UPDATED 11-23-2024

Brian Nelson – Editor

The Hawkins Island report, which was published on November 10, is probably one of the most responded-to in Spoonbill Courier history. For those of you who have not read it, here is the link:

https://spoonbillcourier.com/hawkins-island-is-this-something-marsh-creek-wants/

In the interest of public debate, I assembled all the comments here, so that everyone can see them together. (Incidentally, to comment on any Spoonbill Courier story, you need to go all the way to the bottom of the page. This was the designer’s choice not the editor’s).

This should get you up to speed for when this issue comes up for a homeowners vote.

And thanks to some very smart people in our community for their input.

Cheryl Donahue says:

I’m a “No” vote because of environmental impacts.

Beverly Naiman says:

The Naiman household adds their definite NO. for all reasons previously mentioned.

Nina LaFleur says:

The county was in the process of purchasing the property to protect and preserve it. That process was put on hold until Patron’s option contract expires.

Ned Skinner says:

No to residential development and a fish camp!

John Brinson says:

Alice Baynes and John Brinson oppose the proposed project for all the reasons stated above.

John Martin says:

Great comments. This project has no value to homeowners here in Marsh Creek. It won’t increase our values and will damage the current homeowners’ properties some more than others but even one is too much. This project is doomed from the start, and legal battles will be a waste of time and money. People moved here because of the natural beauty and peaceful atmosphere. This project should not proceed. I vote no.

Ailine and Theo Helms say:

Theo and I are adamantly against this proposal. Florida’s development overall is already ruining the environment. We saved Fish Island from development. With enough support, the same can happen with Hawkins Island. I did not appreciate Patrou’s veiled threat in his letter that “something” would be built there if we didn’t agree to this. I think he knows how unlikely that would be without access through Marsh Creek.

Peter A Clayton says:

Brian – thank you for providing such a useful forum to exchange ideas on an important topic. As to Hawkins Island adding more lots to Marsh Creek, the HOA owns the land on Oak Walk Ct. at the A-1-A gate which could be platted for additional sites without the downside associated with Hawkins Island.

Comment from Gilles Renaud

There is a project to develop a spit of land of about 10 acres on the intracoastal called Hawkins Island. This island is about 400 yards east off the crossing between Heron’s Nest and Fiddlers. The proposal consists of building 11 lots ranging from ½ acre to one acre together with 30 or 40 boat slips with a marina, a 12-car parking lot and a small open space. Since the island is currently zoned as “conservation” and is only accessible by boat, the developer Scott Patrou is asking Marsh Creek residents to support a request for rezoning and the building of an access road that would link the open lot situated at 162 Heron’s Nest to Hawkins Island.

We oppose this request for environmental, financial, and regulatory reasons. And we urge you to vote NO if a vote is organized.

Starting with the environment: the ecology of Anastasia Island is fragile and the development that has occurred during the last 20 years has already stressed fresh water supply, grey water treatment, roads, storm recovery and wild life habitat. This project would require electricity cables, sewer and storm drains to be built under a 1000ft access road exposed to hurricanes, storms and rising tides. To make Hawkins Island buildable, the ground would have to be raised by more than 4 feet, which would further disrupt the natural balance of nature, not to mention disfigure the beauty of the landscape. This is before adding construction of 11 houses needing special support to elevate them to a safe level. The addition of a marina would also increase boat traffic, further disrupting marine life as well as raising security concerns.

From a financial standpoint Mr. Patrou argues that the addition of 11 houses to Marsh Creek would widen the HOA basis. We see this as a small advantage since there are already 663 houses in Marsh Creek; furthermore, the repairs needed to maintain this highly exposed zone as well as the strain put on our roads, sewers and storm drains would more than offset the larger number of HOA contributors. Of particular concern is the 2-3 years of construction when heavy trucks loaded with dirt, heavy equipment and supplies would crisscross the existing roads and accelerate the need to repair or rebuild them. The cost of such an operation is not known today but we can all sense that it is considerable.

