Planning and Zoning Board

Town of Orange Park Planning & Zoning Board Thursday, May 14, 2026 6:00 P.M. Minutes DRAFT The Town of Orange Park Planning and Zoning Board meeting was called to order in the Town Council Chambers on Thursday, May 14, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Alex Hawkins. The following Board members were present: Mr. Pete Johnston, Mr. George Niles, Mr. Marc Jernigan and Mr. Paul Bement. Others present were Economic and Community Development Director Stephen Smith, Town Clerk Courtney Russo and Town Attorney Lawsikia Hodges. The invocation was given by Mr. Hawkins, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CHAIR COMMENTS The presiding official opened the public comment portion of the meeting by inviting attendees to address the board on both agenda and non-agenda items. To facilitate an organized process, speakers were requested to complete a comment card and submit it to the Town Clerk prior to approaching the microphone. Members of the public were further instructed to state their full name and residential address for the official audio record upon reaching the podium. Additionally, the assembly was asked to silence all mobile devices to maintain decorum and ensure the clarity of the recording throughout the proceedings. APPROVAL OF THE PZB MINUTES FOR THE APRIL 9, 2026 REGULAR MEETING Mr. Johnston moved to approve the minutes, and Mr. Niles seconded, which passed 5-0. CONDITIONAL USE (C-1-2026) FOR 1345 PARK AVENUE-LIQUOR STORE IN CG The board opened a quasi-judicial public hearing to consider conditional use application C-1-2026 for a proposed liquor store located at 1345 Park Avenue. The subject property is currently zoned Commercial General (CG) with a medium-intensity land use designation. Mr. Hawkins requested disclosure of any ex-parte communications; there were none. Mr. Smith presented the staff report, noting that the 2,600-square-foot building—formerly a money lending establishment—is situated on a heavily commercial corridor. Staff confirmed that the location meets the 500-foot setback requirement from schools and churches and identified only one other retail liquor store within a half-mile radius, suggesting the use would not oversaturate the area. Despite an initial recommendation for denial in previous months, staff now recommends approval subject to five specific conditions. These include restricting retail parking to the Park Avenue lot, installing "No Parking" signage at the Stiles Avenue entrance, and submitting a comprehensive landscape plan. Additionally, the applicant must construct a defined curb, sidewalk, and apron along Stiles Avenue and adhere to limited hours of operation, specifically 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. for the store and 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. for the drive-thru. The applicant’s attorney, Paul Harden, stated his clients accept all proposed conditions and argued that the application meets the criteria for an entitled right under the current zoning code.

Planning and Zoning Board Meeting May 14, 2026 2 | P a g e Mr. Johnston expressed significant concern regarding the sudden change in staff’s recommendation since March and April. He specifically questioned the shift from citing public health and safety concerns to now claiming the project supports those same factors. Mr. Johnston also challenged the lack of detailed analysis regarding the ten subjective criteria outlined in the Town Code, such as morals, order, comfort, and general welfare, arguing that the current report focuses too narrowly on convenience and appearance. Attorney Hodges advised the board that a conditional use is permitted by the board if specific criteria are met, and the legal standard requires competent substantial evidence to support a denial. She clarified that the code's list of qualifiers is disjunctive, meaning the application only needs to promote at least one of the listed factors to be eligible for approval. The Chair and other board members debated whether a net negative impact across several categories could outweigh a positive in one, such as convenience. Following the legal and staff exchange, the Chair moved to open the floor for public comment to gather testimony from local residents. Debra Gaskins spoke in strong opposition to the conditional use application, citing concerns over neighborhood safety and the potential for increased traffic on Stiles Avenue due to the building's drive-thru. She argued that the community is already well-served by existing liquor retailers and stated that the proposed establishment offers no benefit to the public or the surrounding residential area. Amy Klurich strongly opposed the application, citing research that links higher concentrations of alcohol outlets to increased violent crime and public safety risks. She emphasized that the store would compromise the quality of life and pedestrian safety on narrow residential streets like Stiles Avenue, noting that these fundamental safety concerns cannot be resolved through simple aesthetic conditions. Slayden MacGregor strongly opposed the application, highlighting that Stiles Avenue is a major pedestrian route used by families and children to reach the riverfront. He argued that a drive-thru liquor store would likely lead to open-container consumption and impaired driving through residential streets and noted that the proximity to Orange Park Elementary School makes the proposal a significant moral and safety concern. Joseph DeMarco strongly opposed the proposal, stating that a drive-thru liquor store would degrade the property values and character of the historic neighborhood while increasing litter and reckless driving. He emphasized the risk to pedestrians and school children, noting that residents already struggle with illegal traffic behavior and the encroachment of commercial interests into their residential sweet spot. Ryan Stevens, who lives in the home immediately abutting the subject property, expressed that the prospect of a drive-thru liquor store less than 100 feet from his family's residence terrifies him. As a father of two young children, he moved to the area for the quiet solitude of Stiles Avenue and argued that the business fails to meet any of the Town's criteria for public welfare, acting only as a convenience that would inevitably lead to increased traffic, litter, and safety risks for his family and neighbors.

