Jacksonville panel approves San Pablo Place rezoning after years of legal disputes and new conditions

A rezoning to allow a large residential-and-commercial project at 4915 San Pablo Road South won unanimous approval from the City of Jacksonville Land Use & Zoning Committee on Feb. 4, 2025, after extended public comment and negotiations that surfaced decades-old court orders and private settlement agreements.

The committee approved a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to permit up to 259 multifamily units and about 24,000 square feet of commercial uses on roughly 12.95 acres. Committee members amended the proposal before voting to require a traffic study at civil site-plan review, preserve a 45-foot landscape buffer along the eastern property edge, and require that any residential units be restricted as “housing for older persons” to the fullest extent permitted under the Federal Fair Housing Act.

Why it matters: The site has been the subject of litigation and a private settlement involving neighboring property owners for more than two decades. Neighbors said those agreements and deed restrictions were meant to limit density, setbacks and building heights; the applicant and staff said subsequent PUD approvals and the passage of time affect what the city can legally permit. The committee’s vote advances a project that developers say will reuse an under‑utilized parcel while neighbors warned approving the new PUD would erode the protections they believed were guaranteed by private agreements and court rulings.

Planning staff presented the staff report to the committee, saying the proposal is consistent with the city’s 2045 Comprehensive Plan land-use designation (CGC) and noted the proposed project’s density — about 12.8 units per acre — is below the 20‑units-per‑acre allowed in that land‑use category. Staff recommended approval with revised exhibits and conditions; the Planning Commission previously forwarded a unanimous recommendation of approval with conditions.

Applicants and neighbors: The applicant’s lead attorney, Steve Debonau, and ownership representative Michael Sills said the owners have held the property for 25 years and that the revised PUD reduces traffic impact compared with previously entitled office uses. “Under the current approved zoning, 225,000 square feet of office generates 2,350 daily trips. Under our proposal to do residential as an alternate use, we would generate less than 800 daily trips,” Debonau told the committee.

Opposing speakers — represented at length by multiple attorneys and by longtime neighboring owners including Charles E. Dixon III and other Dixons and representatives of the adjacent hotel — said prior settlement agreements, deeds and earlier court decisions limited the property’s permissible uses and setbacks. Those speakers said a 2001 Court of Appeals decision and a 2002 settlement with deed restrictions had been relied upon by neighbors when building and investing nearby, and they said those private covenants still govern the land. “Approving this proposal will neutralize much of our investments,” said resident Charlie Tom, describing the value that neighbors had placed on the earlier, more restrictive conditions.

Applicant’s response on private agreements: The applicant said earlier PUD approvals (including a 2008 PUD) and the limited time for challenging zoning actions under state rules affect the legal picture. “Those deed restrictions … expire in October of 2026,” Debonau told the committee, arguing some private restrictions are time-limited and that the 2008 PUD changed how earlier settlement terms were implemented.

Key committee actions and conditions: Councilman Rory Diamond offered the amendment package the committee adopted. The final action included: - A requirement that JEA‑style traffic studies be submitted at civil plan review (LDPM 1.1.11 standards). - A written condition restricting residential units to “housing for older persons” to the fullest extent permitted by the Federal Fair Housing Act (the applicant explained the federal exception generally requires that 80% of units be occupied by residents 55+ when operating as housing for older persons). - A requirement to provide access to the adjacent parcel to the south (a cross‑access easement) and clarifications to the revised PUD written description and site plan (exhibits were updated on record). The Diamond amendment was seconded and carried by voice vote, and the PUD ordinance passed 7‑0 on final committee action.

What remains: Several neighbors and intervening property owners said they may pursue enforcement of private covenants or litigation after the city’s zoning decision. Committee members and city attorneys repeatedly emphasized the distinction between private covenants (enforceable between parties in court) and municipal zoning authority. The applicant said it will continue working with adjacent owners to memorialize agreements about parking and buffers.

Ending: The committee’s approval moves the project to the next steps of civil site-plan review and permitting. The traffic study and the written conditions adopted by the committee will be elements staff reviews during civil plan and building permit review; any changes that materially alter the PUD will require subsequent approvals. Speakers said they would continue to monitor and, if necessary, pursue private remedies in court for disputes about deed restrictions and past settlement agreements.