There would also be an impact on the insurance premiums to be paid by the community and each Marsh Creek resident as the potential rebuilding and repair cost of the exposed Hawkins Island dwellings, marina and causeway would be factored in the underwriting. It is not clear whether the rezoning would jeopardize our PUD status but, if it were the case, higher property taxes would also result.

Finally, we all know that St Johns County in general and the St Augustine area in particular have grown by leaps and bounds over the last 25 years or so. The pressure to develop every square foot has been considerable with spectacularly ill-conceived proposals like a 350-room hotel in Anastasia State Park, an RV storage park to the west of Mizell Road and a proposal to build condos on Fish Island. It is important that the regulations in place keep serving as a defense against this tendency to build everywhere and anywhere. If Hawkins Island is developed today, what about all the other little islands existing between Marsh Creek and the intracoastal? Regulation must continue to protect us against such abuse.

Donald Marcoccio says:

Based on the many posts regarding this endeavor, I want to add a few additional points.
1. Building 10 to 12 houses to the maximum allowed height of 35’ would effectively block off all views that the folks that bought houses along the west side desired. Net effect, potential reduction in property values by taking away one of the features that adds value.
2. What about a fish camp. These are usually single level structures built into the environment. They are usually located along the mainland of a river for a reason of accessibility. The cost of construction, if everything has to be brought in by barge, would be very expensive for a seasonal entity and I cannot imagine a workable business plan to support this. Without getting into a lot of detail, just the various insurance costs would be prohibitive. To monger fear they say it’s one or the other, i would rather have a seasonal entity that doesn’t block our view or disrupt our neighborhoods for a long time.
3. Construction duration, given the cost of a lot from $1.7 to $2 million, the added high cost of construction of a house and the difficulty of getting the various insurances, this is probably not going to sell out quickly and probably take a decade, at best to complete. Therefore, the disruption to the neighborhood could be very long term.
4. What’s in it for MC, some have speculated that it would be good to have the added HOA fees. Let’s look at this in perspective: let’s say 5 years from now our HOA dues are $4k/yr x 660 lot = $2.6 million. The addition of 10 to 12 houses add $40 to 48 thousand, is that really worth it? Anything else regarding the increase in the value of property as a result of this development is highly speculative and should be ignored – solely my opinion. Question remains, what’s in it for MC?
5. What has not been talked about is the infrastructure financing or potential impacts to our reserves. Will this subdivision have a CDD associated with it to finance the very expensive infrastructure needed to build the causeway, roads, the bulkhead and bring in all the needed utilities? This can affect the desirability of the lots. Will we have to assume the causeway asset and build reserves for its eventual replacement which could affect our yearly fees?
6. Lastly the big unknown is how long would it take the developer just to get all the permits from the various agencies in the state and the county to start the project. Again, how do we as MC residents benefit from this development.

Frank Zygmont says:

Don, very well stated and we agree with and appreciate all the points you made!
Frank and Maureen Zygmont

Tom Burkhard says:

A couple of thoughts:
1) there has been no proposal created yet
2) these meetings with homeowners is to share his vision and to obtain feedback from the community to inform his proposal.
3) a no to whatever the proposal is, will be a yes to a fish camp with glamping facilities
4) the community will have no say nor receive any benefits from the fish camp and glamping facilities
5) Pelican Reef has 20 or so deep water boat slips for homeowners only and their property values receive a premium as a result.

