Planning Advisory Board meets Weds 10/25 on proposal encouraging overdevelopment
Meeting ALERT: On Wednesday, Oct. 25, 6:00 p.m. at City Hall Commission Chambers, the Planning Advisory Board (PAB) and City Commissioners will meet to discuss the changes the City Commissioners propose for the Land Development Code (LDC). Many of you attended the September meeting to express your reactions and thoughts.
This is another opportunity to listen and voice your concerns/questions about changing sections LDC 1.03.04 and 1.03.05 of the LDC.
BACKGROUND: Sections 1.03.04 and 1.03.05 of the Land Development Code have been used to preserve our neighborhoods since 2006. Most of the City of Fernandina Beach, from 14th St. to the river, has “25-foot underlying lots of record.” Since those lots are small, larger houses have been built on multiple lots throughout the years.
Developers wanted to tear down existing houses on combined lots and rebuild several smaller houses on the 25-foot underlying lots. In 2006, in response Section 1.03.05 was put into place to stop this development.
Section 1.03.05 of the Land Development Code (LDC) states that if a home was built on multiple lots, those lots (including the house, garage, porches, sheds, etc.) was are considered one lot of record. So, if a house with its auxiliary structures was built on 4 lots, it is now one lot. You cannot tear down the house and put up four small homes.
What are the proposed changes? What the City Commission wants to change is that 1.03.05 will only apply to the main house. Not the uncovered porches or decks, not the garage, not the driveway, not the sheds, etc. This will allow a large number of 25-foot lots in the city to be available to increase development.
A separate proposed change that is not on the agenda for Oct. 25 recommends the removal of the term “floodplain” from the definition of “net density”.
How do these changes impact our residents and visitors? Potential impacts are listed below. Each impact is interrelated with each other and should not be viewed in isolation. In other words, each have an impact on the city’s economy, environment and character:
1. Sense of place: Overdevelopment, along with buildings that don’t have that charm create a town that is crowded and not charming. Our character, including preserving our historic district, consistently remains as a top priority and constitutes our competitive edge for maintaining our popularity and future well-being. This is the major underlying element of our economy.
2. Increasing density and overdevelopment negatively erodes our capacity to be a sustainable and resilient city and island. We must be prepared for sea level rise, storm surge and changes in climate. As we destroy and overbuild, we destroy our protective natural infrastructure. Once the properties are destroyed, they can not be returned to their original natural beauty. Damage will only become more costly to the city and residents.
3. Removal of the term “floodplain” from the definition of “net density,” causes increase in development in the floodplain. This runs a risk of seriously limiting our opportunities for sustainability and resilience funding with FEMA, the state and other sources. While we are working towards improving our CRS and FIS ratings, this change negatively impacts insurance rates and other expenses. Our goal should be the opposite of the proposal: prevent development in the floodplain. Imagine the future costs the city, county and residents will incur in future storms.
Lastly, there are other questions that residents and visitors have raised. Some of the data requested is posted in the Agenda Packet (https://fernandinabeachfl.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3651/files) Questions raised include:
1. Impact of increase density on mobility. This includes but is not limited to parking, traffic, bike/walk trails, maintenance of roads and sidewalks; and evacuations during storms or other disasters.
2. Data: how many lots are currently identified in the city? What is the potential population increase? How many county lots that can be annexed to the city will meet these criteria? Can you display the maps? How do you communicate this impact with current residents?
3. What studies have been conducted on this, including input from residents?
4. What is positive impact on the city?
Conserve Nassau has participated in the PAB and city commission meetings expressing serious concerns about this proposal. We have written to City Commissioners. Conserve Nassau has posted information about our concerns along with other like-minded groups such as Conserve Ameila Now! Stop the Domino Effect Now! and CARDAmelia. We invite you to research and participate.
We encourage you to share this information with your neighbors and more importantly attend the meeting and write to your commissioners.