Planning and Zoning Board Meeting May 14, 2026 3 | P a g e Madison Hilt expressed opposition to the application by citing peer-reviewed longitudinal studies from the National Institute of Health, which link a higher density of liquor stores to adverse health outcomes, increased violent crime, and negative impacts on youth development. She argued that the Town’s conditional use ordinance is being interpreted too loosely and suggested that adding another establishment would actually harm public convenience by increasing traffic hazards in an already well-served area. In his rebuttal, Paul Harden emphasized that alcohol is a legal product and that the property owner is exercising a right already established by the Town's legislative body within the Commercial General zoning category. He argued that the applicant has met all legal criteria for a conditional use and asserted that no competent substantial evidence had been presented to legally justify a denial. Mr. Hardin concluded by stating that property owners must be able to rely on the existing zoning code when purchasing land for commercial use. He urged the board to follow established law and grant the request, noting that any broader objections to alcohol sales in this district should be addressed as a legislative policy change rather than through the conditional use application process. During the public comment period, resident Debra Gaskins requested to speak on a non-agenda item regarding the degrading of the neighborhood, linking her concerns to the previous discussion on the proposed liquor store. She criticized the installation of a Narcan distributor at the end of River Road. She argued that providing such resources in a residential area encourages drug use and questioned the lack of community input regarding the project. The Chair ultimately requested that she save further comments for the designated non-agenda portion of the meeting to keep the current hearing on track. Following the close of the public hearing for Conditional Use Application C-1-2026, the Planning and Zoning Board engaged in a lengthy debate regarding the legal standards for approval. Board members expressed concern that the staff report only addressed a few of the ten public interest criteria required by the Town Code, specifically focusing on convenience while neglecting subjective elements like morals, comfort, and general welfare. Board members argued that resident testimony regarding quiet enjoyment and local character should be considered competent substantial evidence for criteria such as comfort. Attorney Hodges cautioned the board that under quasi-judicial rules, they must rely on competent substantial evidence, typically provided by experts, rather than subjective resident opinions to justify a denial. She clarified that the code requires the application to promote only one of the ten descriptors, not all ten. Despite this advice, a majority of the board felt that a more comprehensive analysis of all ten criteria was necessary to determine if the project’s negative impacts outweighed its benefits. Mr. Niles moved to table the application until the next meeting. Mr. Johnston made a friendly amendment to include a directive for Town staff to investigate and address all ten public interest

Planning and Zoning Board Meeting May 14, 2026 4 | P a g e elements in a revised report. Mr. Hawkins seconded the motion, which passed 4 to 1, with Mr. Bement dissenting. Additionally, while the public hearing is officially closed, the applicant's representative agreed to meet with residents in the interim to discuss potential conditions, such as adjusted hours or aesthetic restrictions, that might make the proposal more palatable to the community. SITE PLAN REVIEW (SP-2-2026) FOR 1324 KINGSLEY AVENUE (ST. JOHN’S CLASSICAL ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL) The board reviewed the site plan for St. John’s Classical Academy Charter School, focusing on updated traffic mitigation strategies and enrollment restrictions. Mr. Hawkins requested disclosure of any ex-parte communications; there were none. Staff reported that the school board has formally approved a cap on the institution to grades K-8, a move that reduces the maximum student population from approximately 1,000 to 574. Based on this reduction, both the Florida Department of Transportation and the Town’s engineering consultants expressed no further concerns regarding the proposal. Consequently, staff recommended approval of the site plan under three specific conditions: the implementation of a two-bell staggered drop-off and pickup system with a 30- minute interval, a permanent grade level cap of K-8, and a total student enrollment limit of 574. Headmaster Anthony Bradley of St. John’s Classical Academy expressed the school's commitment to its mission of classical education and civic responsibility, confirming their agreement with the proposed enrollment cap and the two-bell staggered schedule. While he acknowledged that limiting the school to grades K-8 presents a challenge to their goal of developing high school graduates, he emphasized that they are prioritizing traffic remedies to eventually support future growth. During the board's discussion, members clarified that the 574-student limit provides flexibility across grade levels within the K-8 structure and noted that the Florida Department of Transportation’s earlier concerns were based on a much larger student body. The board commended the school’s current traffic management, with one member likening the precision of their staff-led car stacking to operations on an aircraft carrier. While concerns regarding illegal U-turns and local neighborhood impacts remain, the Assistant Chief of Police confirmed that there will be an increased enforcement presence to monitor traffic behavior. Mr. Bradley also reminded the board that as a publicly funded charter school, they operate within the Clay County School District framework rather than as a private institution. The Chair moved to open the floor for public comment to gather testimony from local residents. Paige Eilers, a parent from Green Cove Springs, spoke in strong support of the school’s impact on her daughter’s education and character. While praising the current traffic management, she expressed deep disappointment regarding the proposed eighth-grade cap, noting that many families enrolled with the expectation of a full K-12 experience as originally planned. She argued that the school should not be solely responsible for infrastructure costs and urged the board to consider the disruption this cap causes for students who hoped to graduate from the academy.

