Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Main St Pizza topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Johns County commissioners deny Main Street Pizza request to serve alcohol in Hastings
Summary
The Board of County Commissioners unanimously overturned a Planning & Zoning Agency approval and denied both the special‑use permit and variance that would have allowed on‑site alcohol sales at Main Street Pizza in Hastings, following extensive public comment on safety, parking and proximity to churches.
The St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously May 19 to deny a special‑use permit and related variance that would have allowed on‑site sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages at Main Street Pizza, 125 North Main Street in Hastings.
Wendy Smith, representing God’s Way Baptist Church of Hastings, urged the Board to protect community morals and safety, arguing that "a special use should promote the public health, safety, welfare, morals, order, etc.," and opposed the permit. Opponents raised concerns about parking, traffic and proximity to churches; proponents, including owner Matt Glass, asked the Board to uphold the Planning & Zoning Agency decision and stressed the business’s plans and compatibility with the area.
Attorney Matt Rominek, representing First Baptist Church, pressed staff and the Board on code compliance and parking. County staff told commissioners the Hastings overlay treats the restaurant as a nonconforming historical structure and exempts it from certain parking requirements. Commissioner discussion referenced the legal standard for overturning the Planning & Zoning Agency.
Motion by Commissioner Sarah Arnold, seconded by Chair Clay Murphy, carried 5-0 to overturn the PZA decision and deny the special use permit (SUPMAJ 2025-27) and the variance (ZVAR 2025-32), based on the seven findings in the staff report and Land Development Code Section 2.03.02. The Board recorded yea votes from Arnold, Murphy, Whitehurst, Taylor and Joseph; no commissioners dissented.
The outcome means the applicant’s request to allow on‑site alcohol service in Commercial General zoning was denied; the Board cited the staff findings and public concerns in its motion. The appellants and the applicant may pursue any administrative or legal remedies allowed under county procedures.
