Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Alcohol topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commissioners deny Main Street Pizza’s bid to serve beer and wine near Hastings churches

Board of County Commissioners of St. Johns County, Florida · May 19, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After hours of testimony from church leaders, the restaurant owner and dozens of residents, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5–0 to uphold appeals and deny Main Street Pizza a variance and special‑use permit allowing on‑site beer and wine in downtown Hastings.

The St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners on May 20 voted 5–0 to uphold appeals filed by two Hastings churches and deny Main Street Pizza’s request to serve beer and wine on‑site under a variance to the county land development code.

The vote followed a consolidated quasi‑judicial hearing in which church representatives said the restaurant’s proposed outdoor patio seating sits as little as 25 feet from church property lines and roughly 60 feet from church windows, and that approving alcohol service there would undermine the churches’ mission and threaten safety for children who regularly use church facilities.

Wendy Smith, representing God’s Way Baptist Church, asked the board to preserve a county rule that generally blocks the sale of alcoholic beverages within 1,000 feet of established churches or schools. “Approving a special‑use permit for alcohol service in such close proximity to such a ministry directly undermines that mission,” Smith said, urging commissioners to overturn the Planning and Zoning Agency’s earlier approval.

Pete Boykin of First Baptist Church of Hastings described staff and legal provisions the churches said the applicant had not met, including off‑street parking requirements and protections against noise and pedestrian safety risks. He cited land‑development code sections that require a special use to not “substantially detriment the public good” or pose traffic dangers to pedestrians.

Matt Glass, owner of Main Street Pizza, told the board his restaurant meets the code’s exemption for a bona fide restaurant and said the PZA and county staff had found the business eligible for a variance because it is a seated restaurant serving meals, not a bar. “We are a restaurant, not a bar,” Glass said, adding the business would limit alcoholic beverage sales to beer and wine served only to seated patrons and stop alcohol service at 9 p.m.

Attorney Matt Romanek, representing First Baptist Church, countered that the requirement for adequate off‑street parking had not been met and said a condition precedent for the variance — code compliance on parking and other criteria — was lacking.

The hearing drew a large public turnout from Hastings: many residents and church members described regular youth programs and weekday activities at the churches and said proximity of on‑site alcohol to those activities would be inappropriate. Other local residents and downtown business owners supported the restaurant and argued that downtown revitalization and similar restaurants elsewhere in the county have operated responsibly under comparable permits.

After rebuttals and board deliberations, Commissioner Christian Whitehurst said the ordinance exists for predictability and protection and that hardship had not been proven. Commissioners Sarah Arnold, Timm, Joseph and Taylor joined Whitehurst in voting to overturn the PZA and deny the variance and special‑use permit.

The board’s motion referenced planning application and file numbers cited by staff (special use SUPMAJ‑2025‑27 and variance ZVR‑2025‑35); the board adopted the staff findings of fact and denied the requests by a 5–0 vote. The denial means Main Street Pizza cannot sell beer and wine under the requested variance; the property owner may pursue other legal remedies available under county and state law.

The board concluded the item and took a lunch recess; future legal or administrative appeals of the denial were not decided at the meeting.