Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
July 9, 2015 3:52 p.m.
If anyone did not understand the commitment of the greater Fernandina Beach community to maintaining unfettered access to the beach, the outpouring of citizen unhappiness over the turn of events at Beach Access 33 at the July 7, 2015 Regular Meeting of the Fernandina Beach City Commission (FBCC) should have made that fact abundantly clear, especially to City Manager Joe Gerrity. Gerrity had exercised his authority to permit adjacent residential property owner Baxter Hayes to landscape the city’s right-of-way (ROW) leading to the beach. This followed an earlier ruling of the city’s Board of Adjustment (BOA), against the advice of city staff, to grant Hayes a variance to allow his roof to overhang the ROW.
While some may have thought the issue had been settled, they would have been wrong. Although the private property owner, who had followed all city rules and requirements for obtaining permits, later indicated a willingness to construct a handicapped beach access and pay for it himself to restore peace to the community, citizens were not mollified. And they lost no time in letting city commissioners and the city manager know that.
A discussion item entitled “Encroachments in Public Rights-of-Way” was placed on the July 7 FBCC meeting agenda at the request of Vice Mayor Johnny Miller. There was no back up to this item in the agenda packet, and many people, including Mayor Ed Boner, seemed confused over its meaning, especially since at previous meetings Miller had voiced concerns over people parking in or obstructing city ROWs in general.
When the Mayor introduced the item, he immediately invited public input. Former Mayor and Commissioner Ron Sapp was the first to speak. Sapp provided the commissioners with a brief history of beach accesses. He said that as the city began to open these accesses, “everything rocked along” until the recent events surrounding Beach Access 33, where the adjacent property owner was allowed to encroach and plant and sod the ROW. Sapp said, “I want to speak in favor of a public access remaining public. I understand that this is not a beach access per se, because there is not a dune walkover. But when we established the street ends – and that’s what these are – as beach accesses, we knew that we had 60-foot ROWs, 40-foot ROWs, and on down. We were going to put dune walkovers with the help of the state on the 60-foot ROWs and 40-foot ROWs, where you could park cars. But, budget by budget with the help of state funding, we hoped to put dune walkovers on every single one of them.”
Sapp went on to say that he knew the private property owner followed procedures to obtain permission, but to his way of thinking, the city was setting a dangerous precedent by letting private property owners encroach public property. “I want to speak against that,” he said.
Roy Smith, candidate for FBCC Group 4, spoke next. Smith asked why Hayes got a variance to encroach into the ROW. He said that even though only the Hayes roof overhangs the ROW, a piece of equipment working in the ROW might damage the house, making the city liable for repairs. “I don’t see why we would give a ROW encroachment to anyone. Why couldn’t he have shifted his house plans six inches to the north?”
City Attorney Tammi Bach explained that the encroachment had been granted by the BOA on a variance request. Smith said, “I understand that, but it still should have come back to the FBCC for approval. I think before they do it again, somebody needs to take a look at that. I don’t think anything should encroach into a ROW. You’re just asking for trouble when you do that.”
[It should be noted that decisions of the Board of Adjustment are not reviewed by the FBCC as a matter of law. They may only be appealed through the court system.]
Local citizen and business owner Joan Bean spoke next. Identifying herself as the oldest resident anywhere, she started her remarks with a joke. “When is a beach access not a beach access? When it’s landscaped to look like the neighbor’s yard,” she said. She said that the general public thinks the public access is private property because of the landscaping. She said that the reason that so many people are concerned is because of the changes that have happened over history to restrict beach access as development has occurred. She said that the state took over beaches at the north end of the island for Fort Clinch Park, and that the Amelia Island Plantation created a private beach at the south end. In the early 1980’s, the state reversed its position on opening beach accesses and allowed the city to build them. “It was a big deal then,” she said, “and it’s a big deal now. We’ll always have to preserve those accesses.”
Lowell Hall identified himself as past president and current spokesman for the Citizens for Preservation of Public Beaches, established in 1973 to defend the people’s right of access to their beaches and shores.