Planning and Zoning Board Meeting May 14, 2026 5 | P a g e Nicole Capps, a resident of Jacksonville, spoke in support of the school’s K-12 mission, noting that her family specifically chose the academy for its Hillsdale curriculum. She questioned the fairness of requiring the school to fund road infrastructure that was designed for different property uses and suggested that actual traffic volume would be lower than projected because many students are siblings traveling in a single vehicle. Additionally, she argued that the school serves as a significant regional attraction that enhances the overall prestige and appeal of the Orange Park community. Madison Hilt, a long-time resident, expressed strong opposition to the site plan, arguing that the school has created significant safety hazards and traffic gridlock that locks in the Montclair neighborhood during peak hours. The speaker questioned why staff recommended a 30-minute bell stagger despite previous engineering concerns and criticized the school for failing to follow its initially approved traffic plan. Ultimately, she contended that the burden of infrastructure costs should fall solely on the school rather than being subsidized by local taxpayers who are currently facing the resulting safety risks and loss of neighborhood peacefulness. Jason Midgett, a resident of Orange Park and parent of three students at St. John’s Classical Academy, spoke in favor of the school and requested a spirit of collaboration between the Town and the institution. While acknowledging the importance of safe roads and responsible planning, he highlighted research suggesting that investment in public schools significantly increases nearby home values. He expressed concern that the proposed grade level cap would disrupt his children's education and urged the board to work with the school to find a path for growth, arguing that the academy provides essential stability, opportunity, and community pride for the area. Elizabeth Morrow, a parent who moved specifically for the school’s classical curriculum, testified that the academy has provided a safe, high-character environment for her daughter following negative experiences elsewhere. She emphasized that the school serves as a regional draw that brings outside economic activity into Orange Park and expressed deep concern over the long-term impact of a permanent grade-level cap. The Chair acknowledged her concerns but noted that the board's decision is constrained by its legal jurisdiction, suggesting that larger infrastructure solutions would likely require coordination with higher-level elected officials. Mr. Bement clarified for the public that the decision to cap the academy at grade 8 was made voluntarily by the school rather than mandated by the Town or the Planning and Zoning Board. He noted that while the initial request sought expansion to grade 12, the school elected to adjust its own proposal, possibly due to the costs associated with the traffic mitigation requirements identified in the studies. He emphasized that because this was a choice made by the applicant and not a permanent restriction imposed by the Town, the school could potentially seek to expand to a full high school in the future as funds become available for necessary infrastructure improvements. The Chair acknowledged this as an important distinction for the record, clarifying the timeline and origin of the current enrollment restrictions. Erica Simmons, a former teacher and academy parent, suggested that the decision to cap enrollment at eighth grade was a forced compromise to ensure the school could receive immediate approval for necessary facilities. She argued that the traffic impact of a high school is minimal

Planning and Zoning Board Meeting May 14, 2026 6 | P a g e compared to the existing grammar school car lines and questioned why the school’s long-term growth is being restricted by persistent infrastructure issues. While the board acknowledged her concerns, the Chair noted that the specific negotiations regarding the enrollment cap occurred between the school board and Town staff, placing those details outside the Planning and Zoning Board's direct jurisdiction. Daniel Wright, a teacher at the academy, addressed the board regarding the jurisdictional boundaries of the traffic debate. He argued that because Kingsley Avenue is a state-managed road, the responsibility for funding and infrastructure should rest with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) rather than being used as leverage to restrict the school's growth. He concluded that blurring these institutional responsibilities overcomplicates the process and risks stifling the long-term success of an important community institution. Lynn Marquez, an Orange Park resident and mother of four, emphasized the logistical and academic benefits of having all her children attend the same school. She noted that the academy’s current dismissal time already follows that of Montclair Elementary, suggesting that the traffic overlap is manageable and that parents are committed to cooperating with any necessary mitigation strategies. She expressed her deep appreciation for the board’s time and shared her sincere hope that the school will eventually be allowed to expand through the 12th grade to support her children's long-term education. Nikia Patterson, an Orange Park resident with children in multiple grade levels, highlighted the importance of having all her children at a single campus for family stability. She raised a strategic point regarding traffic analysis, questioning whether the academy is being unfairly singled out when several other schools, including Montclair, Lakeside Elementary, and Lakeside Middle, all utilize the same corridors. She also noted that high school enrollment is typically smaller than grammar school numbers, suggesting that the additional traffic impact from grades 9–12 would be minimal compared to the existing student body. Sherri Glynn, a teacher and parent at the academy, highlighted the school’s academic impact, noting how the curriculum, specifically Latin and cursive, provided her daughter with a superior education and reignited her own passion for teaching. She argued that the mission to instill virtues and educate youth is far more important than a traffic study, contending that school funds should not be diverted toward infrastructure costs. Ultimately, she urged the board to prioritize the positive development of the community's children over bureaucratic and financial hurdles. Headmaster Bradley concluded by emphasizing the school’s mission to develop intelligent and virtuous American citizens. He clarified that the decision to cap enrollment at grade 8 was a strategic move by the school board to ensure they could accommodate current students immediately, but it is not intended to be a permanent end. He expressed a commitment to working with Town staff to find long-term traffic solutions that would eventually allow the school to expand to a full K-12 program. The board addressed public concerns regarding infrastructure costs, clarifying that Kingsley Avenue is a state-owned road governed by the FDOT, not the Town. Board members noted that

