One of the primary concerns raised was the capacity of local sewer and water systems to handle the additional demand from the proposed homes. Commissioners expressed worry that the development could push the county’s infrastructure beyond its limits, especially given the current wastewater treatment facility’s capacity and the potential for future growth. A commissioner highlighted that the wastewater plant, designed to treat up to 300,000 gallons per day, currently handles approximately 134,000 gallons daily but could be strained by the new development.

Additionally, the proposed development’s density was a contentious topic. With a residential density of approximately 3.51 units per acre, commissioners debated whether the existing infrastructure could support such a high number of homes. Concerns about stormwater management were also raised, noting that a preliminary stormwater plan had not yet been submitted but would be reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC).

Public opposition was strong, with several residents voicing their concerns. Willie McKinnon argued that large-scale housing projects would increase traffic and erode the rural character of the area. He lamented the decline in community ties, stating, “I could have told you every neighbor in East Palatka… now you don’t know your neighbors except for a few.” McKinnon urged the council to consider the impact on existing residents and prioritize job creation over residential development.

Gina Tilton Counts, a cattle rancher, opposed the development, stating it would disrupt the agrarian nature of the surrounding land and lead to issues such as increased traffic, pressure on the natural environment, overcrowded schools, and rising property taxes. She emphasized that such development would result in “planned urban sprawl,” which has caused problems elsewhere. Counts argued that the Planning and Zoning meeting had not adequately addressed community concerns, stressing the need for the council to consider the severe implications for the agricultural community.

Jack Counts reinforced these sentiments, asserting that the proposed development contradicts the county’s comprehensive plan, specifically its goals for protecting agricultural land. He cited policies that prohibit developments from negatively impacting agricultural productivity, arguing that the project would lead to litigation and complaints about agricultural operations, further threatening local farming activities.

Concerns about increased traffic and public safety were also prevalent. Caitlyn Lee highlighted data from a nearby solar power project, noting a substantial increase in traffic stops and accidents. She projected that the addition of approximately 580 homes could strain local infrastructure, particularly given the limited resources of the Sheriff’s Office.

The council members were divided on the issue. One commissioner, presumed to be Commissioner Adams, expressed strong opposition, characterizing the proposal as urban sprawl that would disrupt the community’s agricultural character and contradict the comprehensive plan. They argued that the county had sufficient available lots for development without changing the land use designation to a PUD, which would allow for increased density beyond what the land development code currently permits. Adams emphasized, “The Land Development code allows for PUDs; it doesn’t mandate that we approve PUDs.”

Conversely, another commissioner, identified as Mr. Turner, put forth a motion to approve the PUD, arguing for the need for housing in Putnam County. They noted that development should occur in suitable locations, asserting that the proposed site is near a four-lane highway and water and sewer systems. Turner expressed frustration with the notion that existing residents resist changes solely because they are “here already” and stated, “We do need some housing in Putnam County.”

The public hearing concluded without additional speakers, leading the council into deliberations. The motion to deny the re-zoning request for the PUD failed for lack of a second. A subsequent motion to approve the PUD was made, highlighting the ongoing debate over the balance between development and maintaining the rural character of Putnam County.

In other business, the council discussed the midyear budget amendment, which was led by Julian. The amendment aimed to reconcile the projected closing balances of the funds with actual figures for fiscal year 2023, totaling $26,693,025 across all funds. Julian emphasized the necessity for balance in governmental finance, providing an example of a $1.25 million transfer from the general fund to the water fund as a correction of a previous year’s action.

The council also addressed zoning map amendments for the Kings Family LLC, which proposed rezoning approximately 8.09 acres to establish an overnight recreation park. The project aims for a maximum density of 7.5 RV sites per acre, with phased development requiring essential amenities like restrooms and showers to be completed before the first phase could open.

Additionally, an ordinance amending section 30-26 of the Putnam County code regarding the Library System was discussed. The amendment aimed to eliminate the restriction preventing a library board member from serving more than two consecutive terms, allowing for appointments as designated by their respective commissioners. The ordinance passed unanimously.