Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fernandina Beach BOA upholds city27s completeness finding in contested South 3rd/4th Street site plan appeal
Summary
The Board of Adjustment rejected an appeal from a nearby resident who argued the TRC27s completeness determination for a multi-parcel development was flawed and that TRC procedures violated Sunshine Law; after deliberations the board affirmed staff27s completeness decision by majority vote.
The Fernandina Beach Board of Adjustment on Tuesday affirmed the city planning staff27s determination that a major site-plan application for properties at 124 S. 3rd Street and 119/123/125 S. 4th Street was complete, rejecting an appeal by the project27s opponent.
Kelly Gibson, the city27s director of planning and conservation, told the board that "all application materials have been received, all fees have been paid, and all of our required notices have been completed," and walked members through the application timeline, survey documents and TRC (technical review committee) compliance reports that staff used to make its completeness checklist determination.
The applicant, Taina Krishner, argued the TRC27s determination was in error and listed several items she said were missing or outdated from the public packet: a certified property survey with a stamped legal description, parcel-specific impervious-surface-ratio calculations, an on-site stormwater-retention plan rather than one sited on adjacent property, updated topographic/soil borings, and a Live Local affidavit confirming affordable housing commitments. Krishner also alleged that portions of the TRC process ran afoul of Florida27s Sunshine Law and that her FOIA requests produced incomplete records.
"This appeal is on the completeness determination of TRC case 2024-0005, and I feel it fails to comply with the land development code," Krishner said during her presentation, summarizing her request that the board declare the completeness determination invalid and require a resubmission and fresh TRC review.
City Attorney Tammy Bach countered that many of the appellant's points amounted to compliance or legal arguments better resolved at later stages or through other remedies. "For purposes of this hearing ... Ms. Christner . . . is a lay witness or a lay person and does not have expertise in engineering or law," Bach told the board, urging members to limit their decision to the narrow legal question before them: whether the application met the city27s completeness checklist.
Several neighbors testified in support of Krishner, telling the board they had trouble locating records in FOIA responses and expressing concern that older topographic and soil data might not reflect post-demolition conditions. Jack Amber testified he was "completely support(ive)" of Krishner27s claims about process and transparency.
Board discussion centered on whether the items the appellant flagged were "fatal" to a completeness finding or instead deficiencies the applicant could correct in response to a compliance review. Multiple board members and the city attorney pointed out that a completeness determination is a limited, checklist-based administrative action; compliance and engineering adequacy are assessed later in the TRC process.
A motion to reverse the staff27s completeness determination was moved and seconded; the roll call produced a mixed vote that did not meet the code27s five-vote threshold required to reverse an administrative decision. The board then voted to uphold the city27s completeness finding by majority vote and closed the public hearing.
What happens next: because the board affirmed the administrative completeness determination, the application remains in the TRC/compliance review process. If the city or affected parties identify specific missing documents, city staff or the applicant can submit corrections; the typical process allows resubmission and additional TRC comments before any local development order is issued.
The hearing record shows the board treated the appeal as narrowly procedural: members repeatedly distinguished between "is the packet complete?" and "is the project compliant?" and directed that technical compliance issues be addressed in ensuing reviews rather than in this appeal.
Reporter's note: The appeal referenced TRC case 2024-0005 and was heard as BOA case 2024-0002; the public record includes staff compliance reports dated July 30 and October 22 and an appeal filed November 13, 2024. Several dates in oral testimony were clarified on the record during the hearing.
