Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
August 17, 2016 4:51 p.m.
For two years the City of Fernandina Beach and owners of a unique piece of property located at 14th and Lime Streets have battled over development issues. Finally, following review by multiple state agencies and a Special Magistrate’s ruling, the Fernandina Beach City Commission (FBCC) at their August 16, 2016 Regular Meeting reluctantly agreed to approve a change to the city’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code modifying the definition of “net density.” The change will allow the property owner to “have more flexibility and creativity to design the site to preserve wetlands” by including wetlands and wetland transitional areas in the overall calculation of “net buildable land area.” The ordinance was passed on second and final reading, with only Mayor John Miller dissenting. The City Attorney will insert language limiting the scope of the adopted change to only the piece of property in question. [Note: Readers may track the progress of this issue by entering “14th and Lime” into the Fernandina Observer’s search field.]
As he has done in the past, Spurgeon Richardson, the property owner’s representative, walked commissioners and audience members through a slide presentation that detailed the unique nature of the property, which consists of two parcels crossing jurisdictions with one located in the county and one in the city.
He tried to explain that the requested change did not increase density, but only allowed the developer to transfer allowable density to the uplands portion of the property in order to try to save more of what have been characterized as low value wetlands.
At numerous times during the discussion, City Attorney Tammi Bach and others stressed that this change applied only to this piece of property. Because there is no other undeveloped property in the city today with the same underlying conditions: multijurisdictional location, not in the flood plain, and unplatted.
The arguments put forth did not satisfy most speakers, who argued that the value of the identified wetlands outweighed any value to be obtained by adding more affordable housing to the city.
Following public comment, Commissioner Tim Poynter said, “No one up here actually wants to be here. This is a very unique piece of property, and it’s not what we want. But the state and the laws of the state have dictated that this [property] is going to get developed whether we work with [the developers] or not. If we work with them, it’s not going to be as onerous to the community, and if we don’t work with them, it can be. The one problem that I hear over and over again is does this [change] really only apply to that [unique piece of property].”
Poynter turned to City Attorney Tammi Bach and asked, “Why don’t we just add—because you said we could—change language to apply only to multijurisdictional land? Because I believe this is the only piece of land left in the city that has county and city parcels within it.”
Poynter then explained to the audience again that Richardson has been permitted by the state to proceed with more intensive development (Plan A), but that he is willing to work with the city on a less intensive development (Plan B), provided that his net density is not adversely impacted. Poynter said, “This is what we call a compromise. This is the best situation that we are forced into. It is what it is now. I can’t worry about someone not having done their due diligence 5 years ago when they bought the land. We are here now and we have to deal with what’s here now.”
Bach responded that she could probably add a note that would limit the ordinance to the one piece of property.
Vice Mayor Robin Lentz agreed with Poynter about limiting the scope of the change to multijurisdictional property. She also reminded the audience that all other city rules with respect to building height, parking, landscaping, setbacks, etc., would remain in effect.
Commissioner Len Kreger said this was the best option that the city has. “The developer will not fill the city’s portion of the wetlands, he said. Commissioner Roy Smith agreed, emphasizing that the city has no choice, unless it wants to face legal action. “This is the best option we can come up with and follow the law,” he said.
Commissioner Kreger moved to approve the ordinance, and Vice Mayor Robin Lentz seconded the motion.
Mayor John Miller was the only commissioner to oppose the ordinance. Before the vote Miller said, “I’m not for it. Here’s where I’m concerned. I agree it’s a special piece of property, and that’s why I’m concerned about this. The fact that Plan A is on the agenda but Plan A hasn’t happened yet. If it could have been done, why hasn’t it been done now? I think you alluded that the market isn’t quite right for it, but it could come back. … It’s the only piece of wetlands that size left in the city. That deserves protecting, and I believe … this gives us time. That big monster on the horizon argument is a key to me saying this is the best we can do so let’s do it now. But it hasn’t been done yet so, once this thing is gone, it’s gone. So the way we vote tonight is going to determine, once those bulldozers come in and the phones start ringing, so I want us all to think long and hard about how we are voting. …”
Miller turned to Richardson and asked if any of the plans the city has seen involve filling wetlands. Richardson responded only on the county portion, and that the hydrology studies remain to be done. He stressed that the Plan B, which he is promoting, tries to move building out of the wetlands.
