Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
August 30, 2018 – 1:00 p.m.
To further explain (or complicate) the question of remaining vacant land available for development today within the city of Fernandina Beach, Planning Manager Kelly Gibson has provided the two charts below, which provide a breakdown by current city zoning.
Although at first glance it appears that there are 285.54 acres available for development, that number is only theoretical because it does not consider environmental features that would of necessity restrict full buildout.
It is important to note the caveats that Gibson has placed on interpreting the data:
- Vacant lands acreage may contain environmental features, including wetlands, which may reduce full buildout of the property;
- Vacant lands analysis excluded all recreation and conservation lands;
- Vacant lands analysis excludes all approved development projects and active subdivisions anticipated for full buildout within the next 5 years.
For a complete understanding of zoning districts, consult the city’s Land Development Code.
Suanne, many thanks for the follow-up and the additional information from Kelly. Even if only 50% of the vacant land could be built upon, that would still be 800+ new residential units. Somewhat of a sobering thought to many, like me, that mistakenly thought that the city was pretty much built out with only a scattering of parcels here and there.
Enough is enough with the over development of this island ! It quite simply a blatant case of avarice to build more homes on this once quaint island ! We don’t need and don’t want anymore housing being bulit ! I have seen this happen to Saint Simons Island and how they grossly encroached upon the wildlife and abundant green space. This is not New York City ! Stop trying to build on the remaining pristine wooded areas. Stop !
Thank you, Suanne, for the additional clarification. This is actually a very complicated issue and any attempt to simplify or characterize it results in misrepresentation. Here are a few additional factors that further complicate the subject.
o The argument that Fernandina Beach has a high percentage of recreation/conservation land is a false argument. With the exception of the Greenway and a few small parcels near the salt marsh and near Egans Creek south of Sadler, most of the recreational and other city properties are not natural lands and contribute little to the environmental purposes of conservation, especially on a barrier island.
o With the exception of the Greenway and a few small parcels near the salt marsh and Egans Creek south of Sadler, most of the recreational and other city properties (golf courses, the airport, ball parks, and most city parks) contain few trees to provide the many benefits they provide our community: protection from storm winds, protection from flooding and erosion, storm water management, temperature moderation, removal of pollutants from the air and water, maintenance of property values, etc. Such lands should not be counted in any tally of conservation or other parcels that contribute positively to the environment. For the most part, we see grass on these properties, which means they contribute nutrients from fertilizers and pesticides that create algae in our waterways. The roots of grass can also be readily washed out in storms because they are so shallow, unlike natural grasses. Protecting the island means that we need to have substantial forested lands along the entire length of the island.
o Often the question of how much vacant land we have in the city distracts us from doing anything. This complication should not be utilized as an excuse for inaction. Because we have a limited amount of vacant land and a rapid pace of development, we should see this situation as a call to action.
John Heck has expressed the view of most residents. None of us, regardless of political persuasion or level of interest in the environment, wants Amelia Island to look like some of the barrier islands further south that have been denuded and left with no protection. Once these lands are developed, there is no going back. And that route is even more costly–engineered storm water management systems, pollution, intense heat, loss of tourism and the retirement community. We are at a critical point–this is our last opportunity to choose between development with conservation and 100% development. It is up to the citizens and commissioners to make wise decisions–decisions that will be remembered.
OK Margaret, so according to your argument it would then be okay to remove every tree from every park in the city since they “contribute little to the environmental purposes of conservation, especially on a barrier island.” How hypocritical is it for someone who now lives here and probably had trees removed to build their house to now say other property owners shouldn’t be allowed to build on their property?
While technically leased to Amelia River, the heavily forested land on the southwest side of the airport is likely to never ever be developed since there is no potential access due to runway approach/departure clearance obstructions.
Nobody wants to see the “destruction” of our island, but this all or nothing philosophy is not viable.