He said that he believed that both property owner Baxter Hayes and City Manager Joe Gerrity were honorable men. But he believed that many people do not understand the beaches are the sovereign property of the state of Florida and that they do not belong to individuals or other government entities. He reminded the city that it has constitutional and fiduciary responsibility to protect public access.
Hall said that in order to sell or lease recreational lands in the city, a public referendum is required. Hall said that his purpose for being at the meeting was to ask that the public beach accesses be put under the same protection as city recreational lands. “It would then take a vote of the people to sell, lease or encroach those properties,” he said.
Michael Leary was the final public speaker. He provided commissioners with information packets to back up his claims. Although Leary lives in Yulee, he grew up on the island and is a city property owner. He is also an experienced builder and surveyor as well as a freelance photographer. He opined that the landscaping of Beach Access 33 was more related to taking property for personal use than beautification of public property.
He said, “This whole thing has a rather sordid history coming out of the city manager’s office.” He cited various print and social media posts. He also presented related pages from deed books on property ownership and plats. He took issue with claims by the owner, architect and city manager that parking would not fit at Beach Access 33, citing comparative sizes of parking areas at other beach accesses. He criticized the granting of the variance over staff’s recommendation to deny. Leary said that the structure overhangs public ROW by two feet, not six inches as claimed.
Mayor Ed Boner halted Leary’s remarks after having granted him 6 minutes for his presentation. Leary asked that the matter be reserved for discussion at a public workshop because of the significant concerns of the local residents.
Boner began FBCC discussion by recognizing Vice Mayor Johnny Miller. Miller thanked everyone for coming out to speak on the issue. He said the issue brought to light larger problems that go beyond one beach access. “Our beach is our biggest resource,” he said. “We promote our beach and spend a lot of time making this a beach community. He asked for a definition of the term “beach access,” since before the current controversy arose, Beach Access 33 had no access to the “shore that touches the water.” He said the city boasts 41 “beach accesses,” of which 19 have parking and 4 are handicapped accessible. “It’s not listed [on the city website]”, he said, “how many of these have actual access to the water.”
“The silver lining in this,” Miller continued, “is that the property owner will build an ADA compliant beach access at his own expense when there was no access previously.”
“It’s deceiving to say we have 41 beach accesses,” he said. “What we really have is 4, because not everyone can get to the beach from these spots. This is the discussion I’d like to have. Let’s have 41 beach accesses where everyone can get to the beach. Let’s make this a goal.” In the meantime, Miller suggested that the city relabel nonaccessible sites as “Home of Future Beach Access.”
Miller also wanted to discuss the process of gaining private access to city ROWs. While acknowledging that the city manager has the right to grant ROW encroachment permits and that the FBCC did not need to be involved in every decision around the city involving a homeowner’s desire to beautify a lawn, he expressed his opinion that any encroachment involving beach access needed to be brought to the commission, if not left for decision by a citizen referendum.
Commissioner Tim Poynter said that he supported holding a workshop to work out all these matters. “I don’t think we should be hammering it out tonight,” he said. Poynter spoke to all the matters raised by the public along with other issues involving rights-of-way. “This is something that clearly needs a workshop with everyone putting their best foot forward in explaining everything, but clearly not tonight.”
Commissioner Robin Lentz agreed with Poynter. She recounted her recent experience as a runner accessing Beach Access 33 and encountering a long vegetative dune at the end of the sod placed by property owner Baxter Hayes. She said there was not even a footpath to be able to walk further to the beach. She said, “There were a lot of things that came to light tonight that I was not aware of, so I support a workshop.”
Boner spoke to additional problems with encroachments in other parts of the city to be covered during a workshop: hardscaping, boulders, lighting, etc.
Gerrity said he would convene a workshop. Poynter added that he wanted it held at a time that would be convenient to citizens. While Boner was ready to move on, Miller was not.
