Submitted by Susan Hardee Steger
March 13, 2015 8:48 a.m.
“It is not in our interest, or is it in the interest of the city to degrade or reduce the viability of the port.” Russell Schweiss, Rayonier
Rayonier and Rock Tenn presented strong arguments against a proposed change to the Land Development Code (LDC) by historic district residents Chip Ross and Chuck Hall at a Wednesday afternoon Planning and Advisory Board (PAB) workshop. As previously reported by Suanne Thamm, “In November 2014, two Historic District residents and Port of Fernandina neighbors—Chip Ross and Chuck Hall—made application to amend the city’s LDC in order to prohibit certain hazardous materials and heavy industrial activities, coal transfer, and passenger ships in excess of 500 passengers. The applicants’ concerns arose out of health and safety concerns in light of potential future operations set forth in a new Master Plan for the Port of Fernandina put forward by the Ocean Highway and Port Authority in summer 2014″
At a prior PAB meeting, members voted to postpone a decision on the proposed changes to the Land Development Code for the next three months so input could be received from concerned and affected parties.
During the one and a half hour meeting, concerns from affected parties and citizens consumed most of the meeting postponing the PAB from addressing line by line areas of concern.
Russell Schweiss, director of corporate communications and community relations for Rayonier Advanced Materials, objected to the proposed changes. He presented the board with memos containing legal opinions of Rayonier’s attorneys and legal opinions of three separate attorneys calling attention to “legal flaws” in the proposals.
“You are talking about taking away property rights that exist. You are talking about some people becoming a non-conforming use when their business is no longer viable. It will take away people’s property rights that exist today. Our property rights extend beyond our current uses. I’m not saying we would ever propose any of these things, but we have the right to at this point.”
“Our attorney believe this takes away our right to pursue opportunities. If the definition supports an item on the table that takes away a property right we currently possess, we are against it. If an amendment could be construed as prohibiting uses, operations or activities that we may need in the future to grow or run our business, we are against it.”
“The bottom line is that we are unwilling to participate in a process where we are expected to bargain away piece by piece our current property rights. It is not in our interest, or is in the interest of the city to degrade or reduce the viability of the port. We are not endorsing those land uses, but we believe the discussion should take place in another forum.”
“We have spent hours on dealing with these issues and we have spent a tremendous amount of legal resources to deal with these issues. In today’s world of Google, . . . people who invest their dollars here are going to look at what has been going on in the community. They [future businesses] are going to recognize that this is not the environment we are going to step into.”
Swisser said in most municipalities citizen proposals are vetted prior to appearing before a city board or commission. There is a “gating process” where citizen proposals are weighed for their consistency with the comprehensive plan before it gets this far.
“Looking at this from a broader view, a citizens’ proposal was probably never intended for an omnibus revision of the city’s vision as far as industrial development goes. This needs to be looked at holistically and not cherry picked. If you are going to affect land use in one category, that is going to affect others. This is affecting a lot of property owners who have industrial owned properties.”
“We believe the process is improper. The EAR [Evaluation and Appraisal Review] process is. We think it is unfair . . . that we should have to, on a citizen proposal by citizen proposal bases, come in and defend those [existing] rights. The fact that we oppose this is not an endorsement of those land uses. We are concerned about the precedent. Who is to stop someone else from doing the same thing? We could be here over and over and over again.”
“The fact that businesses that have been here for 75 years have to hire attorneys for a prolonged process that creates great uncertainty about their operations, that would scare me and I would think twice about investing [in City].”
“We have been a responsible citizen here. When there is an economic downturn, see what happens to those [communities] who don’t like industry.”
According to senior planner Kelly Gibson, in the previous state required Evaluation and Appraisal Review conducted by the City in 2008, public input was received before the City’s Planning and Advisory Board and planning staff. Input was used to focus the review and structure revisions to the document. The state requires a review every seven years. (For more information on 2008-2009 EAR click here.)
Michelle Rumlet, environmental manager for Rock Tenn followed Swisser.
“Rock Tenn has serious concerns about how the proposed amendments to the land use code could impact the future on the mill. The chemical storage at the Fernandina mill is safer today than ever before. The Fernandina Beach Mill is subject to numerous air, water, waste, chemical and safety requirements.”
“There are hundreds of federal and state and environmental regulations that pertain to the mills. Adding yet another layer of regulations on top of what already exist will likely create conflicting, confusing, potentially costly requirements for the mill. Our attorneys believe the amendments also present existing legal concerns because they conflict with existing state and federal regulations and would interfere with interstate commerce.”
