Considering variance requests for commercial lot combinations on Fletcher in Job Opportunity Areas

Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm

Reporter - News Analyst

August 17, 2017 - 3:30 p.m.

At their August 15, 2017 Regular Meeting, the Fernandina Beach City Commission (FBCC) once again turned its attention to the question of combining commercial lots in designated Job Opportunity Areas along North and South Fletcher. They passed on a 3-2 vote on First Reading Ordinance 2017-20, which would allow owners of commercial properties in the Job Opportunity Areas along the west side of North and South Fletcher Avenue to apply for a variance from lot combination restrictions.

Passage of this ordinance would not greenlight any specific lot combination, but would allow property owners to explain the nature and benefits of their proposed project to the Board of Adjustments, which would decide cases on individual merits.

Commissioners Roy Smith and Tim Poynter joined with Mayor Lentz to support the ordinance, but Vice Mayor Len Kreger and Commissioner John Miller opposed the ordinance, which will return to the FBCC for a Second Reading and Public Hearing. A similar ordinance passed the FBCC on First Reading in 2014, only to fail on Second Reading.

Background

The City of Fernandina Beach Comprehensive Plan identifies seven areas, already zoned commercial, as “Job Opportunity Areas:” the Central Business District, the 8^th Street and 14^th Street commercial areas, the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA), the Sadler Road/South Fletcher Avenue Activity Center, the Main Beach Activity Center at Atlantic Avenue, and the Municipal Airport. Policy 12.05.01 states: “Within these areas the City, working in partnership with the NCEDB, will establish a list of target industries and businesses for economic development opportunities.”

Areas in red are the only 3 affected by this change.

While lots may be combined in certain areas of the city under certain conditions, City Code currently contains an absolute prohibition on combining lots along Ocean Avenue and North and South Fletcher. The original intent appears to have been to prevent the combining of residential lots. This prohibition, however, handicaps commercial interests in those limited areas where the city desires to promote economic development opportunities. Furthermore, since current code language does not allow the commercial property owners in those Job Opportunity Areas to request relief in terms of a variance from the Board of Adjustment, some have argued that in effect the result has been a “taking” of commercial property because it prevents landowners from making the highest and best use of their property.

Pros and Cons

Since 2014, City staff and the Planning Advisory Board have attempted to resolve this apparent conflict. But due to heavy citizen lobbying, commissioners have been reluctant to approve a change that would allow commercial property owners in those limited Job Opportunity Areas along Fletcher the opportunity to request a variance from the Board of Adjustment.

Those favoring the passage of the ordinance stress that it does not guarantee large scale commercial development. The Board of Adjustment is still the final authority on lot combination, and any project is still height limited to 35 feet and subject to all other applicable city codes. They say that the commercial properties will still be developed, but having to break projects down by lots (which can still be built lot line to lot line) hampers good design and causes unnecessary red tape for property owners and developers. They also argue that by not allowing property owners in Job Opportunity Areas even to request a variance deprives them of a property right and might be construed as a “taking.”

Opponents take different lines of reasoning. Some oppose all development along Fletcher Avenue because such development will add to traffic, obstruct views or reduce green space. Others do not understand the limited scope of the ordinance. And some do not have confidence in the Board of Adjustment’s decision making.

Commission discussion

Commissioner John Miller took a middle position. He said, “I’m okay with property owners being able to ask for permission. I’m just not okay with who grants permission. I think this should be a Commission decision. … If I hear from constituents and don’t have any vote on the matter, what’s the point?”

Miller expressed his opinion that the Board of Adjustment does not take a sense of the Commission in making its rulings, and in the past has made exceptions clearly counter to FBCC decisions.

Senior Planner Kelly Gibson reminded commissioners that there are six criteria that must be met for staff to recommend approval of a variance request. Each must be answered affirmatively for the matter to be approved by the Board of Adjustment. Appeal of a ruling from the Board of Adjustment is done through the courts, not the City Commission.

Commissioner Smith expressed his preference for the City Commission to have a role in the approval process and asked if there were a way that could be done. Commissioner Poynter suggested that the FBCC could sunset the Board of Adjustments and take that role upon themselves.

City Attorney Tammi Bach said that commissioners could change the code to make themselves the quasi-judicial hearing board for lot combination variance requests. Gibson also suggested that the FBCC could approve code amendments to further specify details that would need to be included in variance requests to combine lots.

Miller continued to express a desire to look at the current scope of the Board of Adjustment.

Lentz asked Poynter if he wanted to amend his motion, but he declined. Poynter claimed that if commercial lots 50 feet wide were developed in the Job Opportunity Areas, they would add to traffic congestion and not promote good design. Successful commercial projects along Fletcher are at least 100 feet in width. He pointed to blighted areas in some of the areas today. “I would like to see something nice happen in these areas, but I’m not even here to support that,” Poynter said. “I’m just saying that they should have the right to ask whatever board in this community for the opportunity to present their plan. That’s what I’m voting for, not any particular plan.”