Miller resumed discussing the topic and addressed his remarks to commissioners. “I must say I’m a little frustrated,” he said, “that I’m hearing that ‘this was the first time I was down there’ and ‘I’m still kind of confused what we’re talking about.’ This issue has been going on for a month now, and it’s been a hot topic issue. I want to take a long, hard look at this [during a workshop], make it into a 3-hour event. This has been a big deal to our community.”
Boner interrupted him, stating the title of the item on the evening’s agenda. He said the reason he thought it had to do with hardscapes is that people are actually pouring concrete and creating barriers “right at the edge of the curb.” “To me,” he said, “I think that is as big an issue as beach access.”
Boner recognized Poynter who said, “I think we all realize a mistake was made,” as he turned toward the city manager and said, “Wow. You screwed up.” This generated a laugh from the commissioners and even Gerrity. “I’m sorry. I’m just saying, if you had to do it all over again, you wouldn’t do it this way. But having said that, it’s a serious deal, and we’re going to get it fixed. I’m not sure what the solution on this particular thing is, but please let’s not make this guy [Baxter Hayes] out to be the bad guy. … It was a bad decision, and we’ve got to live with this. To what extent? This is why the workshop is necessary. It’s not possible to deal with this tonight. That’s the problem with these things. We are not forward thinking enough. If we do something today, we need to understand how it is going to affect things five years from now. Many of the beach accesses we do have are only big enough for a footpath. We should work as best as we can to make the most of what we’ve got.”
Boner began asking questions about parking requirements, but other commissioners asked that such discussion be left for the workshop.
Later in the meeting City Manager Joe Gerrity thanked Joan Bean and other citizens for their “civil discourse” over Beach Access 33 problems. He said, “Commissioner Poynter is right. If I had to do it over again, I’d do something different.” He said that some of the calls he has received were not nice, but he thanked everyone for calling him, acknowledging that this was a matter of concern for the community.
Editor’s Note: Suanne Z. Thamm is a native of Chautauqua County, NY, who moved to Fernandina Beach from Alexandria,VA, in 1994. As a long time city resident and city watcher, she provides interesting insight into the many issues that impact our city. We are grateful for Suanne’s many contributions to the Fernandina Observer.
To think that all of this could have been avoided had Mr Gerrity taken his time and thought his decision through! He said, in a past meeting, that he always takes his time and moves slowly on decisions….what happened this time?? Why the rush to allow this homeowner to landscape our beach access? Because of his rash decision and not allowing discussion, the homeowner, unnecessarily became the target of anger which was so Mr Gerritys fault! Open communication would have prevented all of this, even IF Mr Gerrity had the authority to make this very poor choice. Maybe a lesson to be learned here….
Marlene, I honestly think it’s time to stop beating the dead horse, or in this case the one that has already both resigned and admitted publicly this was a bad decision. We don”t know how much time he took to make this decision or how fast or slow it went. He made it, it was not a great decision, we all know that and he has admitted it. This was not the homeowners fault. The home owner has been gracious enough to offer to build a structure at his own expense. Which is a wonderful , and a kind way to help the city out. I think more energy should be spent on thanking this person than having all of us re state the obvious facts behind the original decision
Tony, Not trying to beat a dead horse and didn’t blame the homeowner, actually, I defended him. Just wanted to relay what took place at the meeting where very few attend. Enough said.
Marlene, I know you didn’t blame the homeowner, but stated that he ” became a target of anger”, my point is we as a community should be focusing our attention, not on Gerrity’s mistake, that has been outlined correctly in Suanne’s above article for those who couldn’t attend the meeting. My point is simple, everyone on this Island knows this was a mistake. It would, at least in my opinion, more productive to move on and work on how we can make #33 into a walkway that will become beach accessible, handicap accessible, and bike accessible at this point. This is not a criticism of your thinking, but rather a suggestion on how we can move forward for the good of the City.
Tony, Move on we will! I am looking forward to the workshop and hoping that it leads to the plan for the perfect solution for everyone….getting to the beach safely and using access #33 as it is meant to be is what we’re all looking forward to!
