Concerned Friends of Fernandina        

                 Concerned Friends of Fernandina is a grassroots citizens group formed to inform and involve  residents wanting to

                 preserve the small town  identity of Fernandina Beach and its natural beauty.

Home
Up                   

Back  to Top

Back  to Top

Back  to Top

Back  to Top

Back  to Top

Back  to Top

Back  to Top

Back  to Top

Back  to Top

Back  to Top

Back  to Top

Back  to Top

Back  to Top

Archives for Opinion Page

• 02 Apr 05  

Don’t bury our issues!

Vote NO on the Charter referendum!

CFOF urges our fellow citizens to vote “NO” on the City Charter amendment that will result in extending a commissioner’s term of office from 3 years to 4 years.

·        This referendum will change our current spring election cycle

·        If passed, city elections will be held in the Fall every even numbered year

Will the City save money?  According to figures from the City Clerk’s office, there will only be an average savings of $7,800 over the next ten years.

This savings is greatly outweighed by the cost!

·        Local City issues will lose their visibility among federal, state and county issues.

·        Co-mingling our city elections with federal, state and county elections could possibly encourage a level of partisanship that is currently absent from City elections

·        Changing the terms of office causes three Commission seats to come up for elections at one time; leaving our Commission vulnerable to special interest groups

·        If a majority of the commission seats come up for election at the same time, major directional changes could occur within our City government every four years.

·        Any experienced organizational leader – whether political or business – will tell you that having such a level of turnover at one time is higher disruptive to an organization.

At a time when Fernandina is facing a number of long-term major issues, a smooth and orderly transition of elected officials is critical.

We have a special city with special needs requiring a special level of attention.  It is extremely important that these needs and how our elected officials propose to address them remain a focal point for our community.

We believe the issue is not one of timing with the calendar; but one of voter education.

Keep our elections separate so we can have the quality of debate and discussion that is needed to keep our beautiful City moving forward.

Save our city! Vote NO on the election referendum.

                                                     ____________**___________

• 19 Mar 05  No Fear......

Dear CFOF:

• 4 Feb 05   Tree Ordinance

  After reading the recent Viewpoint about the impracticality of the City’s current tree ordinance, I felt a need to offer a different perspective based on my personal experiences.  The City’s recent actions to properly interpret and enforce the City’s tree ordinance can be directly tied to a lawsuit by a developer against me, my neighbors, my entire subdivision and the City.  This developer initiated a lawsuit to overturn a deed restriction that designated a “L” shaped natural buffer easement - 30-foot wide on the western side of the property and 50-foot wide on the southern side that abutted Lakewood Subdivision - on their 5.6 acre parcel off Will Hardee Road.  This developer had already clear-cut the northern 4.7 acres of the property.  Yes, they completed a tree removal application in which they stated there were only 4 trees that were 12 inches or more in diameter to be removed.  They did not submit a tree survey as required by the City’s ordinance to validate their claim.  The City issued the tree removal permit in November 2003, based on the information supplied by the developer in the application and with no inspection by the City.  The City has subsequently been provided with photographic evidence showing that the property that was clear-cut contained an estimated 1,000 – 1,200 oak trees with a diameter of 5” or greater that were protected under the City’s tree ordinance.  As of this writing, the City is still considering what action, if any, will be taken against the developer for this flagrant violation.

  But back to the main story.  Not content with the land they had already cleared, the developer wanted to encroach on the buffer areas and filed suit against the adjacent property owners (including me), our homeowner’s association and the City claiming the deed restriction was illegal.  After incurring substantial legal fees that drained our homeowners association’s bank account, we agreed to a court-approved mediated settlement.  This agreement granted the developer the right to clear trees into the first 15 feet of the buffer; BUT the removal had to be conducted in full compliance with the City’s tree ordinance.  To accurately record the number of protected trees in the buffer, the City paid for a certified tree survey to be completed.  This survey documented that there were more than 250 protected (5” diameter or greater) trees in the total buffer area.  The developer has removed approximately 500 diameter-inches of trees from this buffer area to this point; still without submitting a tree replacement plan and getting it approved in accordance with the tree ordinance requirements.  Had the City not done the survey, there would not have been any undisputable evidence of the exact number of trees that were removed from the buffer.

  Immediately after the settlement was accepted, I took on the responsibility to ensure that the developer fully complied with the tree ordinance.  The task was more than I ever imagined it would be.  It quickly became obvious that the City staff member I was dealing with did not have a correct understanding of the tree ordinance requirements.  This was not a matter of interpretation of a gray area, it was a flat-out incorrect understanding of some of the ordinance’s main requirements such as requiring the replacement of trees and the need to submit a tree replacement plan BEFORE the trees are removed.  If the trees are removed before the survey and replacement plan is submitted, who’s to say how many trees might be removed?

  After stories were spread about me being a “crazed man patrolling the property with a hatchet” (I had retrieved a hammer and nail from my house so the City employee could nail a Stop Order notice); and being passed around from the Planning Dept. to the City Manager and City Attorney, I realized this was too much for one person.  I enlisted the aid of Concerned Friends of Fernandina and they have been magnificent in helping to clear through the bureaucracy.  They have facilitated meetings with Commission Ken Walker and the City Manager as well as with the new members of the Planning Department responsible for the review of tree removal applications and enforcement of the City’s tree ordinance.  All of these efforts have resulted in the City’s Planning Department now having a complete and accurate understanding of the Tree Ordinance requirements AND, most importantly, a willingness to enforce it. 

