Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Johns County denies Las Calinas request to boost commercial square footage on US‑1
Summary
The Board of County Commissioners unanimously denied a request to increase non‑residential square footage from 19,000 to 49,000 at the Las Calinas US‑1 site, citing access, traffic and wetland concerns; the Planning & Zoning Agency had split 2–3 on the recommendation.
The St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners voted 5–0 on Feb. 17 to deny a major modification request (MAJMOD 2025‑09) that would have raised the maximum non‑residential floor area at the Las Calinas US‑1 Commercial Area from 19,000 square feet to 49,000 square feet.
Applicant counsel James G. Whitehouse of St. Johns Law Group described the application and answered questions about property configuration and upland areas. Multiple neighborhood representatives — including Zack Miller (Kensington HOA designated representative), John Smith (Sweetwater Creek HOA vice‑chair), Tommy Hammond (Ponte Vedra HOA designated representative) and Dan Callaugh (Kensington HOA president) — urged denial, citing limited access from Abbotts Way, compatibility with existing residential areas and concerns about wetland impacts. Growth Management Director Mike Roberson told the board he was unsure how legal access to Abbotts Way would be obtained.
Commissioner Ann Taylor moved to deny the application; Commissioner Sarah Arnold seconded the motion. The board’s denial was based on seven findings of fact provided in the staff report. The Planning and Zoning Agency had earlier failed to recommend approval, voting 2–3 at its Jan. 15 hearing. The denial leaves the property’s current land‑use and density limits in place and requires the applicant to pursue any future changes with additional review and findings.
Board members discussed traffic, neighborhood compatibility and the legal limits of maps and plats as evidence of property rights; County counsel and staff noted that any required access would have to be obtained independently by the applicant. There was no motion to take eminent domain action by the county.
