Considering variance requests for commercial lot combinations on Fletcher in Job Opportunity Areas

Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
August 17, 2017 – 3:30 p.m.

At their August 15, 2017 Regular Meeting, the Fernandina Beach City Commission (FBCC) once again turned its attention to the question of combining commercial lots in designated Job Opportunity Areas along North and South Fletcher. They passed on a 3-2 vote on First Reading Ordinance 2017-20, which would allow owners of commercial properties in the Job Opportunity Areas along the west side of North and South Fletcher Avenue to apply for a variance from lot combination restrictions.

Passage of this ordinance would not greenlight any specific lot combination, but would allow property owners to explain the nature and benefits of their proposed project to the Board of Adjustments, which would decide cases on individual merits.

Commissioners Roy Smith and Tim Poynter joined with Mayor Lentz to support the ordinance, but Vice Mayor Len Kreger and Commissioner John Miller opposed the ordinance, which will return to the FBCC for a Second Reading and Public Hearing. A similar ordinance passed the FBCC on First Reading in 2014, only to fail on Second Reading.

Background

The City of Fernandina Beach Comprehensive Plan identifies seven areas, already zoned commercial, as “Job Opportunity Areas:” the Central Business District, the 8th Street and 14th Street commercial areas, the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA), the Sadler Road/South Fletcher Avenue Activity Center, the Main Beach Activity Center at Atlantic Avenue, and the Municipal Airport. Policy 12.05.01 states: “Within these areas the City, working in partnership with the NCEDB, will establish a list of target industries and businesses for economic development opportunities.”

Areas in red are the only 3 affected by this change.

While lots may be combined in certain areas of the city under certain conditions, City Code currently contains an absolute prohibition on combining lots along Ocean Avenue and North and South Fletcher. The original intent appears to have been to prevent the combining of residential lots. This prohibition, however, handicaps commercial interests in those limited areas where the city desires to promote economic development opportunities. Furthermore, since current code language does not allow the commercial property owners in those Job Opportunity Areas to request relief in terms of a variance from the Board of Adjustment, some have argued that in effect the result has been a “taking” of commercial property because it prevents landowners from making the highest and best use of their property.

Pros and Cons

Since 2014, City staff and the Planning Advisory Board have attempted to resolve this apparent conflict. But due to heavy citizen lobbying, commissioners have been reluctant to approve a change that would allow commercial property owners in those limited Job Opportunity Areas along Fletcher the opportunity to request a variance from the Board of Adjustment.

Those favoring the passage of the ordinance stress that it does not guarantee large scale commercial development. The Board of Adjustment is still the final authority on lot combination, and any project is still height limited to 35 feet and subject to all other applicable city codes. They say that the commercial properties will still be developed, but having to break projects down by lots (which can still be built lot line to lot line) hampers good design and causes unnecessary red tape for property owners and developers. They also argue that by not allowing property owners in Job Opportunity Areas even to request a variance deprives them of a property right and might be construed as a “taking.”

Opponents take different lines of reasoning. Some oppose all development along Fletcher Avenue because such development will add to traffic, obstruct views or reduce green space. Others do not understand the limited scope of the ordinance. And some do not have confidence in the Board of Adjustment’s decision making.

Commission discussion

Commissioner John Miller took a middle position. He said, “I’m okay with property owners being able to ask for permission. I’m just not okay with who grants permission. I think this should be a Commission decision. … If I hear from constituents and don’t have any vote on the matter, what’s the point?”

Miller expressed his opinion that the Board of Adjustment does not take a sense of the Commission in making its rulings, and in the past has made exceptions clearly counter to FBCC decisions.

Senior Planner Kelly Gibson reminded commissioners that there are six criteria that must be met for staff to recommend approval of a variance request. Each must be answered affirmatively for the matter to be approved by the Board of Adjustment. Appeal of a ruling from the Board of Adjustment is done through the courts, not the City Commission.

Commissioner Smith expressed his preference for the City Commission to have a role in the approval process and asked if there were a way that could be done. Commissioner Poynter suggested that the FBCC could sunset the Board of Adjustments and take that role upon themselves.

City Attorney Tammi Bach said that commissioners could change the code to make themselves the quasi-judicial hearing board for lot combination variance requests. Gibson also suggested that the FBCC could approve code amendments to further specify details that would need to be included in variance requests to combine lots.

Miller continued to express a desire to look at the current scope of the Board of Adjustment.

Lentz asked Poynter if he wanted to amend his motion, but he declined. Poynter claimed that if commercial lots 50 feet wide were developed in the Job Opportunity Areas, they would add to traffic congestion and not promote good design. Successful commercial projects along Fletcher are at least 100 feet in width. He pointed to blighted areas in some of the areas today. “I would like to see something nice happen in these areas, but I’m not even here to support that,” Poynter said. “I’m just saying that they should have the right to ask whatever board in this community for the opportunity to present their plan. That’s what I’m voting for, not any particular plan.”

 

 

 

2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Dave Lott
Dave Lott(@dave-l)
6 years ago

I think most people would say that the prohibition against combining lots resulted from the mid-sized condos that were built on the east side of S. Fletcher next to single residences and blocking view corridors. While there would still be a concern about the massing of lots to allow construction of a commercial development that would be out of character with the area, the view corridor issue should not be a concern for lots on the west side of S. Fletcher.
I understand the concerns by the Commission about the sometimes willy-nilly decisions by the Board of Adjustments. Sometimes it seems that who is making the request has more to do with their willingness to grant the variance than the actual facts of the case. It will be interesting to see how this moves forward.

Charles Burns
Charles Burns (@guest_49261)
6 years ago

I have been on the City Board of Adjustment for many years, including several years as Chairman. I am speaking for myself, not for the Board.
A few comments regarding the Board of Adjustment:
1) Many of the possible cases for the BOA never even make it to the BOA once the owner understands the expense involved, including the $ 650 non-refundable application fee and the probable need for professional assistance from an attorney, engineer, or architect plus the requirement for four affirmative votes to have the variance approved. Other possible applications are resolved through helpful suggestions from the staff regarding alternatives that can be done without going through the variance process. In other words, if an application gets to the BOA, it’s probably a pretty solid application.
2) Most of the applications that the BOA hears are residential and of major impact to the owner, but not a great impact on the City as a whole. For example, setback variances for odd shaped lots.
3) Variance hearings are very time consuming. The BOA hears the staff report, the owner /applicant, the professional(s) representing the owner, and often, many neighbors. Since the BOA sits as a quasi – judicial board, emails and other indirect/hearsay comments are not admissible. Each witness must be heard in full, in person, and be available for cross – examination. Within reason, there is no limit to how long each speaker is allowed.
4) Each case is carefully considered and stands on its own. If you have heard or believe that the BOA has an agenda or approves or denies too many applications, please contact the City Clerk, request the minutes and do your homework – – take the time to review the cases in detail.
5) I would not recommend doing away with the BOA. The City Commission has too much on its plate to give each case the time and consideration the applicants deserve. If there are categories of properties that include situations that have a large impact on the City, its budget, and/or the quality of life offered to its citizens as a whole, perhaps the City Commission could ask the staff to identify such categories and come up with changes to the Land Development Code that would reserve those variance applications alone to the Commission.