  While one can offer arguments as to whether the current tree ordinance’s objective of “no net loss of trees” is economically practical, there can be no argument that to achieve that stated objective then there has to be a one-for-one replacement of removed trees.  This is what the tree ordinance requires and this is what all property owners should be held accountable to until such time as the ordinance is changed.  ALL ordinances should be enforced 100% of the time, as a failure to do so only encourages favoritism and a disregard for compliance with other important ordinances.    

              Bob Moore, Fernandina Beach                              

                                                                     _________________**___________________

• 19 Jan 05  Hire community development director

________________**__________________

• 12 Jan 05 If you have an ordinance, enforce it
  
  
  Many of us are understandably concerned about ways in which prudent growth and preservation of our island's natural beauty can occur in our city andcounty. There are some simple ways that can help to achieve the goal of
  judicious growth.
  
  One is to prevent the transfer of density rights from developer to developer. This practice, currently under consideration in the case of Crane Island, is being used to undermine the zoning protections of our community, and it should be stopped. Although the practice may be deemed legal, it should be opposed, especially in the case of Crane Island, which is
  designated a Coastal High Hazard Zone and has conservation zoning.
  
  Many citizens rightly disagree with allowing AIP and Civitas to join forces and use AIP surplus development density authorizations to change Crane Island from conservation zoning to medium residential densities. Having
  developer-to-developer density transfers using old and surplus density authorizations from another area is equivalent to allowing "developers" to approve new development density and zoning changes and undermine the county's need to manage judicious growth management.
  
  Two other simple ways to promote sound growth management is to limit variances that encourage higher density units on existing parcels of land and to enforce our ordinances, such as our tree ordinance.
  
  The tree ordinance is designed to prevent the cutting of mature trees and to require replanting of trees by the developer when they have cut down mature trees on their building lots. We have been at commission meetings in which
  individual homeowners have been strongly challenged about their request to cut down a single tree that overhangs their home and, in some cases, approval was denied. However, examples exist where no similar challenge or fine or replanting has been enforced for a developer who has cut down hundreds of trees.
  
  Despite the incredible rate of development and the amount of trees that have been cut within our city limits, we have asked city officials if any fine has ever been assessed against an offending developer. We have been told
  that there is no record of a fine. Hard to believe, isn't it? No developer has ever transgressed this ordinance? It begs the question, why have an ordinance if you don't want to enforce it?
  
  In order to keep us on the path to sane and prudent growth management, we can oppose developer-to-developer transfers, enforce our existing ordinances and limit or eliminate variances for higher density. In other words, uphold the law.
  
  Are we missing something?
  
  Jan and Thomas Cote-Merow, Fernandina Beach

__________________**___________________

• 05 Jan 05  Good Citizens in 2005

News-Leader THE NO SPIN ZONE -- By Ron Sapp I don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to the New Year, 2005. I look forward to another spring training in Tampa, a family tradition, another season of spectacular surf fishing and the mental image of Georgia Bulldog players hoisting the national championship trophy skyward (well, actually that will be in January 2006) dances joyfully in my brain. The old Carly Simon tune, "Anticipation," comes to mind. But it also promises to be a great year politically, especially locally. At the county level, decisions postponed for many years will finally have to be made. Commissions began painting themselves into a political corner several years ago and the current commission has simply run out of room. And voters in the city of Fernandina Beach will get to vote on several ridiculous questions posed to them by their commissioners. I can visualize the commercial now, "Anticipa-a-tion is making me wait . . ." Well, unlike the stuff in the commercial, the political catsup is about to start pouring out. Consider just a few examples of what awaits the local political enthusiast: -- How's the county going to fund necessary infrastructure (growth) costs and make that $2.3 million a year bond payment? -- What's going to happen to the mediated county/city settlement that called for a new county building on the 14th Street site? County commissioners were to tear down the old building and construct a new one, a $1 million city contribution was to ease the pain. The new county coordinator has recommended selling that property to help address county debt problems, so what happens to the agreement? -- Without the new county building at the 14th Street site, constitutional officers (clerk of the court, tax collector, etc.) will not have their primary offices within the county seat, Fernandina Beach. This violates the Florida constitution. Will city commissioners let this happen, or will they, seeing $1 million non-expenditure, just look the other way? -- How is the county commission going to re-build the $10 million in reserves squandered by previous commissions? This re-building is crucial, not only to the taxpayers of Nassau county, but to re-establish confidence in the financial community. -- How much longer is the county commission going to allow the "cycle of the absurd" to continue? The cycle looks something like this: 1) encourage rampant growth in order to increase property tax revenues, 2) rampant, poorly planned for growth requires massive infrastructure costs, 3) unprecedented county spending spree siphons tax dollars out of accounts necessary for infrastructure spending, reducing available tax dollars, 4) county decides to increase tax revenues by abandoning growth management practices and - go back to 1. -- Will the city commission finally make a decision on the future of the marina? What's going to happen to the CRA? Will our city marina be exclusively a commercial enterprise, or will there be room for small boaters? -- What's going to happen to Crane Island? Will the city grant access? After all, the consent order creating the possibility of an access was allowed to die after the owners failed to seek another extension. Will a south end resort purchase the island? Will that same resort purchase the Royal Amelia Golf Course? Could that resort then access Crane Island from Royal Amelia? Would that resort be able to increase residential densities on Crane Island by swapping units-per-acre with another of their projects? Hmm . . . -- Will the city sell undeveloped lands in order to finance various projects? Will city elections be thrown into a grinder along with federal, state and other local elections? Will terms for commissioners be extended to four years and three seats come up at the same time, allowing for instantaneous seismic ideological shifts within the commission? I guess we'll just have to wait and see on all of these things, but I think you'll agree, 2005 has the potential to be an exciting year. I do hope that all of us will be not only watchers, spectators as the year unfolds, but active participants in the political decision-making process. Inject yourself into the fray. Help create the dialogue. Be part of the debate. Be a citizen. We can all sit by, fingers crossed, hoping our elected officials make the right decisions, or we can get involved and help craft the outcomes. Again, let's be citizens. Ron Sapp served on the Fernandina Beach City Commission for 21 years. His column appears regularly.

