Fernandina Couple Sues City to Stop Construction, Demolish Neighboring House

Disputed building in lawsuit against the city.

By Mike Lednovich/Editor

A Fernandina Beach couple is asking a judge to stop construction of a neighboring house, prohibit the city from issuing a certificate of occupancy and ultimately order the partially completed structure removed, alleging it is being built on an illegally created and undersized lot.

James and Julie Pledger, who own a home at 1809 Beech St., filed the lawsuit against the city and neighboring property owners Frank and Shannon Basile. The Basiles are building a house on an adjoining parcel at 1826 Amelia Ave.

The Pledgers contend the Basile property was unlawfully separated from their property through a 2003 quitclaim deed without the subdivision approval they say was required from the City Commission. The city disputes their central claim, producing a March 2003 letter in which a city planner determined the parcel complied with the zoning requirements then in effect and was buildable.

The dispute is currently pending in Nassau County Circuit Court, and the Pledgers are representing themselves without an attorney.

The City Commission is being asked Wednesday to approve a resolution formally authorizing the city’s legal defense in the case. The resolution does not decide the merits of the dispute or validate the building permit.

In their fourth amended complaint filed Aug. 5, the Pledgers allege the Basile parcel measures approximately 98.5 feet by 85 feet, containing about 8,372 square feet. They maintain the property is smaller than the 10,500-square-foot minimum they say applies in the R-1 zoning district.

The Pledgers also argue the property cannot qualify as a grandfathered substandard “lot of record” because it was created through a quitclaim deed rather than an approved and recorded subdivision plat.

“The Subject Lot was carved out via an unapproved quitclaim deed,” the complaint states, calling the property “a metes-and-bounds fragment that is not a platted lot of record.”

According to the complaint, the city considered the parcel nonconforming and unbuildable from 2004 through 2018. The Pledgers allege that former Planning Manager Kelly Gibson reversed that position in September 2018 and administratively allowed development without requiring the property owners to seek a variance from the city's Board of Adjustment.

They contend only the Board of Adjustment could authorize a departure from the city’s dimensional requirements, following a public hearing and findings that the property met the city’s variance criteria.

The Pledgers allege city planning staff instead created an unauthorized “grandfather” exemption and acted beyond the authority provided by the city’s Land Development Code.

The Basiles subsequently began construction of what the complaint describes as a 25-foot-tall, two-story, 624-square-foot house. The Pledgers said the house was approximately 70% complete when they filed the amended complaint.

They allege the structure is incompatible with surrounding homes, intrudes on their privacy and has reduced the value of their property.

The Pledgers are asking the court to declare the Basile lot illegally subdivided and unbuildable, invalidate the city’s building permits, impose a permanent stop-work order and prevent the city from issuing a certificate of occupancy.

They also want the Basiles ordered to remove the structure and seek compensation from the city for the alleged reduction in the market value of their property. The complaint states that the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000, although it does not provide a specific damages calculation.

The city presented a sharply different account in an Aug. 13 memorandum opposing the Pledgers’ request for a temporary injunction.

According to the city, the applicable zoning regulations in 2003 required an R-1A parcel to contain at least 7,500 square feet and have a minimum width of 75 feet. A survey at the time calculated the Basile parcel at 8,388.65 square feet with approximately 98.69 feet of frontage.

The city attached the 2003 zoning regulations and a March 4, 2003, letter from Historic Preservation Planner Anne Catinna to then-property owner Christopher Caserta.

“Under the zoning regulations this is a buildable lot in the R1-A district,” Catinna wrote after reviewing the parcel’s dimensions, according to court documents.

That letter directly challenges the Pledgers’ argument that the parcel failed to meet the lot-size requirement when it was created.

The city said the property was later considered unable to accommodate a single-family house because it did not front a public road—not because it was too small. The city maintains the parcel now fronts a city road and that the road-frontage obstacle no longer exists.

It also argues that the current Land Development Code does not contain a minimum lot-area requirement for a single-family house and that development of the Basile property does not exceed the Comprehensive Plan’s maximum density of four homes per acre.

“Contrary to Plaintiffs’ bare, unsupported assertions, the minimum requirement at the time of subdivision in 2003 was 7,500 square feet,” the city’s memorandum states. “As a result, Plaintiffs’ entire claim fails.”

The city’s filing, however, focuses primarily on the parcel’s dimensions and does not fully address the Pledgers’ separate contention that the original division of the property required formal subdivision approval or a recorded vote by the City Commission.

At issue are two distinct questions for the litigation: whether the parcel satisfied the dimensional requirements in effect in 2003 and whether it was created through the legally required subdivision process.

The city is currently asking the court to deny a temporary injunction that would halt construction while the lawsuit proceeds.

To obtain that injunction, the Pledgers must demonstrate that they are likely to prevail, face irreparable harm without immediate court action, lack an adequate remedy through monetary damages and that an injunction would be consistent with the public interest.

The city argues the Pledgers cannot demonstrate irreparable harm because their allegations involving privacy and reduced property value are speculative. It also contends that a reduction in property value could be compensated through a monetary award.

Because the Pledgers themselves request compensation for diminished property value, the city argues they have acknowledged the existence of an adequate legal remedy, undermining their request for immediate injunctive relief.

The court previously declined to consider the request on an emergency basis but scheduled an evidentiary hearing on the temporary injunction for Aug. 20.

A ruling against the injunction would not end the lawsuit. It would determine whether construction may continue while the court considers the Pledgers’ broader challenge to the lot and building permits.

Fernandina Beach is represented by Samuel Zeskind of Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman. The Basiles are represented by John Wallace of Smith Hulsey & Busey.