Concerned Friends of Fernandina |
|
|
Crane Island page:
Index
Save Crane Island
Nassau County and City of Fernandina Beach commissioners are being asked to allow development on Crane Island - including 169 homes and a 90-slip marina carved out of the island’s center ! Crane Island unique location provides irreplaceable natural functions, wildlife habitat and is vulnerable to storm surges even in a Class 1 hurricane. PLEASE HELP US SAVE CRANE ISLAND ! The community has already been very generous with donations small and large to the Crane Island Legal Defense Fund. But we need your continued help to raise funds for what could be a protracted legal battle and pursue acquisition of this unique conservation treasure in the River for future generations. An anonymous donor has agreed to match dollar-for-dollar any contributions made to the Crane Island Legal Defense Fund from this point forward. Please join us and send your check to: Nassau Sierra Club (earmarked for “Crane Island Legal Defense Fund”on the Memo line). Mail to: Nassau Sierra Club, P.O. Box 38, Fernandina Beach FL 32035. Thank you. Thank you, Friends of Crane Island: Concerned Friends of Fernandina, East Nassau Homeowners’ Council, and Nassau Sierra Club.
Some have asked for an update on the Crane Island appeal that was held on Wednesday at Coastal Law School in Jax Three members of the First District Court of Appeal heard the case: Paul Hawkes, Robert T. Benton II and Bradford L. Thomas. Each side was given 15 minutes, although they went over their limit due to intensive questioning by the judges. David Hallman, Nassau county attorney, spent most of the appellants’ time; Cristine Russell, a junior partner of Rogers, Towers (representing the Amelia Island Plantation) spoke briefly (and very ineffectually; she was cut up by the judges). It is interesting to note that Fred Franklin, the smooth-talking Rogers, Towers senior partner who led the defendants at the trial, sat quietly in the audience. We were represented by Ralf Brookes of Cape Coral who spent some time fielding tough and argumentative questions from two of the judges (Hawkes and Thomas, who were both appointed by Jeb Bush) on the standing issue. In fact, there appeared to be no question that the county had broken the law in approving the Crane Island PUD. Hawkes commented to Hallman to the effect that “the county commission violated the law and proceeded on the basis the objectors had no standing.” Benton, a conservationist before he was appointed to the court by Gov. Graham, made no bones about the issue that Crane Island was designated conservation regardless of the slight of hand that caused “conservation” be removed from the Future Land Use Map. The contentious issue came down to standing – as we had anticipated it would from the very beginning. It was this standing issue that made it so important that the Amelia Island Association and the Pilots Association be part of the suit; but both dropped out of the suit after being scared off and intimidated by the Plantation. Their absence from the suit significantly weakened our case. Brookes presented a number of precedents – including two by this same appellate court – that supported our contention that we have the right to bring the suit. The county/Plantation offered none; they just kept referring to statute that requires plaintiffs to be adversely affected to a greater degree than the general population and that the three remaining plaintiffs (Julie, Eric and myself) were not directly affected because we do not live adjacent to Crane Island. One of Brookes’ points was that because Crane Island is an island, and its nearest neighbor is the airport, that under strict interpretation of the statute then no one would have standing. In the trial it was brought out that Eric and Julie conduct Sierra club educational programs around Crane Island. This became in interesting point of discussion if holding kayak trips around the island gave someone standing. As the trial judge, Davis, had on three occasions ruled that we did have standing, the entire case rests on the question, will two of the judges vote to reverse Davis’ rulings on standing. The judges heard four cases Wednesday morning. That afternoon they met to decide the cases. If they had denied the appeal and decided not to write an opinion, then we will hear almost immediately. If they decide to write an opinion to support their decision, then it could take as long as a year. We think our arguments and Ralf’s responses to the judges’ questions were strong. However, it will depend on having at least two judges to accept our standing for us to persevere. Even though they all agree that the county broke the law in approving the Crane Island development, if we could not get two of the three judges to accept our right to bring the suit, then we will have lost.
Robert M. Weintraub
_________________**_______________
Nassau Sierrans win law suit to stop Crane Island development; appeal in progress. July 29, 2009 Nassau County violated the law in approving a planned unit development on environmentally sensitive Crane Island, a Circuit Court judge ruled in December 2008. Nassau County and the developer, the Amelia Island Company (aka The Plantation) opted to appeal the local court’s decision. As of this writing both sides have submitted briefs to the District Court of Appeals. More legal maneuvering is expected before the appeals court makes a decision, perhaps in a month or two. Background:
Three members of the Nassau
Sierra Group Executive Committee had sued the county after the commission
voted in 2006 to create a planned unit development (PUD) on the island,
which is designated as conservation in the county's comprehensive plan. Crane Island is a maritime hammock -- with a number of large heritage oaks and magnolias and other maritime hardwoods -- that lies between Amelia Island and the Intracoastal Waterway. It is directly opposite the Fernandina Beach airport. The northern third of the island is owned by the Florida Inland Navigation District for a dredging spoil site. The lawsuit, brought by Nassau Sierrans Eric Titcomb, Julie Ferriera and Robert Weintraub, claimed that the county did not have the authority to amend the comprehensive plan without getting DCA approval.