                                                                  _________**________

• 02 Jan 05  Port/HDC/City , Who's right?  
  
  Our government is built on many premises. One of these is that with more authority comes more responsibility. When a citizen is elected to office or
  appointed to a high-level job, his actions are no longer the actions of a normal citizen, but those of an higher authority. He is looked to by the
  citizenry for legal, and ethical solutions to the problems of the day.
  
  So it is with our Port Authority, and with our Historic District Council. At this time, two radically opposed branches of government, each wishing to
  assert itself over the same plot of land. We all know the story; of how the Port demolished historic homes without the proper authorization, and how now
  they place that blame upon the City. My, what a tangled web!
  
  Each of these positions seem to have merit:
  1. The HDC blames the Port for not having proper authorization.
  2. The Port blames the City for not telling the Port what to do.
  3. The City blames the Port for not knowing what to do.
  
  Who is correct?
  Clearly, if you are familiar with the issue, the Port is way out of line by  placing blame on anyone. They agreed to a document called the Port Element (
  a sort of rules and regulations with the City) which stated they agreed to contact the HDC before any demolition occurred in the Historic District. This
  Element was drafted years ago to allow the Port to open for business here. It was their way of softening the impact, by agreeing to be a friend and
  good neighbor.
  
  The manager of the Port has been here since the beginning, and is very familiar with the Element. All of the Port Commissioners should be familiar
  with the Element, as it is their agreement with the City. They wrote it.
  
  Now, the Port is claiming ignorance, and trying to shift the blame for this house demolition back onto the City Building Dept. The City should in no way
  accept the responsibility for this mistake. There is an old expression, "It is easier to apologize, than to ask permission".
  
  There has been some speculation that the Port may not have gotten permission to tear down the houses had they asked. With this in mind, is anyone
  surprised with the results so far?
  
  Responsibility. Authority. These are the issues of the day. The HDC has the responsibility to enforce strictest penalty in light of the higher authority
  and responsibility which the Port claims as their own. The citizens are waiting to see if the HDC is serious about the Historic District. Certainly,
  this case will show the citizens what the HDC is made of.
  
  For a citizen to claim ignorance is one thing, but for an experienced manager, and a high-level Commissioner to do so is quite disingenuous. Truly
  there is more here than ignorance. Please do not allow this action to be treated lightly.
  
  Chuck Hall, Fernandina Beach
  
                                                                                     ___________**____________
               

• 17 Dec 04  Changing the Rules  (Viewpoint from News-Leader)   

I would like to bring to the attention of your readers yet another attempt by local developers to set aside current zoning regulations and land designations for their financial gain. The affected properties consist of three undeveloped pieces of land, part of which are designated as "wetlands," and are located toward the eastern end of Sadler Road.

The developers currently have applications on file with both the St. Johns Water Management District and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers seeking permission to fill in the wetlands. They also have a hearing date of Jan. 12 before our city Planning Advisory Board. The purpose of the hearing is to begin the process of altering the permitted uses for the properties. This will be the initial step to convince the city to allow construction of a three-story 83-room hotel.

I have watched in dismay as more and more island land is cleared and developed in a manner that puts profit and greed first, concern for our ecology and quality of life a distant second. This particular proposal has literally "hit me where I live." My property and home back up to the proposed hotel site. I have been in this home for nearly eight years and have enjoyed the relative solitude that these woods and wetlands have provided, as well as the wildlife that inhabit them. Raccoons, rabbits, red-tailed hawks, herons, possum, armadillo and other wildlife currently inhabit this land. They will all be gone if the developer gets his way. Gone too will be the quality of life that my neighbors and I have enjoyed in our residential development. Along with the loss of woods, wetlands and wildlife, we can look forward to increased traffic and noise, drainage problems and 24-hour high-intensity lights to illuminate parking lots.

I knew when I purchased my house that the properties in question were designated C-1 commercial and that at least part of this land would surely be developed someday, especially the tracts not designated as wetlands. I have no problem with responsible development. The problem I have is when developers seek to change the rules in the middle of the game. Just as I knew when I purchased my property what could and could not be done on these tracts, so did the developer. One of the commercial ventures that is expressly not permitted on these properties is the construction of a hotel.