Planning and Zoning Board Meeting May 14, 2026 7 | P a g e their primary responsibility is to ensure that school growth doesn't negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood, specifically regarding traffic safety and the potential for neighborhood streets to become overflow parking as students reach driving age. While the board expressed strong support for the school’s mission, they maintained that their role is quasi-judicial, focused strictly on assessing the facts of the site plan and current law. Mr. Johnston moved to approve the site plan for St. John’s Classical Academy, incorporating specific conditions to manage the school’s impact on the local area beginning with the 2026-2027 school year. Under this agreement, the school must implement and maintain a mandatory two-bell system for student drop-off and pickup, ensuring a minimum of 30 minutes between the first and second bells for both morning and afternoon sessions. Additionally, the school’s academic structure is officially capped at grades K-8, with a strict total student enrollment limit of 574 scholars. Mr. Niles seconded the motion, which passed 5 to 0. Following the vote, the board clarified for concerned parents that while the current plan resolves the immediate need for eighth-grade classes and portables, the underlying traffic issues remain an ongoing conversation. The Chair reiterated his desire to see the school grow in the future but stressed that further expansion would require solving the significant funding and infrastructure hurdles that currently exist. SMALL-SCALE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT (FLUM) FROM CMI TO MDR FOR 1701 PARK AVENUE (APPLICATION CP-1-2026) There was a recess from 9:15 p.m.-9:24 p.m. Mr. Hawkins requested disclosure of any ex-parte communications; there were none. The public hearing was opened. Staff presented application CP-1-2026, a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment for approximately 8.63 acres of the Moose Haven campus located at 1701 Park Avenue. The request seeks to revert the land use from Commercial Medium-Intensity (CMI) back to Medium-Density Residential (MDR). This change effectively restores the designation the property held prior to 2008. The companion rezoning application (R-1-2026) seeks to change the zoning from Commercial General (CG) to Residential, General-1 (RG-1). This alignment is intended to permit future residential development, such as elderly housing or multi-family units, which are not currently allowed under the commercial zoning. Staff noted that this change would actually decrease potential traffic intensity compared to commercial use and that the Town has ample water and sewer capacity to support the proposed maximum of 69 units. Paul Hamilton, with the Moosehaven executive team, clarified that while there are no immediate plans to build on the US-17 frontage, the amendment provides the flexibility needed for future campus growth. He noted that Moosehaven has served the community since 1922 and emphasized

Planning and Zoning Board Meeting May 14, 2026 8 | P a g e their ongoing commitment to local outreach, including their traditional large-scale community events. Mr. Johnston disclosed that he has been a member of the Moose for over 15 years. After a brief consultation with the Town Attorney regarding potential future benefits and the appearance of a conflict of interest, he chose to recuse himself from the vote to ensure total transparency and ethical compliance. Mr. Johnston submitted Form 8B, Memorandum of Voting Conflict for County, Municipal, and Other Local Public Officers, to the Town Clerk’s office on May 18, 2026. The form has been incorporated into the minutes. There were no audience comments, so the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bement made a motion to recommend that the Town Council approve the small-scale land- use application CP-1-2026 per staff recommendation. Mr. Niles seconded the motion, which passed 4 to 0. REZONING APPLICATION FROM CG TO RG-1 FOR 1701 PARK AVENUE (APPLICATION R-1-2026) Mr. Hawkins requested disclosure of any ex-parte communications; there were none. The public hearing was opened. The rezoning application R-1-2026 seeks to reclassify approximately 8.63 acres of the Moosehaven campus from Commercial General (CG) to Residential, General-1 (RG-1). This change was found to be consistent with the 2045 Comprehensive Plan and specifically aligns with goals to provide suitable locations for senior living and special residential facilities. Staff confirmed that the rezoning is compatible with the surrounding land uses—including the neighboring church and daycare and will not conflict with existing Town regulations. There were no audience comments, so the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bement moved to recommend that the Town Council approve the rezoning application R-1- 2026 per staff recommendation. Mr. Niles seconded the motion, which passed 4 to 0. REVIEW OF PUD REVISIONS Mr. Tony Robbins conducted a thorough review with the board of the second draft of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance rewrites, which aims to establish more rigorous standards and transparency for future developments. Key updates include a mandatory 30% open space requirement for all PUDs and a 20-foot natural or landscaped buffer along the entire project perimeter. To ensure meaningful community involvement, the new language requires applicants to hold a public workshop and provide a concise statement explaining how the project benefits the Town, including a specific account of how public feedback was addressed.

Planning and Zoning Board Meeting May 14, 2026 9 | P a g e Additionally, the revisions clarify the legal burden of proof, requiring developers to provide substantial competent evidence that their project aligns with the Comprehensive Plan. A significant new safety measure ensures that if a PUD project expires, the land will automatically revert to its original zoning designation. The board expressed strong support for these changes, noting that the heightened standards allow the PUD tool to remain flexible for unique projects without becoming a loophole. Staff was directed to transition this draft into a formal ordinance for a final recommendation vote before it heads to the Town Council for adoption. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (EAR) UPDATE Mr. Smith informed the board that the Florida Department of Commerce officially found the Town’s updated Comprehensive Plan to be in full compliance as of May 1, 2026. This announcement marks the successful completion of the Evaluation and Appraisal Review (EAR) process, a milestone that validates the extensive work performed by the board over the past year. With the state's approval secured, the Town is now authorized to move forward with the implementation of its long-term goals and strategic planning initiatives. The board celebrated the news briefly before proceeding to the remaining items on the agenda. UPDATE ON SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING FOR STANDING RULES The board discussed the next steps for updating its standing rules, noting that while the Town Council has finalized its own rules, the board will use those as a template to modernize its procedures. A key addition to this process is the upcoming ex parte ordinance, which is scheduled to be introduced to the Town Council in June. Because this specific component must be integrated into the municipal code rather than just internal rules, it requires a formal ordinance process, including public hearings and newspaper notifications. The subcommittee anticipates being ready to review these updates in late June. The board tentatively aimed for a meeting in the latter half of the month to coordinate these changes once the legislative framework for the ex parte communications is established. With the PUD revisions and the Comprehensive Plan update largely concluded, the board plans to shift its focus toward these internal rules and the upcoming Article 3 subdivision draft updates to ensure all administrative procedures remain current and transparent. ARTICLE III SUBDIVISIONS DRAFT UPDATE Mr. Smith reported that there is currently nothing new to report on the Article 3 Subdivisions draft update. However, now that the Town has hopefully progressed through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, staff anticipates being able to move forward with this update and other related items in the near future.

