The development proposal, which sought to amend the comprehensive plan from a Residential 4 (Res 4) designation to Residential 15 (Res 15), included plans for 595 units at a density of approximately 4.4 dwelling units per acre. Community engagement was prioritized, with multiple meetings held to address resident concerns about traffic, safety, drainage, and property values. Adjustments were made to the plan, including a reduction in density and the strategic placement of higher-density units along Carpenter Road to minimize traffic impacts on existing neighborhoods.

A significant portion of the discussion revolved around drainage issues. The engineer of record highlighted that the area had historically faced flooding challenges due to outdated systems originally designed for the golf course. The proposed plan included a modern drainage solution intended to enhance existing conditions by creating a comprehensive stormwater management system. This would involve increasing retention pond sizes from approximately 10 acres to over 25 acres, which was expected to help manage stormwater more effectively and prevent flooding in neighboring properties.

Residents voiced strong opposition to the proposed development, with many citing concerns about environmental impacts and infrastructure capacity. One resident emphasized the potential loss of livestock and adverse effects on small farms along the St. Johns River, urging officials to consider the broader community impact. Another resident highlighted existing flooding concerns and critiqued the developers’ plans, stressing the urgency of addressing these issues before proceeding with the project.

Concerns about traffic and infrastructure were also prominent. The traffic engineer detailed the project’s impact analysis, estimating that it would generate approximately 4,500 daily trips, with specific impacts during peak hours. The traffic study aimed to evaluate road capacity and delay times at various intersections and proposed improvements to mitigate any projected impacts through collaboration with county staff.

Environmental considerations were another focal point. The environmental consultant mentioned that various protected species, including gopher tortoises, were present on the site, and studies would be conducted to ensure compliance with state and federal regulations. Plans to expand existing ponds and create staging areas for wildlife relocation during construction activities were also discussed.

Board members expressed concerns about the adequacy of the proposed adjustments, particularly regarding the density and infrastructure requirements. One member emphasized that the development seemed premature given the lack of infrastructure readiness, particularly the shortfall in fire response times and school capacity. They urged caution.

Following the debates, motions to recommend approval of both the small-scale comprehensive plan amendment and the development request were made, with conditions for further discussion with staff. Both motions passed unanimously.

In addition to the golf course redevelopment, the meeting also addressed other significant zoning and development requests. One involved a proposed change in future land use and zoning for a property to allow for mobile homes or tiny homes, emphasizing the need for affordable housing in the area. However, this proposal faced opposition due to environmental concerns, particularly regarding flooding and the compatibility of septic systems with the local hydrology.

Another notable discussion focused on a proposed land use change and zoning request for a property to allow for infill commercial development. This proposal raised questions about buffering and the types of businesses that would be permissible near a school. The board recommended approval of the land use change with conditions concerning the Binding Development Plan (BDP) to address potential infrastructure impacts and ensure the safety of nearby residents.