Commissioners approve SR 206 development -- Lakewood Pointe would bring a maximum 78 lots in St. Johns County

Commissioners approve SR 206 development
Lakewood Pointe would bring a maximum 78 lots in St. Johns County
Posted: October 6, 2015 - 9:26pm | Updated: October 7, 2015 - 12:10am

By SHELDON GARDNER
sheldon.gardner@staugustine.com
Lakewood Pointe would bring a maximum 78 lots in St. Johns County

A proposed development called Lakewood Pointe is moving forward on State Road 206 despite some opposition from local residents.

St. Johns County commissioners unanimously approved on Tuesday rezoning close to 41 acres from open rural, where agricultural and other uses are allowed, and residential single-family to planned unit development, a type of zoning made for a specific location and project.

The rezoning will allow for a 78-lot, single-family residential subdivision on the south side of S.R. 206 between State Road A1A and U.S. 1 South, according to the county.

The approval didn’t come without a fight.

Several in attendance spoke against approving the rezoning, citing concerns about traffic increases, compatibility and environment. However, the developer’s team said the development meets county codes and other requirements for environment and traffic.

About 40 people were in the audience during the item. About seven people spoke and almost all were opposed to the rezoning or wanted fewer houses on the development.

Ann Taylor, a past president of the South Anastasia Communities Association, who lives less than a mile away, asked the commission to vote against the rezoning, noting concerns about wildlife and density.

“There are several parcels of land if you drive 206 that have for sale signs up on them. So if you allow this density here, you are setting a precedent,” Taylor said. “I guess a lot of us are getting tired of having developers come into our county and create developments that overtax our schools, roads and libraries.”

Karen Taylor, land planner for the project, said the development is appropriate for the area and said the current zoning is not compatible with the surrounding area anymore.

“Like it or not, it is an urban development area. … every piece around it is developed,” she said.

The area is not high-density like some areas with 12 or 13 units per acre, she also said.

Jane West, a local attorney representing the South Anastasia Communities Association, said her clients oppose the rezoning for several reasons, including what she indicated were conflicts with the county’s development requirements.

According to her presentation, keeping the existing zoning would make the best use of existing infrastructure, would not overburden taxpayers and would be compatible with surrounding uses.

“Denial of this rezoning is legally defensible because maintaining the existing zoning maintains a legitimate public purpose,” West said.

Some who spoke voiced concerns about drainage issues and possible harm to the Moses Creek area.

Vince Dunn, a representative from a civil engineering and land planning firm, said the development will not have septic tanks, which eliminates the problem of adding fecal coliform bacteria in the creek.

After several hours of discussion, presentations and public comment, commissioners approved the item.

The developer’s team agreed to make some adjustments, including addressing drainage concerns as well as requiring organic pesticides and fertilizer in the development.

In other business

■ Commissioners approved a new collective bargaining agreement between the county and St. Johns County Professional Firefighters and Paramedics IAFF Local 3865, cementing a three-year agreement. The item was approved Tuesday via the commission’s consent agenda.

■ Commissioners also unanimously approved moving forward with financing E-911 call center equipment through an $847,000 short-term loan. The debt would be paid back in three years from a special revenue fund within the county’s general fund that comes from E-911 fees on phone bills, said Jesse Dunn, assistant director of the office of management and budget.


COMMENTS
anthony arguelles 10/07/15 - 05:36 am 51I disapprove with the
I disapprove with the decision made on this development . To squeeze 78 homes on a 40 acre parcel that contains a big lake is not compatible to the area. Your lucky if you get quarter acre lots when roads and other conditions factored in. This area is a country setting and should be a minimum of 1 acre lots. It would be more fitting for the area and less straining on schools and traffic. The community should have a vote on this .

sponger2 10/07/15 - 06:29 am 31SAME CRAP- DIFFERENT NAME
Little Johnny has a portable classroom. Boo hoo. We don't have any water. Boo hoo. The taxes go up with every house because the development doesn't carry it's own financial weight. Boo hoo. The roads are crowded. Boo hoo. And finally, Karen Taylor "land planner?" for the project got to tell us what's best for us, because she don't live there, so she don't give a sh*&. Boo hoo. Vote all these idiots out ....Yes.