Sebastian planning commission denies proposed Amaron Boat & RV storage near Ashbury after resident safety and environmental concerns

The Sebastian City Planning and Zoning Commission denied a request by Amaron Boat & RV Storage for a new site plan, a conditional‑use permit and a waiver for fence materials at 45 Ashbury Boulevard, voting 5‑2 after more than an hour of public comment and deliberation.

The commission’s decision follows a staff recommendation to approve the three requests with conditions, including a required 20‑foot vegetative buffer, a revised irrigation plan before land‑clearing permits, black vinyl chain‑link fencing if the waiver is granted, decorative lighting, and submission of a roof color sample for final inspection. City staff reported the 3.8‑acre site has 59% impervious area and 41% open space, 93 parking/storage spaces and a 353‑square‑foot office (under the 400‑square‑foot limit for management offices).

Residents of the nearby Ashbury subdivision urged the commission to reject the project, citing traffic and safety at the Ashbury/County Road 512 and Sebastian Boulevard approaches, doubts about whether the proposed 20‑foot buffer exists or will be fully planted, concerns about an on‑site RV dump and washdown station and water‑quality risks, and the visual impact of a chain‑link fence. Jim Hunt, an Ashbury resident, told the board the proposed washdown area and dump station “needs to be, clear how that water will be treated before it makes its way into the Indian River Lagoon.”

Staff and the applicant disputed some of those concerns. City planner Dory (staff) summarized the code findings and recommended approval, telling the commission, “Staff recommends approval” of the site plan, conditional use and waiver with the listed conditions. Engineer Joseph Schulke, speaking for the applicant, described an existing vegetative buffer to be preserved and supplemented and said the project is expected to add about “78 daily trips,” a figure he and staff characterized as well below the 400‑trip threshold that would trigger a county traffic study.

The applicant’s attorney, Jonathan Rohdeback, urged the commission to rely on evidence and code criteria rather than sentiment, saying decisions should be based on “competent substantial evidence” and pointing to the engineering, drainage and permitting steps already completed.

During deliberations, one commissioner moved to approve the site plan, conditional use and waiver and added a condition barring overnight stays; that motion failed on a roll call vote. A subsequent motion to deny the conditional use (and, by commission consensus, the site plan and waiver) was made and seconded. The commission stated the denial was grounded in their discretionary conditional‑use finding that the proposal, as presented, did not adequately protect public health, safety and welfare given the local traffic and safety concerns raised in the record.

The denial concludes the commission’s review of these applications; staff noted the applicant may pursue an appeal to the city council. The commission’s action was procedural and based on the conditional‑use criteria in the city’s land‑development code.