Judge Brian J. Davis' Dec. 22
ruling agreed with that position, and vacated the county's order approving
the PUD. The case lasted more than two years. The Amelia Island Co. entered the case as “interveners” and took over the defense with the county playing a supporting role. There were numerous motions to dismiss. The case went to trial in October 2008 and lasted two-and-a-half days. Plaintiff witnesses included Shaw Stiller, DCA general counsel, and Mike McDaniel, DCA division director. The plaintiffs’ attorney is Ralf Brooks of Cape Coral, who had also assisted Nassau Sierra with an earlier Crane Island issue. One of the issues pressed by the defense was that the three plaintiffs lacked “standing,” or the right to bring the suit. Judge Davis rejected this argument both following a hearing on a motion to dismiss and after the trial. The Nassau county commission voted on Jan. 12, 2009 to appeal the ruling despite a strong e-mail and letter campaign from residents not to. -r-Donate to Crane Island legal fund! The Sierra Club’s legal action against Nassau County and the Amelia Island company has been expensive. More than $30,000 has been raised from the community and the Florida Sierra Chapter to cover the legal costs that led to the victory in Circuit Court. But the County’s appeal is expected to cost another $10,000. To participate in the action to save Crane Island from destruction, please send a donation to: Nassau Sierra Club, PO Box 38, Fernandina Beach, FL 32035. Thank you for your help!
Thank you for the many expressions of support and good wishes Julie, Eric and I have received concerning the news that the Crane Island law suit has been won. Circuit Court Judge Brian Davis’ order is attached ( Click here ). As you can see, he agreed with the many points we have been making since 2005 when then county attorney Mike Mullin issued his infamous decision that opened a “back door” for approval of the large-scale development for Crane Island. The judge firmly shut that door and, hopefully, sent a message to the county commission that they are not above the law. This case is not yet over, and there is more to be done. I hope you will continue to give us your support in going forward. First, there is a question of appeal. Our suit was against Nassau County. The developers – the Amelia Island Company (a.k.a. the Plantation) – were “interveners” in the case, and while their law firm led the defense, it is the County that must make the appeal to the District Court. This is a decision the county commission will face in the coming three weeks. We don’t know how much of the cost of the defense has been borne by the county (read taxpayers) and how much by the “interveners,” as the county has kept that information secret. Appeals by the losing side in a case such as this can run $10,000 or more. And the time of the county attorney’s office in pursuing an appeal has to be considered even if the Amelia Island Co. takes on the bulk of the costs. It is technically possible for the “interveners” to file for an appeal, but without the county’s involvement their case is very weak. So it is important that the public let the county commissioners know how it feels: that the large-scale development of Crane Island is opposed and an appeal of the Circuit Court’s decision should not be pursued. There are some 400 Nassau residents receiving this e-mail. If we all send an e-mail to each of the five commissioners asking them not to appeal Judge Davis’ decision, we might have an impact. Attached to this e-mail are the e-mail addresses of all five commissioners. Second is the issue of the costs to win the case. Our attorney is Ralf Brookes of Cape Coral, which is near Ft. Myers. We used Ralf because he is an experienced land use attorney who has been involved in a number of legal issues on the side of the Sierra Club and the public against developers and their government cronies. He also worked with Nassau Sierra on an earlier issue concerning Crane Island so there was no learning curve. And, of course, finding a local attorney who is not beholden to developer interests, was next to impossible. Although Ralf charges modest fees, his time was consistently called upon to deal with minor issues and red herrings the county and Amelia Island Co. kept throwing in the way. The county and AIC also wasted considerable time during the trial requiring a third day of testimony. As a result of the defense’ delaying tactics, Ralf had to make six trips to Amelia Island. As a result, the cost to win the case and preserve Crane Island is close to $30,000. Nassau Sierra has raised more than $20,000 through donations and events. You and your friends and neighbors have been very generous with your support in the past and we are reluctant to ask once again, especially at this time of year and with the condition of the economy. But if you feel that saving Crane Island has important value, perhaps you can make another contribution. Please make your checks to Nassau County Sierra Club, write Crane Island on the memo line, and mail to Nassau Sierra, P.O. Box 38, Fernandina Beach 32035. Thank you again for your considerable support.
