Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
January 18, 2017 7:09 p.m.
The Fernandina Beach City Commission (FBCC) devoted about 2.5 hours of its January 17, 2017 Regular Meeting to Second Reading of four related ordinances relating to a proposed development at 14th and Lime Streets. All of the ordinances passed on 4-1 votes, with Commissioner John Miller voting against all four.
With these approvals, developer Spurgeon Richardson said that engineering work on the site can begin in earnest. Engineering and planning review may take 10-12 months to complete. When completed and approved, construction can begin. The result will be a dramatic increase in new, moderate-income rental housing in Fernandina Beach as early as next summer. Within 60-90 days signs will be erected on the property with additional information on development plans.
First Bank South owns the 22-acre property at the center of what has been an ongoing controversy. Historically, the property overlapped both city and county jurisdictions. Developer Spurgeon Richardson proposed building 224 rental units and retail on the property to meet housing demands from moderate-income earners who currently must commute off island to find affordable housing. But environmentalists, despite a ruling from an independent magistrate and the St. John’s River Water Management District, have continued to maintain that the proposed development violates language in the city’s Comprehensive Plan banning the filling of wetlands.
On October 18, 2016, the FBCC approved the ordinances on First Reading. Proposed land use changes were then sent to the state for review and comment. On December 7, 2016 the city received a letter from the State Department of Economic Opportunity stating that there were no comments related to important state resources and facilities within the Department’s authorized scope of review that would be adversely impacted.
The specific ordinances, recommended for approval by city staff and the Planning Advisory Board, included:
- 2016-35 – Annexed the county land portion (9.26 acres) into the city;
- 2016-36 – Vacated public right-of-way for a portion of S. 12th street totaling approximately 865 linear feet extending between Lime Street and unopened Nectarine Street;
- 2016-37 – Changed the city’s Future Land Use Map from medium density residential to high density residential for approximately 14.94 acres of land and assigned a future land use map category of high density residential for approximately 7.26 acres of land and general commercial for approximately 2.0 acres of land from the Nassau County Future Land Use Map designation of commercial intensive;
- 2016-38 – Changed the city’s zoning map from medium density residential (R-2) zoning to high density residential (R-3) zoning for approximately 14.94 acres of land and assigned a zoning district of high density residential (R-3) for approximately 7.26 acres of land and general commercial (C-2) for approximately 2.0 acres of land from the Nassau County zoning map category of commercial intensive (CI), and applying a planned unit development (PUD) overlay for the entire 24.20 acres of land.
The FBCC took public comment on each ordinance before taking a vote. Several individuals spoke to concerns over the proposed actions: Philip Chapman, Chip Ross, Diana Herman, Lynn Williams, Frank Santry, Carol Lee Adams, and Julia Newland; one, Mac Morriss, spoke in support, following his assessment that other development options for the property could result in less desirable development, including filling of more wetlands and clearing more trees.
The FBCC was required to conduct a quasi-judicial hearing for Ordinance 2016-38. This hearing lasted for more than 1.5 hours. Chip Ross, as an affected party, challenged both city staff and the applicant to answer questions regarding whether or not the proposed Ordinance violated the city’s Comprehensive Plan, which had an absolute prohibition against filling wetlands. City Senior Planner Kelly Gibson attempted to explain that many of Ross’ questions required lengthier, conditioned responses. But Ross continued in many cases demanding yes or no answers to his questions.
[According to a presentation found on www.awcnet.org, Quasi-Judicial actions of cities/towns/counties are those actions of the city council, planning commission, hearing examiner, or board of adjustment, which determine the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties in a hearing or other contested case proceeding relating to a development permit application.]
When Ross began cross examining Spurgeon Richardson, the applicant’s agent, Richardson’s legal counsel Clinch Kavanaugh objected to what he termed either overbroad questions or questions that had been asked and answered either in the applicant’s or staff’s testimony or in the many documents that comprised the staff report. Ross countered, complaining that the applicant’s attorney was inappropriately whispering in Richardson’s ear to coach him in answers. At one point Frank Santry, also an attorney, joined Ross to bolster his charges against Kavanaugh’s interference with Richardson’s testimony.
