In a recent government meeting, Putnam County officials faced significant community pushback regarding a proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) in East Palatka. Residents expressed their concerns over the potential impact of the development, which they believe could alter the character of their community and place additional burdens on local infrastructure.

Howard Griffin, a local resident, highlighted the community's previous unanimous opposition to the development, citing concerns over increased density and inadequate infrastructure. He warned that the approval of this project could set a precedent for future developments, potentially leading to more requests for waivers that could compromise community standards. Griffin emphasized that the financial burden of the development would fall on existing residents, who already pay substantial property taxes.

Debbie Griffin echoed these sentiments, questioning the fairness of the process that led to the reconsideration of the development after it had initially been rejected. She expressed frustration over the lack of proper notice given to residents about the meeting, which she felt undermined their ability to respond effectively.

Other residents, including Jerry Hafner and Susan Grand George, called for a reevaluation of the county's PUD processes, arguing that recent approvals have not aligned with the community's comprehensive plan. They raised concerns about the adequacy of sidewalks and the potential for increased traffic hazards, particularly for the elderly population targeted by the proposed development.

In response to the community's concerns, county officials acknowledged the challenges posed by the development but emphasized the legal obligations they face. They noted that rejecting the proposal could lead to a court-imposed decision that might not favor the community's interests. The county's attorney clarified that decisions must be based on \"competent, substantial evidence,\" and that the commission is not afraid of litigation but must act within the framework of existing laws and ordinances.

As the meeting progressed, the board faced a difficult decision: either accept the negotiated agreement with the developer or risk a court ruling that could impose less favorable terms. The discussions underscored the tension between community desires and legal constraints, leaving residents concerned about the future of their neighborhood and the implications of the proposed development.