Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
January 24, 2021
At their January 19, 2021 Regular Meeting, the Fernandina Beach City Commission considered prohibiting E-Bikes from the Egans Creek Greenway (Ordinance 2021-02) and broadening the appeal of Historic District Council rulings to include “aggrieved or affected parties” as well as applicants (Ordinance 2021-03). Each Ordinance passed, but only on 3-2 votes.
Ordinance 2021-02 – Prohibition of E-Bikes
Staff Summary: The Florida Legislature passed an updated bill in its 2020 session related to electric bicycle use. The City is authorized to regulate electric bicycles within its boundaries. Because of the environmentally sensitive nature of Egans Creek Greenway and City beaches, this Ordinance prohibits operation of electric bicycles in these areas. Other changes include edits for grammar, consistency, and use of plain language but do not change the meaning of the sections.
FBCC Discussion and action: Commissioner Bradley Bean addressed the needs of those who need assistance in order to bike. He wanted the FBCC to allow pedal assist bicycles to help older citizens. Vice Mayor Kreger asked that gas powered bikes also be prohibited from the Greenway and beaches. He said that bicycles are tearing up certain portions of the Greenway.
Commissioners agreed to include the ban on gas powered bikes.
Mike Spino, representing Amelia Island Trails, addressed the FBCC at Commissioner Ross’ request. He spoke to the difficulty of making distinctions between the various types of externally powered bicycles. “Even law enforcement would have difficulty drawing distinctions,” Spino said. “You are better served on the Greenway and the beaches to outlaw them completely.” He advised that the FBCC consider sunsetting the Ordinance so that it can be reconsidered should the Federal Government change legal definitions of E-Bikes.
Vote upon passage: 3 in favor (Kreger, Ross, Sturges); 2 opposed (Bean, Lednovich)
Ordinance 2021-03 – Appeals of Historic District Council decisions
Staff Summary: Land Development Code (LDC) amendments are prepared at the direction of the City Commission to address specific changes for aggrieved or adversely affected party and appeals of Historic District Council (HDC) decisions. Staff has issued a recommendation of approval for the change to the LDC definition contained in Section 1.07.00 for aggrieved or adversely affected party, but recommends denial of the change to HDC appeals with concerns cited in the staff report provided herein.
The Planning Advisory Board (PAB) issued recommendation of approval for the definitional change and denial of the change for HDC appeals (meeting minutes provided). The PAB considered the changes at is its March 11, 2020 and August 12, 2020 Regular Meetings.
FBCC Discussion and action: Currently, only the applicant can appeal HDC rulings to the FBCC. Commissioner Chip Ross proposed this amendment in what he termed a fairness issue. He believes that those who felt they had been unfairly impacted by an HDC decision provided to the applicant should also be allowed to appeal to the FBCC. He suggested the other option would be eliminating the FBCC appeal for both applicant and non-applicants, thereby requiring all appeals to proceed to Circuit Court.
Commissioner Bradley Bean said that the HDC is appointed by the FBCC. He believes that letting anyone appeal HDC decisions to the FBCC would be “opening the floodgates.”
Vice Mayor Len Kreger supported allowing all affected parties to appeal to the FBCC.
Commissioner David Sturges opposed the Ordinance, based upon his experience of having to appear before the HDC with required paperwork and fees. He said, “Neighbors argue all the time. I think this is a bad idea. If they don’t like the project or the HDC ruling, let them take it to court. That’s the simplest answer.” Sturges said that neighbors are notified of HDC cases. They can testify at the HDC hearing if they have issues.
Vote upon passage: 3 in favor (Kreger, Ross, Lednovich); 2 opposed (Bean, Sturges)
Each Ordinance will require at least one additional reading and a public hearing prior to final passage.
The e-bike ordinance is confusing to me and I’m not sure I understand the intent. E-bikes, in general, run on ELECTRIC, not gas. They are quiet and most e-bikes can be used with or without a battery. Furthermore, I’ve had non-E bike bicyclists soar past me with absolutely no warning.
What is the goal of the ordinance? To not disturb wildlife (because that population would include all humans and animals), or is it to eliminate the use of gas-power on the trails, because that would include the city employees who mow it.
I have an electric bike & am very conscientious of the sensitive nature of the greenway & the people running/walking/biking/working in trucks etc back there. I’m scratching my head as to why those of us with Ebikes are being singled out.
I’ve observed the torque & the tracks left behind and would never suspect its any worse than all bikes that are ridden their. We are all far far less of an environmental impact of lawnmowers that groom the trails.
With ebikes it’s convenient to turn on electric (which emits no noise pollution) to head into the wind and then lower the electric power or turn off to get a good workout on the return.
Ive taken mine to Cumberland island and they “had” a ban which they lifted a few years ago as they realized how eco friendly these bikes are and they’re the trend of the future.
My wife and kids love to take these out for some super fun exercise and I am asking you to reconsider this seemingly thoughtless action. Please call or message me with any questions. Thanks -John