St. Johns County unanimously denies plans for ‘Agrihood’ community

The board of county commissioners found the plans for the proposed 3,300-home development incomplete.


Freehold Communities “Agrihood” Arden master-planned development in South Florida features a 5-acre farm and event barn.
Freehold Communities “Agrihood” Arden master-planned development in South Florida features a 5-acre farm and event barn.
Freehold Communities
  • Government
  • Share

The St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners unanimously voted Nov. 5 to deny plans for a proposed “Agrihood” community that would have added more than 3,300 homes along Florida Road 214.

Outgoing Commissioner Henry Dean, who had previously supported the development, expressed disappointment, saying he would have backed it if the timing had been right.

“I’m very disappointed I can’t support this project,” he said.

The Planning and Zoning Agency unanimously recommended denial of the project, proposed by developer Freehold Communities, on Oct. 17.

The development sought to rezone 2,673 acres from Open Rural to Planned Unit Development. The site is between County Roads 208 and 214, west of Interstate 95, south of the St. Augustine Premium Outlets, and about 20 miles south of Shearwater.

A 4-mile segment of County Road 2209 is proposed to run through the agrihood between County Road 204 and County Road 208.

According to Freehold, “Agrihoods are defined as an organized community that integrates agriculture into a residential setting.”

A proposed 4-mile segment of County Road 2209 would run through the development, connecting County Roads 204 and 208. Freehold, based in Boston and also the developer of Shearwater, represents Robinson Improvement Co. of Brunswick, Georgia, which has owned the land since 1906.

Among other concerns, Planning and Zoning Agency members cited insufficient time to review Freehold’s 224-page proposal, which they deemed incomplete. As of Oct. 15, the developer planned 3,332 residential units and 250,000 square feet of retail and commercial space, though by Oct. 17, the nonresidential components had been removed.

Lindsay Haga of England-Thims & Miller, the project’s civil engineer, said the commercial components were removed after feedback from the Oct. 15 meeting with the commission. At that meeting, the county also presented a development agreement to construct the 4-mile segment of County Road 2209.

Planning and Zoning Agency member Richard Hilsenbeck described the project as “rushed, rushed, rushed” and “helter-skelter,” citing “a lot of missing data and inconsistencies.”

“There are too many open comments, the materials provided are incomplete, and we had inadequate time to review it,” he said.  

“This is an important item both for me as a PZA member and for the citizens interested in this proposal. It’s way premature, and its time has not come.”

Agency member Jack Peter noted that, although the project “sounds nice, it’s so far out in the future,” calling it “one of the most incomplete applications” he had reviewed. 

“To move this forward seems ill-advised at this time,” Peter said.

Agency member Henry Green echoed those concerns, saying, “The application just isn’t finished.” 

Agency member Elvis Pierre said, “I’m listening to my colleagues, and I just don’t think its time has come.”

Residents speaking at the meeting urged members to deny the project, with one saying, “This is the biggest mistake the county could make.”

Before the vote, agency Chair Meagan Perkins called the project’s site plan a “bubble plan.” 

“With a project of this magnitude, we should have specifics about where certain-sized lots will go,” she said.

“We don’t have that. This should not have come before us at this stage. It’s too early. It’s too incomplete.”

 

×

Special Offer: $5 for 2 Months!

Your free article limit has been reached this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited digital access to our award-winning business news.