One of the things that need to come out of the workshop is the CC needs to appoint an impartial panel to come up with a master plan for the design/development of Access 33 improvements. Even though the owner has stated that he will get the design, the permits and fund the construction… it may not be the result that is best for the community. Too much has already occurred at this site that negatively affects the City residents. Allowing the wolf to design and build the henhouse (without oversight) probably wouldn’t be in our best interests … even if he is paying for it….. BTW, in my 25 years as a Planning and Zoning Director and Community Development Dir. I find it hard to imagine granting a variance that allowed an encroachment across property lines…. any hardship was created by the architect and owner with the design and building placement. The City has made multiple mistakes at this location…. let’s not make another.
Thank you to everyone who attended this meeting to express how important this issue of preserving Beach Access is to our community. Too many municipalities have allowed moneyed interests to make public access to beaches difficult or impossible. I hope the city will take up the generous of the homeowner on the offer to fund a full access project to settle this flap. All beaches should be public property and accessible by everyone, forever.
Mr. Crawford have your say and allow Marlene Chapman to have hers, you sound condescending not allowing her “access” to her opinion.
A private homeowner building oceanside with permission to landscape a private beach access next to his home cutting off beach goers is WRONG – I live Oceanside, it doesn’t directly affect ME but I don’t like it – I wish I had a Ferris wheel in my yard but that won’t happen.
” You can’t always get what you want but if you try sometimes you get what you need”…The Stones
Mz Rivers, Marlene, had her say, and she allowed me to have mine. She has “access” he opinion, as did I. We were debating the point. I never disagreed with the contents of what she said and I never in any way indicated it was a good decision and that I agreed with it. I also think it is as you put it WRONG. With repeat to being condescending I also never ended my view point with ” enough said “. I have follows what Marlene has voiced here, in the New Leader, and know the work she has done in various town projects and applause and respect her efforts to get things done. She has done far more than most. My point is simple, it is time to move on and as she rightly put it ” move on we will “. Thank you for your opinion
Now that there’s a beautiful house there, we’re crying over space. We have 40 other beach accesses available and he has put in a footpath which wasn’t even walkable before. Leave the man alone to enjoy his home!!
It seems we are all in agreement – it was a bad mistake. Now, lets put our heads together and all of us find a solution> my solution is to have the workshop like Poynter suggested, find out how to correct these problems, and then try and resolve them to the best of every one’s ability.
I have read many comments, here and else where, blaming Joe Gerrity for this whole fiasco and letting the home owner off; much due to his offer to build a dune over walk/access. There is culpability on all sides. Joe would not have had a decision to make if the home owner hadn’t come to him with a “beautification” proposal. I am pretty sure Joe didn’t go to the home owner and say “Why don’t you put in some sod, some trees and a sprinkler system as long as you are already encroaching on the ROW (BOA, the roof issue). I believe folks are way too quick to “Let’s blame Joe”…the project started with the home owner and the buck starts and stops there. In order for him to have property suitable access to the beach, he was going to have to put in a structure; his plan now is just to put it on city property leaving him with a few more feet of unobstructed beach vista. His offer to mitigate the issue is fraught with difficulties as I see it and the outcome will be interesting. I m afraid that this will end up looking like a private access even though the signage will indicate otherwise and folks will be reluctant to walk on/use an apparent homeowner property. The key to me is making sure that this fiasco never happens again!