A number of years ago, developers attempted to put a hotel at this same site. That attempt was soundly rejected by the residents of Amelia Island and by our city officials. What has changed since then that would make it desirable to allow such a project now? If anything, it would seem it has become even more imperative that we nip plans for this type of overdevelopment in the bud. Do we need another mega-hotel on the island at the expense of our island's ever-diminishing natural habitat and quality of life?

If you would like to voice opposition to this project you may e-mail St. Johns Water Management District (application #4-089-87067) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (application #2003-9595) through their respective web sites, reference the pertinent application number and ask to be registered as an objector. The city Planning Advisory Board hearing on Jan. 12 is open to the public.                            

                                                                                                             USACE Contact: Beverlee.A.Lawrence@saj02.usace.army.mil

                                                                                     SJRWMD Contact: Cara Perron (904) 448-7902

         Andrew K. Johns, Fernandina Beach

                                                                                __________**____________

• 08 Dec 04   Enforcing the Rules..............

By Steve Nicklas
News-Leader  Columnist

To some, it might be considered just a flagpole, or a tree, or a minor change in zoning.

To others, it is a matter of principle, precedence and adherence to the rules. Time and time again, someone stretches or ignores or defies the rules. At some point, enough is enough.

Consider these examples:

A local business constructs a 100-foot-tall flagpole out front of its building. However, county codes state that a flagpole is a structure, and as such must conform to a 30-foot limit. In response, the county attorney declares that a flagpole is not a structure and must not conform to the height restriction Ñ in stark contrast to what county growth-management officials contended.

Major and minor developers mow down trees in pursuit of an easy-to-build arrangement for subdivisions. In the city of Fernandina Beach, in fact, there is a tree ordinance that restricts such behavior. The developers act and ask for forgiveness later, with maybe a stinging slap on the wrist or a measly fine as repercussion. It is an instance of when the fine is cheaper than following the rules.

A company (there are too many to mention) buys a plot of land that is zoned a definitive way. With little intention of adhering to the zoning, the new owner requests a change in the landÕs status (a variance). Faced with a decision, certain county and city officials wield a rubber stamp of approval, giving carte blanche to such requests. ThatÕs just how often it occurs.

There was a time when local officials had to cater to developers and businesses in pursuit of additional tax-paying enterprises. Is it necessary to tell these same officials that this is no longer the case? Are these supposed political policemen blind, senseless, or just apathetic?

Everywhere you look, there is development. Major retailers, restaurant chains, hotels. An explosion of new houses. A case of the demand clearly outstripping the supply.

This is not an argument to stop all development. Many people enjoy the convenience of having a LoweÕs here in the county, for instance, and not having to drive to Jacksonville to visit one. Additional development also helps to buoy the tax base, creating revenues for desired public services.

But this pandering by public officials has to stop somewhere, sometime. The rules must be followed. If the rules are too lax or too restrictive, change them. Otherwise, there should be specific and delineated consequences.

It is said that some developers recognize how passive or accommodative the elected officials are in Nassau County. They plan accordingly, knowing they can bully their way and threaten lawsuits to accomplish what they want.

The flagpole incident was minor, but the zoning scraps and tree-clearings are widespread. There are other violations also that are ignored or overlooked. At some point, elected officials must make a stand and enforce the rules they themselves have adopted.

That would certainly be an exception Ñ a variance you might say Ñ to what has become the rule.

Steve Nicklas is a financial adviser who lives on Amelia Island.

                                                                          _________________**________________

• 04 Aug 04   Brave enough to say no

• 13 Aug 04  (Opinion page)

                                                                   _________________**________________

• 02 Jul 04  Cut the CRAP  (Opinion page)

