Valuchia Forever committee finds five parcels eligible, ranks them to A‑list

VALUCHIA COUNTY — The Valuchia Forever advisory committee on May 22 voted to find five parcels eligible for the county’s conservation programs and ranked each on the committee’s A‑list, advancing them for potential matching funds or future purchase discussions.

The parcels approved for eligibility and A‑list ranking were: Lawson/Lost Road (conservation easement, staff-reported about 95 acres), Pittnam/Pitman Road (agricultural easement, ~101 acres), East Washington 1 (conservation easement, ~90 acres), East Washington 2 (conservation easement, ~82 acres) and Old Train Road (fee‑simple application, ~321 acres). Staff said the parcels’ review scores ranged from 11/21 to 12/21 (committee materials list minimum eligibility thresholds of 9 or 10 depending on program). The committee approved eligibility findings and ranking by voice votes; individual vote tallies by name were not recorded on the transcript.

Tim Tel of the Future Forever program summarized Lawson Road, telling the committee it is within the county’s ecological greenway and environmental systems corridors and that “staff had scored it at 11 out of 21. The minimum required is 10.” Hunter Fulmer, chief of land management, introduced the East Washington parcels and said East Washington 1 scored 12 out of 21 and lies in a Florida wildlife corridor target area.

A property owner representative, Joe Skinner, told the committee that Washington 2 is contiguous with land owned by the St. Johns River Water Management District and that Washington 1 has an access easement through Washington 2. Another owner representative, Joseph (who goes by Alex) Lao, confirmed the acreage and parcel information for Old Train Road and described the parcels’ interior creek and wildlife values.

Committee members asked staff clarifying questions about site visits, gopher tortoise likelihood (staff said tortoises were indicated by overlay data but not confirmed on site), 911 addressing for contiguous parcels and whether parts of some parcels were inside municipal boundaries. Staff said incorporation status does not generally affect conservation‑easement eligibility but can influence later management partnerships on fee‑simple acquisitions.

Why it matters: Ranking a parcel on the A‑list signals the committee’s interest in pursuing potential partnership funds or moving to due diligence; it does not itself obligate expenditure or guarantee acquisition. Members said they value building contiguous conservation corridors across the county.

What’s next: Staff will proceed with any required matching‑fund discussions, due diligence or outreach to municipal partners as appropriate. Several committee motions were handled by voice vote without recorded roll call in the meeting transcript; staff will follow standard steps for moving A‑list items forward to the county’s acquisition pipeline.

(Reporting in this article is based on committee presentations, staff statements and owner representatives’ remarks recorded in the May 22 meeting transcript.)