Residents press developers over 90‑home rezoning at Scarwin Road meeting

City Councilman Mike Gayer opened a community meeting where developers and their consultants presented a rezoning application to allow a planned unit development that would accommodate about 90 single‑family homes on roughly 22 acres off Scarwin Road in Jacksonville.

The developers told residents they originally applied for RLD 50 (a conventional zoning district for 50‑foot lots) but converted the application to a PUD to lock in concessions to neighbors, including 60‑foot lots in parts of the site and a 10‑foot landscape buffer around the property. Applicant representatives said the project would use city sewer (a proposed lift station) and would include stormwater ponds designed to capture upstream runoff and discharge to the Scarwin ditch/Katy Branch watershed after treatment.

Why it matters: neighbors said the proposal would change the Northside neighborhood's low‑density character, worsen existing drainage and traffic problems, saddle overcrowded nearby schools and reduce adjacent property values. Developers said engineering work and city permitting will address drainage and traffic, and they urged residents to raise concerns formally when the application reaches the Land Use and Zoning (LUZ) committee.

Developers' presentation and commitments

Michael Sitner, an applicant representative, told the meeting the team originally filed for RLD 50 and then filed a PUD so they could make commitments in writing. "The only way for us to commit to extra things beyond what the zoning code requires is through a planned unit development," Sitner said. He said the team had agreed to two main concessions in the PUD: "we committed to doing 60 foot lots on certain areas within the site plan" and to provide a 10‑foot landscape buffer around the entire site.

The application, as presented, sets a maximum of 78 lots at 50 feet where allowed and requires any additional lots to be 60 feet and conform to the attached site plan, the applicant said at the meeting.

On stormwater, Sitner said the team met with city stormwater staff and walked the site with Bill Joyce, identified in the meeting as the city stormwater lead. Sitner summarized the staff's conclusion: "His exact words were this would be an improvement for the area." The team's civil engineer, Glenn Weager (Live Oak Engineering), described a plan to capture runoff on site, attenuate peak flows and discharge to the Scarwin ditch that feeds Katy Branch and, ultimately, the St. Johns River. Sitner added the developer will perform required stormwater permitting and must demonstrate, at permitting, that upstream flood stages are not increased.

On traffic, the applicant said it has held a traffic methodology meeting with the city and will perform a city‑specified traffic study as part of the permit process; the developer's traffic engineer did not attend the meeting because of a family emergency. The applicant said the city sets the study methodology and that any mitigation (turn lanes, signal warrants, off‑site roadwork) depends on the study's findings and the city's warranting process.

Neighborhood concerns

More than two dozen speakers, many identifying themselves as long‑time Northside residents, raised similar issues: drainage and flooding, road wear and traffic congestion, school capacity, lost property value and the development's compatibility with the rural/residential character.

Wayne Hawkins, a nearby homeowner, framed the concern bluntly: "putting 90 homes in a 20 acre area of property, changes the geographical and topographical layout of this community." Multiple speakers said the area is low and has a history of storm flooding; several residents questioned whether stormwater ponds and new grading would simply move water onto adjacent properties.

Other frequent points from residents included: - School capacity: parents said local elementary schools already are at or over capacity and asked whether the district will add school capacity. - Roads and construction impacts: speakers asked whether developers will post bonds or pay for pavement restoration on roads used by construction traffic; the applicant said interior roads will be bonded and the project will pay the city's mobility fee for off‑site impacts. - Lot size and neighborhood character: many urged the developer to build fewer, larger lots (half‑acre or one‑acre lots) instead of 50‑foot lots; residents said they would support a proposal that matched surrounding lot sizes.

What the applicant said in response

The applicant said the PUD was filed to allow site‑specific commitments and that the stormwater design, when permitted, must meet city and St. Johns River Water Management District requirements. On sewer, Sitner said the development would use city sewer and that a lift station is proposed. On roads and mobility fees, the applicant said the city collects a location‑based mobility fee that is meant to fund broader network improvements.

Next steps

City Councilman Mike Gayer told residents the application will go to the Land Use and Zoning committee: "yes, this will be going before L U Z." He encouraged residents to submit written comments and attend the LUZ hearing; residents were repeatedly urged in the meeting to register opposition for the public record and to appear at the formal hearings.

No formal action or vote was taken at the community meeting. The rezoning/PUD application remains in the city process and will proceed to LUZ and then to City Council if recommended.

Ending

Residents and the applicant agreed to continue discussions after the meeting. The applicant left contact information and said it would provide electronic copies of the PUD site plan and contract zoning documents on request; council staff said meeting comments and minutes are public record and will be available to the LUZ committee.