Council reverses planning board, approves 3.8‑acre RV and boat storage with conditions

The Sebastian City Council unanimously overturned a Planning & Zoning Commission denial and approved a proposed 3.8‑acre boat and RV storage facility, voting 5–0 to reverse the commission’s decision and then approving a fence waiver and site plan with conditions.

Jonathan Rodeback, an attorney with Dill Evans & Rodeback representing the applicant, told the council the application met the city’s land‑development code criteria and that professional traffic and safety analysis showed only a “de minimis” impact. "All the competent, qualified evidence showed that this project is going to have a de minimis impact on traffic," Rodeback said, citing engineer testimony and staff materials presented to the commission.

Opposing counsel TJ Izzo, general counsel for the Ashbury community, urged the council to defer to the Planning & Zoning Commission and the record of public testimony from neighbors. Izzo argued the record contained “competent substantial evidence” that the proposed 24‑hour access, vehicle queuing and an entry at Ashbury Boulevard could create unsafe conditions and unreasonable congestion for the 193‑home neighborhood that has a single primary entrance.

After questioning and discussion about the limited scope of an appeal hearing (the council sits in an appellate/quasi‑judicial role and may not accept new evidence), council members debated whether the P&Z decision was supported by competent substantial evidence in the record or based on lay testimony that should be weighed differently than expert analysis.

Council member Nunn moved to overturn the Planning & Zoning denial of the conditional use; the motion passed on roll call 5–0. The council then approved a waiver allowing a black chain‑link fence in the riverfront overlay yard and approved the site plan with staff’s five recommended conditions and an added condition explicitly prohibiting overnight stays in parked RVs, backed by state law and lease terms and requiring on‑site cameras to help enforce the rule.

City staff said the approvals include standard requirements for landscaping, lighting, utilities and stormwater improvements. The council noted the conditional‑use approval could be reversed only by at least a 4–1 vote if it wished to uphold the commission; instead it chose to reverse and impose conditions intended to address neighborhood concerns.

The council’s action resolves an appeal of the Planning & Zoning Commission’s December 18 denial of three related items (conditional use, site plan and a riverfront‑overlay fence‑material waiver) and directs staff and the applicant to implement the conditions attached to the approval. No new factual evidence was admitted at the appeal; the council’s ruling was based on the record presented to the commission and the arguments made by counsel.