A request to expand a Beach Boulevard grocer’s complex advanced through the Jacksonville City Council Land Use and Zoning Committee after the applicant withdrew a request to build an on-site slaughterhouse.
Apna Bazar, which originally proposed an animal processing facility as part of its expansion, withdrew that request after pushback from neighbors and animal rights activists.
On two 4-2 votes on Nov. 18, the LUZ committee recommended approval of a land use amendment and an amended rezoning request for the expansion of the store at 11153 Beach Blvd. Committee members Terrance Freeman and Raul Arias were absent, and member Rory Diamond and Council President Kevin Carrico voted against the measure.
Ordinance 2025-0487 would grant a small-scale land use amendment from Community/General Commercial and Low Density Residential to Light Industrial on a 0.91-acre portion of the property, and from Low Density Residential to Community/General Commercial on a 1.38-acre portion.
Ordinance 2025-0488 would change the zoning to Planned Unit Development from Residential Low Density and Community/General Commercial. The rezoning ordinance had initially contained the request for the slaughterhouse as part of the PUD.
A PUD allows uses, regulations and standards tailored to a property.
Property records show the plaza comprises two buildings totaling about 59,000 square feet with multiple businesses. Apna Bazar plans to expand its operation with a 30,000-square-foot addition and to build a 23,800-square-foot freestanding structure to the east of the shopping center.
After Apna Bazar withdrew the request for the slaughterhouse, the written description of the PUD was changed to eliminate all references to the animal processing facility. With the changes, the PUD would permit the expansion of the existing building and additional warehouse space, as well as new retail storefronts.
The grocer sells halal meats, which are prepared according to Islamic dietary laws. Those laws include restrictions on the process of slaughtering the animal, who can do it and the type of meat that can be processed.
Voicing discontent
While the request for the slaughterhouse had been previously withdrawn, dozens of individuals spoke against the proposed development. Several resided in the neighborhood, while others listed addresses elsewhere in Jacksonville or Florida.
“If you vote for this, you are voting to expand large truck usage of our roads. You’re destroying a part of the wetlands, which we value, even if you don’t, you destroy the current buffer between business and residential,” said Carolyn Hughes, an area resident.
“I’m not completely sure what’s being proposed here, and what, if anything, we should be against,” said Shannon Peters, another area resident. “It seems fair if they’re able to ask for deferment so many times to get their stuff in line, that we should be able to get some time to really see what’s going on and being offered for our neighborhood.”
The Apna Bazar proposals were previously deferred several times in the Jacksonville Planning Commission and in the Council process at the applicant’s request.
Several speakers made comments suggesting they believed Apna Bazar continued to seek permission for a slaughterhouse. None of the speakers, outside of the applicant, spoke in favor of the proposal.
“When you look at what is proposed vs. what’s there now, I know that the focus of the conversation got tied up in the animal processing component. But the bigger vision really is to improve this site,” said land use attorney Cyndy Trimmer, who represented the grocer.
“The industrial area that’s within this site is more than 200 linear feet from the closest residential property line, and it’s more than 400 linear feet from the closest house,” Trimmer said. “The site protects the residential. The PUD, and the constraints that are built into the PUD, protect the residential.”
Committee members weigh in
Carrico and Diamond said they could not support the development even without the slaughterhouse.
“I learned a couple of days ago that the entire bill wasn’t withdrawn, but just the slaughterhouse portion of it. But that doesn’t really satisfy in my brain this issue,” Diamond said.
“I’m gonna be against this. [I] was from the very beginning,” Carrico said. “Tried to show up to the community meeting with 200 people all in opposition, and come out with a different plan. I couldn’t do that.”
Council members who supported the ordinances said they hadn’t seen substantial evidence justifying opposition to the development. Rather, they felt they only heard neighbors saying they didn’t want anything built there, but neighbors hadn’t articulated what might be a better option.
Those Council members also stipulated that they would have found it difficult to approve the PUD with the proposed slaughterhouse.
“After pulling the slaughterhouse, I thought people would be pretty happy, and then we find out they just really don’t want nothing there,” Council member Randy White said. “I think [the owner]...wants to improve his property”
“It was said, the community just doesn’t want this. But ‘doesn’t want this,’ with all due respect to my colleagues, is not competent, substantial evidence,” member Rahman Johnson said. “We are in a quasi-judicial proceeding and so we must work in the way that the law has been predetermined in this space.”
With the committee’s vote, the ordinance advances to consideration by the full Council, possibly as early as Dec. 9.