Robert M. Weintraub 904-491-6817
__________**___________
This is a report on the status of the law suit brought by three members of the Nassau Sierra Club against Nassau County for its approval of a large-scale development of Crane Island. The Trial The Crane Island trial was concluded on Friday, Oct. 24 without much new occurring. In effect, Nassau County and the Amelia Island Company only sought to extend the trial an extra day in order to make it more costly on the public to press the suit. Of the three days of trial, half the time was wasted by the opposition with irrelevant testimony and cross examination. On the first day of the trial we presented testimony by two officials of the state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and an expert witness – who once was a department head at the DCA – who said that the county commissioners’ approval of the Crane Island development without approval by the state, was illegal. The opposition contended that a provision of the county’s comprehensive plan allowed for the change in Crane Island’s designation as conservation to residential. The DCA officials (the general counsel and a department head) said that the comprehensive plan could not be “self-amending” and under state law required that the DCA approve a comprehensive plan amendment. This is the core issue of the case. After two days of legal debate and obfuscation by the defense, the judge asked the county and AIC attorneys to explain how a comprehensive plan can be “self-amending.” In effect, the judge was able to grasp the core issue despite efforts by the defense to confuse. The two defense attorneys spent 15 minutes trying to answer the judge’s question, but as the day ended the judge said “you still have not answered my question.” This is an indication that the judge will probably rule in our favor. Most of the second day of trial was taken up with endless witnesses testifying how wonderful the Crane Island development will be. This was totally irrelevant to the legal issues and served only to take up valuable time and force a third trial day. The third day, Friday, was devoted to the question of “standing” – do the plaintiffs – Eric Titcomb, Julie Ferreira and myself – have the right to bring the suit. In Florida to bring suit against a government’s actions the plaintiffs must be adversely affected to a greater extent than the general public. These issues had been addressed earlier and twice the judge had denied the defense motion to dismiss on lack of standing. Yet the defense continued to challenge standing at trial. Nothing new was presented on Friday. The three plaintiffs presented their case forcefully. The AIC’s attorney made a limp effort to cross examine. The AIC and county brought an “expert” witness who said when he was on Crane Island he saw no birds and wildlife at all. A site plan was presented that shows every bit of Crane Island would be developed, yet the “expert” said that the environment would not be changed. This witness was not believable and his testimony will no doubt be ignored. Lawyers for both sides will now present legal briefs summarizing their positions; these are due by Nov. 23. The judge will then make a ruling which should be expected sometime in December.
Where we stand The delaying tactics of the county and their AIC cronies – multiple motions to dismiss and delaying the trial to force a third, unnecessary trial day – have required inordinate amount of time by our attorney. Although we have raised more than $20,000 in the past two years we find ourselves $10,000 in the red. It is obvious that we will win the case. Our strong evidence and witnesses coupled with a weak case by the opposition indicates that there is a strong chance that Crane Island will be saved! But we need to raise $10,000. We are not planning another event for the holiday season, already crowded with activities. Instead we ask the public to make a new donation to the Sierra Club.
Robert M. Weintraub _____________**_____________
The law suit against Nassau County for approving the large-scale development of Crane Island contrary to state and local law was held Monday and Tuesday and has been continued to Oct. 24, 10 a.m. in the Centre Street court house. The two days saw intense legal sparring between a team of lawyers representing the developer -- The Amelia Island Company (aka the Plantation) – and the county attorney on one side and our lawyer on the other. On Monday we presented as witnesses two officials of the Florida Dept. of Community affairs (DCA)– a section head and the DCA’s chief attorney – who testified to the main points of the case, that the state had required Nassau County to designate Crane Island as Conservation with an allowable density of one house per five acres (41 homes on the claimed acreage), to which the County had agreed in 1993. They also testified that every effort by the County to change the Conservation designation to allow greater density had been rejected by the DCA on the grounds that Crane Island was environmentally sensitive and should be protected. They also testified that the county’s backdoor approach to permit the construction of 169 homes and a 90-slip marina was in violation of state law and an improper use of the section of the Nassau comprehensive plan (the now infamous policy 1.09.03). The two DCA officials were subject to a withering cross examination of about two hours each by the AIC attorney (Fred Franklin of the Towers Perin law firm and a former Duvall County Attorney) and Nassau County attorney Hallman, but was unable to shake their testimony. On Tuesday morning, the plaintiffs called as an expert witness an urban and environmental planner who had been chief planner for Monroe County (the Florida Keys) and a division head at DCA. This witness confirmed everything the DCA officials had said and reported that her intensive investigation of state and county files turned up nothing that would change the position that Crane Island should be protected as conservation land. This witness was also subjected to a blistering cross examination by the defense attorneys of more than an hour, but her testimony remained unshaken. A key issue arose concerning the county’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM) which is a part of the Comprehensive Plan. By the end of a day and a half of testimony and cross examination there were three FLUMs on the table: Our witnesses presented a map from DCA files that shows Crane Island designated as Conservation, as required by the 1993 agreement. The County and AIC attorneys presented a FLUM that showed Crane Island designated Wetlands. A third map, taken from the county’s GIS Web site (both in Oct. 2006 when the County Commission approved the Crane Island development and again on Monday night) that clearly shows the FLUM designation as Conservation. The dispute over which map is the “official” map raged throughout the two days. This issue will again come up on Oct. 24. The map designation is critical to the AIC/Nassau County case. If the FLUM shows Crane Island to be designated Conservation, then the development can not be approved without DCA approval (a comprehensive plan amendment). But if the FLUM designation is Wetlands then the AIC/County position is they can change the zoning to residential because the island is not designated Conservation. A key question to be answered is: how and when was the Nassau FLUM changed to show Crane Island as Wetlands rather than Conservation and was that change approved by the DCA as required by law. Neither side has been able to provide any evidence that the change to Wetlands was ever approved. Based on evidence provided so far, the 1993 map from the DCA files is the only approved FLUM and that shows Crane Island to be designated Conservation just as the FLUm on the County’s GIS Web site (see attached). The AIC/County defense is also continuing to claim that the plaintiffs – Eric Titcomb, Julie Ferreira and myself – lack “standing” or the right to bring the suit against the county. Twice the judge – Brian Davis – has ruled that we do have standing. But the AIC/County continues to challenge this and will attempt to break the three of us on cross-examination on Oct. 24. To answer a common question: our suit is against Nassau County. The Amelia Island Company has joined the suit as “intervenors” and it is their attorney who has led the defense with the county attorney just saying, in effect, “me too.” The public can attend the continuation of the trial on Oct. 24.