  News-Leader  Columnist

  It's time for city to cut the CRAP       Wait a minute Mike Boyle     After attending the Fernandina Beach Commission meeting a few weeks ago, where the Community Redevelopment Agency Plan (CRAP) was discussed in detail, I am more convinced than ever that it is time to move on with new ideas for the "blighted area." In offering this view, I know I am inviting the scorn of Commissioner Beano Roberts, who made it clear to the audience that only the opinions of longtime residents are to be considered or valued. When the commission finally came to the issue on the agenda, Mr. Roberts launched a preemptive strike designed to mollify the most outspoken critics by removing the residential areas from the plan, restricting the powers of eminent domain and reducing the length of the plan from 40 years to 20 years. Not to be outdone, Commissioner Mike Lamb asked that the marina also be excluded from the revised plan. Lamb voiced his concern by saying, "I'm just not convinced that the CRA is the way to finance what is needed at the marina. That would be taking monies away from other projects." (In other words, using monies from "other projects" might require an actual decision from a commission that has shown a preference for avoiding such controversies.) Sensing that the removal of the marina might be overkill, Commissioner Roberts recommended that the marina remain in the plan, but that no public funds be spent on it (that kind of fence-straddling has got to be uncomfortable, if not painful). What became abundantly clear as the meeting progressed was the fact that there was no real plan for the CRA. When citizens asked what the specific projects would be under the plan, they were given only broad generalizations in which the word "infrastructure" was used liberally. When asked if funds generated by the plan could be used for private development, residents were told funds would be spent only on public property projects. That seemed to have a calming effect until one of the residents asked about seawalls and bulkheads, and whether or not they were private or public issues. The answers to those questions were also vague and troubling. They were troubling because the questions themselves were simple and logical, and their answers should have been the same. I was particularly surprised when members of the audience asked about the possibility of using other funding vehicles such as bonds. I assumed (incorrectly) that such an option had already been thoroughly discussed and analyzed, but the blank looks on the faces of several commissioners told another story. I believe it may have been Mayor Greg Roland who finally acknowledged that bonds could be used, but it was clear to me that he did not favor that alternative. Perhaps one reason for his lack of enthusiasm for a bond issue is that it would require a vote by the residents, not just the commission. I suspect the same holds true for the lack of commission support for a referendum. But the meeting was not without comic relief, if you knew where to look. After one of the more verbose commissioners finished enlightening the audience as to what fine financial stewards he and his colleagues had been, he finished by citing the fact the commission had saved the taxpayers $750,000 annually by privatizing the trash collections. Knowing a wounded duck when he sees one, former commissioner Ron Sapp rose from the audience, and with tongue firmly planted in cheek, suggested to the commissioner that if the city put that $750,000 it was saving into a special fund each year, the millions that would accumulate over the years would go a long way in paying for the infrastructure needed along the river, thus eliminating the need for a CRA. Of course, both Sapp and the current commissioner knew there wasn't any $750,000 savings to the city, but rather only a small decrease in what homeowners now pay directly to the private trash company. Nonetheless, it was entertaining to watch the current commissioner "clarify" his comments and confirm that there are no surplus funds at City Hall. Or are there? The week after the commission decided to keep the marina in the CRA, but spend no municipal funds on it, City Manager Bob Mearns revealed an annual windfall of $1.3 million in utility tax revenues that became available when the city refinanced a utility bond. Talk about serendipity! I wonder if there are any other little caches of unspent funds sitting around City Hall? Which brings me to a point I tried to make in a February column when the CRA first surfaced in the local political arena: Should the taxpayers of Fernandina Beach feel comfortable in entrusting a complicated and expensive redevelopment plan (in any form) to the same city government that sat by blissfully as the infrastructure decayed and large portions of the city became blighted? One commissioner said to the audience, "I'm not smart enough to make decisions that are going to affect my great-grandkids." It appears he may have been speaking for the entire commission. Mike Boyle, an Amelia Island resident, spent 27 years as an FBI agent. His column appears regularly. He can be reached at michaelhboyle@earthlink.net.

______________**____________

• 14 Apr 04  (Opinion page)

                                              _____________**______________

• 28 Mar 04 (opinion page)

The expansion of A1A from I-95 to Scott Road to six lanes seems as unstoppable as a steam-roller. The state has no funding yet, but the full-court press is moving to get this project up and running. Florida Dept. of Transportation staff pushed the long cafeteria tables together to lay out aerial views of the project at the Yulee meeting March 25. Proposed new stop lights, turn lanes, and the widening to six lanes were all there for the public to view.

After the video presentation, the procedure for taking public comment was not clarified, and only a handful of people got a chance to speak.  Of those, most spoke against the widening. The project manager for the A1A proposal showed little interest in what they had to say. 

According to DOT officials, there will be no other public hearings. The public has been given only until April 19 to send written comments to the DOT in Lake City.         

 The reality is that adding more traffic lights and making six lanes will not solve the growing traffic concerns, as one highway engineer admitted after the meeting.  Other remarks afterward indicated that at least four state legislators are pushing hard for this project. After all, as we know, the Nassau County DRI (Development of Regional Impact) is the largest single development ever to be undertaken at one time in the state of Florida.  The development dollars to be generated from a project of this scope are huge.  

Meanwhile, local residents have little to say regarding how their quality of life will be affected by traffic congestion, crass commercialism, or other forms of increasing development. Certainly we'll all be saying goodbye to the pine trees and the silvaculture our area is known for.  

The FDOT gave these projections of A1A traffic.  Today there are 31,000 vehicles a day traveling from I-95 to the Amelia River Bridge; by 2030 there will be 74,000 daily.  DOT statistics say there are 43 accidents annually between Yulee and Chester Road. Anyone who has experience driving in stop-and-go traffic understands its frustrations.  Chances are that motorists will be racing to make it through the growing numbers of traffic lights that will continue to spring up at additional intersections. Accidents will increase.  

           Our elected officials need to be responsible and avoid the mistakes other communities have made.. We have a chance to do some creative traffic design before this situation worsens. There are other choices besides creating a monster 6-lane highway – that will actually be slower to travel, thanks to the extra lights. A one-lane access road in each direction for local business traffic would allow A1A to remain open without stop-and-go traffic. Few of us would like to bring Blanding Boulevard into our community – and yet, unless we choose better options, we are creating. Blanding Boulevard nightmares for our future .

