Fernandina Beach City Commission sides with Port on Land Use Changes

Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
December 3, 2014 10:04 p.m.

At their December 2, 2014 Regular Meeting, the Fernandina Beach City Commission voted 3-2 on first reading to approve an amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and a zoning change that converts three parcels (.61 acres) of residentially zoned lots in the Historic District that are owned by the Port of Fernandina to Public & Institutional (P-1) zoning. The Ocean Highway and Port Authority requested these changes, citing both security needs and the need for added parking. The vote was taken following two and a half hours of discussion and public input from ten citizens and Port Attorney Clyde Davis. The audience, consisting of many local citizens who have been following these proposed actions from their initial consideration by the Planning Advisory Board (PAB) this past summer, reacted with stunned silence when the votes were taken. Commissioner Johnny Miller and Mayor Ed Boner opposed the action, while Vice Mayor Sarah Pelican, Commissioners Charlie Corbett and Pat Gass voted in favor. Although public input was taken, the items will return to the FBCC for second reading and a formal public hearing as a quasi-judicial procedure in 2015.

While City Manager Joe Gerrity and City Attorney Tammi Bach initially offered suggestions for postponing action until a requested workshop with the elected OHPA commissioners could be held in January, Commissioner Pat Gass indicated that she wanted to proceed with action during the current meeting. 

Mayor Ed Boner limited public input to 3 minutes per speaker. All ten speakers opposed the action.

Recent FBCC candidate Roy Smith raised questions regarding the sequencing of lot purchase and the imposition of Homeland Security/Florida Department of Law Enforcement security requirements. “Why would [the Port] have assumed that they could change the zoning when they purchased residential lots?” he asked.

Port neighbor Mark Ross questioned why the Port and the City could not partner on building a parking garage that could be used by all in another location. He asked why no one has seen the Homeland Security report that is being used as rationale for the Port’s request. Attorney Bach advised that the report is classified “confidential” and may not be released under public records laws.

Chuck Hall raised concerns over the impact of such a change on the residential character of the north side Historic District neighborhood. He said that people are afraid to build new homes there today over fears that rezoning will change the character of the neighborhood. He said, “We are already panicking there. One neighbor has applied for commercial zoning. … We had been doing so well since the recession, but people are afraid to build here now. This is not just an innocent little re-zoning.” He presented more than 50 petitions from neighbors in opposition to the actions proposed.

Chip Ross presented slides showing the areas in question pointing to existing security on the Port’s current parking lot, which was deemed insufficient. He questioned how moving such a lot to currently zoned residential property could be made sufficiently secure with lighting, cameras and razor wire and not disrupt the residential character of the neighborhood. Once a 30-foot vegetative buffer is added (per code) there would be little space for cars.

Faith Ross read into the record the Homeland Security letter, which had been deemed “classified” but which she received via public records request. She also cited city code on parking lot requirements, including what types of vehicles could be parked there. She asked what action the city would take if such requirements were violated.

Judith Lane, Vice Chair of the Planning Advisory Board, urged commissioners to understand what transpired at the last PAB meeting. She said that the PAB had determined that the Port’s security arguments were “specious.” She said PAB members became increasingly angry as discussions over the Port’s revised Master Plan proceeded because of apparent inconsistencies. “The problem is,” she said, “we’ll never really know what [the Port Authority] is planning to do.”

Mike McCluskey, a local developer said that he was on the verge of developing 8-10 properties in the Historic District neighborhood around the port. He said that potential customers are now questioning the zoning of lots destined for residential construction and are asking if the area is to be residential or commercial.

Chip Sasser summarized the problem as a “matter of trust.” He said that he had purchased property after having verified the residential zoning only to see that zoning for neighboring lots is now possibly changing.   He said, “The rules are being changed underneath my feet.”

Keith Waldrip said that as a Historic District resident, he has come to respect the people and the policies governing that district. While the port is his neighbor, the proposed actions, he said, “are not being neighborly.” “It never crossed my mind,” he said, “that a piece of the Historic District would be peeled off. This is the last straw.”

