33:35] My name is Mario Leone. I live in Pine Ranch. I own multiple properties and my parents are residents.
[2:33:41] My parents are older. They're retired. And I've taken upon myself to move into the area to make sure that they're comfortable.
[2:33:49] and that as they get older, they don't get taken advantage of. I see a lot of families in similar
[2:33:56] situations that might not have their kids close. I just have one question and as far as everything
[2:34:03] I've been able to look up, I haven't seen that Gulf State that Gulf property up for sale. It was
[2:34:09] open one day. It was closed. Nobody had noticed that it was up for sale and all of a sudden
[2:34:14] a popular developer purchased it that's on record that's what I found so I'm confused with
[2:34:21] we found an opportunity to buy I think somebody else spoke to that already but that property
[2:34:25] never went up for sale it was a it was a deal it was done prior so we didn't have the opportunity
[2:34:31] nobody had the opportunity I think individual investors had they known we'd be here what have
[2:34:36] jumped we can't go backwards but we can go forwards I'm concerned that we're using taxpayer money
[2:34:44] to litigate this. I don't envy your jobs for sure. I know it's not easy, but the only thing is as I was
[2:34:51] as we elect you as stewards and we hope that you do the best thing for everybody. I don't think we're doing that right now and I think that decision is wrong. Thank you.
[2:35:06] Thank you. Next speaker.
[2:35:20] Of course, Brian, the citrus insider.
[2:35:22] So five minutes for this one.
[2:35:26] Not an open to the public.
[2:35:28] Yes, he was.
[2:35:31] So the ordinance is that organizations get five minutes and
[2:35:34] individuals get three minutes.
[2:35:35] Does not say that individuals can't represent organizations of ice.
[2:35:38] Go ahead, five minutes.
[2:35:39] Okay, so I heard Commissioner Barrick
[2:35:42] State earlier that she might have missed her commissioner card.
[2:35:46] When he proposed the second adjustment to his.
[2:35:50] Motion there, and then I heard somebody say that you guys on the option and change it.
[2:35:53] I'm going to present to you the options of change it.
[2:35:55] So you guys have the option for a motion to reconsider.
[2:35:58] It takes one of you guys to do it a second one to second it and then you guys get to reconsider the previous motion.
[2:36:03] Let me read this to you guys if you're not familiar.
[2:36:06] The motion to reconsider allows the board to debate whether or not to over turn a decision made at the meeting that's currently in progress.
[2:36:12] It allows the board to consider new information that may affect the decision that's already been made.
[2:36:16] and a commissioner can make the motion to reconsider and any commissioner can second it.
[2:36:20] The motion is debatable, but cannot be amended. Majority roll the vote is required to make the motion
[2:36:24] pass. So therefore if you guys want to reconsider that, if Commissioner Barrick had the new
[2:36:29] information, she'd understand what Commissioner Canara was proposing on his secondary motion if it
[2:36:33] was to come. You guys have the ability to go back to that, and that would remove the taxpayer
[2:36:38] liability on paying for thisinerage period. So I suggest you guys do that. It can end in the same
[2:36:44] votes for this option, but it gives you a reconsideration for that. Thank you.
[2:36:48] Thank you. Next speaker.
[2:37:03] P.D. Our Famous Searcher's County.
[2:37:05] So from the beginning of this whole debacle with Dick's Development and Pine Ridge,
[2:37:11] my theory has always been that we had a DRI that was granted with open spaces and recreational spaces
[2:37:17] that allowed a certain number of homes to be built.
[2:37:20] Your actions, whether you think they are right or wrong, took away that option to have the recreational space and in my thinking.
[2:37:30] That means that the DRI for Pine Ridge is non-conforming. It no longer has what was required in the open spaces
[2:37:38] and recreation spaces to be a DRI or development. I think you're wrong in that, and I think
[2:37:45] that you're choosing to fight this, whether you when or lose could open up future lawsuits with
[2:37:52] other areas that want to take away from open space or recreational space that has been granted to them.
[2:37:59] so that they could build only a certain number of homes.