Richard, with all due respect that is an interesting opinion you have on this issue If the homeowner, any homeowner comes to the City with an idea, any idea, he has every right to do so, many would never have even have asked. The buck doesn’t stop with the homeowner, that is ridicules. He asked, the City gave permission, the buck stops with the City. You mentioned that the key is to allow this fiasco to never happen. I agree 100%, but that means to have a system in place within the City to prevent another occurrence. You can not expect homeowners not to ask for whatever they want. It is everyone’s opinion Joe made a mistake, he admitted it, lets not blame him any more and lets not defend the obvious, lets just move on and fix it and get something in place to prevent it in the future.
i agree that mr richard gray has a valid point——-i researched & considered buying this property as it was a very cheap price but decided to not pursue after checking with city hall about vagaries concerning the public access & orientation of a structure—-so i believe while the home builder [& obviously as well as margo story ]may not have ‘completely’ understood the importance of this beach access he knew full well what he was after—-
Terry, you know, you could be 100% right. If so he did the right thing by going to the City and asking for whatever he wanted. The City had the opportunity to say, no. They didn’t, they said yes. Sorry, but the homeowner followed all the rules as far as #33 goes. I believe the City Attorney was asked to look into the permitting/variance process to see if all that was followed correctly. I am not sticking up for this guy, but if he asked and the City granted him permission, he followed the rules—the City didn’t
Well, here is my two cents, once again. This has turned into a mess and seems to be pitting us against each other which is very sad. We all live here for a reason…we love our island, it’s beaches and the abundance of accesses….BUT just because there is an abundance doesn’t mean that #33 is any less important or that we should stand by and just see what happens. We are originally from South Florida where beach access is extremely limited and costly! We must protect what we have…..hopefully we will do this in unison and peacefully. As you all know, I speak my mind, I relentlessly fight for what I believe in and I am grateful for what’s been accomplished. There will be a workshop about what will be at access #33 ….PLEASE, come and talk it through, lend your support and your ideas…what started as a dividing line amongst us will hopefully bring us together to enjoy a special place called Beach Access #33 ….
Marlene, I don’t see a diving line at all. I see a debate. Debates are good and a healthy way to communicate. They have been polite and to the point. I haven’t read one comment that thinks this has been a good idea with respect to #33 . The debate has been more about who is to blame and who needs to take responsibility for allowing those plantings. I don’t think one person will attend the workshop supporting what was done there. The workshop hopefully won’t worry so much about “how” we got to this point, but rather “how we can fix it so that the Citizens gain a better access that will give them full access from Fletcher down to the beach. That is something we didn’t have and kept getting knocked out of the budget for years. I personally feel that the internal rules and restrictions the City Manager has to follow is up to the Commissioners and the City Attorney to work out. That is why we elected them. It is my hope that the homeowner isn’t treated with anything less than respect and gratitude for at least coming to the plate and doing what everyone seems to feel is the right thing by constructing a boardwalk. I know it would be much less expensive for him to just rip up the sod and replant the trees and put up a fence. I am sure he could also just build his own private walk to the beach like so many other beach homes have. I hope those who come to the meeting come with that intention in mine and not play the blame game. Leave that for here.
I’m still not sure how this item was not clear as stated in this report, “There was no back up to this item in the agenda packet, and many people, including Mayor Ed Boner, seemed confused over its meaning,” when there was a attachment to this item on the agenda that read in part, “A recent decision to allow a landscaping instalation within a public right-of-way which also serves as a beach access, has stimulated much discussion. Vice Mayor Miller requested an opportunity for the City Commission to specifically dicuss Encroachments which effect beach access.”
Vice Mayor Miller (Johnny),
One question that still remains unanswered in my opinion after the discussions during the Commission meeting is the following:
Is the special workshop which the Commissioners decided to defer discussion towards intended to be a general conversation about the circumstances which lead up to where we are now with the situation (including discussions concerning ways things might be done differently in the future), or is the goal to work as a team to agree upon a path forward which incorporates Mr. Hayes’ offer to build the walkover into a big-picture development plan (including location of walkover, vehicular parking, ADA compliance concerns, permanent landscaping, signage, etc.) that is acceptable from the city perspective as well as the citizens’ perspective? Or maybe the answer is both.
I feel that if these questions are answered prior to the special workshop, it will allow the participants to focus on the ultimate goal, rather than wasting precious time on things which aren’t relevant to the intent of the meeting.
