Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents oppose annexation and PUD rezoning for 390 Sugar Mill Drive; board hears traffic, flooding and spot‑zoning concerns
Summary
Staff presented a proposal to annex and rezone ~7.6 acres at 390 Sugar Mill Drive for RV/boat storage (up to 147 spaces) and argued the use would generate far fewer trips than earlier entitlements; dozens of residents urged denial citing stormwater, traffic safety and spot‑zoning concerns.
The board on Oct. 6 considered a combined annexation, small‑scale comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning to allow RV and boat storage on about 7.6 acres at 390 Sugar Mill Drive. Planning staff said the site, previously entitled for multifamily development, would generate significantly fewer daily trips as a storage facility than under the prior residential entitlements and that stormwater would be redesigned to meet current St. Johns River Water Management District standards.
The applicant’s attorney, Joey Posey, and the project engineer said the PUD limits and a proposed design would screen parked vehicles with building enclosures on the north and east property lines and use an expanded front retention pond; the engineer said the post‑development discharge rates would be less than pre‑development conditions and the plan includes nutrient‑removal pretreatment.
More than a dozen neighbors spoke in opposition. Speakers from Coastal Woods and nearby subdivisions raised concerns about flooding of adjacent retention ditches, the property’s proximity to residential lots, safety for boats and RVs turning onto a narrow two‑lane curve on Sugar Mill, and what they characterized as an inappropriate commercial spot zone in the middle of a residential area expecting additional medical and residential growth. Multiple speakers asked the board to deny the annexation, rezoning and PUD.
Board members asked technical questions about potential turn lanes, wash and dump stations, and whether the use classed as commercial or industrial; staff explained the commercial future land use classification can include storage uses and that the city retains code tools (PUD Master Development Agreement and site‑plan review) to control details. The developer argued the storage use would produce fewer trips than the previously approved 94 townhomes and would be substantially set back from the road.
No final board vote on the PUD or annexation is recorded in the meeting excerpt provided; staff and the applicant said future site-plan steps and county coordination (driveway/work in the county right‑of‑way) remain.