[2:38:03] You are setting a precedent in saying that this is okay,
[2:38:08] and it's absolutely not okay.
[2:38:11] Primeraage is, in prime-rich.
[2:38:13] Pine Ridge is one of the premier communities
[2:38:17] in the state of Florida.
[2:38:19] There are people who are leaving other
[2:38:20] equestrian communities to come here
[2:38:23] because of what Pine Ridge stands for and is.
[2:38:28] We shouldn't be fighting them and fighting them with a developer who doesn't have the best interests
[2:38:34] of Citrus County at heart.
[2:38:37] I sincerely hope that you will consider reconsidering your votes and just stop this nonsense.
[2:38:46] We're better than this, we don't need this, we don't need to be deciding with developers
[2:38:50] who don't have our best interest.
[2:38:53] Do the right thing.
[2:38:54] Please.
[2:38:55] Thank you.
[2:38:56] Thank you. Next speaker.
[2:39:10] Robin Orlando. I hadn't planned to come back up, but I just want to echo the sentiment of the last several speakers and say go back to your original motion. No litigation. Just don't get involved. Correct.
[2:39:23] the DRI, the amendment, and move forward with that, that saves taxpayer money and it gets to the issue
[2:39:31] at heart, which is how do we add the legal language to the DRI to put conversion so that it stands
[2:39:38] and is what it needs to be. Thank you very much and again, good luck.
[2:39:43] Thank you. Next speaker,
[2:39:47] last chance for a speaker.
[2:39:51] Okay. I will close the public comment or they
[2:39:54] open to the public, since it was mentioned,
[2:39:58] the motion to reconsider Commissioner Barrick.
[2:40:02] You are mistaken.
[2:40:04] Commissioner, can I order any commissioner myself?
[2:40:07] He made a motion, you said he would go back to the original.
[2:40:12] His motion failed, he cannot make the same,
[2:40:16] you can't come up here and just keep making the same motion.
[2:40:18] When it fails, just like I could not go back to the first motion
[2:40:22] and make it because I made the motion and it failed, he is allowed to make a motion that I made
[2:40:30] because he voted against it a first time. So you are, or were confused. So that is why it was brought
[2:40:39] up motion to reconsider. If that's something you want to do, I will second it. And I say that
[2:40:46] because I do like the motion to reconsider the motion to spend $30,000 or less.
[2:40:55] Second,
[2:40:57] motion by Commissioner Barrack.
[2:40:59] Second by Commissioner Finnigan, this is not open to the public.
[2:41:03] No, this is what this is within the board.
[2:41:06] So now you would discuss it and then you determine whether or not you're going to reconsider.
[2:41:11] Thank you.
[2:41:11] And you vote on that.
[2:41:12] Then if you do vote to reconsider, then that original motion goes away and you start from scratch and then those motions that you make would be entitled to open to the public.
[2:41:25] Or there's a motion in a second to reconsider the last motion.
[2:41:31] No discussion.
[2:41:35] Okay.
[2:41:35] All those in favor.
[2:41:38] Nay.
[2:41:39] Very opposed.
[2:41:40] Okay.
[2:41:40] Motion carries three to the last motion that was passed.
[2:41:45] will no longer be considered as a motion and we will start again.
[2:41:49] Madam Chair.
[2:41:50] Commissioner Canard.
[2:41:51] I will restate my position that I totally disagree with the judge's order.
[2:41:56] I believe that he got it wrong, but I am not willing to spend any county tax
[2:42:00] fair money to appeal this.
[2:42:03] So I would make a motion that we accept the ruling and we'll move forward.
[2:42:08] Hopefully there will be an agenda item coming forward to make a text
[2:42:14] amendment to our LDC and protect decisions that are made on previous DRI amendments.
[2:42:23] Motion by Commissioner Kanard, second by Commissioner Bayrick, any public comment,
[2:42:32] last
[2:42:32] chance for public comment, any further board discussion, all those in favor, aye, any
[2:42:40] post,
[2:42:42] wish a curious 5-0.