Julie Ferreira characterized the current situation as “a matter of trust.” She claimed that the Port’s tearing down of the houses on the lots now being proposed for parking lots is only the “tip of the iceberg.” She said that with the expiration of the current development agreement between the city and the port in 4 years, the city would experience industrial creep, in which warehouses and offices will replace houses. She said that 24-hour lighting and concertina wire are not elements of a residential neighborhood.

Port Attorney Clyde Davis attempted to address questions raised by Commissioners and audience members regarding the Port’s request for a change in the FLUM (Ordinance 2014-26). He offered a suggestion that has not been considered by the OHPA yet, to provide a covenant that would run with the land to guarantee that the land would only be used for the purposes stated in the request to rezone. City Attorney Bach replied that such an agreement would not be legal. However, she said, the parties could consider restrictive language in a development agreement. This matter, and other city concerns relating to the Port’s Master Plan, will be discussed at a joint workshop tentatively scheduled for January 7, 2015.

Commissioner Pat Gass moved approval of the land use change. After a pause, Vice Mayor Sarah Pelican seconded the motion. Before casting his vote, Commissioner Charlie Corbett said, “You know, this is a tough decision. I also know that there’s going to be a second reading on this, and I’d like to address what Mr. [Clyde] Davis has said. So I’m going to vote yes.”

The PAB voted to approve the requested changes by a vote of 5-2 at their July 9, 2014 Regular Meeting. The FBCC tabled its consideration of the matter at their Regular Meeting on August 19, 2014 to the December meeting. The Port has owned the property since 2003. While the short-term use for the property in question is parking, the Port appears interested in converting the space to offices long term.

After a short break, the FBCC returned to deliberate on the rezoning portion of the Port’s request (Ordinance 2014-27). Five citizens, who had also spoken against the FLUM change, spoke against this request as well.

Chip Ross said that the Port had provided no parking plan with their request and claimed that they were not being transparent. He cited the Port’s claim that they could not reveal a parking plan due to Homeland Security classification as “ludicrous.”

Chuck Hall said, “It all boils down to whether you believe what the Port Authority is telling you.”

Julie Ferreira expressed her disappointment in the FBCC, saying, “People showed up to say they didn’t want this and you did it anyway.” She went on to express her concerns over the certainty of the so-called development agreement, which would restrict port activities on the parcels in question.

Faith Ross reminded commissioners that the current development agreement between the city and the port is set to expire in 4 years. She said that there are conditions in the current agreement that the city has not enforced. She said that the maximum length of time for a new agreement by law is 30 years. With all the talk about needing a safety buffer for the port, she wondered, “What about a safety buffer for people?”

Mark Ross said, “I’m not sure why we are harping on parking, because it is very clear that the main reason for the change is to be able to build office buildings.” “Please listen to the voice of the people out here, he pleaded. “The majority [of the FBCC] is not. You’re voting for office buildings to invade the Historic District residential area.” He concluded by turning to the audience and saying, “Keep in mind who is voting for what. There are re-elections coming up … Pay attention, it makes a difference in your vote.”

Before voting, Commissioner Pat Gass addressed Mark Ross’ comment. “I wanted to elaborate on what Mr. Ross said. … Not just to the people who are here but also to the constituents who are watching, and that is yes, please do pay attention to how we are all voting. Because what a lot of people don’t understand is that all of us talk to a lot of people in this community and they all have different opinions on what needs to go on down here. And the way I vote is affected by the people I talk to and the way they feel. … This is a working community; it is not a retirement community or a tourist community. It’s a community that works and that has tourists and retirees. We all have to work together. We have to represent everyone across the board. Yes, everybody pay attention. We are trying to represent them all.”

Gass moved and Pelican seconded approval of the second ordinance as well, and the 3-2 vote was identical to the first, with Gass, Pelican and Corbett in support while Boner and Miller remained opposed.

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.