Robert M. Weintraub
___________**___________ A significant victory has been achieved in the Crane Island law suit. The one concern we had going in was how the court would see challenges on the issue of “standing” – whether the petitioners had the right to sue the county. The opposition – essentially the Amelia Island Company – had argued strongly and repeatedly that we did not have standing and the suit should be dismissed. For the second time, Judge Davis has rejected the claims of the county and developer. We are now cleared for the trial which will be on Oct 6 and 7 at the FB court house. We have a very strong case with a bevy of expert and state government witnesses prepared to testify the county was dead wrong in approving the Crane Island development.
So we have much to celebrate. Come join us on Sept 21 at Kafé Karibo for a party and pre-trial rally. Call or e-mail me for tickets.
Robert M. Weintraub 904-491-6817 _______________**____________
The effort to stop the large-scale development of Crane Island will come to trial Oct. 6 and 7 in the Circuit Court on Centre Street in Fernandina Beach. The suit has received several positive boosts from Circuit Court Judge Brian Davis in the past year as several motions to dismiss the case brought by the Amelia Island Company’s attorney working on behalf of Nassau County have been denied. The suit, brought by three members of the Nassau Sierra Group executive committee [formal approval for the Nassau Group to support the legal action came too late for the Sierra Club to be named as a plaintiff], is against Nassau County for illegally changing the comprehensive plan and future land use map (FLUM) in order to approve a planned unit development for Crane Island of 163 homes plus a 90-slip marina. Crane Island is a small maritime forested island – a hammock with a number of large heritage oaks -- that lies between Amelia Island and the Intracoastal Waterway. It dominates the view from the A1A bridge that is the primary access to Amelia Island. It has a colorful history: it was granted to freed slaves following the War Between the States and for many years its sole inhabitant was a woman who led a hermit’s existence, made her clothing from burlap, and kept intruders at bay with a gun. It passed to the current owners through a series of tax lien sales. It is surrounded by wetlands that are claimed by the current owner. In the early 1990s, when Florida counties were required to create comprehensive plans and future land use maps, the state required that Crane Island be categorized as conservation/wetlands with a population density of one house for each five acres (43 houses). Ever since, the land owners and developers have tried to change that designation to residential, every time being denied by the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA). In 2006, the Nassau County Commission voted to change the comp plan and FLUM citing an obscure section of the comp plan. The plaintiffs include Eric Titcombe, who for many years as environmental chairman of the Nassau Sierra Group has fought the zoning change; Robert Weintraub, also head of the East Nassau Homeowners’ Council, a community umbrella group, and Julie Ferreira, who is also a leader in the Concerned Friends of Fernandina. Three other plaintiffs have dropped out of the suit as a result of pressure and threats from the developer. The plaintiffs are represented by Ralf Brookes of Cape Coral, a land development attorney who has represented Sierra Club interests in the past. The City of Fernandina Beach, named in the original complaint, has rescinded its approval of the memorandum of understanding between developers, the County and City that led to the illegal action, so the City is no longer involved. But the developer – the Amelia Island Company (AIC) – is very much involved and has taken over the lead of the defense from the County. The AIC filed several motions to dismiss the suit. However, in a hearing with Judge Davis at the end of June, the AIC withdrew most of its objections. Since then, the AIC has challenged the right of the three plaintiffs to bring the suit saying they lack “standing,” in legal terminology they are not harmed more than the general population is harmed by the county’s action. In the spring of 2008, following another hearing, Judge Davis did rule that the three did have standing and a trial date was set. A mediation effort will be made in September (as required by law) but it is unlikely there will be a settlement because the core of the issue is the county’s violation of the law. Our suit’s focus is that a county cannot change its comprehensive plan and future land use map without state approval. The DCA told the County this in so many words in 2006, but the County Commissioners ignored this and improperly used the (now infamous) Section 1.09.03 of the comprehensive plan as a basis for doing so. We have a very strong case with solid court rulings as well as expert witnesses to support our contention that this was illegal. The actions of the AIC and its attorneys are costly. The Friends of Crane Island Coalition has raised more than $20,000 so far with most of that already used for legal fees. We expect attorney fees and the costs of expert witnesses for the trial will require at least another $10,000. It is unfortunate that the public must spend this kind of money to assure that its elected officials obey the law. But, the way the law is set up, this is our only option. More fund raising events are being planned. The stakes are high. If we cannot sustain the legal action the County, City and developers will know that the public does not have the heart to make a significant challenge to illegal actions and they will be free to do whatever they please. If we can persevere we can deliver an important lesson to elected officials. We’ve drawn a line in the sand. We must hold that line.