In response to the arguments from Rayonier and Rock Tenn, Chip Ross co-applicant for the proposed change responded, “I don’t think this [proposal] is catastrophic to anybody. My opinion is that this clarifies exactly what you are willing to do in the city and where so citizens can know if they are going to come here and put their money here.”
Faith Ross was the final speaker.
“I am sorry the mills are feeling threatened. However, there have been new uses proposed by the port and they do affect other properties within the city particularly our industrial waterfront . . .”
“I live in the historic district and we have umpteen restrictions . . . but there is a quality that is added to the city with those regulations. I hope that more discussion can be brought together as far as the education of the public. If you do permit these things at least they are permitted as a use so people know before they buy a property that these things are in existence. It is a public awareness thing.”
According to PAB Chairman Len Kreger, the PAB will continue workshops and eventually vote on the proposal and send it to the city commission.
While I fully understand the concern of RockTenn and Rayonier, no property comes with an absolute right to do anything you want on that property as the RAM representative seems to imply. Just as a business wants to understand the “ground rules” of activities they are permitted to perform before establishing their operations in the City, likewise incoming residents want to understand the industrial environment they will be living in since their house and health represent their two greatest “investments”. Does RAM believe that if they wanted to convert their operation from the production of cellulose to say rocket fuel, they should be allowed to do so without any say-so or approval by the City?
The “mills” have always been strong community supporters and I am sure that position will continue. Clearly the PAB needs to move deliberately in their consideration of this issue and I am sure they will.
Sadly, the citizens of Fernandina will get no say in whether the City receives an oil refinery or coal transfer station in the future except by supporting or denying the text amendments provided by Mr. Hall and Mr. Ross. Presently the City ordinance reads that “manufacturing/fabrication/bulk storage” will be determined by the City Manager. There would be NO public hearing, NO Planning Advisory Board input, NO vote of City Commissioners, nor would there be any citizen input when the opportunity for an oil refinery or coal transfer station arose on 250 acre mill properties. (Fumigation facilities could be put next to the airport. Yes, it has an industrial zone.) It is time for our industries to prove that they are good neighbors. The proposed, prohibited, future land uses offer the City security for its citizens and its tax base, and they secure the present jobs of those that work at Rayonier and RockTenn. Unfortunately, a text amendment is the ONLY way the public will get input into these types of industries. I urge all citizens and Commissioners to either attend the next PAB meeting on April 8th at 2:30pm to support the text amendments or not, or write to the Planning Advisory Board. This will be the ONLY opportunity for citizens to have input into these future land use proposals. Otherwise the decision of a City Manager will determine the City’s future industrial land uses, not its citizens.
Given corporate responses, sounds like the proposed changes are having an impact and getting proper attention. A “right to pursue opportunities” does not exist, unfettered, except in the wild. Don’t think the Navy, and major issues of national security, have yet been considered in any of this.
It seems that RockTenn is willing to oppose anything even it’s beneficial for the community at large.
Many manufacturing sectors strongly opposed federal regulations like TSCA, OSHA, RCRA and the Clean Air Act. Despite their objections, these regulations have improved the quality of lives of all citizens, including those who work at those manufacturing facilities and their families and relatives. We need to press on to get the proposed amendments approved by the PAB.
The citizens of Fernandina Beach will be better off by adopting the Ross-Hall proposal. Both of them are exemplary citizens who are devoting long hours and personal resources to protect the quality of life in Amelia Island. They deserve the support of all residents, even of those who work at Rayonier and RockTenn; their lives will be better off. Dr. Ross has engaged all stakeholders, including RockTenn and Rayonier, to carefully kraft the proposal so it has no negative impact on their business.
I urge RockTenn and Rayonier representatives to engage in serious and constructive talks during these workshops, after all your companies aim to be a respected members of the community where you operate. This community will simply not allow the Port Authority to build a coal transfer station, an oil refinery, etc. in a stamp size parcel of land adjacent to a residential community and a historic district. The mere idea of such industrial facilities is simply irresponsible.
This is bigger than Fernandina Beach.
1985..The land on the north bank under the Dames Point Bridge. A road with many river front homes. Beautiful trees and a quiet neighborhood. Then very quietly, JaxPort goes in and starts to purchase the homes….then they tore them down one by one….then years go by…Old Herb Peyton enlarges his land holdings and increases the size of the gate station on Heckscher. Never heard anything about it in the news or at city council. Now look at it. Take a very close look..You will be seeing it at the Port of Fernandina. Boy, watching all those logging trucks makes me feel all warm knowing that the mills are supporting Fernandina so much. Like they give a damn about anything else that their profits.
No business should be allowed to put residents health in jeopardy for their profit line. It should be in writing so we all know the rules, and comply.