GREEN COVE SPRINGS – The Planning Commission denied two motions for a proposed new development with 62 homes that could erase more rural land on Shedd Road.

The commission denied an amendment to the Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan to change one parcel of land from Rural Residential to Rural Fringe and another to rezone a property from Agricultural and Agricultural Residential to Planned Unit Development. Both motions failed, 6-1.

The development will still be brought before the Board of County Commission on Jan. 9. Still, the volunteer commission will recommend not approving the applications filed by the developer, St. Augustine-based Matthews DCCM. Residents convinced the commission that new homes on the 20-acre property, currently zoned for four houses, could increase traffic by 75%.

Matthews DCCM Senior Planner Autumn Martinage described the project and provided blueprints. She said the development would allow for three units an acre with its Rural Fringe zoning if ultimately approved by the BCC.

The zoning would be similar in density to bordering neighborhoods, such as the Preserve at Magnolia West, which allows for 3.68 units an acre, and Willow Springs and Sherwood Springs, each slated for three units an acre.

The county staff said the proposal met the criteria for approval, and it recommended its approval. However, several factors were considered, including the public pleas of several residents who defended the longtime, historic feel of the area.

The development would be bordered by wetlands home to several animals, like alligators, raccoons, deer, turtles and opossums. The area is prone to flooding, which citizens recalled in deceptive personal accounts, suggesting the problem has only worsened by additional development.

They said several cars speed down the skinny road, and traffic is already bad. Additional traffic would threaten children who may play near the street. The new area could also create problems for emergency vehicles.

Ralph Puckhaber said Matthews DCCM’s pitch was a “good project in the wrong place. You don’t improve a neighborhood by destroying an existing one,” he said.

Pete Davis, who spent two hours walking the site, provided details on water issues, wetlands and potential flooding concerns. He argued against the development because he said it would adversely affect the watershed.

Bill Garrison said the project met goals and objectives during an extensive, deliberative process. He appreciated the developer but emphasized the importance of responsible, smart growth, suggesting the proposal falls short in considering long-range land use plans.