The special Commission meeting on December 1st which
was dealt with the new Land Development Code (LDC) basically went
alright - it was cumbersome, but Mayor Walker did let everyone speak
without a request form, including the public.
Reverend Holmes came from the Southside saying
that that neighborhood was very concerned with the changes it is
seeing. He said 30 other residents were supposed to show up at the
meeting but didn't- so he alone made strong points that seemed to
sink home with the Commission about the fears that the Southside
community has when it sees its neighborhood being sold at under
market value, torn down, and replaced with duplexes occupied by
residents who rent rather than own their properties. He also pointed
out where the Black neighborhood used to be compared to the area
that it now occupies, and that the community sees those boundaries
still shrinking.
Old Town became a large discussion because in the
new LDC document it stated that 25ft was the minimum for lots in
that area. That however is untrue because the original Spanish Plat-
a peonia is 46 1/2ft by 93 ft. I remember it as an issue ,
so I guess 25 ft. had been put forward since that mistake
originated, and you know how these things go- quote a mistake long
enough and it becomes fact. Later, Marilyn Williamson from the PAB
told me that she had been taking the city's figures at face value, I
suppose everyone else on the PAB and Commission did the same.
However there were quite a few Old Town residents in attendance and
public pressure set that one straight.
Old Town residents are also very worried about
accessory buildings (garage apts.) that are being built there and
being used for rental. I think Planning has been OKing them, and
last night Catherine indicated that she has the OK from the
Department for Community Affairs for FB to be out of compliance
with these current density infractions. I think this
will be an issue in the future and frankly I don't understand how
rules can be broken with a state regulatory organization saying
its okay with it. I admit that perhaps I don't fully comprehend the
issue, anyway I don't think that it got straightened out in the end.
There was also a big discussion over separate
utility meters- the PAB did not want separate meters allowed for
accessory buildings so it wasn't as easy to illegally rent
mother-in-law apartments that were built for legitimate family uses.
There reasoning was that any allowing of outside of family renters
changes the intent of the law and also changes density quotients in
neighborhoods. This again was especially a topic that had the Old
Town residents concerned. Gail Easley fought for the inclusion of
separate meters- saying meters were a way for tracking what people
were doing. Debra Braga said that we have a utility ordinance that
will cover the issue- no one explained what that was.
I think that the definition of a dwelling unit may
still be a problem that needs to be dealt with in the LDC's before
they are formally adopted, but the December 14th PAB meeting will
deal with more of this- I think especially Old Town issues and the
Southside's concerns (plus the Plantation's request which I'll talk
about later).
Numbers of sleeping units were a problem that was
discussed; and we found out last night that Lowell Hall plans to put
a hotel down on the corner of Sadler and S. Fletcher- he said he has
about an acre there. The PAB had recommended 15 sleeping rooms to
the acre as a limit to hotel rooms- however it will now go back to
being limited by lot size and parking requirements- which now
thankfully include two extra spaces for employees (PAB request). I
tried suggesting that now was the time to add 2-3 spaces for guest
vehicle overflow beyond the 1 per unit that is currently required,
but no one wanted to hear it.
The big news is- after much discussion, the
Commission agreed to keep the Board Of Adjustments, while giving the
HDC variance powers for properties in the Historic District. It
truly was public input-Lowell Hall, Jeffery Thomasetti, Bill Conger,
and Joan Altman and Commissioners John Crow, and Joe Gerrity- that
made the difference for keeping the community boards alive.
Certainly Gail Easley was pushing hard for the combining the PAB,
HDC, and the BOA- to supposedly streamline things. It was
interesting to watch how she would continually ask for direction of
the Commission when she didn't like the way the discussion was going
in order to keep the discussion going in hopes of changing its
direction. It was sutble and maybe if you were caught up in the
discussion in the moment you wouldn't notice it, but she did it
repeatedly throughout the night.
Arguments in favor of the BOA went from- we need
more oversight and checks and balances, to it would be hard to be a
member of the expanded PAB so that for one part of the meeting you
act as the PAB and then you take that hat off and take on a
quasi-judicial role becoming a BOA member. It also was brought up
that there is no compelling reason to change something that has
always worked well for FB just because other municipalities under
Ms. Easley's tutelage have done it.
There was also alot of discussion over the length
of time a development should be given to meet traffic concurrency-
the PAB said 1 year from receiving the 'certificate of occupancy'.
Gail Easley really again fought on this one- specifically not
listening to what the PAB was saying but doing her subtle pressure
on the Commission. I think it was decided to go back to giving the
developer 3 years to meet concurrency because publically funded
projects are given that amount of time to come into compliance. The
O'Conner's, who had previously applied for approval of the Lyndale
Lakes project, were there in full force saying that their
concurrency should be grandfathered in even if they don't know what
their property will be used for in the future. Their argument was
that they had been given an original level of concurrency when their
property was first platted as Light Industrial back in the 70's or
when ever they began to develop their property around the
airport. I'm not clear exactly how their issue got resolved, or if
it did.
The PAB wanted the minimum state statutes for the
noise codes for airport protection to be added to the Land
Development Code- Debra Braga said something about an error in the
old code- so I suppose that means it will be added later; but again
I wasn't clear.
Royal Amelia and golf courses in general were
added as permitted uses for Industrial 1 zoning.
Supplemental Standards were discussed- Gail Easley
had not added them to the LDC's even though the PAB wanted them for
added standards and protection. Gail said it was a local preference
how it supplemental standards are handled- but the language had to
be clear. It seemed the Commission didn't want to add them as an
extra layer of protection, but I think this is something that bears
a closer look as the LDC's move closer towards adoption in the
public hearings that will be held.
After the Plantation made its pitch for adding
lodging to the Royal Amelia Golf Course, I spoke saying that perhaps
it would be best to make this a re-zoning issue because to do a
'blanket' change by adding transient accommodations as a permitted
catagory to an Industrial zoning district could come back to haunt
us later in ways we don't now know. I pointed out that this isn't
the only Industrial area a blanket change such as this would affect
(thinking waterfront). I was surprised that Commissioner Leeper was
the first Commissioner to voice support for adding transient lodging
to Light Industrial areas- he was followed by Commissioner Roberts
and others.
I tried to point out that our rules now say that a
hotel is a 'conditional use' in commercial zoning districts. Which
means that applicants have to go before the PAB as an extra layer of
oversight to decide whether or not the request is in keeping with
the site's location.
I also mentioned that if the Plantation can't make
the golf course profitable at a later date that permitting hotels
with a broad brushstroke could possibly lead to the whole property
becoming hotels and condos in the future. To me its clear that its
hotels now- and step two will be requests for condos. The
Commissioners however seemed to say that that since they were
willing to negotiate with Hawthorne Suites, they saw no reason why
the same possibilities shouldn't be offered to the Plantation. The
PAB spoke up and said that they felt it was inappropriate for the
Plantation to be bringing their request to the special meeting
rather than to follow accepted procedures; so this issue will be one
of the focal points of the Dec 14th PAB meeting.
All and all the special meeting worked out; the
PAB and the public got to speak. Mayor Walker said several times if
anyone knew of a better way for the meeting to be run to let him
know. I kept quiet, but it's still painful for me to watch important
decisions that will affect our community for the next decade be made
quickly due to time constraints. It reminds me of the meetings where
a design idea will be presented for the Marina and its thumbs up or
thumbs down in about a four-minute time frame, and not always does
decision A blend with decision B. But I can proudly report that on a
local level- democracy was served last night- and for that we can
all be thankful.
Julie Ferreira
, Fernandina Beach
