St. Johns commissioners approve rezoning in Vilano Beach amid preservation concerns for Sinclair Lewis house
June 17, 2026 | St. Johns County , Florida
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners voted 4–1 on June 16 to rezone three parcels at 177 Surfside Avenue in Vilano Beach from Commercial Highway Tourist to RS-3 single-family zoning, a change the applicant’s attorney said aligns the lots with surrounding property and allows development of single-family homes.
The rezoning drew sustained public comment over the fate of the Sinclair Lewis house, which speakers and local preservationists described as a significant historic resource. Leslie Keys, a longtime local preservation advocate, told the board, “This is absolutely a demolition request,” arguing the rezoning would clear regulatory obstacles to tearing down the historic structure and urging the commissioners to use every available authority to preserve it.
James Whitehouse, attorney for the applicant, said the owners did not intend to demolish the house and emphasized that the rezoning is the first step in a multi-stage process. "That is not their intent at all," Whitehouse said, adding that the property will still be subject to the county’s cultural-resource review procedures. Staff confirmed the county’s code requires a cultural-resources assessment and additional historic-preservation steps that would follow zoning decisions.
County staff and the planning and zoning agency recommended approval, noting the parcels are surrounded by RS-3 zoning and that the request brings the lots into alignment with the neighborhood’s prevailing use. Supporters of the rezoning told commissioners the change corrects an outdated commercial designation and permits a family to build and live on the lots.
After hearing from neighbors and preservation advocates, the commission enacted the rezoning ordinance on a 4–1 vote. Commissioners who voted for the measure cited compatibility with adjacent residential zoning and the procedural safety net of the county’s cultural-resource review; the dissenting commissioner voiced concern about the potential loss of local historic fabric.
The county’s historic-preservation staff and any engaged consultants will carry out the code-required cultural-resource assessments and advise the commission if the property qualifies for protections or mitigation. The applicant and opponents were both told those follow-up steps are separate from the rezoning action and will determine whether demolition or modification would be permitted under county rules.
The rezoning drew sustained public comment over the fate of the Sinclair Lewis house, which speakers and local preservationists described as a significant historic resource. Leslie Keys, a longtime local preservation advocate, told the board, “This is absolutely a demolition request,” arguing the rezoning would clear regulatory obstacles to tearing down the historic structure and urging the commissioners to use every available authority to preserve it.
James Whitehouse, attorney for the applicant, said the owners did not intend to demolish the house and emphasized that the rezoning is the first step in a multi-stage process. "That is not their intent at all," Whitehouse said, adding that the property will still be subject to the county’s cultural-resource review procedures. Staff confirmed the county’s code requires a cultural-resources assessment and additional historic-preservation steps that would follow zoning decisions.
County staff and the planning and zoning agency recommended approval, noting the parcels are surrounded by RS-3 zoning and that the request brings the lots into alignment with the neighborhood’s prevailing use. Supporters of the rezoning told commissioners the change corrects an outdated commercial designation and permits a family to build and live on the lots.
After hearing from neighbors and preservation advocates, the commission enacted the rezoning ordinance on a 4–1 vote. Commissioners who voted for the measure cited compatibility with adjacent residential zoning and the procedural safety net of the county’s cultural-resource review; the dissenting commissioner voiced concern about the potential loss of local historic fabric.
The county’s historic-preservation staff and any engaged consultants will carry out the code-required cultural-resource assessments and advise the commission if the property qualifies for protections or mitigation. The applicant and opponents were both told those follow-up steps are separate from the rezoning action and will determine whether demolition or modification would be permitted under county rules.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
