Neighbors Object, Board Approves Stanley Drive Variance in 4-1 Vote

By Mike Lednovich/Editor

FERNANDINA BEACH — After more than two hours of testimony from residents, attorneys and city staff, the city's Board of Adjustment voted 4-1 Thursday to approve a variance allowing a property owner to divide a lot at 409 Stanley Drive into two residential parcels.

At issue was section 1.03.05 of the city Land Development Code that states any two lots on which just a single structure is built then becomes 'one lot' of record and cannot be subdivided in the future.

The board spent only a few minutes deliberating following the lengthy quasi-judicial hearing before voting to grant the variance request by property owner Eric Corbet. The approval allows the 100-foot-by-203-foot parcel in the Forest Hills subdivision to be divided into two lots that meet current R-1 zoning dimensional requirements.

The easterly lot will measure approximately 103 feet deep by 100 feet wide, while the westerly parcel will measure roughly 100 feet by 100 feet. Each lot could accommodate construction of a single-family residence.

Property owner Eric Corbett

The vote came despite significant opposition from neighboring residents who argued the variance failed to meet requirements established in the city's Land Development Code and could negatively affect neighborhood character, traffic safety, drainage and tree preservation.

The case has drawn unusual attention because city staff previously advised the property owner that the parcel could be divided, only to later determine that a variance would be required after structures on the property were demolished. That reversal prompted questions from residents and became a central issue during Thursday's hearing.

According to testimony presented to the board, the property was originally platted in 1950 and is considerably larger than most lots in the surrounding neighborhood. The site contains significant topographical variation but is not located within a designated flood zone.

At issue was Section 1.03.05 of the city's Land Development Code, which governs construction and demolition activities on combined lots and establishes conditions under which property can be divided. The board heard conflicting interpretations regarding whether the Stanley Drive parcel should be treated as a combined lot or a single lot for purposes of applying the code.

The applicant's representatives argued the variance met all six criteria required under city regulations and would permit development consistent with surrounding R-1 residential zoning. They also emphasized that the proposed homes would be occupied by family members, including plans for a single-story residence to accommodate the owner's elderly father.

Jim Sonderson

"I am embarrassed that, instead of welcoming him (Eric Corbett) to the neighborhood, these neighbors are here today to speak up, to deny him the very same building characteristics, lot sizes, and other considerations that they themselves enjoy," said neighbor Jim Sonderson. "As recommended to you by your board, you have a policy. That policy is followed. It meets all the criteria. I strongly urge you and support you ruling in favor of this variance."

Opponents contended the hardship cited by the applicant was self-created because the need for a variance arose after the existing home and accessory structures were demolished. Several residents argued approval would undermine the intent of the code provision designed to preserve neighborhood character and open space.

"I do respectfully ask the board to deny this variance or at least, at a minimum, to defer it until public safety and environmental concerns, I'm about to describe have been formally reviewed by the city's fire, uh, department and technical review committee," said neighbor Sherman Liddell.

He told the board about the possible loss of tree canopy, traffic hazards and the inability of emergency response vehicles to operate safely in the neighborhood.

Additional concerns focused on potential tree removal, stormwater impacts, traffic safety and the placement of driveways along a steep section of Stanley Drive. Testimony noted that city regulations limit frontage access to one driveway per 100 feet of frontage, creating additional design considerations for the site."If you're gonna remove the trees from two housing areas, it's gonna be a tremendous amount of trees (removed)," said Robert Dohney, who lives nearby.

Board members acknowledged the complexity of the case and the emotional testimony from both supporters and opponents. Several members noted they were required to evaluate the request based on the variance criteria and the competent substantial evidence presented during the hearing rather than public sentiment alone.

Some board members expressed sympathy for neighboring residents' concerns while also recognizing the property's unusual dimensions compared with surrounding lots.

After public testimony closed, discussion among board members lasted only several minutes before a motion was made and seconded to approve the variance. The measure required four affirmative votes to pass and ultimately was approved on a 4-1 vote.

Boad member Len Kreger cast the lone dissenting vote.

"I'm not sure that in my personal opinion, that it (the property) meets all the requirements. I'm a little bit concerned about public interest," Kreger said.

The decision clears the way for the property to be divided into two buildable residential lots, although any future development will still be subject to applicable city requirements related to building permits, stormwater management, tree protection and other development standards.

The variance case attracted considerable public interest following reporting by the Fernandina Observer that city staff had initially informed the owner the property could be divided before later determining that a variance was necessary. That reversal became a recurring theme throughout Thursday's hearing as residents questioned whether the request represented a hardship contemplated under the city's variance standards.

Thursday's vote concludes one of the more closely watched land-use disputes to come before the Board of Adjustment this year, highlighting the ongoing tension between private property rights, LDC section 1.03.05 and neighborhood preservation concerns in Fernandina Beach's established residential areas.