Planning and Zoning Board Meeting May 14, 2026 10 | P a g e LDR UPDATE ON RECOVERY HOMES Mr. Smith noted that the Land Development Regulations (LDR) update concerning recovery homes is in the same posture as the previous item. No new actions have been taken at this time, but the matter will be actively addressed and reviewed by staff in the near future. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no comments at this time. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Jernigan apologized and announced that he will be out of town on June 11th. Consequently, he will be unable to attend the meeting scheduled for that date. No other board member comments were made during this section of the agenda. INFORMATION The next regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board is on Thursday, June 11, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Hawkins adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m.

Town of Orange Park

Planning and Zoning Board Meeting

Thursday, May 14, 2026

6:00 PM

Agenda

1. Call to Order / Verification of Quorum

2. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance

3. Chair Comments

4. Approval of Minutes

a. Approval of the PZB Minutes for the April 9, 2026 Regular Meeting

5. New Business

a. Conditional Use (C-1-2026) for 1345 Park Avenue - Liquor Store in CG

b. Site Plan Review (SP-2-2026) for 1324 Kingsley Avenue (St. John’s Classical

Academy Charter School)

c. Small-scale Future Land Use Map Amendment (FLUM) from CMI to MDR for 1701

Park Avenue (Application CP-1-2026)

d. Rezoning Application from CG to RG-1 for 1701 Park Avenue (Application R-1-

2026)

6. Old Business

a. Review of PUD Revisions (Staff)

b. Comprehensive Plan (EAR) Update (Staff)

c. Update on Subcommittee Meeting for Standing Rules (Chair)

d. Article III Subdivisions Draft Update (Staff)

e. LDR Update on Recovery Homes (Staff)

7. Audience Comment

8. Board Member Comments

9. Information

a. The next regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board is on Thursday, June 11,

2026 at 6:00 P.M.

10. Adjournment

2042 PARK AVENUE | ORANGE PARK, FLORIDA 32073 | 904.278.3011 townoforangepark.com

1

Town of Orange Park Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Thursday, May 14, 2026 6:00 PM Agenda 1. Call to Order / Verification of Quorum 2. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance 3. Chair Comments 4. Approval of Minutes a. Approval of the PZB Minutes for the April 9, 2026 Regular Meeting 5. New Business a. Conditional Use (C-1-2026) for 1345 Park Avenue - Liquor Store in CG b. Site Plan Review (SP-2-2026) for 1324 Kingsley Avenue (St. John’s Classical Academy Charter School) c. Small-scale Future Land Use Map Amendment (FLUM) from CMI to MDR for 1701 Park Avenue (Application CP-1-2026) d. Rezoning Application from CG to RG-1 for 1701 Park Avenue (Application R-1- 2026) 6. Old Business a. Review of PUD Revisions (Staff) b. Comprehensive Plan (EAR) Update (Staff) c. Update on Subcommittee Meeting for Standing Rules (Chair) d. Article III Subdivisions Draft Update (Staff) e. LDR Update on Recovery Homes (Staff) 7. Audience Comment 8. Board Member Comments 9. Information a. The next regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board is on Thursday, June 11, 2026 at 6:00 P.M. 10. Adjournment 2042 PARK AVENUE | ORANGE PARK, FLORIDA 32073 | 904.278.3011 townoforangepark.com 1

Item No. TOWN OF ORANGE PARK PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 2026 6:00 P.M. The Town of Orange Park Planning and Zoning Board meeting was called to order in the Town Council Chambers on Thursday, April 9, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Alex Hawkins. The following Board members were present: Mr. Pete Johnston, Mr. George Niles, Mr. Marc Jernigan and Mr. Paul Bement. Others present were Economic and Community Development Director Stephen Smith, Planning and Permitting Coordinator Maddie White and Town Attorney Lawsikia Hodges. The invocation was given by Mr. Hawkins, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CHAIR COMMENTS Mr. Hawkins stated if you would like to ask a question, please fill out a comment card. He also asked to please silence your cell phones. Mr. Hawkins inquired whether any members of the public were present to speak on the conditional use request for a liquor store at 1345 Park Avenue. As the item had been deferred and no individuals were present to provide comment, the item remained deferred and is scheduled to be heard at a future meeting in May. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 12, 2026 REGULAR MEETING Mr. Niles moved to approved the minutes and Mr. Bement seconded, which passed 5-0. VARIANCE APPLICATION (V-1-2025) LOCATED AT 2528 RED FOX ROAD Mr. Hawkins opened the quasi-judicial public hearing for Variance Application V-1-2025, which had been previously deferred. The request is to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 6 feet to allow for an attached carport. He requested disclosure of any ex-parte communications. Mr. Hawkins disclosed a conversation with a neighboring property owner regarding procedures for public comment, noting that the discussion did not involve the merits of the application. Prior to the staff presentation, Mr. Johnston recused himself from participation and voting on the item. Mr. Smith presented an overview of the request, explaining that the variance is being sought for after-the-fact approval of a carport that was constructed without a permit. The existing structure is located approximately 20 inches from the side property line and would need to be modified to meet a 6-foot setback if the variance is approved. Staff also noted that any approval would be contingent upon subsequent review by the Design Review Board. Mr. Smith reviewed the applicable variance criteria and explained that the request does not appear to be based on any unique physical conditions of the property, but rather on the applicant’s desire to add a carport. He indicated that the hardship is self-created, as the structure was constructed without prior approval, and that granting the variance would provide a special privilege not afforded to other 2