            The DOT will only accept written public comment until April  19th. Please write and let them hear your voice:  Aage G. Schroder, District Secretary, FDOT, 1109 South Marion Avenue, Lake City, FL 32025-5874  

Marion B. Williams,  Fernandina Beach

                                                                                    ___________________**____________________

• News-Leader     19 Mar 04  (Opinion page)

• 19 Mar 04 (Opinion page)                     City Commissioners Act or React

If  PAB members are being fired for speaking their convictions, what actions should be taken regarding the poor conduct being demonstrated by our elected city commissioners?  The manner in which Commissioners conducted themselves at the March 16^th meeting is nothing less than a disgrace to our community.

We voters count upon elected officials to represent the public good.  The inconsistencies demonstrated that evening may well point to the need for an independent entity to investigate the decision making process of the Commissioners and City staff.  Instead of demonstrating rationality in the reappointment process of four individuals for subsequent terms on the Planning Advisory Board, our commissioners showed themselves to be petty and reactionary.  The legality of the voting process for these reappointments should be questioned by every voter in this town. 

To this viewer, the ousting of Bob Howat was done by emotional outburst, not rational objectivity.  Mr. Howat has served on this board for several years.  Members of the PAB are unpaid Fernandina citizens who volunteer their time to form a non-political board to advise Commissioners on issues of planning and zoning.  Though their decisions are not binding, this is a form of checks and balances, which seems to be an important task in these days of run away growth issues. 

Was it the fact that Howat questioned whether the PAB should take the decisions and recommendations of the City Attorney and City Staff at face value, without being able to question or challenge part of his demise?  Is this the reason Howat was dismissed?   

The PAB consists of seven members and two alternates.  Once Howat was displaced isn’t it odd that one of the alternates wasn’t moved up to a permanent position?  Alternates have spent hours upon hours researching the City’s planning and zoning issues, not to mention hours attending meetings.  Was this a warning to present and future board members not to question, but to follow the whim of the City Hall Powers to be?   

What could have been discussed during the break before the Commissioners cast their 3 to 2 vote?  What happened to the “Sunshine” law?   

What did the citizens of Fernandina gain and what did we lose Tuesday night?  We lost a qualified member of the PAB who dared to speak out as a private citizen in several controversial issues regarding the unchecked growth within our city.  In his place we will now be represented by an inexperienced citizen who has extensive land holdings and perhaps a vested interest in development issues.  Certainly Marilyn Williamson has been involved in a highly controversial land sale on Trapon Ave. that almost threatened to divide the residents of North Beach last fall. 

Perhaps City staff should be required to advertise when local board positions are to be filled.  Wouldn’t it be novel that positions be filled by those most highly qualified and without vested interests? 

Richard Rothrock, Fernandina Beach 

________________**__________________

• 13 Aug 03 (Opinion page)   News-Leader carried a front-page story titled” Crane Island - back in the county's lap."

 The Amelia Island Association (AIA) position on this issues to oppose the change in the county comprehensive plan that facilitates the factor of 10 increase in density on Crane Island and which facilitates the opportunity for additional density increases in the high hazard zone.

While the vast majority of the 31 AIA homeowner association representatives have supported this position, one homeowner association has voted against this position and one has abstained.In the initial county commission vote Commissioner Vickie Shamus opposed the increased density and Commissioner Ensley Acre (from District 2, which includes Crane Island) opposed the increased density and opposed the comprehensive plan change that enables the increase.   However, the other three county commissioners supported the Crane Island density increase of a factor of 10 and the change to the comprehensive plan that enables this density increase.  The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which oversees and approves all changes in county comprehensive plans, has rejected the initial comprehensive plan change proposed by the county. Therefore, we have another chance for citizen input to hopefully convince one more commissioner to oppose this change to our county comprehensive plan.  In addition to the 10 reasons listed with the AIA position developed last year there are now a few additional reasons to oppose this change to the county comprehensive plan.

1.  Based on the DCA ruling the county will have no enforcement authority for the Crane Island development agreement with the county once it is annexed to the city.  At the initial vote of the county commissioners, those commissioners who voted in favor of the changes considered enforcement authority very important.

2.  Given the announced Crane Island plans to annex the island to the city, the county could simply let the city decide the proper density for Crane Island. This would avoid changing the county's comprehensive plan for the entire county to accommodate a single builder who plans to annex his property to the city.

3.  It seems that the other commissioners should take into consideration the opposition vote of the AIA-represented citizens and of the commissioner in the district being impacted by this change.

4.  During the required evacuation of Amelia Island for Hurricane Floyd in 1999 there were significant delays ingesting off the island. The county's hurricane evacuation plan has not yet been updated to deal with this problem.  Winnow have increased density, increased traffic - and substantial number of new homes already approved for this area.

Since my direct appeals, on behalf of AIA, to county commissioners were not successful on the first vote, I amassing for support from other citizens on this issue now that we have the opportunity for another county commissioner vote.  Please ask your county commissioner to oppose this change the county comprehensive plan and to oppose a factor 10 increase in the density on Crane Island.  Phil Scanlon is president of the Amelia Island Association, which represents 38 percent of all homeowners on Amelia Island.

