The meeting saw detailed presentations by the applicant, outlining the project’s phases, safety records, and compliance with regulations, including setbacks and site security. The board inquired about a traffic study, which was confirmed by the applicant, noting Coral Farms Road’s current low capacity. However, residents and their legal representatives voiced strong concerns over the lack of comprehensive studies – including traffic impact, groundwater effects, property appraisal, and sinkhole assessments – and questioned the project’s safety protocols during early sunset hours, especially in winter.

Concerns were not limited to procedural and environmental impact assessments. Residents also highlighted potential changes in the quality of life, citing noise, increased traffic, and risks to pedestrians. The ecological impact was a significant worry, with emphasis on protecting local wildlife like gopher tortoises, a protected species. Additionally, residents pointed out the potential for adverse effects on agricultural operations, such as damage from airborne dust to bamboo crops and implications for federally mandated conservation efforts.

Adjacent property owners, some within 300 feet of the proposed site, also voiced opposition. They cited potential substance erosion and damage to their structures, as well as broader inconsistencies with the county’s comprehensive plan regarding agricultural and residential land. They demanded legal recognition as affected parties, thereby having the right to participate in the hearing and contribute evidence. Legal counsel for these residents reinforced the need for decisions based on competent substantial evidence and specific compliance with county codes and plans.

Public safety was a recurring theme, with speakers discussing the impact on local roads, including the safety of over 10 bus stops, some used by handicapped children, and the adequacy of the road to handle the projected 160 daily truck trips. Notably, the meeting also touched on historical and cultural preservation, with one speaker raising the potential impact on Native American artifacts in the area. The potential for the project to affect the local water supply, property values, and the existing natural gas pipeline were additional points of concern.

In a particularly contentious part of the meeting, a passionate presentation was made about the impact of development on the community’s safety and property values. The applicant, Gulfstream Design Group, ultimately requested a postponement to gather more technical data, including a traffic study. However, due to procedural uncertainty and the board’s perceived lack of authority to table the decision, the applicant withdrew the application.