Planning & Zoning Board April 9, 2026 Page 2 similarly situated properties. Mr. Smith further stated that the absence of a carport does not prevent reasonable use of the property, which is an existing single-family residence with other accessory improvements. Additionally, staff expressed concern that approval could establish a precedent for similar variance requests within the neighborhood. Based on this analysis, staff recommended denial of the variance application. Mr. Hawkins then invited Board members to ask any clarification questions before proceeding to the applicant’s presentation. Kenneth Vogel, 2528 Red Fox Road, addressed the Board and acknowledged the staff’s efforts while expressing concerns with the staff report. He explained that he purchased the home without a garage or carport due to prior renovations and argued that he did not create the underlying condition. He stated that the vast majority of homes in the neighborhood—82 out of 83—have garages or carports, and that his request is intended to restore a common residential feature for vehicle protection and safety, particularly given Florida weather conditions. Mr. Vogel acknowledged the carport was constructed without a permit but noted that he has since submitted engineered plans and is seeking to bring the structure into compliance. He argued that the variance request is minimal, seeking only a four-foot reduction, and that he is willing to make modifications, including adjusting the structure and addressing drainage concerns. Mr. Vogel also raised concerns about inconsistencies in the staff report, particularly regarding the interpretation of variance criteria and references to precedent. He questioned the lack of identified “special conditions” and noted that similar structures appear to exist within the neighborhood. The applicant further argued that denying the variance would result in unequal treatment and an undue hardship, as his property would be one of the few without covered parking. He emphasized that the request aligns with the character of the neighborhood and would not negatively impact public welfare. Additionally, Mr. Vogel questioned the extent of staff’s site evaluation, noting he was not contacted regarding the property inspection referenced in the report. He reiterated that the structure has been in place for nearly three years without incident and provided an example of a fallen tree branch impacting the carport as evidence of its practical benefit. Following Mr. Vogel’s presentation, Mr. Hawkins opened the floor for Board questions and indicated that discussion would proceed through the variance criteria. Attorney Hodges provided guidance on the legal standards for granting a variance, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies with the applicant to demonstrate an unnecessary and undue hardship based on specific conditions such as lot size, shape, or topography. The Board then began reviewing the criteria in detail, starting with whether unique physical conditions exist that would justify the variance. The Board continued its discussion by closely examining the first variance criterion related to the existence of unique physical conditions. Mr. Smith reiterated that the subject property is generally consistent in size, shape, and topography with surrounding lots in the subdivision, with the exception of some waterfront properties that differ in character. Board members emphasized 3

Planning & Zoning Board April 9, 2026 Page 3 that, in order to justify a variance, there must be a distinct physical condition unique to the property that creates a hardship. Mr. Vogel acknowledged that the property can still function as a single-family home but explained that past changes to the home—specifically the relocation of the driveway and enclosure of the original carport—reduced available space and contributed to the current situation. Despite this, the Board indicated that such circumstances did not meet the strict legal standard required to demonstrate a unique hardship tied to the land itself rather than to prior improvements. Further discussion clarified that the variance process is not intended to address convenience or preferences but rather to resolve situations where strict application of the code would prevent reasonable use of the property. Mr. Hawkins expressed difficulty identifying any qualifying physical hardship and generally aligned with staff’s assessment that the first criterion had not been satisfied. The Board then moved on to the second criterion concerning whether the hardship was self- created. Staff explained that the request was driven by the applicant’s desire to construct a carport and not by any inherent condition of the land. Attorney Hodges further clarified that, under established zoning law, hardships resulting from actions taken by either the current or previous property owner are considered self-created and therefore do not justify a variance. While Mr. Vogel noted that the original carport had been enclosed by a previous owner, the Board emphasized that such conditions transfer with the property and are still considered self- created from a legal standpoint. It was also noted that property owners are presumed to be aware of applicable zoning regulations, including setback requirements, at the time of purchase. Throughout the discussion, the Board reinforced that the burden of proof rests with the applicant to demonstrate an unnecessary and undue hardship based on the specific legal criteria, and without meeting the foundational requirement of a unique physical condition, the remaining criteria could not be satisfied. Attorney Hodges clarified that, under the law, property owners are presumed to have knowledge of zoning regulations when purchasing a home, regardless of whether they actually understand setbacks or other requirements. The Board is required to apply the law objectively, not based on assumptions about a homeowner’s knowledge or intent. She emphasized that variance decisions must be supported by “competent substantial evidence,” typically provided by qualified professionals such as engineers or surveyors, demonstrating that a property has unique conditions not shared by others in the area. Without such evidence, the board cannot legally justify approval. She also reiterated that all required criteria must be met in full—failure to satisfy even one prohibits approval—and that variances are intended to be rare, high-burden exceptions rather than routine allowances. 4

