Waterside Phase I Restoration

Asked the board to pull VA-2 off consent, arguing the 2023 public notice was misleading, the site plan should be scrutinized, and an aboriginal burial site needs attention before digging.

Lives near the site, sees the excavation machines from her yard, and said two retired neighbors moved away over it; wants more than three minutes of input.

Lives within 600 feet of the digging despite the county's 1,000-foot mining setback requirement and asked for the item to be pulled.

Attorney with Big W Law raised a procedural point: pre-consent comments aren't sworn, so testimony on the quasi-judicial item should wait for the sworn public hearing.

Cited the withdrawn 453-acre sand mine next door, a consultant's memo blasting the traffic analysis, and asked the board to deny the site plan.

An attorney with landfill expertise argued the operation is a high-impact solid waste disposal facility that lacks county siting authorization and fails the required odor/dust/noise mitigation condition.

Second round: called the project an exploitation of the RCMU designation for profit-driven mining, questioned the claimed density transfer, and said the 2023 concept plan doesn't meet comp plan criteria.

Repeated her opposition, emphasizing cumulative traffic impacts from Duncan Road to SR 31 and the unanswered aboriginal-remains question.

Prairie Creek Park resident worried the approval would open the door to more mines in established residential areas, citing rapid growth and 82% homeownership in the zip code.

Called it a bait-and-switch — restoration as bait, sand mining as the switch — and detailed the FDEP permit litigation covering 281 additional acres.