As far as the confusion from the other Commissioners, I believe some were just unsure as to what was to be debated. Public comments ranged from concerns over BOA Variances granted, to subjective comments regarding what some believed to be the property owner’s “real intent,” to questionable property-rights claims.
This whole thing has swung from what was originally concern over a property owners perceived intent to take beach access away from citizens (which clearly has been discounted by now), to what is essentially a public outcry for a code-compliant, environmentally sensitive, clearly labeled dune walkover. Seeing as Mr. Hayes has offered to fund this, something the Commission has chosen not to do in the recent past, I hope everyone’s focus is on finding a solution which benefits the citizens of Fernandina by cutting through the red tape and coming to a consensus which gives Mr. Hayes the opportunity to follow through with his offer before it drags out to the point when he takes it off the table.
You do a great job of representing the interests of so many within our city, and your advocacy is all about transparency and representing the best interest of the community, which is commendable. Your efforts to keep the conversations positive and moving in the right direction are appreciated by many, including myself.
Since Trick Scott vetoed the budgets of many of our local non-profits, volunteers are needed everywhere. Somehow it sounds like we all have time on our hands.
Thank you for the kind words Benjamin.
My goal that this is workshop includes how we curently define “beach access”, the current procedure and possable changes for concideration of improvements and encroachment, and to officially solidify the City’s plan for adding and funding future dune walkovers where needed including parking and ADA accessibility for all access points where size of property will allow these placements, including 33.
I hope we have a good turnout for this public workshop. We should all be very engaged in the process that will effect how we all get to our greatest asset for years to come.
It sounds to me like Mr Terry Jones is more jealous that he didn’t buy the property and not too concerned about the ROW.
Mr Baxter Haynes followed the rules concerning building his home like it or not.
Boy I wish we could get this whole community as “fired up” over the potential damage that Kinder Morgan and the Ocean,Highway and Port Authority could do at the Port with their proposed Master Plan. This access#33 issue has generated the type of activism that is contagious and positive for our Town. We need more of it.
I find it unbelievable and stunning, that most of my neighbors know about access#33 and what’s going on with it, But don’t have a clue, what the actions of our elected officials (OHPA) could have on our Town. Having said that, I think what Phil Scanlan and his Group are doing , is having a positive effect on the Port’s Master Plan. I guess I’m asking how do we get the general public more engaged with issues that will effect all their lives? Thanks
I have read and re-read everyone’s comments, input and concerns over and over and have come to one conclusion…..we, as a small community, love to discuss important issues which we feel affect us both in positive and negative ways….sometimes I think we may hash it over too much. Now, I am the first to sometimes repeat my feelings, but that is what being passionate about an issue does. Steve, you mentioned the port and all that is going on there and how do we get islanders more involved with that? Have you been to a City Commission meeting lately? I have, and it’s the same 10 or so people there….where is everyone? I’ve talked to friends and neighbors and they all have the same opinion….they got tired of the rhetoric and in fighting of the Commission and the lack of forward movement on projects! In other words, lots of talk, no action in years past. It seems as though we may have turned a corner recently and my feeling is that more people, including myself, have decided to let lose and speak their minds, no matter the reprocussions! Over the past two years or more, I have been told to be quiet, to back down and basically to leave things alone, that things will get done. Well, they didn’t get done until mouths started moving, phone calls were made, emails were sent, snail mail was sent and threat of face to face meetings was promised! We don’t accomplish things sitting on the sidelines, we have to get in there and get our hands dirty and then you see the fruits of your labor! So, this time it’s access #33 , what will be next? Whatever it is, please everyone…do your part, say your piece and make a promise to get involved! Whatever brought you to this island we all love, keep that in mind and fight to keep it the amazing, beautiful and peaceful place which others envy but we’re all lucky enough to call home!!
See you all at the workshop????
Marlene, well said. More Pro action and less re action.
Tony, Thank you! I have been guilty of reaction many times but am trying hard to change that! I think we’ve ALL learned a lesson from access #33 ….now, onto fixing it and staying proactive in other issues!
A happy Sunday to everyone!!!