Committee denies rezoning request for used‑car lot on San Juan Avenue after planning staff and commissioners cite incompatibility with surrounding residential

2216639 · January 7, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The committee voted to deny a conventional rezoning (CCG‑1 to CCG‑2) sought by a property owner who planned a small used‑car dealership. Planning staff and the Planning Commission found CCG‑2 too intense next to nearby apartments and single‑family homes; the committee voted to deny the request.

Jacksonville’s Land Use and Zoning Committee on Jan. 7 voted to deny a request to rezone a half‑acre property on San Juan Avenue from CCG‑1 to CCG‑2 — a change the applicant said was needed to operate a small used‑car lot.

Planning staff recommended denial after reviewing the surrounding land‑use pattern and finding that CCG‑2 allows more intense commercial uses that would be incompatible adjacent to residential properties. The Planning Commission also voted unanimously in favor of denial after considering the same compatibility concerns.

The applicant, Noor Ahmad, told the committee he purchased the former restaurant property and hoped to use it as a small family‑run used‑car business. He said he had invested in renovations and a perimeter fence. District Council Member Clark Murray told the committee she had met with the applicant and said she did not support the rezoning, citing the residential context nearby and proximity to community features including a park.

Committee action: Council members debated the proximity of the site to multiple apartment complexes and single‑family dwellings and the narrowness of the parcel for the proposed use. One member summarized the practical issue: while commercial uses do exist nearby, expanding the commercial zoning to CCG‑2 would “not create a gradual transition” between residential and commercial uses. An amendment to deny was adopted and the final committee vote to deny the rezoning was recorded.

What this means: The property remains at CCG‑1 and the applicant may consider other lawful uses allowed under existing zoning or pursue a different application consistent with staff guidance; if the owner wishes to continue pursuing a commercial use that requires CCG‑2, that would require a new application and another public hearing.

Vote: The committee recorded its vote to deny the rezoning by roll call; the denial motion carried.