“We Paid a Premium for That View:” Riverfront Townhomes Win Approval Despite Objections
By Mike Lednovich/Editor
FERNANDINA BEACH — The Historic District Council unanimously approved the conceptual design of nine three-story townhomes on North Front Street last Thursday, despite objections from neighboring homeowners who said the development would block their views of the Amelia River and reduce their property values.
The 6-0 vote on Oct. 22 allows the developer to advance plans for three buildings containing nine townhomes on a vacant lot at the corner of Front and Alachua streets. The project would replace an existing private parking lot, but the developer must return to the council for final architectural approval before construction can proceed.
Local business owner George Sheffield, representing the five-unit McJunkin Station homeowners association immediately east of the proposed development, urged the council to consider reducing the number of residences from nine to seven or lowering the buildings to preserve some of the river views enjoyed by existing homeowners.
"We paid a premium for the units that we have there and that view that we have now," Sheffield told the council. "We never were so naive to believe that nothing would ever be built there."
Sheffield, a lifelong Fernandina Beach resident and former Historic District Council member, said homeowners understood the waterfront property would eventually be developed. But he argued the proposed design would impose an unnecessarily severe impact on neighboring residences.
"Just because you can build it doesn't mean you have to," Sheffield said.
The proposed townhomes would be arranged in three separate buildings, with approximately 7.3-foot-wide corridors between them. Sheffield said those narrow openings would do little to preserve views of the river from the existing townhouses.
"Oh, Lord have mercy," Sheffield responded when council Chairman James Pozzetta told him the width of the corridors.
Sheffield suggested reducing the project to seven townhomes, which he said could provide wider openings between the buildings. He also proposed lowering the structures to 35 feet.
"Why build nine?" Sheffield asked. "If you got seven, you can have two nice little corridors in there that ... allow us to have a view."
He warned that replacing the river views with the backs of new townhomes and their garages would substantially affect the value of the McJunkin residences.
The proposed development would occupy a 0.62-acre parcel owned by Downtown Crab LLC, which purchased the property for $2 million in July 2020.
Plans submitted by Rice Architects show nine townhomes in three distinct buildings, with brick-style exteriors, large windows, balconies and decorative rooflines. Each residence would have a two-car garage accessed from a driveway behind the buildings, providing 18 parking spaces.
The buildings would rise approximately 36 feet above the base flood elevation, below the 45-foot maximum permitted under the city's Community Redevelopment Area design guidelines.
Council members acknowledged Sheffield's concerns but said their authority to require reductions in building height or density was limited by the city's development regulations.
During the discussion, members confirmed that the council could not require a building to be shorter simply because neighbors objected to its height when the proposed design complied with applicable regulations.
Council member Tammi Kosack said the waterfront was changing as additional properties were developed.
"We are becoming more dense down there, and the construction will probably push further north," Kosack said. "Those views are going to shift and change, and it's just not the low river view that we've all been so accustomed to for so many years."
Kosack recalled that the McJunkin development itself had attracted attention when it was constructed, describing it as the "big literal elephant in the room" at the time.
She said the council's responsibility was to make certain new construction fit appropriately within the historic district, rather than prevent development permitted under existing regulations.
"I am completely sympathetic to all of your concerns," Kosack told Sheffield. "But there's just, you know, there's so much that we can and can't do."
Kosack suggested that the developer could work directly with neighboring homeowners on possible changes, although such discussions would be outside the council's approval process.
Pozzetta pointed out that the proposed buildings were already substantially below the maximum permitted height.
"It's a good 8, 9 feet lower than it could be," he said.
Pozzetta encouraged the developer to consider landscaping and other architectural features to soften the appearance of the buildings from neighboring properties.
"They're not going to create a big wide gap for you to see through, but it'll soften the look of the parking lot and those other elements back there," he said.
Sheffield also raised concerns about the location of a shared dumpster, drainage problems in a low-lying easement behind the property and the need for landscape buffers between buildings.
He said standing water already collects in the rear easement and asked that grading and drainage be addressed to prevent additional problems.
Sheffield also objected to the proposed dumpster, saying the existing McJunkin homeowners use individual trash cans and that dumpsters can attract rodents, buzzards and other pests.
He acknowledged that the new buildings might provide some relief from the noise and vibration caused by trains traveling along the nearby railroad tracks. But he questioned whether the benefits would outweigh the loss of river views.
Despite his objections, Sheffield said the homeowners were not trying to prevent development of the property.
"We're not here to condemn this project," he said. "We just want some consideration for the sacrifices that we're having to make here."
The council imposed no conditions requiring the developer to reduce the building height, eliminate units, widen the corridors or address Sheffield's other requests as part of the conceptual approval.
Council member Robert Sala moved to approve the project without conditions, finding that it substantially complies with the city's Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Code, Downtown Historic District Design Guidelines and Community Redevelopment Area Design Guidelines.
The development still faces several technical requirements.
A June 11 Technical Review Committee report identified issues involving emergency vehicle access, stormwater drainage, utilities, railroad proximity and shared infrastructure.
Because the property is within 25 feet of railroad tracks, the city has required coordination with the railroad. The fire marshal also requires a turnaround area for emergency vehicles and interior fire suppression systems.
The developer must also address a shared dumpster, bicycle parking, mail delivery facilities, utility easements and landscaping.
Pozzetta said the applicant must return with a complete set of detailed drawings for final approval, including exterior materials and site engineering.
The council did not make those requirements separate conditions of its conceptual approval because the information is already required for final review.
The developer has not announced a construction timetable, estimated project cost or proposed selling prices for the nine townhomes.
Comments