10 reasons to say no:

The Amelia Island Association (AIA) position on Crane Islands that Nassau County should not make changes or amendments to the Nassau County Comprehensive Plan that will result in accelerating environmental pressures, particularly on Amelia Island or connected small islands. The Future Land Use Maps(FLUM) is a key part of the comprehensive plan and also should not be changed to facilitate accelerated environmental pressures.  Reasons to say NO to changing the county comp plan to allow big development on Crane Island

1.  Nassau County already has an above average growth rate.

2.  Amelia Island had 24 percent of the unincorporated population in 2.2 percent of the Nassau County area and hashed a higher growth rate than the rest of the county.  The residential density of Amelia Island is already 3.5 persons per acre. (per 2000-2010 comprehensive plan data)

3.  Above average growth rates result in above average increases in taxes.  (Based on over 700 studies, including many Florida studies.)

4.  Amending the comprehensive plan would allow an increase of a factor of 10 in density on Crane Island. (Current allowed density = 1 unit/5 acres, low density residential =2 units/acre)

5.  Changing the comprehensive plan to facilitate a higher density development on Crane Island will allow all coastal zone areas to apply for higher density development.

6.  Crane Island is at the end of a highly used airport runway, used to reduce noise over existing residential areas. The construction of over 200 units could result in noise complaints that cause air traffic to be shifted to fly over existing residential areas.

7.  Crane Island is in the Amelia River in a coastal and high hazard zone that should have very limited development, if any.

8.  Recent Florida State University studies, chartered by there and funded by Rayonier as a follow-on to Rayonier’s ammonia reduction in the Amelia River, found that river life’s now being killed by development runoff on the west side of the river. Increasing the allowable development in the river is not advisable given this pollution problem from existing development.

9.  The purpose of the coastal management element of the2000-2010 comprehensive plan states: "Coastal resources offer unique amenities, making them highly desirable: however, they are finite and highly susceptible to degradation. Due to these characteristics, coastal resources are given special consideration.  Recognizing the importance of preserving these resources the purpose of the coastal management element is two-fold, to plan for and, where appropriate, restrict development activities which >would damage or destroy coastal resources, and to protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas subject to destruction by natural forces." The proposed amendment, which would increase density by a factor of 10, is inconsistent with this purpose.

10.  The comprehensive plan is the key document to control and restrict growth in critical areas; it should not be amended to accelerate environmental pressures.

Phil Scanlon, Amelia Is.

                                                                                ____________________________**_________________________

• 21 Nov 03   (Opinion page)  CRANE ISLAND:

Currently Crane Island is designated Conservation on Nassau County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). This allows a maximum of one dwelling unit per 5 acres.  On November 24th, the developers are requesting that the County Commissioners change the FLUM to low density residential so the 108 acre site can be developed with a 143 house subdivision.(This is down from the original request to build 226 homes.)  Crane Island lies within the Coastal High Hazard Zone. The Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study places Crane Island within the evacuation area for Catagory 1 storms, which are relatively minor storms.The island is also shown on the Nassau County Storm Surge Atlas as being an area that would be entirely inundated even from a minor Catagory 1 storm.  The Coastal Element Objective 5.07, states that the County shall direct population concentrations away from known or predicted high hazard areas.
Commissioners will also vote on Nov.24th whether to revise the Comp Plan to allow denser populations in these coastal high hazard zones. It has been pointed out that residential areas laying in such a known floodplain have
the capacity when flooded to undermine the water quality of the Aquatic Preserve and Intracoastal Waterway due to escaping household chemicals and sewage.  Coastal Element Objective 5.05 also states, "The issuance of building permits on a barrier island shall be restricted by the ability of the road network to serve evacuation at a maximum of 9.5 hours." Currently, the evacuation of Amelia Island is estimated at 16 hours. FOF believes that
adding additional cars to evacuation routes already out of compliance compromises the safety of all Amelia Island/Fernandina Beach residents. We believe that to increase the density of development on this intracoastal
barrier island not only threatens to endanger the citizenry, but it also will destroy beautiful and unique maritime forest and vegetation that forms the a uniquely diverse habitat.

11/21/03  J. Ferreira,  Fernandina Beach

                                                                            __________________**___________________

20 Nov 03 (Opinion page) RE: Crane Island claimed error

At the 1/7/03 Nassau County Planning & Zoning Board meeting the possibility of changing the County Comprehensive Plan to allow future net increases in development density in the Coastal High Hazard Zone (based on past decreases) was considered......There were many reasons including evacuation time problems,difficulty in proper accounting associated with this proposal, environmental pressures, and airport safety for not making such
a change.  However, the major reason proposed by the developer for making this change is that there was an "error" made on the night of the Comprehensive Plan submittal review which was 6/29/93 --and the plan had to be submitted to the state DCA on 6/30/93.  I have just reviewed the minutes of the 6/29/93 County Board meeting
-- which are available via the County Clerk web site. I have attached a copy of the minutes (4 pages) for your reference.  As I read the minutes it is very clear that there was not an error in the designation of Crane Island as a Conservation Zone -- which is allowed 1unit/5 acres in development. This designation was the result of over
2 1/2 years of negotiation with the state DCA on what would be an acceptable Comprehensive Plan from Nassau County. The DCA had specifically recommended the Conservation zoning and it was accepted by the County Commissioners.  It was stated that the County felt the designation of Crane Island would be an error (by DCA), but after 2 1/2 years of negotiation with DCA the County was recommending and approving acceptance of the
Conservation Zoning.  The County also stated it would be possible for the County, with the developer to file for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in the future, not a correction.

