This was the plan for a fuel storage and rail depot on a 101-acre property in Dinsmore.
Published on April 25, 2024 at 6:27 pm
After residents near Dinsmore managed to bat away a company’s plan to build a bulk fuel storage yard in their neighborhood, the plan could reemerge in another Northwest Jacksonville area, near Whitehouse Elementary School.
Belvedere Terminals LLC aims to invest $100 million in Jacksonville as part of a statewide fuel transport plan. To accomplish that, the company needs to build several large fuel storage sites with railway access, to drop off millions of gallons of various fuels and additives, then use trucks to ship it across the state.
Jacksonville Today thanks our sponsors. Become one.
The effort, according to the company, is aimed at making Florida more resistant to supply-chain problems, especially during extreme weather events. Belvedere has said it also has plans for two other projects in the state — one in Fort Pierce and another in Ormond Beach that has met with huge crowds of opposition.
While the company recently withdrew its plan for Dinsmore, just south of Callahan, it wants to make sure it can build on a property zoned light industrial before settling on a new location. But bulk fuel storage might be allowed only on properties zoned heavy industrial.
On Tuesday, City Council was basically asked to weigh in on whether that was an appropriate place for bulk storage of fuel. The council refused to do so, and, after some discussion, Council President Ron Salem sent the issue back to the Land Use and Zoning Committee to review.
Jacksonville Today thanks our sponsors. Become one.
“There are multiple issues here, globally, for Duval County,” Salem said. “So that’s my call.”
Councilman Kevin Carrico, chair of the Land Use and Zoning Committee, said he would be happy to review Belvedere’s request again.
For months, the company has been working to find a new site in the Jacksonville area that was zoned light industrial, as the company believes that bulk storage of fuel is automatically allowed in that zoning.
But the city’s planning director says bulk fuel storage — the type that would store hundreds of millions of gallons worth of fuel — was not meant to be placed on properties zoned for light industrial uses.
Planning Director Brett James said heavy industrial was the more appropriate place and defended his analysis.
Ultimately, the Land Use and Zoning Committee last week sided with Belvedere Terminals’ interpretation of the land rules and voted 7-0 to essentially overrule James’ analysis.
This week, Council Vice President Randy White said he felt the committee did the best it could with the limited information it had. But the committee was not provided with the company’s new target location on West Beaver Street near Interstate 10, east of Baldwin and west of the Rolling Hills subdivision.
The company had not submitted a new site plan for the property, but White announced a proposed address at the council meeting Tuesday.
A former firefighter and representative of District 12, he said he has concerns about firefighting resources and capabilities there.
“This happens to be in District 12,” White said, adding that right across the street from that location is a housing project.
“I’m afraid if this appeal passes, that it certainly takes the voice of the citizens away if they have a problem with something like this being built in their district,” White said. “I think Belvedere’s a good company. They have promised me they would work with me if this passes.”
Belvedere Terminals’ request to essentially overrule the planning director’s decision may have allowed bulk storage of fuel “by right” in any area zoned light industrial — for Belvedere or any other company. But Tuesday, City Council refused to do so, sending the issue back to committee, where council members can weigh Belvedere Terminals’ appeal of the planning director’s decision, as well as what it would mean for any other bulk fuel storage site.
Carrico said he fully understood White’s position in advocating for his district. But he said the committee wasn’t offered information about the new location, so it wasn’t part of the committee debate.
It could be part of the debate now.
“That information will be included in that, and we can speak about this more,” Carrico said. “I’d be happy … to take it back again, regardless of how much time it takes.”
As of Thursday afternoon, Belvedere Terminals had not submitted any new applications or site plans for the project, according to a city spokesperson.