___________**_____________
The
Sierra Club’s mission statement is to explore, enjoy, and protect the
wild places of the earth; to practice and promote the responsible use of
the earth's ecosystems and resources; to educate and enlist humanity to
protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment;
and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives.
A notable example of the Nassau
County Club's impact on local policies is the lawsuit that has been
filed against Nassau County by Sierra Club members who are objecting to
the methods that Nassau County utilized to rezone Crane Island which is
an undeveloped environmentally sensitive barrier island that sits
adjacent to the Nassau River Aquatic Preserve.
The proposed development on Crane
Island to build 169 housing units along with an excavated 90 slip boat
basin that will be dug out of the center of the barrier island stirred
local controversy especially when Mike Mullen, then the Nassau County
Attorney, opinioned that the County could change its Future Land Use Map
without going before the Department of Community Affairs in Tallahassee
by utilizing a loophole in the Nassau Comprehensive Plan.
The lawsuit is challenging Nassau
County’s interpretive use of 1.09.03 to change the zoning of Crane
Island from Wetlands/Conservation (which would allow 1 house per 5A.) to
R1 as the means to permit the large-scale development on Crane Island as
a violation of the County Comprehensive Plan and state law. The usage of
1.09.03 could set a precedent that could be utilized in future changes
to the Future Land Use Map without state review.
Our lawsuit will go to trial in
October 2008. Believing that grassroots action can make the difference
in the world our grandchildren will inherit, it is this type of struggle
that characterizes the Sierra Club's efforts and describes the difficult
role that desires to balance the needs of business with our requirement
for a healthy environment through the protection of diminishing
resources.
Thanks so much,
julie
ferreira
583-2388
____________**_____________ We won a BIGGIE on the Crane Island Law Suit! The County (which we are suing for violating state law in approving the Crane Island development) had argued (with the help of the Amelia Island Company’s attorney) that members of the public could not sue the county unless they were injured to a greater degree than the general population. This is called “standing” in legal parlance. Judge Davis of the local district court rejected the county’s argument that Eric Titcomb, Julie Ferreira and Bob Weintraub did not have “standing” and denied the county’s effort to throw out the case. All three of us are members of Nassau Sierra’s executive committee; Julie represents Concerned Friends of Fernandina and I the East Nassau Homeowners’ Council. Judge Davis’ order is attached. This means we can proceed to trial. Because we have a very strong case, there is an excellent chance we can win this. If we do, the county will be responsible for paying our legal fees. Thanks to everyone for their support, both financial and otherwise. Friends of Crane Island _____________**____________ Friends of Crane Island: The effort to stop the large-scale development of Crane Island received a positive boost from Circuit Court Judge Brian Davis in July. Our suit, as you know, is against Nassau County for illegally changing the comprehensive plan and future land use map in order to approve a planned unit development for Crane Island of 163 homes plus a 90-slip marina. The City of Fernandina Beach, in our original complaint, has rescinded its approval of the memorandum of understanding between developers, the county and city that led to the illegal action, so the City is no longer involved. But the lead developer – the Amelia Island Company – is very much involved and has taken over the lead of the defense from the County. The AIC had filed a motion to dismiss the suit. However, when we met with Judge Davis at the end of June, the AIC withdrew most of its objections. (The motion for dismissal is seen as nothing more than legal harassment to run up our legal costs as it had no legal basis.) Our suit has two parts: the first is that a county cannot change its comprehensive plan and future land use map without state approval. The state Department of Community Affairs told the County this in so many words a year ago, but the County Commissioners ignored this and improperly used the (now infamous) Section 1.09.03 of the comprehensive plan as a basis for doing so. We have a very strong case here with solid court rulings as well as expert witnesses to support our contention that this was illegal. The second part of our suit is that the county and developers participated in what is known as “contract zoning” where, by use of the four-month-long negotiations over the memorandum of understanding, the Crane Island PUD was set up by prior agreement between the developers and county (and City because of its prior agreement to annex Crane Island after the PUD was created and the development built so that the development could get water, sewage and other city services). Contract zoning is illegal in Florida. Where the first part of the suit will be heard at trial – date has not been set – the second part will be reviewed by the judge in a process known as certiorari. Judge Davis has just agreed to do this (objecting to certiorari was the essence of the AIC’s motion to dismiss) and we have submitted to him all documents pertaining to the case that demonstrate that contract zoning actually took place. Judge Davis is expected to issue a decision in the next month or so. If he agrees that contract zoning took place, then the PUD approval will be put on hold – we expect the AIC to appeal the case. However, we will continue with the trial on the first and primary issue because we want to establish that the use of 1.09.03 to change the comprehensive plan is illegal. The actions of the AIC and its attorneys are costly to us. The Friends of Crane Island Coalition has raised $17,000 so far with most of that already used for legal fees. We expect fees and the costs of expert witnesses will require another $10,000. It is unfortunate that the public must spend this kind of money to assure that it’s elected officials obey the law. But, the way the law is set up, this is our only option. So, although the Nassau County community has been generous in the past, we must again ask you for financial support. The stakes are high. If we cannot sustain the legal action the County, City and developers will know that the public does not have the heart to make a significant challenge to illegal actions and they will be free to do whatever they please. If we can persevere we can deliver an important lesson to elected officials. We’ve drawn a line in the sand. Let’s hold that line. Donations should be made by check made out to Nassau County Sierra Club and the notation "Crane Island Fund" on the bottom of the check. It should be sent to Nassau Sierra Club, PO Box 38, Fernandina Beach FL 32035. Robert M. Weintraub 904 491 6817 ______________**______________
As expected, the county (with assistance from the AIC's attorney) has made a motion to dismiss our action. We don't have the motion to dismiss yet as our attorney is involved in a trial. But a hearing -- lawyer's arguments only -- is set for June 29th.
