Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
St. Johns County hears hours of public comment as Shore Drive trail remains contested
Loading...
Summary
Dozens of residents urged and opposed a proposed Shore Drive trail in St. Johns County, faulting a countywide online survey as unreliable and debating trade-offs between pedestrian safety and environmental impacts. Commissioners agreed to hold a community meeting and return the item to the board after the survey period ends.
Dozens of residents packed the St. Johns County Commission meeting to split over a long‑running proposal to build a trail along Shore Drive, sharply disputing the project’s process, cost and environmental effects. Supporters framed the plan as a safety and accessibility improvement; opponents warned the trail would harm wetlands, raised deed and easement questions and called the county’s online survey unreliable.
The debate centered on both technical details and process. Opponents repeatedly criticized the three‑question online survey the county used to gauge local sentiment. Chris Ron, a Shore Drive resident, said the survey was “a highly flawed approach” that allowed repeated submissions and left the county open to legal challenge. Multiple speakers asked the county to verify respondents’ residency rather than accept anonymous submissions.
Proponents said the latest plan had been scaled back to address earlier concerns. Ingrid Jones, a longtime Shore Drive neighbor, said the revised plan reduces the trail width and moves it closer to the road to avoid cutting through park green space. “The new revised plan should be approved — it is a good compromise for both sides,” Jones said, adding that ADA accessibility for neighbors who use wheelchairs was a primary motivator.
Speakers also disputed costs and scope. Community members described shifting matching requirements over several years, with one public commenter tallying changes from roughly $840,000 in early proposals to as much as $1.84 million in later planning documents before later reductions. Others urged reallocating the trail funds to a regional boat‑ramp project.
Commissioners acknowledged the contentious record. Several commissioners said they wanted more vetted information from staff before making a final decision but agreed to give residents a dedicated community meeting. Chair Clay Murphy signaled he wanted the community to see the revised plan and hear from neighbors before the board votes; commissioners agreed to place the item on the commission’s first March meeting agenda after the survey closes.
Next steps: the board scheduled a community meeting and directed staff to present updated information and community feedback before the commission takes a final up‑or‑down vote on the Shore Drive trail.
