|
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
| |
PAB Archive
- 08 Feb 06
At Tuesday
night's Commissioner's meeting it was announced that Lupita McClenning has
submitted her resignation from the city Planning Advisory Board. This now
leaves two openings on the board, because Peter Willking
has also recently resigned. CFOF would like to encourage interested persons
to consider volunteering. It would be nice to think FB could continue to
maintain an objective PAB without having a strong development interest enter
the arena and begin to unduly influence FB future land use policies
22 July 05 "We are a
Planning Board..."
TO: Mayor Walker,
Vice-Mayor Roberts, and the City
commissioners
I am very
concerned about the comments made about the PAB at the last meeting,
indicating that the PAB recommendation was based on a possible
desire that “nothing” would be developed on the site where a comp
change had been requested. That is suggesting that recommendations
from the PAB are based on personal opinions of a particular
development, or developer, when nothing could be further from the
truth. We are NOT anti-development activists, we are a planning
board. The recommendations that are forwarded to you, the
commission, from the planning advisory board that you appointed, are
based on sound planning practices.
For example:
Studies by the University of Florida have shown that homesteaded
residential property does not keep up with future expenses of a
city, nor do they offset the added expenses of residential
development, as indicated in the presentation by Professor Little
when he appeared before the commission. This can only be
accomplished through economic development, which means that
commercial and industrial property must be maintained. Once it has
been given away, it is gone forever. If only residential property
is developed we will become a bedroom community unable to support
city services. Even the undesirable solution of raised taxes is
affected by the set rates of homesteaded property.
The proposed LDR’s
contain additional residential categories that are more comparable
to county densities in on effort to
control,
not stop,
growth. In this way we are saving pennies of density and it does not
make sense to squander dollars of saved density on any one
development that does not provide any additional public benefit. The
city is in the process of working on a plan for affordable housing
which would include added density through providing 1 affordable
unit for 1 unit at full market value, up to ten units. If we do not
control density then there is no incentive for a developer to
provide affordable housing.
Why do we need to
control growth? We must consider the traffic load our streets can
bear, the impact on water, sewer and other city services
AND
the fact that we already
have
undeveloped residentially zoned property we
owe
these services. We need to pay that bill before we incur more debt.
Also, this is a representative form of government and our citizens
have made it clear that they are concerned about these issues.
All of these
principles should be applied in a consistent manner, otherwise how
can you say no to the next request for a similar comprehensive plan
change? The planning advisory board considers and discusses all of
these issues in the decision making process, and other issues that
are specific to an individual application such as surrounding uses.
To plan for the future we must look at all the property in the city
as a whole, not just as individual parcels.
It is unfair to
dismiss the recommendations of both the professional planning staff
and the planning advisory board by speculating that “perhaps a PAB
member is thinking that nothing will be built there” instead of
expressing valid reasons for the decision. We have many issues to
address in our upcoming joint meeting August 9, (i.e. supplementary
standards vs. conditional uses, BOA, below grade parking, floor area
ratios), but I feel this is important too. Through their hard work,
intelligent discussions, and dedication, my fellow board members
have
EARNED my respect. I would like to know what we need
to do to earn yours.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Williamson
________________**_______________
Editorial: 05 Jan 05
Concerned
citizen alert
| from News-Leader As a former Planning Advisory Board
(PAB) chair and member for eight years, I am concerned
about the proposal by city officials to restructure,
consolidate, or outright eliminate existing city boards
("City plans new land use rules; citizen boards might
change," Dec. 22). It appears to me that this may be an
attempt by city leaders to centralize power, in part by
reducing the ability of citizens to effectively express
opposition.
One of the chief functions of the PAB has been to
provide city officials - including the commission, city
manager and city attorney - with an independent opinion
regarding land use matters. In my experience, most
commissioners valued this input before they made their
final decision.
Let's keep in mind that the commission has the power to
approve or deny the selection of board members. By
reducing the significance of boards, city leaders may
drastically alter the existing process of checks and
balances that experienced, knowledgeable board members
have historically provided in the past.
Recently city officials have attempted to circumvent
and/or alter the positions taken by the PAB before they
had reached the city commission. The existence of
"developer's agreements" in which top city officials
would essentially make a deal with developers on a
project represented an attempt to exert influence on the
PAB members to accept the plan. A key player in each of
these instances was the city attorney - the result of
the unique Florida statute that in essence allows the
lawyer to function as a "sixth commissioner."
Any attempt to dilute or remove boards from the land use
process should be a red flag for Fernandinians. This
city still has undeveloped land, including potential
annexed county land which is at risk. Fernandina Beach
would not be the first city in Florida to have been
compromised by city leaders who have, intentionally or
not, sold out to major developmental interest groups. To
date, the boards dealing with land use have provided an
independent, representative influence on decisions which
affect the quality of all of our lives.
Bob
Howat, Fernandina
Beach
|
|
|
________**____________ 08Apr 04
A New Sheriff in Town?
As we all know the decision to appoint a non-alternate to the P.A.B. has
left many citizens up in arms. Alternates can spend years serving with the
board, volunteering hours, attending meetings and doing research to keep
current with the issues at hand. Traditionally, when board positions are
vacated, out of respect for their hard work and dedication, one of the
alternates is appointed to replace the open position, and another alternate
is then appointed. (There has never been a by-law regarding this procedure,
and Commissioner Greg Rowland had the foresight to place it on the agenda at
the April 6th meeting.)
Bill Conger, P.A.B. member, expressed these similar comments when he
addressed the City Commission this past Tuesday evening. His views were met
with opposition from Vice Mayor Lamb stating "he didn't appreciate his
telling the Commissioners how to run their business," and "the boards serve
at the Commissioner's pleasure." He then proceeded to say "There's a new
Sheriff in town." A new Sheriff in town? What is that supposed to mean?
Perhaps Mr. Lamb has forgotten that Mr. Conger and every voting, tax paying
citizen has every right to express their opinions to the Commission without
being told they're trying to tell them how to run their business - but,
isn't their business our business? Are the citizens not allowed to
challenge decisions made by the City Commissioners without being
bullied? Is this what we have to look forward to "the new Sheriff in town
attitude?" City Commissioners forget they were elected to be the voice of
their constituents, and I don't think they are listening.
Jane Bailey, Fernandina Beach
_________**_________ 20 Mar 04
Fire your critics? 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 16th 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 Tarpon 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
____________**______________
|