Miller continued, “The fact that we have zero tolerance for filling in wetlands means we can’t approve this plan. So I’m against it, and hope we can move forward as a group. This would be a great thing for that land bank. If we create a land bank and there is no land left to buy, what are we going to do with it?”
The item was approved on a 4-1 vote on second and final reading. Issues involving zoning will be handled at future meetings.
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.
I attended the meeting and wanted to say great reporting Ms Thamm! I appreciate and wish more media would report the facts like you always do and not inject their own political biases into contentious issues. As a Realtor I would say that how the commission voted is just and in the best interest of Amelia Island. I only get paid when people buy property not rent but this island desperately needs a nice set of apartments! These young folks that work in the service industry and can’t afford to buy need a place to live. I am concerned that Mayor Miller would vote against something that makes so much sense strictly because of his left wing ideology. I have never met or spoken to Mayor Miller but follow him on social media like many others do. It’s obvious he cares so much about the City of Fernandina, is a great public servant, and is good for our City in so many ways but being as he is a Councilman he has a lot of power. I for one question his judgement when putting ideology ahead of common sense and the City’s best interest. Would the City rather have had another mega gas station on that corner or worse ( now zoned commercial county property)? His comments about a “land bank” (brought up at previous City Council meetings) which apparently would be paid for by a fee or tax on real estate transactions would again hurt present and future homeowners, many of whom have still not recovered the equity lost from the real estate bubble. The City of Fernandina Beach should not be in the business of owning and maintaining any more private property and making homeowners pay to do so!!
As you reported – “Bach responded that she could probably add a note that would limit the ordinance to the one piece of property”. Please help explain exactly how that will be added now that the vote has been taken and no formal reading of such language was read into the record of the meeting. I am at a loss as to how you can do this. If it is not being done, what would be the logical next step?
Betsie, I contacted Tammi Bach for clarification and this is her reply: “That is not what I said (or meant). Kelly Gibson and I are currently working on the language for a note which will clarify the intent of the City Commissioners’ comments that this Comp Plan amendment CURRENTLY will only benefit one unplatted property in the CURRENT City limits. The only requirement for ordinance on the record is that the title be read twice before final adoption. Language in the amendment and notations (explanations) can have changes made at a public meeting.”
Not only does this need clarification, but there needs to be assurance that this won’t apply to county lands being annexed. I didn’t realize before the Tuesday meeting that Kelly’s study included only the current city land because at a previous meeting there was some discussion of impact on the island. The city will be annexing a lot of land, so the language needs to prepare for that.
Jason, My understanding from other meetings is that commercial will still be added to that intersection on the county part of that property- so a gas station could still be coming. That did not come up in the presentation this time so I guess we’ll have to wait and see. The unfortunate thing is that there is no developer’s agreement- this is a handshake deal. I have seen many a handshake deal that goes awry when the applicant then turns around and sells the property that now has added value because of a zoning change to someone else who does not have to follow the agreement. Hopefully that will not be the case here. I was speaking to someone yesterday who’s sister works at the Ritz Carleton and makes $12.50 an hour. He is going to move in with her to help make her rent which is $800 a month because on her salary she can’t keep things afloat. To me, true workforce housing would have some kind of rent scale that could really help people who are working as much as they can but still can’t make it. One bedroom apartments for $1000 to $1200 will not help many people making $15/hr or less.
I fear as does David, That these Apartments at 14th and Lime will still be cost restrictive for young people in the service industry. I’ve not heard an estimated rent scale for 1,2, or 3 bedroom apartments. Did I miss that in the Discussions? I do remember, when the Commission was talking about the New Development off of Cetrona Ave. The Developers were talking about, “Starter Home Prices” in the Range of $250 thousand dollars.? Thought that way over what a couple, working in the service industry could afford. Just hope someone is looking at rental costs for these Apartments.