Joseph Lopinto says:

Couple of thoughts:
1) there has been no proposal created yet
Sure sounded and looked like a proposal
2) these meetings with homeowners is to share his vision and to obtain feedback from the community to inform his proposal.
That’s correct…HIS vision. And the great majority is saying that it is NOT THEIR vision
3) a no to whatever the proposal is, will be a yes to a fish camp with glamping facilities
Not automatically. It will still have to pass muster with all the dozen or so permitting groups
4) the community will have no say nor receive any benefits from the fish camp and glamping facilities
Again, incorrect. We will have a say. Look at what happened to Fish Island!
5) Pelican Reef has 20 or so deep water boat slips for homeowners only and their property values receive a premium as a result.
A false equivalence. Marsh Creek has 663 homes. All varying in size. Pelican Reef is ~16% the size of MC and markets it self as high end homes and boating community. Tom, sure sounds like you’re lining up for a lot:)

WILLIAM T ABARE JR says:

I went to a meeting/presentation scheduled for Tuesday, November 12. Scott Patrou failed to show up for the presentation.

I see no reason to support the proposal. There are too many unknowns. One thing we know for sure, the owners of the properties adjacent to the new road (proposed) did not purchase their homes with the thought of a road so close to their property.

Linda and George Zupko says:

25 years ago when we moved into MC there was a time that a Msrins could have been built. No one wanted it. And the time expired to be able to build the Marina. Again. No one wanted it. Who gave this man permission to speak to the residents. It should be the board speaking to the residents about the project, not someone who has a vested interest in the project. A letter should be sent to all residents explaining tbe project . There’s not enough meetings to explain this to over 600 residents about this project. What about our beautiful protected Marsh with our beautiful Wildlife that would be destroyed. All we here about is how protected the Marsh is and not to touch it. Residents were told they couldn’t put pools in because it was to close to the Marsh. Has all this talk been meaningless. I guess Money Talksardh Creek doesn’t need this. Our house hold Votes NO!

Barbara Alford says:

According to MCOA Declarations and Covenants, the “proposed” road with culverts and bridges, pavilion and restrooms, and boat slips would be deeded to MCOA as “common property” which will need to be maintained.

All 663 current owners assessments go to maintenance of common property. These assessments are going up this year.

Additional maintenance assessments, as paid by patio and villa homes, go to specific services as delineated in the Declarations and Covenants.

Assessments may go up in the future.

Len Kay says:

Thank you, Brian for this article and alerting the community about such a critically important issue. For it to go forward, a 2/3rd approval vote by the residents is required. As you point out, Patrou wants to have this vote by February. It is very apparent that these small meetings he is holding don’t address all the facts in a true, let alone a balanced way. What about the construction noise that would persist for years and the damage to our roads it would cause? What about the impact on the wildlife, what about the disruption of the marshlands and the potential flooding this would bring? What about the neighbors who built their homes next to a lot zoned residential who would be facing a road with cars/trucks pulling boats at all hours of the day? What about security? Patrou’s meetings are merely sales pitches by a greedy developer meant to “divide and conquer” our community. We must not allow ourselves to be swayed be this approach and should a vote come to be, we as residents must soundly reject this attempt to ruin our Marsh Creek.

Rita Williams says:

It’s an island, therefore it needs connection to Marsh Creek for all utilities, including electricity, water and sewer. Also a bridge would need to be built for any and all land transportation to this island and that bridge would also need to be connected to Marsh Creek. So without the approval of Marsh Creek HOA, this island would be more like Gillian’s Island and will have little value to any developer. That’s why this lawyer/developer wants Marsh Creek to annex.

It is not true for anyone to say this will not cost the homeowners. It absolutely will cost the HOA much money down the road for maintenance, insurance and liability for the island common property, including the bridge. Who will be responsible for running and maintaining the marina and the pavilion? Do the homeowners want this type of business and liability for the community? Who on the HOA Board actually thinks this is a good idea??? Common sense tells you this is a non starter for this community.

Ginger Foley says:

No, no! One thousand times NO!

ROBBIE BAKER says:

If the land is for sale, something will be built.
Worth a discussion.

Maureen Zygmont says:

Thank you Brian for this article ! We are very opposed to this future development on Hawkins Island, as we are directly across the street from the vacant lot where the new road would be built.