Also it was stated that a 60 day period was allowed for corrections --to errors and that DCA was very willing to correct errors. Obviously the Crane Island Conservation designation was not an error -- but a settlement agreement by the County with the state DCA.  Now in 2003, a decade later and while they also plan to annex the property to the city, the developer has negotiated a means of "amending" our Nassau County Comprehensive Plan to accomplish a factor of 10 density increase on Crane Island. (From 1unit /5 acres to 2 units/acre). However, this amendment
would facilitate accelerated development in the entire coastal high hazard zone by others and result in a net future increase in density in the high hazard zone -- in spite of evacuation, environment and safety problems.

11/20/03  J. Ferreira,  Fernandina Beach   

                                                                                __________________**___________________

15 Nov 03 (Opinion page) CRANE ISLAND LANDFILL:

According to a March 1998 warranty deed, the owners of Crane Island have
sold or leased the northern portion of the island (35 acres) to the Fla.
Inland Navigational District to be used as a spoil disposal site.
It is reported that 33 acres of trees and maritime hammock will be removed
by FIND to deposit dredgings from the waterways and channels. A deep 10 ft.
pit will be dug on this site for depositing the spoil, a 4 ft. soil berm
will contain the area. The spoil site may be visible from the Shave Bridge as
visitors and residents approach Amelia Island on A1A.
(ADD FAA INFO....)
FOF hopes to find out whether there is a plan for FIND to hold a public
hearing before the trees are cleared.
You can address your comments about this project to:
Franklin Morrison, (904) 232-1133, an engineer with Army Corps of Engineers
Department of the Army, Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers,
P.O. Box 4970, Jax FL 32232-0019.

11/15/03  J. Ferreria,  Fernandina Beach

                                                                              ________________**_________________
31 Oct 03 (Opinion page) Development problems are amazing

Nothing these days amazes me in regards to the county or city building and development problems.

First, from the county level: a local attorney speaking for his clients stated now that the county commission hase voted against his clients in their massive plan to develop Crane Island into a posh 226 mansions, they will not sue the county (that's you and me by the way) if they will agree to let his clients build a total of 143 homes instead of the 37 that the county voted on in its latest meeting. By some thinking, that could be a threat to the commissioners who just rejected his client's plans.

The county commissioners, in their wisdom, voted to leave the overall homes allowed to be built at only 37 homes because of the regulations and limitations of the future land use map and other regulatory agencies of the State. This Crane Island issue has been going on for many years, more than what some of us have lived on Amelia Island.

After some discussion with the city, it went back to the county to be decided on. Two of the commissioners voted in favor, while three decided to vote against. (I believe this is and still could be an election issue next year).

I understand that a good crowd of county and even city people spoke against this being developed in the last county meeting. The very fact that this development would risk the lives of people on a small strip of land, with only one chance of leaving in emergencies, is not considered to be a good idea. The other factor is this island is next to an active city airport and will become more developed in the future years. The county commissioners must stick to their decision and reject any further plans or threats regarding Crane Island. The people do not want this developed!

An effort by the citizens to make this a state park or wild preserve could best fit Crane Island. They could leave a caretaker's house on the grounds and that would then serve as a very nice park area.

Second, after attending the city's planning board meetings and city commissioners' meetings, voicing my objections at these particular meetings, I still find it hard to believe what many of these developments will go through. First, it was Ocean Breeze overdevelopment (within two days after city approval for the 195 homes and lots, many trees were cleared at a fast pace); the Ocean View motel development (replace the ma and pa motel) that is being presented as a 54 unit motel larger than necessary - it does not fit the space so the developer wanted to have the unused street behind it opened, take that area, and also a small pie-shaped city land along Tarpon Avenue for their development.

Another questionable developer's plan called for a three-story hotel-motel-condominium or whatever you desire to call it, 2,200-square-foot rooms (three-bedroom houses do not in most cases exceed this).

After a number of speakers protested this development, even some testy exchanges between commissioners and the lawyers representing the developer, the city commissioners in their wisdom rejected the proposed building. Several reasons, but one issue was it's close to the ocean, close to oceanfront homes to the north and Sliders to the south.

The last issue to review was the Williamson tract of land next to the overpowering (but attractive) Ocean Park on 0.84 acre of land once deeded to the city by the federal government for recreational purposes. This is in dispute, however, and the owners contend that this is R-2 and should be able to build a 35-feet height multi-building.

The commissioners approved after a long line of speakers protesting, a Planning Advisory Board decision to reject, a staff approval and a confused situation. Lawyers will be suing each other and others so the city might be involved again in the nasty word "lawsuit" that the city is familiar with these days. The city now says it has to re-post this whole issue and it will come up again Nov. 10. If the City would let the two parties sue each other and wait for a court decision would that not be more definite? The land south of this tract was and should be now listed as recreational and in future park land use.  

10/31/03  John Megna, Fernandina Beach

                                                                     _______________**____________________

13 Sept 03 (Opinion page) I am a Developer

             Back  to Top

For problems or questions regarding this web contact  webmaster@fofgroup.org

"cfof" are residents of Fernandina Beach, Florida.

 
Last updated: October 20, 2011.