Jacksonville council re‑refers disputed Beach Boulevard rezoning after hours of testimony

Council members voted on Monday to send a contentious land‑use amendment and a companion planned‑unit development (PUD) rezoning for the Apna Bazaar site on Beach Boulevard back to the Land Use & Zoning (LUZ) committee after more than two hours of public testimony.

Residents from Cortez Road and surrounding neighborhoods urged the council to deny the light‑industrial designation and the PUD, citing truck access, traffic safety on narrow Cortez Road, stormwater and groundwater risks for largely well‑served properties, and a history of an earlier proposal that included live‑animal processing. "This zoning change is not justified and abuses the PUD," said Kimberly Robinson, a resident and neighborhood advocate, urging denial of the LI designation and preservation of CGC/Ccg commercial zoning.

The applicant's attorney, Cindy Trimmer, told the council the developer had removed the live‑animal component before the LUZ hearing. "We put everything on hold before a single hearing was ever held, had a community meeting, and then spent months trying to find a compromise," Trimmer said, adding that the live‑animal portion was eliminated prior to the council LUZ hearing. The applicant's representative, Mohammed Faisal, said on the record that his operation "do[es] have all the permit[s]" and that deliveries typically approach from Beach Boulevard rather than Cortez Road. "I do have all the permit, everything," Faisal said when asked to confirm permitting status.

Many neighbors disputed that representation and presented documents they said showed an expired Food & Agricultural permit and FDACS inspection findings. "If a facility cannot maintain compliance with the most basic grocery store standards, it doesn't make sense to expand their zoning to industrial level activities," said Shannon Blair, summarizing a state inspection she said documented sanitation and safety failures.

Council members repeatedly pressed for clarity about what had changed since the application first drew opposition. The council president apologized for earlier communications that had suggested the controversial slaughterhouse component was entirely withdrawn, saying he had intended to convey a win to residents and regretted the confusion.

Faced with persistent neighborhood opposition and questions about whether the public had adequate notice of the substantive change from a slaughterhouse to a warehouse, the council voted to re‑refer the land‑use amendment (ordinance 2025‑0487) back to the LUZ committee; the re‑referral passed by ballot vote (16 yeas, 0 nays). The companion PUD rezoning (ordinance 2025‑0488) was also re‑referred (15 yeas, 0 nays). Council members and staff said the re‑referral will restart the public‑hearing process in early 2026, with newly posted dates and opportunity for additional community meetings.

What happens next: The chair of LUZ will prepare revised exhibits and the committee will consider the applicant's amendments and any additional conditions; if the committee amends the proposals, the measures will be re‑noticed for public hearings before the planning commission and then the full council.

Voices from the meeting underline the split: residents said the change represents an end‑run around process and threatens neighborhood safety and environmental resources; the applicant said it removed the most controversial use and sought a compromise. The LUZ committee will now have time to weigh changes, potential restrictions on truck routing, buffering and any enforceable no‑slaughterhouse language the community requests. The council's action preserved procedural avenues for those changes while pausing final action.

The council's re‑referral vote was the principal formal council action tied to this item; the public‑hearing record and the applicant's permits and inspection reports will be part of LUZ's consideration when the items return to the committee.