Planning & Zoning Board April 9, 2026 Page 4 The discussion then shifted into a deeper examination of the variance criteria, particularly around “special privilege,” “undue hardship,” and “public welfare.” Board members and staff clarified that the existence of similar structures in the neighborhood, whether conforming or not, does not justify granting a variance. Each application must stand on its own merits, and approval cannot be based on what others have done. The concept of “public interest” and “precedent” was also clarified, not as popularity or opinion, but as maintaining consistent enforcement of zoning rules, preserving neighborhood character, and ensuring fairness in land use decisions. Mr. Vogel questioned the burden of proof, asking whether the Town also has a responsibility to produce expert analysis in response. Attorney Hodges explained that, in quasi-judicial proceedings, the burden lies entirely with the applicant, as they are the party seeking relief. The board’s role is reactive, evaluating the evidence presented rather than independently developing a case for or against the request. As the board reviewed additional criteria, members focused on whether a true hardship existed and whether the requested variance was the minimum necessary. It was noted that the property could still be reasonably used in compliance with zoning regulations, including the possibility of constructing a carport elsewhere on the lot, even if less convenient or more costly. This undermined the argument for undue hardship. The board also emphasized that inconvenience or financial burden alone does not meet the legal threshold required for a variance. Further discussion reinforced that zoning regulations are designed to ensure consistent spacing, safety, and neighborhood character, and that granting a variance without meeting all criteria could erode public trust in fair enforcement. Mr. Jernigan expressed understanding of the applicant’s position, they acknowledged they are bound to apply the law strictly and cannot base decisions on sympathy or subjective considerations. Ultimately, after closing the public hearing, the board concluded that the applicant had not met the burden of proof for the required criteria, particularly regarding unique hardship and minimum necessary relief. Mr. Bement stated based on the criteria for a variance, pursuant to Section 02.08.14.02(a) of the Zoning code, he recommend the variance be denied and Mr. Niles seconded, which passed 4-0. Mr. Hawkins stated Mr. Vogel has the right to appeal. Attorney Hodges stated it would be appealed to Town Council and Mr. Smith can assist with the appeal process. CONDITIONAL USE (C-1-2026) FOR 1345 PARK AVENUE Mr. Hawkins opened the public hearing for Conditional Use Application C-1-2026, a request for a liquor store in the CG zoning district at 1345 Park Avenue. Mr. Hawkins stated ex-parte disclosures were noted as not applicable at this time. 5

Planning & Zoning Board April 9, 2026 Page 5 Mr. Smith provided an overview stating that the applicant was requesting a deferral of the application in order to provide additional information and further discuss the item. It was noted that the applicant’s attorney, who was not involved in the initial submittal, requested additional time to review and address the application prior to proceeding. There were no board questions, no applicant comments beyond the request for deferral, and no public comment. Mr. Bement moved to defer Conditional Use Application C-1-2026 to the May 14, 2026 meeting and Mr. Niles seconded, which passed 5-0. SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION (SP-2-2026) FOR 1324 KINGSLEY AVENUE Mr. Hawkins opened the public hearing for Site Plan Review Application SP-2-2026 for the proposed expansion of St. Johns Classical Academy located at 1324 Kingsley Avenue. At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Hawkins disclosed an ex-parte communication. He stated that they had viewed a public post made by Madison Hilt on the Orange Park Hub page referencing concerns regarding traffic congestion in the neighborhood behind the school. Mr. Hawkins clarified that the disclosure was made out of caution to avoid any appearance of prejudice and noted uncertainty regarding procedural requirements due to limited experience with this aspect of the process. It was also acknowledged that the individual who made the post may be present to speak on the matter during the hearing. No additional ex-parte communications were disclosed by the board. Mr. Hawkins requested that, except for clarification questions, staff and the applicant be permitted to present their testimony and evidence without interruption in order to maintain an orderly record. Mr. Smith provided a brief report on the application. He explained that the proposal consists of additional modular classroom buildings associated with the planned expansion of St. Johns Classical Academy. The project supports the school’s continued growth, including expansion of grade levels and enrollment capacity, and is located at 1324 Kingsley Avenue. Mr. Smith advised that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) previously reviewed the revised traffic impact study and issued additional comments dated February 27, 2026, which were included in the staff report. He further stated that although the applicant submitted the site plan application, no formal response addressing the FDOT comments was provided prior to the hearing. As a result, staff had not completed their full review and was unable to provide a recommendation at that time. Mr. Smith also provided background on the traffic analysis history. The original traffic study evaluated conditions associated with an increase in enrollment of approximately 520 additional students, with existing enrollment at roughly 480 students and a projected long-term buildout of approximately 1,000 students by 2032. The study identified potential mitigation measures, including the possible need for a right-turn lane at the Orange 6

