Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
August 17, 2016 1:41 p.m.
At its August 16, 2016 Regular Meeting after hearing from many members of the public, the Fernandina Beach City Commission (FBCC) decided not to act on an ordinance proposed to substitute itself for the citizen-composed Planning Advisory Board (PAB) and instead discuss problems with the current PAB at a future workshop. The FBCC, however did not, as many audience members urged, vote down the proposed ordinance. Rather, consideration was tabled to allow for further discussion and identification of other ways to resolve issues that have appeared to put the PAB at odds with the FBCC recently.
Terms such as “dysfunctional” have been used to describe recent PAB meetings, where to some commissioners, personal agendas of PAB members have dragged out the decision making process. There have likewise been multiple charges of Sunshine Law violations leveled against PAB members. Commissioners have complained that rather than viewing proposed Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code changes objectively, citizen advocates have hijacked the PAB to promote their own ends. This perception has been reinforced by PAB member postings on social media.
Florida Statute 163.3174 requires the city to have a “local planning agency” adopted by ordinance. But statute allows five options: 1) a local planning commission, such as the Planning Advisory Board; 2) the City Planning Department; 3) a countywide planning entity; 4) the City Commission; or 5) a mixture of all the above.
Whichever option a city chooses, the “local planning agency” (LPA) is responsible for preparing Comprehensive Plan amendments and overseeing the effectiveness and status of the Comprehensive Plan, including periodic evaluations (EAR Process). The LPA is also required to hear and consider: amending the Zoning Map and the LDC, creating subdivisions and applications for a site plan for a Planned Unit Development. The existing ordinance also speaks to the LPA’s fact-finding role.
The proposed ordinance, which would have abolished the PAB, was placed on the agenda as an amendment, the day before the August 16 FBCC meeting. This move caused consternation for many audience members, including PAB members and three former city commissioners.
Commissioner Len Kreger, who chaired the PAB until he resigned to seek election to the FBCC, was the first to speak in opposition to the ordinance. “This is disappointing to me, and I will not support it,” he said. “If it passes, I will support the change and will diligently do the job.” Kreger said the underlying problem with the PAB could be laid at the city’s feet, for failure to address comprehensive plan issues that arose with the 2011 plan and even before. He explained that the city’s failure to deal with issues like hazardous materials in the floodplain has put the PAB in the difficult position of being required to act too quickly for their comfort on matters with long range impact.
Vice Mayor Robin Lentz, while not necessarily in agreement with the proposed change, allowed that because the PAB only makes recommendations to the FBCC, PAB members have been unfairly subjected to citizen outrage.
A dozen members of the public spoke to the proposed change, with only one—local attorney Clinch Kavanaugh—strongly supporting the measure. Kavanaugh said, “The PAB is one of the most dysfunctional boards I have ever seen, and I have spent many years working in governmental administrative law. You’ve got a board that is a law unto themselves. Many of the people on that board have their own little special agendas. It needs to be dissolved, and this commission needs to take over pursuant to Florida law and become the local planning agency. It’s time we had some responsibility back in government. You really can’t run a government this way with the PAB.”
None of the other speakers agreed with Kavanaugh.
Chris Occhuizzo, the lead off speaker and PAB member, addressed Lentz first, advising her that it is not a problem for PAB members to deal with everyone. “We welcome that,” he said. “It’s no skin off our nose; we look to the public to get input. If it’s contentious, it’s contentious.”
Occhuizzo explained his error with respect to the Sunshine Law. He asked why not censure individual PAB members if such violations were occurring as opposed to abolishing the board. He said, “I think the real issue is that we haven’t rubberstamped issues. Yes, we go into depth, and if there is a question, we try to get it right. We want to know as much as we can. So, yeah, it drags things out. But better to take our time than regret it later on.” He said that recent complaints are that the board doesn’t act quickly enough or in harmony. “If you dissolve the PAB,” he said forcefully, “the commission appears to have stepped away from democracy, muted the voices of the people, and moved closer to an autocracy which can represent power brokers–industry, developers, the county, shadow consortiums—who knows? I don’t know. … So in my opinion, any commissioner who votes for this is ignoring the public under the guise of civic duty. Lastly, dissolving the PAB will not silence its members. If I return to the citizenry, I’ll be more vocal than ever—and organized!” As Occhuizzo’s three minutes ran out, he left the podium saying, ”This is the most blatant political ploy I’ve ever seen!”
The room erupted in applause, which Mayor John Miller tamped down with his gavel, asking the audience to keep its comments to remarks at the podium.
Three former commissioners—John Glenn, Ron Sapp and Greg Roland—also spoke against the ordinance and in support of the PAB. Glenn considered the move a “muffling of public opinion.” Roland, who also served on the PAB in the past, spoke to the amount of work performed by PAB members, advising the FBCC that they should avoid becoming victims of “groupthink.”
