New proposal for King’s Grant headed to commissioners.
King’s Grant, a proposed massive development that was twice denied by the Planning and Zoning Agency and then by the St. Johns County Commission, will get another shot at approval after the developer reached an agreement that could end a lawsuit against the county.
A document was filed Wednesday in Circuit Court by the plaintiff, KG Development, saying both parties had “reached amicable terms of a settlement agreement.”
KG Development filed two civil lawsuits against the county after it was denied a zoning request that would have allowed a 999-home development off State Road 206 near Interstate 95. One lawsuit was dismissed by the plaintiff, but the other lawsuit remains active.
The agreement between KG Development and the county is not a guarantee of approval. The Commission will have to consider the amended plan at its Sept. 18 meeting.
At that point, if project is approved, all parties will “file a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice all claims brought in this case.” However, if the Commission rejects the proposal, the county will continue to defend the lawsuit, and the developer would then have to decide whether to continue litigation or give up on the plan.
St. Johns County Attorney Patrick McCormack said he was simply trying to work toward a solution that might be acceptable to both sides. But it’s not as if the county simply has to settle the case.
“The county feels strong in its litigation position,” McCormack said Thursday. “However, a good faith proposal has been made by the plaintiffs to resolve this matter, and we are going to present it to the Board (of County Commissioners) at a public hearing.”
King’s Grant was twice recommended for denial by the PZA and was rejected by a 3-2 vote by the Commission in September 2015. The development calls for 999 homes, 130,000 square feet of commercial retail and service space, a medical facility, and other features on more than 770 acres.
In the last three years, KG Development filed a lawsuit to get the rezoning approved from Open Rural to Planned Unit Development. The developer has also been in negotiations with the county to resolve the lawsuit.
As recently as June, the county conducted a shade meeting in order to discuss the status of the case.
At that time, the developer made several offers to the county in order to make the project more appealing. Commissioners did not commit to anything after hearing the proposal and continued with the litigation.
The new agreement is very similar to the one that was presented to the commissioners in June. Among the proposed benefits to the county are:
• A payment to the county of $100,000 “to facilitate economic development and support for commercial development” in the area. The payment would come “before the recording of the final subdivision plat containing the 100th single-family lot” on the property. Permissible uses for the money include marketing and promotion, incentives for new businesses, infrastructure improvements associated with economic development projects and other development projects.
• Construction and maintenance of a 4.5-acre recreation areas (multi-purpose fields) on the King’s Grant property. It does not count toward any other recreational commitments in the PUD.
• Construction of 10,000 square feet of commercial space along with certificates of occupancy no later than the approval of the final subdivision plat for the 500th single-family lot.
• Donation of a parcel of land on the King’s Grant property for a fire station. The developer would also pay for the construction of the station as well as for the equipment and the first three years of operation. The cost of the construction and equipment, but not the three years of operation, would count toward the development’s fire rescue impact fees due to the county but not yet collected at the time of completion of the station.
The current commissioners have given little indication about how they might vote on the issue. Commissioners Paul Waldron and Henry Dean were not on the board in 2015. Commissioner Jimmy Johns voted for it, and Jeb Smith and Jay Morris voted against the plan.
Among the issues cited at during the debate were urban sprawl and lack of nearby fire service. The fire service issue is taken care of in the new proposal, and the sprawl issue is up to interpretation.
The county defines sprawl as “characterized by leapfrog development, strip development, and low density residential over a large area.”
During the hearings before the PZA and Commission, a large number of residents attended and spoke out in opposition to the project for a variety of reasons, including sprawl and environmental concerns.
No comments:
Post a Comment