While we wait for
the legal action to unfold, Crane Island developers have submitted plans
to the county. The county engineers made a number of comments that the
developers didn't like.
Crane
Island is on the agenda of the April 10
meeting of the county's Development Review Committee. The CI developers
will be there to discuss the engineering dept's objections. We can
attend as observers, but can make no input at that time. We can of
course make our opinion known in writing to growth management and
engineering.
_______**________
We've had some encouraging news from
the local court on our first law suit against the county and city on
their Memo of Understanding of last spring that set out the plan for
approval of the large-scale Crane Island development. Oral arguments
were heard last month and the judge last week issued an order delaying
an opinion until we could submit an amendment to our request to strike
down the county/city action. The judge said because the approval of the
MOU was only an agreement to take certain action, and not the final
action, we were premature. He said that his court could only have
jurisdiction once the county actually approved the Crane Island
development plans using the controversial section 1.09.03 to avoid
taking the FLUM change to court. His dismissal of our action was
"without prejudice" which means he has invited us to submit an amendment
to our original complaint.
The judge could have dismissed the case
"with prejudice" and said our case was without merit on the various
grounds presented by our opposition -- the county, city and Amelia
Island Co. As he did not, he has, in effect, rejected the claims of the
opposition. And his focus on 1.09.03 as the crux of the issue shows he
fully understands the case is based on the question of 1.09.03's
interpretation.
The second round -- a law suit based on
the county commission's action of three weeks ago to approve the Crane
Island development -- will be filed before Thanksgiving.
One of the organizations in our Friends
of Crane Island coalition -- the Concerned Friends of Fernandina -- is
working with the owner of the house used in the Pippi Longstocking movie
in Old Town to have a fund-raising open house on the weekend of Dec 9
and 10. The house is being decorated for Christmas by local decorators
and designers. They need volunteers to act as guides and docents for
three-hour shifts. If anyone is interested in volunteering, please
call Judy at 321.5647
The judge has given us much hope that
we can succeed in stopping this unwise and illegal development; what we
need now is the money to see this through what we expect will be a
lengthy appeal process. In effect, we're standing toe-to-toe with the
Amelia Island Co. and we've won the first round.
Robert M. Weintraub
___________**____________
________**________
__________**__________
Friends of Crane Island News Release
NASSAU COUNTY, CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH SUED OVER CRANE ISLAND MOU Citizens Group files suit to protect Crane Island from increased density FERNANDINA BEACH, FL., April 25 – Legal action was filed yesterday against Nassau County and the City of Fernandina Beach by a group of citizen’s and organizations (known as the Friends of Crane Island) challenging the county and city’s joint agreement with the owners of Crane Island to allow development of Crane island. The agreement would increase the allowable density on the undeveloped Crane Island located in the Intracoastal Waterway adjacent to Amelia Island. The agreement would allow densities that far exceed the maximum allowable number of units under the current Conservation/Wetlands designation for Crane Island. The action seeking judicial review was filed in Florida’s Fourth Judicial Circuit Court. The suit claims the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would allow development of the island without seeking review and approval of a comprehensive plan amendment from the state Department of Community Affairs and would violate a number of state and local laws. “The MOU agrees that the county will process applications for a rezoning without submitting a plan amendment to the Future Land Use Map designation to the state as required by law … and then annexation into the City as a non-conforming use in the City…,” all in violation of law. “Allowing 169 units exceeds the allowable units under the Conservation/ Wetlands designation of the property on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) by 300-400%.” Because the density is inconsistent with the County FLUM … and would not be allowable under the City’s Land Development Code the MOU violates the essential requirements of law contained in state statute, local codes and comprehensive plans of the City of Fernandina Beach and Nassau County. The legal action was brought by five individuals and an incorporated homeowner’s association. They are: Eric Titcomb, conservation chair of the Nassau Sierra Club; Robert Weintraub, who is president of the East Nassau Homeowners’ Council; Tom Coté-Merow, president of the Amelia Island Association Inc. (which is also a party to the litigation): Gordon R. Reilly of the Nassau Pilots Association; and, Julie Ferreira of Concerned Friends of Fernandina. These five organizations formed a coalition called Friends of Crane Island to oppose the overdevelopment of the island, including the increase in density and the marina proposed to be dredged out of the island behind a proposed lock. The lead attorney in the legal team assembled by Friends of Crane Island is Ralf Brookes of Cape Coral, Florida, who has been involved with the Crane Island issue on behalf of the Nassau Sierra Club for more than eight years. His website can be found at: www.RalfBrookesAttorney.com email: Ralf@RalfBrookesAttorney.com
_________**__________
Well, last night at
the County meeting was interesting....the Commissioners decided to table
Crane Island because the county needed to make some amendments to the
Memorandum of Understanding to update some of the language. The next
meeting will be 27th March. At this meeting, the developer can come back
with whatever approach he wants to pursue for Crane Island be it a
Planned Unit Development or a Future Land Use Amendment, or whatever
approach they want to take regarding moving towards the development of
Crane Island.