Sapp said that this was the third attempt since 1975 to do away with the board. “O what is wrong with this, let me count the ways,” he said. In citing his 24 years of FBCC service, Sapp said he dealt with 24 different PABs, who often found important things for the FBCC to consider. “They had the time to do it, the enthusiasm to do it. They were absolutely committed to the community.” Sapp addressed the time required to research and consider issues, suggesting that city commissioners do not have that much time to devote to such matters. “I just can’t imagine adding another 20-30 hours to [your current work load],” he said.
He spoke to the US Constitution’s guarantee of due process to the citizens. He suggested that whereas today the PAB makes recommendations that the FBCC then can accept, modify or reject, under the proposed process there would be no appeal. “If you turn me down,” he said, “the only legal remedy I would have is to go to court. That would cost me money and it would cost you money.”
Sapp was joined by many other speakers in lauding past and current PAB members for their devotion to duty and diligence in discharging their responsibilities. “They do a great job, and I urge you to keep them.”
Other speakers expressed outrage at what they saw as the FBCC’s “throwing away dedicated people.” A speaker accused the FBCC of placing “too great a priority on efficiency.” Another called it “a consolidation of power.”
PAB Chair Judith Lane said she would have to echo most of the points made by the audience. “It’s done my heart good,” she said, “because most of these people were the ones yelling and screaming at PAB meetings.” She allowed that there is a problem with the current composition of the board. “We do wonderful work, when we can do wonderful work.” She reminded the FBCC, “[The PAB] has zero power. We serve at your pleasure. You can remove one of us, all of us, or none of us. That’s up to you guys.”
“We are supposed to bring together some public comment and a lot of research. And that has worked very, very well. It goes to you whether we have recommended denial or passage. I think what I would recommend to you is that you take a good, honest look at how the PAB is structured. We may be ‘the local planning agency,’ but this is done by delegation from you, and I think the public does not realize that. You are the guys who really are the planning agency. You are the ones who make the decisions. We can only recommend. And a good deal of the time you don’t agree with us, and that’s fine.”
“I would recommend that you take a good, long look at the PAB and you either restructure it, give it a hiatus. You have the ability to form subcommittees anyway. You can replace us all and have at it. But I would really recommend that with the number of activists, the number of Sunshine Law deviations we have had recently and which must stop. We’ve heard from the activists here, but I’d really like to hear from the other 12,000 [city residents] and if they even care. Frankly, everything [the PAB] has looked at is down in this area [of the city]. We have much more work to do. The majority of the city is beyond 8th Street.”
She said that there is more work coming up, including the LignoTech issue, which has yet to be completed. “But I’m really concerned about the ability of the PAB members not to be swayed by activists within the community. We have spent an enormous amount of time trying to sort through the hoopla, the anger, the angst, to get to the heart of what it is we have to rule on. That’s become harder and harder to do.”
She acknowledged problems with Sunshine Law violations and difficulty in controlling the board. “It has become dysfunctional,” she said, “and I hate to say that because I absolutely love this board. I really want you to take a long, hard look at this board. We are not doing the best for the city.”
Commissioner Tim Poynter, who had initially moved to approve the ordinance on first reading, withdrew his motion and moved to table it pending further discussion at a workshop. Vice Mayor Lentz seconded the motion, which passed on a unanimous vote. City Manager Dale Martin said that staff would develop a workshop for further consideration of the matter.
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.
The PAB is an advisory board and has no real power other than to sway public opinion and the City Commission in one direction or another. After attending the meeting Tuesday it was obvious to me that these board volunteers spend a lot of time and effort researching tough issues facing the City of Fernandina Beach. The City Commissioners don’t have the time for this kind of commitment. As on any board you are going to have activists but at the end of the day it is up to our elected officials to sift through the facts and make a good decision. In my opinion the City Commission would not be acting in the City’s best interest by disbanding the PAB.
It seems that anyone who doesn’t agree with the powers behind the throne here is an “activist,” a term that was used in a derogatory manner in the meeting by Judith Lane and others. We are simply the citizens of Amelia Island who have only become active because the views and priorities of a large percentage of the citizens are not otherwise represented. All perspectives should be represented.
In my opinion the elimination of the PAB would be a big mistake for a number of the reasons cited in the discussion. The hundreds, if not thousands, of hours that the PAB members spent on the reworking of the LDC and then the Comp Plan several years ago is a task the City Commission could never undertake. While the members must be objective in their consideration, there will be disagreements and that is the value of such an advisory board as long as the board’s activities are conducted in a proper and legal manner.