The representatives for the developers of the rejected development Kings Grant are making an effort to get citizens group South Anastasia Communities Association (SACA) removed from the lawsuit challenging the county's decision not to approve the project.

SACA is willing to fight and proved it Thursday as the parties were in court to argue the matter in front of District Judge Lee Smith.

After the St. Johns County Commission voted not to allow the development of a 999-home development near State Road 206 in 2015, the developers filed a lawsuit in district court challenging that decision. Shortly thereafter, SACA petitioned to be co-defendant in the case.

Attorney Jane West, who represents SACA, said it's important to the organization's members that it remain in the fight in part because it keeps the pressure on the county to remain steadfast in its defense of the lawsuit.

In October 2018, the county and KG Development engaged in negotiations to end the lawsuit, and SACA wasn't invited to participate. The Commission ended up rejecting the compromise by a vote of 4-1, but West said the commissioners might have voted another way if not for SACA's enthusiastic commitment to staying involved and halting the development.

"As soon as SACA became aware of it, they were on it in a very vigilant way," West said. "And it was because of their dedication and advocacy even at that late stage. And they would never even have known about that settlement agreement if they weren't part of this litigation.

"They (SACA) literally are the watchdog of the southern part of the county."

She said the SACA members are spending a lot of energy to preserve the rural nature of that area but wondered why the developers are so anxious to be rid of SACA, which is just a local organization, not some well-funded national advocacy group.

In court, Smith heard arguments from both sides and will issue a ruling in the coming weeks.

Doug Smith, lead attorney for KG Development, told the judge there was no reason to keep SACA as an intervenor in the lawsuit because its members live 5 to 6 miles away from where Kings Grant would be located.

"There's no way they could ever feel immediate and direct impact from an approval of this project, therefore; they don't have standing," he said.

West countered that SACA has a history of challenging developments along the S.R. 206 corridor because increased population density there would add to the crowding on the island and all along the route to the beach. There is a bridge to the island on S.R. 206.

"Proximity to the property is only one factor that this court should consider," West said. "The fact is the only thing proximate to the vast Kings Grant tract is more vast vacant land being actively used for silviculture.

"There is no one living next to it, and that's kind of the whole point of this entire objection of SACA. This intense housing development in the middle of nowhere is sprawl, which is counter to what their mission is."

The civil case is scheduled for docket call in January for a non-jury trial.