Fernandina Port Warehouse Relocation Delayed Yet Again After Permit and Design Dispute

Relocation of the 22,000 square foot tent has been debated for more than eight months.

By Mike Lednovich/Editor

A long-running dispute over a massive fabric warehouse at the Port of Fernandina resurfaced again Wednesday when the Ocean Highway and Port Authority learned that key permits tied to relocating the structure remain incomplete — even as commissioners continue debating where the warehouse should ultimately be placed.

The issue centers on a 22,000-square foot fabric warehouse that the port operator previously moved to a location not approved by the board. Commissioners have directed that the structure be returned to its originally approved site in the northeast corner of the port yard and oriented north-to-south.

During earlier discussions summarized in the meeting packet, OHPA Chair Ray Nelson expressed frustration over repeated delays and changing plans for the warehouse relocation.

“The warehouse should be moved to its originally approved location,” Nelson said, noting that the operator relocated it without board authorization and that continued changes undermine the authority of the board.

The warehouse relocation has become one of the port authority’s most contentious operational issues, drawing complaints from nearby residents and repeated scrutiny from commissioners over permitting, safety and site design.

Port Commissioners learned that permits required for dismantling and reassembling the warehouse had not yet been finalized.

The operator has been working to secure two permits — one for demolition of the structure and another for reconstructing it in the new location — after hiring a general contractor Coker Industrial Contractors of Yulee to assist with the process.

According to the meeting packet, the operator engaged Coker Industrial to manage the relocation work and permitting after earlier efforts stalled due to the lack of engineering and permitting expertise.

During the OHPA meeting, commissioners were told that the demolition permit and the permit to reassemble the warehouse remain incomplete, lacking required documentation such as engineering drawings and contractor certifications. Permit fees also had not been paid and the current permit application was set to expire within days.

The permit issue surfaced during public comment when Catherine Tharin told commissioners the permit to reassemble the warehouse had been placed on hold because required materials had not been submitted. She said the demolition permit had briefly entered review before being returned to hold status after additional documentation was requested.

Local resident Catherine Tharin

Relay Terminals President Ted McNair apologized to the board, disclosing the company had hired a general contractor to handle the demolition and relocation permits but acknowledged the process had not been completed properly.

“We hired a contractor to take care of this and obviously that hasn’t been fulfilled the way it should have,” McNair said, adding that he had been told the permits were under review and promised to correct the issue immediately.

The revelation frustrated Chairman Nelson, who said the continued delays were eroding confidence among nearby residents who have closely followed the project.

“We keep hearing things are being taken care of and then we find out they’re not,” Nelson said. “When something is said, it needs to be carried out. Right now, based on what we heard, it’s not.”

Commissioner Miriam Hill also pressed the issue, noting that permit records show calculated fees, but no payment submitted.

“You’re not going to get a permit unless you pay the fee,” Hill said, asking whether Relay had actually paid the required amount. McNair acknowledged that payment had not yet been made.

Hill also asked the operator to provide correspondence with the contractor handling the permits so commissioners could better understand where the process broke down.

Port terminal general manager Travis Zittrauer told commissioners the permitting process has now been restarted.

“A relocation map has been completed, floodplain information has been received, and a general contractor has been engaged,” Zittrauer said. He added that demolition and reconstruction permits have been submitted and that efforts are underway to fast-track the remaining approvals.

But commissioners expressed frustration that the relocation still has not occurred despite months of discussion.

Commissioner Scott Moore noted that the board had previously expected the warehouse to be moved months earlier.

“We agreed the move would occur in October,” Moore said during the discussion, pointing out that several months had passed without progress.

Complicating the issue is an ongoing debate over how the warehouse should be oriented once it is relocated to the northeast corner of the port.

Nelson reminded commissioners that the original engineering plan placed the warehouse north-to-south in the corner of the yard — the highest elevation on the site.

That design allowed trucks to unload along the sides rather than driving directly through the building.

“The warehouse was originally engineered to sit north–south,” Nelson said, explaining that using it as a drive-through would significantly reduce storage capacity and could create safety concerns.

However, Relay Terminals presented a different concept that would place the building east-to-west along the north fence line, allowing trucks to drive through the warehouse.

McNair told commissioners the drive-through configuration could improve operational flexibility, particularly during rain or when cargo needs to be quickly sheltered.

He also raised concerns about emergency access and truck maneuverability if the warehouse remained in the north-south orientation.

Commissioner Hill questioned that reasoning, noting that the board had repeatedly asked for full drawings and schematics to evaluate the proposal.

She said the lack of complete documentation has contributed to months of delays.

Even with OHPA reaffirming the warehouse’s location and orientation, the relocation cannot proceed until the required permits are issued by the city.

"I don't know why this is so difficult. It's not like we're building a space station," an exasperated Nelson said. "How come this can't be figured out?"

OHPA attorney Tammi Bach told commissioners the city typically has 10 to 14 days to process building permits under the Florida Building Code once a complete application is submitted.

Until those permits are finalized, the warehouse relocation — already months behind schedule — remains unresolved.