|
Home
Up
Photos
| |
Little Tiger Island page:
- 08 Feb 06 At
the Tuesday Commission meeting,
CFOF was shown a letter that was prepared by the
city attorney, Debra Braga, indicating that Little Tiger Island was
not eligible to be annexed by the City. Her letter indicated that
there were a number of conditions spelled out in the City's regulations
regarding annexations that were not met by the Little Tiger proposal. In
particular that Little Tigar is "not contiguous" and annexations had to be
for "urban purposes". There was also concern about the demands for City
services. So this also is good news, it will be interesting to see where the
Zev Cohen proposal goes from here.
- 31 Jan 06 CFOF
Position Synopsis:
The
owners (Kavanaugh, Woodward & McGregor) of the six parcels of property that
make up Little Tiger Island have applied to have the property annexed into
the City. The County Property Appraiser's Office lists the six parcels as
totaling 1,007 acres with an appraised value of $41,160. The purpose of
their annexation request is that in exchange for a promise never to build
residential units on Little Tiger, they want the ability to sell the
130 "density credits" they claim to have to property owners in the downtown
Fernandina area. Under State law and the City's Comprehensive plan, there
cannot be an increase of density in the Coastal High Hazard Area which
includes the first couple of blocks of the downtown area along the Amelia
River waterfront. So, for the property owners in the City with current
commercial/industrial zoning classifications, they only way they can build
residential units is to get their zoning changed and purchase these density
credits.
CFOF has a
number of concerns about this specific proposal; as well as the issue of
density credit transfer as a whole. As the photos clearly show
(Click on "Photos" page above), with the exception of some small
uplands along the northern part of the island and some isolated hammocks on
the western end, the vast majority of Little Tiger is water or marsh. Since
most of the parcels were conveyed under quit-claim deeds, there is a
question as to how much property is truly owned by these individuals. While
there is a formal process for a private property owner to have marshlands
adjacent to state-owned waterways deeded to them, we have found no evidence
that the owners have gone through such a process. If they have not done so,
the State owns the land up to the high-water level. Additionally, the City
has a much stricter definition than the County for the calculation of the
property that is available for building. The County uses a "Gross Density"
calculation that allows the property owner to calculate ALL the land they
own, regardless if whether it is suitable for building (i.e. lakes, marsh,
etc.). However, the City uses a "Net Density" calculation that requires the
property owner to deduct areas that are not eligible for building such as
marshes, easements, etc. Clearly, the owners wish to have their calculation
done under County standards, but then apply the result to the City!
Under language
currently proposed, the City will allow density credits to be transferred
from vacant land in the Coastal High Hazard Area to properties in the
Central Business District (CBD). While density credits can be a reasonable
way to provide protection to historic or environmentally sensitive
properties, the process has also been abused in other communities resulting
in the trading of these credits for large sums of money. While the proposed
use is moderately restrictive, we are already seeing signs of potential
abuse. A number of property owners are asking for their property to be
rezoned CBD, even though they are outside the boundaries of the traditional CBD.
The CBD classifications permits one of the most intense development
capabilities in our City with no on-site parking requirements and zero-lot
line (no front, back or side yard setbacks).
|
