Rayonier and Rock Tenn join Port in opposition to citizens' proposal

March 13, 2015 8:48 a.m.

"It is not in our interest, or is it in the interest of the city to degrade or reduce the viability of the port." Russell Schweiss, Rayonier

Planning and Advisory Board  (file photo)

Rayonier and Rock Tenn presented strong arguments against a proposed change to the Land Development Code (LDC) by historic district residents Chip Ross and Chuck Hall at a Wednesday afternoon Planning and Advisory Board (PAB) workshop.  As previously reported by Suanne Thamm, "In November 2014, two Historic District residents and Port of Fernandina neighbors—Chip Ross and Chuck Hall—made application to amend the city’s LDC in order to prohibit certain hazardous materials and heavy industrial activities, coal transfer, and passenger ships in excess of 500 passengers. The applicants’ concerns arose out of health and safety concerns in light of potential future operations set forth in a new Master Plan for the Port of Fernandina put forward by the Ocean Highway and Port Authority in summer 2014"

At a prior PAB meeting, members voted  to postpone a decision on the proposed changes to the Land Development Code for the next three months  so input could be received  from concerned and affected parties.

During the one and a half hour meeting, concerns from affected parties and citizens consumed most of the meeting postponing the  PAB from addressing line by line areas of concern.

Rayonier's spokesperson Russell Schweiss

Russell Schweiss, director of corporate communications and community relations for Rayonier Advanced Materials, objected to the proposed changes. He presented the board with memos containing legal opinions of Rayonier's attorneys and legal opinions of three separate attorneys calling attention to "legal flaws" in the proposals.

"You are talking about taking away property rights that exist.  You are talking about some people becoming a non-conforming use when their business is no longer viable.  It will take away people's property rights that exist today. Our property rights extend beyond our current uses.  I'm not saying we would ever propose any of these things, but we have the right to at this point."

"Our attorney believe this takes away our right to pursue opportunities.  If the definition supports an item on the table that takes away a property right we currently possess, we are against it.  If an amendment could be construed as prohibiting uses, operations or activities that we may need in the future to grow or run our business, we are against it."

"The bottom line is that we are unwilling to participate in a process where we are expected to bargain away piece by piece our current property rights. It is not in our interest, or is in the interest of the city to degrade or reduce the viability of the port.  We are not endorsing those land uses, but we believe the discussion  should take place in another forum."

"We have spent hours on dealing with these issues and we have spent a tremendous amount of legal resources to deal with these issues.  In today's world of Google, . . . people who invest their dollars here are going to look at what has been going on in the community.   They are going to recognize that this is not the environment we are going to step into."

Swisser said in most municipalities citizen proposals are vetted prior to appearing before a city board or commission.  There is a "gating process" where citizen proposals are weighed for their consistency with the comprehensive plan before it gets this far.

"Looking at this from a broader view, a citizens' proposal was probably never intended for an omnibus revision of the city's vision as far as industrial development goes. This needs to be looked at holistically and not cherry picked. If you are going to affect land use in one category, that is going to affect others.  This is affecting a lot of property owners who have industrial owned properties."

"We believe the process is improper. The EAR process is.  We think it is unfair  . . . that we should have to, on a citizen proposal by citizen proposal bases, come in and defend those rights.  The fact that we oppose this is not an endorsement of those land uses.    We are concerned about the precedent. Who is to stop someone else from doing the same thing?  We could be here over and over and over again."

"The fact that businesses that have been here for 75 years have to hire attorneys for a prolonged process that creates great uncertainty about their operations, that would scare me and I would think twice about investing [in City]."

"We have been a responsible citizen here.  When there is an economic downturn, see what happens to those who don't like industry."

Senior Planner Kelly Gibson

According to senior planner Kelly Gibson, in the previous state required Evaluation and Appraisal Review conducted by the City in 2008, public input was received before the City's Planning and Advisory Board and planning staff.   Input was used to focus the review and structure revisions to the document. The state requires a review every seven years.  (For more information on 2008-2009 EAR click here.)

Michelle Rumlet, spokesperson for Rock Tenn

Michelle Rumlet, environmental manager for Rock Tenn followed Swisser.

"Rock Tenn has serious concerns about how the proposed amendments to the land use code could impact the future on the mill. The chemical storage at the Fernandina mill is safer today than ever before.  The Fernandina Beach Mill is subject to numerous air, water, waste, chemical and safety requirements."

"There are hundreds of federal and state and environmental regulations that pertain to the mills. Adding yet another layer of regulations on top of what already exist will likely create conflicting, confusing, potentially costly requirements for the mill.  Our attorneys believe the amendments also present existing legal concerns because they conflict with existing state and federal regulations and would interfere with interstate commerce."

Chip Ross

In response to the arguments from Rayonier and Rock Tenn, Chip Ross co-applicant for the proposed change responded, "I don't think this is catastrophic to anybody. My opinion is that this clarifies  exactly what you are willing to do in the city and where so citizens can know if they are going to come here  and put their money here."

Faith Ross was the final speaker.

Faith Ross File Photo

"I am sorry the  mills are feeling threatened. However, there have been new uses proposed by the port and they do affect other properties within the city particularly our industrial waterfront . . ."

"I live in the historic district and we have umpteen restrictions  . . . but there is a quality that is added to the city with those regulations.  I hope that more discussion can be brought together as far as the education of the public.   If you do permit these things at least they are permitted as a use so people know before they buy a property that these things are in existence. It is a public awareness thing."

According to PAB Chairman Len Kreger, the PAB will continue workshops and eventually vote on the proposal and send it to the city commission.