Santry had objected to the conduct of the quasi-judicial hearing from the outset, calling the FBCC a “tribunal,” and declaring that staff should not be allowed to present its report. City Attorney Tammi Bach stated that there are no formal rules for conducting such hearings, and that the hearing was being conducted in the same manner that quasi-judicial hearings have always been conducted before various city boards and the FBCC.
The FBCC sat silently through the proceedings for the most part. Bach intervened on procedural matters or to tamp down participants when discussions became more heated.
Following a short break in the proceedings Bach revealed that that morning the city had received an administrative appeal from Chip Ross requesting a stay of any action on this ordinance until his appeal could be heard by the Board of Adjustment. Without getting into specifics of his appeal, Bach advised the FBCC that Ross’ appeal was not timely filed. Under city code an appellant has 30 days to file an appeal. Since the city approved these ordinances on First Reading in early October, Bach said that Ross’ filing time had run out.
Ross disagreed, claiming that since no decision had been provided as to whether a Planned Unit Development [planned for the property in question] is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, he had not been officially noticed in October.
Gibson replied that the entire case was reviewed for consistency with all aspects of the code before staff recommended approval. Bach added that by adding her initials or signature to the agenda package, she had verified the recommendation for “sufficiency and completeness.”
Ross maintained that Bach did not have jurisdiction to decide his appeal, which must be decided by the Board of Adjustment. Bach then suggested that Ross was only using the appeal as a means to delay the proceeding. Ross claimed that his civil rights were being violated.
At this point in the discussion both Vice Mayor Len Kreger and Commissioner Tim Poynter suggested that the FBCC accept the City Attorney’s ruling and proceed. Other commissioners did not object.
Commissioner John Miller asked about traffic impacts of the new development. Richardson responded that based upon calculations provided by FDOT, the development would result in a reduction of daily traffic of more than 6,500 vehicle trips. Miller continued to express his opposition to the project on the grounds that it would fill wetlands.
Mayor Robin Lentz commented before the vote was taken that she had been very conflicted on the case, but she said, “I know from my daily work as a school guidance counselor that people come into this community and they can’t find housing. I support this project because I hope that it will provide a community where people can bike and walk to work.”
Before the vote, Bach advised commissioners that they needed to decide whether they had heard “competent, substantial evidence” during the hearing to vote on the ordinance.
All commissioners except Miller voted to approve the ordinance.
The issues surrounding this particular piece of property and the associated development challenges were covered at length in previous articles in the Fernandina Observer:
http://fernandinaobserver.org/2016/10/20/development-at-14th-lime-streets-moves-a-step-closer/
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.
Actually, my argument was that eventually the City Commissioners and the Comp Plan will change, again, and all of the wetlands will be clear cut and filled. Not just more of it. All of it.
I was one of several that fought the original clear cut plan almost three years ago. This new plan allows for two acres of wetlands to remain. Protecting a much needed wildlife waystation for animals as they cross the island at night.
The alternative was to say no, and eventually the bank sells to a less caring developer who uses the already approved SJWMD clear cut and fill plans using the already approved mainland wetlands offset.
To me, while far from ideal, the current plan saves the wildlife waystation. No County or City agency has offered to buy the property for a wetlands preserve. Nor has any individual stepped up to do the same. The island animals need this central location as they transverse the island. This plan protects that water and food source for them and migrating birds.
Agree with Mac.
I agree with Mac that this plan is a far cry better than the original clear cutting and filling originally proposed and authorized the SJWMD. While a strong advocate for wetlands and tree preservation I also believe in property rights and the ability to develop property in a reasonable manner. With the property now being completely in the City, the City’s tree ordinance will have to be followed.
One thing I have learned during my time on the island is that while all wetlands have some value not all wetlands are created equal in that regard. At what point does one say we have enough wetlands? Many, I know, will say that point never comes and every single square foot should be preserved. But take a look at an aerial view of our Island. The Greenway leading into the municipal golf course affords an expansive wildlife corridor. This property is pretty isolated for land base wildlife due to all the development around including busy streets. There has to be a balance.