FBCC consideration of wetlands-related ordinances draws a crowd

Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter-News Analyst
October 8, 2015 10:01 a.m.

A capacity crowd filled City Commission Chambers for the October 6, 2015 Regular Meeting of the Fernandina Beach City Commission (FBCC). The agenda item responsible for the full house was Second Reading of an ordinance (2015-17) written at the request of the FBCC and designed to disincentivize wetlands development by providing the possibility of greater development on uplands portions of property containing wetlands.

Despite staff attempts to clarify both the intent and the practical result of the proposed change, audience members continued to express skepticism that proposed changes would dissuade a developer intent on building. After some discussion following an hour of public input from a dozen speakers, commissioners voted unanimously to approve only the first part of the ordinance, which eliminated the ranking of wetlands. The second part, which dealt with possibly allowing more development on uplands portions of wetlands property than currently permitted, was eliminated from the ordinance.

Other agenda items relating to development and wetlands also sparked concerns from the audience. On a 5-0 vote the FBCC approved ordinances on second reading to amend the city’s future land use map and change zoning to medium density residential (R-2) for a parcel totaling 7.41 acres located on Citrona Drive between unimproved Hickory and Indigo Streets. This development will be known as Shell Cove.

Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Wetlands Policy

Proposed Ordinance 2015-17 was meant to address concerns arising from a proposed development scheme for a parcel located partly in the county and partly in the city at S. 14^th and Lime Streets. This case has been ongoing for over a year. To respond to FBCC concerns that current city law regarding wetlands development needed strengthening to protect wetlands while offering some mitigation to developers, city staff offered an alternative: prohibit all wetlands development but allow developers to transfer the density from development that could have taken place on the wetlands to the uplands portion of the property, but ensuring that all other code requirements would be met.

The proposed change would have increased the number of units that could be developed on a parcel, but the maximum was obtainable more in theory than in practice. For example, if a developer wanted to develop a 2-acre parcel zoned Medium Residential (R-2) with no wetlands, the maximum allowable dwelling units that could be built would be 16. Under current law, if an acre of that parcel were to be declared wetlands, the developer would normally only be able to develop 8 dwelling units on the uplands portion. The wetlands portion is currently not allowed to be included for purposes of calculating density. This limitation has often caused developers to request variances to impact wetlands, because the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code prohibit filling of wetlands.

If, however, the revised ordinance had been approved as written, using the same example, a developer would have been theoretically allowed to develop 16 dwelling units on the one acre of uplands. Practically, that maximum would probably rarely be reached, since every other code provision governing development (wetland buffers, setbacks, parking, building height, etc.) would still need to be met.

The public, however, was not buying into this proposal as an effective way to prevent wetlands development by offering developers more opportunity to build on uplands property.

Community Development Director Adrienne Burke emphasized that the change was not an automatic guarantee for a developer that maximum development could occur on the uplands portion of a wetlands property. Instead, she said, that the proposal offered developers more options for their usable land.

Burke’s explanations could not overcome public opposition to what they saw as a change that would increase density. Burke allowed that the dictionary definition of density differs from a planner’s legal definition of density. The first –the quantity of people or things in a given area or space; while the second deals with the number of dwelling units per acre. In other words even though people might live more closely together under the proposed plan, the number of units that could be developed per acre by zoning category would not increase.

Some speakers expressed fears that a more intense development of the uplands would adversely impact surrounding wetlands because of run-off contamination. Other speakers seemed puzzled that any change was needed, saying “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Many speakers raised fears about “unintended consequences” of a policy change that they believed needed more study. Speakers also expressed doubt that any such policy change would deter developers, who would be quick to find ways to get around limitations.

Several speakers said that the city’s Board of Adjustments (BOA) provides an avenue for developers to use in seeking a variance from city prohibitions on wetland development. The BOA must agree that the applicant has met all 6 variance requirements before the request can be approved. Some speakers expressed fears that should the proposed ordinance be approved, developers would opt for more variance requests to relieve themselves of restrictions that would prohibit them from building the theoretical maximum number of dwelling units on the uplands portion of their properties.

Following public input the commissioners discussed possible options. They thanked Burke for her work on the proposed ordinance. Commissioners reminded the audience that staff did not come up with the proposed change independently, but had been asked to do so by the Commission. Both staff and the FBCC agreed that at some point the issue might be revisited, but that the current proposal was dead.

Shell Cove gets greet light to proceed

The second reading of Ordinances 2015-22 and 2015-23 drew public comment over wetlands concerns, but also praise for the developer, who had listened to public concerns over environmental concerns and made adjustments to the proposed site plan for the 7.41 acre site on the east side of Citrona Drive.

Nick Gillette, project engineer, explained that he and developer Jay Mock had updated the road design to save a 25-foot diameter tree with a drip line that extends 200 feet. Gillette said that he had met with the Amelia Tree Conservancy to walk the site. In addition to saving the tree Gillette said that he and Mock were amenable to leaving the open space in a natural state. He also said that they were looking to add a buffer along the Hickory Street side of the project and possibly a fence. They would restore the natural vegetation on the side of the fence, so that it would not look like a stockade wall. Gillette explained other actions that will be taken to protect the tree.

Commissioner Pat Gass thanked Gillette and Mock for working so closely with the citizens to address their concerns. Gillette responded by thanking the Tree Conservancy for bringing up good points for their consideration, singling out Arthur Herman and Robert Prager for their input. Commissioner Robin Lentz echoed Gass’ comments, saying, “This is an example of what can happen when people collaborate.” Gillette stressed that city staff deserved praise as well for their contributions to the project.

Vice Mayor Johnny Miller joined in thanking the parties for a successful resolution of outstanding issues, but raised concerns about protecting the feeder roots for the large tree. He suggested that the tree be designated a Heritage Tree, joining three other island trees with that designation. He suggested that the tree be used as a logo for the development. Gillette said that the tree, which will be in the right-of-way, will be dedicated to the city, and that the city would be able to apply for the designation.

Speakers thanked Gillette and Mock, also expressing hope that they would follow precautions in preserving the large tree. Diana Herman expressed fears that during construction unintended damage would be done to the tree roots. In response to a question from Commissioner Gass, Community Development Director Adrienne Burke said that the city requires that trees be protected during construction and that there would be fencing at the drip line to keep heavy equipment away from feeder roots. She agreed to pursue heritage tree status with the developers.

Speakers Joe Waas and Julie Ferreira raised concerns over the vegetative buffer. Ferreira also asked for additional information regarding the core samples taken on the site.

Arthur Herman spoke to concerns about the well being of the large tree on the property. He turned toward Gillette and said, “The tree is not saved yet—but we are going to save that tree.” He suggested that the tree be included in the proposed adjacent park. He said that feeder roots extend out 60 feet and a foot down in the soil. He suggested that adding wood chips to a depth of a foot around the tree would also help protect the tree’s feeding system. He gave Gillette a friendly tap and said,
“You can do it!”

Other comments and questions addressed concerns that had been discussed in detail during the first reading of the ordinances on September 1, 2015 (See previous article) relating to the need to change density and location of a former dump site.

Housekeeping matter

Upon recommendation of city staff, the FBCC unanimously approved Ordinance 2015-18, which changed the definition of net density in the Land Development Code to reflect the language used in the Comprehensive Plan.