This puts the
opposition at a definite disadvantage because we will only know
approx. 8 days before the 27th what we need to be prepared
for. Certainly we should speak to the applicability of the 1.09.03
issue because that puts us on the record for a later date.
Over and over again last night, Mr. Mullins stressed that the MOU has served its purpose- he says that it was intended as a sequencing guide. It laid down the historical nature of what's transpired in the past, and it stated the applicant's intentions, along with what the County's responsibilities are, and what the city's responsibilities are. He also said that the MOU does not force the developer into any certain procedure when they submit their application, and that its served a purpose but it is no longer the focus of the discussion.
__________**_________
It is within the best interests of the citizens of NASSAU COUNTY to maintain the "Conservation zoning" designation of Crane Island and to maintain the integrity of the Nassau County Comprehensive Plan because of the following:
____________**________ FIVE GROUPS JOIN FORCES TO OPPOSE CRANE ISLAND DEVELOPMENT; LEGAL RESPONSE PLANNED IF COUNTY CHANGES COMP PLAN
Five Nassau County organizations have joined forces to prepare a legal response should the Nassau Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) change the county’s Comprehensive Plan to permit large-scale residential development of Crane Island. Two homeowners groups – the Amelia Island Association and East Nassau Homeowners’ Council -- plus Concerned Friends of Fernandina and the Nassau Pilots Association, have agreed to form a coalition that would join with the Nassau County Sierra Club in its on-going legal defense of Crane Island’s conservation designation. The Sierra Club has been fighting the development of Crane Island, which is designated Conservation-Wetlands, for more than 20 years, according to local club issues chairman, Eric Titcomb, who said “we welcome the support of these organizations that represent so many thousands of taxpayers in this part of the county.” A Sierra Club attorney, Ralph Brooks of Cape Coral, Florida, has prepared a legal brief that identifies more than a dozen U.S., Florida, Nassau County and City of Fernandina Beach laws that would be violated if the Crane Island development is permitted to proceed, Titcomb explained. The group is holding discussions with several attorneys with the intention of retaining one to prepare legal action should that become necessary, according to Robert Weintraub, president of the East Nassau Homeowners’ Council, an umbrella organization for homeowners groups between the Amelia River and Yulee. “There are so many laws being violated it is obvious we have a very strong case and we are confident of winning if this issue gets to a courtroom,” Weintraub said. A fund-raising campaign has been launched to build a legal war chest to finance the expected legal fight, Weintraub said. Donations will be collected by the Nassau County Sierra Club which is setting up a Crane Island Legal Defense Fund. “We have to work quickly,” said Julie Ferreira of Concerned Friends for Fernandina, an organization of homeowners primarily in the City of Fernandina Beach. “We plan to organize a show of force at the Sept. 6 meeting of the Nassau Planning & Zoning Board and the Sept. 26 County Commission meeting. If the county approves the comprehensive plan change they will know they are going against the will of many thousands of voters,” she said. “We are preparing a mission statement that all five groups will support,” said Tom Coté-Morow, co-president of the Amelia Island Association which represents some 32 homeowners associations and 25 percent of Island residents. The AIA’s already published position paper against the proposed Crane Island development will provide the basis for the mission statement, Coté-Merow explained. Gordon Reilly of the Nassau Pilots Association , said commercial interests in the area should also be concerned about the Crane Island development and join the fight because the viability of the airport will be compromised. “The airport is an important economic resource for the island’s commercial and tourist industries,” he said. Reilly warned that there have been some 14 air crashes on or near the airport in the last 20 years so the homes proposed for Crane Island will be in constant danger. The Navy and Army Reserve use the airport for training purposes as part of the agreement that converted the airport from a military base to a private operation, he pointed out saying “It is incredulous that people will pay $1.2 million for a home and put up with a constant stream of Gulfstream's, Navy helicopters and Army night support aircraft flying a few hundred feet overhead. Regardless of what’s on paper, if Crane Island is developed the airport’s future is dim. The coalition is also reaching out to residents of western Nassau to join the fight on the grounds that they can be affected financially and politically. “Nassau residents have already seen large increases in homeowners insurance bills due to last year’s hurricane damage, even though most of the damage was elsewhere,” Coté-Merow said. “Crane Island is the lowest land in eastern Nassau and, according to the experts, will be flooded by even a passing hurricane causing millions of dollars in insurance claims that will be passed on to all Nassau residents. In effect, people in Callahan, Bryceville and Hilliard will be paying for other people’s right to live on Crane Island.” “If the County Commissioners (BOCC) approves a special exception change to the county’s comprehensive plan it sets a precedent for similar changes everywhere in the county,” Ferreira pointed out. “With so much new development planned for the Callahan and Bryceville areas, people there should be very concerned with their commissioners playing fast and loose with the comp plan,” she said. Several fund-raising programs are being planned for the Crane Island Legal Defense Fund, according to Weintraub, including a possible wine-tasting event. In the meantime, those wishing to make donations to the fund should send checks made out to the Nassau County Sierra Club at P.O. Box 38, Fernandina Beach, he said. These donations will be tax-deductible if designated for Crane Island Legal Defense Fund, according to Titcomb.
