Developer presents mixed-use proposal with pickleball courts and 20,000‑square‑foot dog park at Nassau County pre‑application review

Tabitha Bostick, chair of the Nassau County Development Review Committee, opened a pre‑application hearing on April 1, 2025, for a proposed commercial‑intensive, mixed‑use development along Mount Zion Road near State Road 200. Asa Gillette of Gillette and Associates described the plan as a roughly 2.8‑acre site with “a little under 5,000 square feet of covered deck and bar, 6 pickled ball courts, and about 20,000 square feet of dog park,” and estimated about 60 parking spaces.

The nut graf: the Development Review Committee (DRC) provided advisory, technical comments; the committee does not grant final approvals and indicated that a comprehensive review will follow formal submittal of preliminary or final site plans.

Gillette told the committee that water and sewer service would come from JEA, requiring a new water main and force main along Mount Zion Road from State Road 200 and an on‑site private lift station. He said the site contains wetlands that are being re‑examined and an existing pond proposed for stormwater management, with modifications as required by the relevant district and any remapping of wetlands or upland water bodies. Gillette also said the application currently estimates about 60 parking spaces.

Constance Lake of the Building Department said, “Per FEMA map panel 3 5 7 gs, I show this to be an ex flood hazard zone,” and offered no further comment at that time. Stephanie Kaiser of the Planning Department asked whether the dog park or pickleball courts would be covered; Gillette said they would not be covered “at this time.” Kaiser noted that the site is zoned commercial‑intensive and has a high‑density future land‑use designation, and said the project will be subject to Article 17 standards and the intensity regulations of the future land‑use category. She also reminded the applicant that required perimeter landscape strips must comply with the Land Development Code provision referenced in the meeting as 3,705.

Campbell (Development Services) directed the applicant to verify dumpster location and screening per the code reference stated in the meeting (37056). Campbell also noted that a comprehensive set of comments will be issued with a formal plan submittal.

A county reviewer identified as Campbell (Development Services) and another staff speaker noted technical requirements for sidewalks and stormwater: per the ordinance cited in the meeting as 9 9 17, section 11 7 1, six‑foot sidewalks are required along the front edge of the development and an internal sidewalk must connect to that external sidewalk. Stormwater requirements were cited as Article 10; staff said the applicant must provide calculations showing the existing pond is sized to serve the development and include standard stormwater and pavement notes with the engineering plan submittal. The reviewer also reminded the applicant that construction inspection fees are required before the preconstruction meeting and that DRC approval must be obtained prior to breaking ground (section cited as 6.2 0.1 in the meeting).

A Health Department representative, identified in the transcript as Ronnie, said the applicant must submit applications and fees to the department and provide a letter of availability for water service. Fire and life‑safety concerns were raised in a brief exchange about the bar structure: Gillette said the bar would be an off‑ground, off‑grade structure that “will have railing around it.” A fire reviewer flagged that occupant load can affect sprinkler requirements, saying that triggering a 100‑occupant threshold would require a sprinkler system; Gillette said he expected the occupant load would be below 100 but would confirm with the architect. A reviewer also flagged the driveway alignment near dumpsters as a potential geometry concern to be reviewed on the site plan.

Committee members repeatedly told the applicant that the comments provided in the meeting were preliminary and that staff would provide a full, written list of comprehensive comments upon formal plan submission. Staff also said they would verify whether the A1A overlay buffer applies to the site.

Ending: The committee concluded the Tab A pre‑application discussion after staff comments and moved on to the next agenda item.