Planning & Zoning Board April 9, 2026 Page 6 Avenue and Kingsley Avenue intersection and the use of staggered bell schedules to distribute traffic more evenly during arrival and dismissal periods. Mr. Smith noted that earlier FDOT comments dated August 6, 2025 identified deficiencies in the original traffic study, including missing analysis components, lack of proper engineering certification, and insufficient justification for the decision not to provide a right-turn lane. Additional technical concerns were also raised. He explained that the revised traffic study included updated analysis and again relied on staggered bell schedules as the primary mitigation strategy. FDOT’s subsequent review dated February 27, 2026 expressed continued concern that a 30-minute separation between bell schedules may not be sufficient to fully process traffic volumes before the next wave of arrivals. FDOT further recommended consideration of additional improvements, including a right-turn lane into the site, potential westbound left-turn lane modifications, median closure adjustments east of Orange Avenue, and revisions to inconsistencies identified in the traffic analysis regarding site access and lane configuration. Mr. Smith concluded by stating that due to unresolved FDOT comments and the incomplete nature of the review, no staff recommendation was available. During board discussion, Mr. Johnston raised concerns regarding the timing of the application and the adequacy of review time. He noted that the application materials and supporting documents were received only approximately 24 to 25 hours prior to the meeting, which limited the ability of both staff and board members to thoroughly review the submission. He also expressed concern that FDOT had spent months reviewing the traffic study while the board was being asked to consider the application without comparable review time, particularly given that significant traffic concerns remained unresolved. Mr. Johnston indicated discomfort moving forward without additional time for analysis and suggested that a delay may be appropriate. Mr. Smith responded that the purpose of the application at this time was to allow the project to proceed in alignment with the upcoming school year. Mr. Smith indicated that the applicant would be better positioned to address the urgency and timeline associated with the request. Mr. Anthony Bradley, Headmaster of St. Johns Classical Academy, addressed the board and expressed appreciation for the opportunity to present the project. He referenced prior direction from the board during a previous hearing, which emphasized the importance of timely coordination with staff and agencies, including FDOT, and stated that the applicant had made extensive efforts to comply with those expectations. Mr. Bradley described a timeline of coordination efforts spanning several months, including meetings with Town staff, communication with traffic engineers, and discussions with FDOT representatives. He stated that the applicant believed they had been working in good faith and were surprised by the timing of FDOT’s February 27, 2026 comments, which introduced additional concerns shortly before final application submission. 7

Planning & Zoning Board April 9, 2026 Page 7 He further explained that the project relies on a phased expansion plan and that the traffic study reflects a full buildout scenario of approximately 1,000 students, while the immediate request pertains to a significantly smaller number of students for the upcoming school year. He emphasized that the school intends to implement a two-bell system, similar to operations at another campus, in which upper school and lower school students arrive and depart at staggered times to reduce peak traffic volumes. He noted that some lower school students are siblings of upper school students, which would further reduce the number of additional vehicles during peak periods. Mr. Bradley also addressed FDOT’s recommendations regarding roadway improvements, stating that while such improvements may be beneficial from an engineering standpoint, they would be cost-prohibitive for the project. He emphasized that the school believes its operational model and staggered scheduling would adequately manage traffic demand at the current and near-term enrollment levels. He further noted that campus operations include the presence of school resource or police officers who assist with traffic management and that coordination with local law enforcement has indicated that traffic is being actively managed on-site. He stated that, in the applicant’s view, current conditions do not indicate a significant traffic issue and that the proposed expansion would not worsen conditions given the planned scheduling adjustments. The hearing continued with Mr. Johnston asking clarifying questions regarding traffic operations, FDOT recommendations, and at what point roadway improvements might be required as enrollment increases toward full buildout. Discussion also included concerns regarding reliance on staggered bell schedules, differences in professional engineering opinions, and whether the proposed mitigation measures would be sufficient under FDOT’s standards. Ms. Amy Miller with St. John’s Classical Academy stated their traffic engineer was available remotely and could respond to technical questions if permitted by the board. Following board discussion, Mr. Hawkins raised the possibility of temporarily recessing the meeting to allow the applicant’s traffic engineer to join virtually. A brief recess was discussed to facilitate the engineer’s participation. Board members expressed that several had not been able to fully review the materials in advance of the meeting and shared concerns that they were not adequately prepared to render a decision at that time. Mr. Bement reiterated that the item appeared to have significant unresolved technical issues, particularly related to the FDOT traffic comments, and emphasized that those concerns should be addressed by a qualified traffic engineer rather than through informal discussion. He stated that, based on the staff report, staff had not completed its review and had not issued a recommendation, which further contributed to concern about proceeding. The board discussed prior procedural history, including the July 2025 meeting, and expressed concern that previous expectations regarding traffic studies and mitigation planning had not been 8

Planning & Zoning Board April 9, 2026 Page 8 fully realized or documented in the current application materials. It was noted that the board had previously anticipated receiving a traffic improvement plan and supporting analysis in a more complete and timely manner than what was provided for the current hearing. Additional concerns were raised regarding FDOT’s recent comments, which included recommendations for roadway improvements and further analysis of turning movements and intersection operations. Board members expressed uncertainty regarding whether those recommendations had been fully addressed in the submitted traffic study and noted that the absence of a clear staff recommendation made it difficult to proceed. Mr. Hawkins also expressed concern regarding the timing of the agenda posting and the limited notice provided to the public and board members, stating that approximately 24 to 25 hours of review time was insufficient given the complexity of the application and the potential impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. The applicant’s traffic engineer, Mr. Rick M