Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Substandard Lots topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fernandina Beach planning board debates approach to 25-foot 'substandard' lots
Summary
Board members discussed a proposal to require owners to identify or address 25-foot lots, weighing fairness to long-held family lots, tax implications, methods to quantify lots using property-appraiser data, and potential environmental/buildability constraints. No vote or final policy was adopted.
At the July 9 meeting, the Fernandina Beach Planning Advisory Board spent its longest discussion on whether to limit future development on 25-foot "substandard" lots of record and how to identify them.
A board member summarized a draft suggestion (described in the meeting as Member Bennett's proposal) that would require owners to identify substandard 25-foot lots and impose a deadline for owners to resolve them. The proponent framed the idea as a way to clarify the city’s build-out potential: "This will allow us to have a plan to know exactly how many additional lots there will be or won't be," the member said.
Opposition and fairness concerns: Several members pushed back on imposing a universal deadline. One commissioner warned that many 25-foot lots have been in families for generations and that "giving people four months to unwind a 150 years of platted lots" could be unfair. Others said some areas—such as portions of 1st Avenue—feature historic, narrow-lot character where small-lot infill might not fit the neighborhood.
Technical and administrative considerations: Commissioners and staff discussed methods to quantify 25-foot lots, including using the property appraiser to run fence searches and identify vacant 25-foot lots by area. Harrison noted that some 25-foot lots are physically unbuildable because of wetlands or other environmental constraints and would not meaningfully affect build-out if left unchanged. The board also clarified that certain zoning districts (for example, MU-8 and C-3) may allow narrower lots under current code and that any new rule would need careful drafting to avoid unintended consequences.
Tax and parcel issues: Members discussed parcel identification and tax assessment implications if substandard lots were assigned separate parcel IDs; some argued that splitting parcels could raise tax revenues because previously aggregated parcels might receive separate assessments.
Next steps: Chair Joester and staff asked commissioners to send further input to staff members (Kelly and Mark) so that staff and legal counsel can draft potential ordinance language and schedule the matter for future hearings. The board did not adopt an ordinance or impose any deadlines at the July 9 meeting.
