'We paid a premium for that view:' Riverfront townhomes win approval despite objections

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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."

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.

Pozzetta pointed out that the proposed buildings were already substantially below the maximum permitted height.

Pozzetta encouraged the developer to consider landscaping and other architectural features to soften the appearance of the buildings from neighboring properties.

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.

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.

"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."

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.

A June 11 Technical Review Committee report identified issues involving emergency vehicle access, stormwater drainage, utilities, railroad proximity and shared infrastructure.

The developer must also address a shared dumpster, bicycle parking, mail delivery facilities, utility easements and landscaping.

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.