Crane Island Coalition _______________**______________
As a representative of Concerned Friends of Fernandina, I spoke before the Nassau County Commissioner's meeting on Monday evening, July 11th regarding the development of Crane Island. Currently, Crane Island is designated as "conservation" on the county's land use map which permits a maximum density of 1 home per 5 acres. As everyone knows, the owners of Crane Island have been attempting for more than 15 year to develop the land at a much higher density. The owners have sought extraordinary means to attempt to accomplish their objective, including threatening the City to stop allowing our children the use of the soccer fields by the airport. Their latest effort involves an agreement with the Amelia Island Plantation to transfer density rights from the Plantation to Crane Island. Based on documentation we have been given, CFOF challenges the legality of these development rights that the Amelia Island Plantation wants to transfer. For a number of years now Long Point has been completely developed, with all excess property now privately owned. To our knowledge the only property that the Plantation still owns at Long Point is the 123 acres that are occupied by the golf course and club house, and the 68 acres of marsh land that lies along the Amelia River. Of course the Amelia Island Plantation is saying that they own the development rights for 800 units based upon the above acreage. Our contention is that if there is no developable land, there are no development rights that can be transferred. The Plantation made a deliberate decision to build the Long Point golf course instead of houses. In 1985 when the Long Point DRI went through the approval process, there was an issue over the reason the developers wanted credit for 800 developable units on acreage that was not able to be developed. Of course in 1985 density wasn't an issue like it is today and the County gave the developers what they asked for. Years later we see that it appears the developers were stockpiling their development/density rights for future use. Rather than seeing the County set precedent, CFOF would like to see a legal ruling on this situation. Can developers legally transfer development rights based upon golf course and marshland acreage, or is it a case that if you can't use them - you lose them? The analogy I would give you is this: as a City resident, I am permitted to build a house up to 35' high. If I only build a single story house with a height of 18', do I have the right to give someone living elsewhere on the Island the 17' of height I didn't use so they could build their house up to 52' high? Of course not; but that is exactly what the Plantation and the Crane Island owners are attempting to do. Certainly Long Point is not Crane Island, so CFOF also contends that transferring the buildable rights on Long Point's Coastal High Hazard area is quite different form the Coastal High Hazard area of Crane Island. Crane Island is a completely different geographical situation- its access is quite different and its impact on road capacity is very different. We would like for these differences to be analyzed by someone other than the developer. CFOF also believes that there is a significant problem with the planning, or lack thereof, for evacuation. No one seems to be taking the evacuation problem seriously. It surprises us that watching the television coverage regarding the damage that Hurricane Dennis has wrecked upon Pensacola, as well as our personal experiences in previous years when evacuation was suggested/mandated, doesn't make local officials realize that hurricane evacuation is a significant problem for Nassau County. We certainly need our local officials to deal with these problems realistically so the citizenry of this County will not be endangered in the future. A County Commissioner raised the evacuation issue in regards to a request to change commercial property for a Chester Road/A1A development to residential- why don't they apply the same reasoning to Crane Island? Getting potential Crane Island residents on and off Amelia Parkway in an emergency evacuation situation is going to be quite different than evacuating residents from the south end of the island. The potential bottleneck on Amelia Parkway will be very dangerous. Jack Healan said at the June 6th JPLA meeting that a traffic study had been done. Was this traffic study done for the conditions at Long Point or the conditions that the Crane Island development will be affecting? CFOF also questions the land area stated by the owners of Crane Island. In their permit application in 1988, the owners were requesting permission to build 99 homes and a 90-slip marina on their 76 acres of land. Later that year, they modified their permit to claim the land encompassed 110 acres - the original 76 acres and 34 acres of wetlands/marsh. Now they claim they have 207 acres to compute their density level. Can you now use wetlands in determining buildable acres? CFOF encourages both County and City officials to research all of the assertions that the developer's request for a Memorandum Of Understanding is being made upon. The developer wants to increase the buildable density rights from 41 houses to 169 houses. We feel that incomplete information is making the developer's request for a density of 169 houses with a Marina for 90 boat slips look one way; when in fact the reality will be very different.
Julie Ferreira ____________**___________
Archives Click: (A) Crane Island |
For problems or questions regarding this web contact webmaster@fofgroup.org
"cfof" are residents of Fernandina Beach, Florida.
|
