Opinion
By Sandy Kerry
03-05-24
In my opinion, obstruction of justice should be added to the long list of procedural “errors” of this proposed annexation.
We have all seen at times when the city has made corrections due to Scrivener’s errors which is defined as: “an error due to a minor mistake or inadvertence and not one that occurs from judicial reasoning or determination.” But such is not the case in the recording of the minutes of the Planning Advisory Board’s minutes and the two motions made on the Kenneth Court annexation at its 12/13/23 meeting. The motions made reflected in the PAB minutes and approved by them at their 2/14/24 meeting can be seen at:
They read as follows:
ACTION TAKEN: A motion was made by Member Stevenson, seconded by Member Doster, to recommend DENIAL of PAB case 2023-0043 to the City Commission; AND that PAB case 2023-0043 as presented is NOT sufficiently compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code and applicable Florida Statutes to be approved at this time.
“Vote upon passage of the motion was taken by ayes and nays, being all ayes, carried.*
ACTION TAKEN: A motion was made by Member Bennett, seconded by Member Stevenson, to recommend approval of PAB case 2023-0043 to the City Commission regarding a voluntary annexation into the City of Fernandina Beach with a FLUM category of Low Density and R-1 Zoning District; AND that PAB case 2023-0043 as presented is sufficiently compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code and applicable Florida Statutes to be approved at this time.”
The recording of votes on both motions is actually incorrect. Go back and listen to the meeting for yourself, the vote was actually 4 to one, with member Gillette opposing.
In my opinion, I do not see how 2 conflicting motions which completely contradict each other could even be made and I brought this up at the February 5 city commission meeting at the quasi-judicial hearing held on this proposed annexation. Nor do I place any blame on the PAB, for they were advised by the city attorney as to how to make this motion prior to her departure from the meeting and in her absence the 2 motions were made and voted upon.
Also of significant importance, the PAB’s motions on this were not available and thus not included in the record at the quasi-judicial hearing. I pointed this out as well at the meeting for the record. To not have the very motions upon which the recommendations of the PAB rests available at this commission meeting is unacceptable. The reason why they may not have been available (almost 2 months after the December PAB meeting) may have been because the PAB meeting scheduled for January was cancelled. So unfortunately it was not until the next meeting of the PAB on Feb. 14th (9 days after the Feb. 5 city commission meeting) that these minutes including these motions were approved by PAB. That’s understandable.
What is NOT understandable is the CHANGING of those minutes and motions by city planning or legal staff. These minutes and 2 motions on this annexation included in tonight’s agenda packet are available on the city’s website under March 5 City Commission Meeting – attachment “2023 12-13 Draft PAB Minutes” at:
They were prepared for the city commissioners and read as follows:
“ACTION TAKEN: A motion was made by Member Stevenson, seconded by Member Doster to recommend DENIAL of PAB case 2023-0043 to the City Commission; AND that PAB case 2023-
0043 as presented is NOT sufficiently compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code and applicable Florida Statutes to be approved at this time.
Vote upon passage of the motion was taken by ayes and nays as follows:
ACTION TAKEN: A motion was made by Member Bennett, seconded by Member Stevenson to recommend approval of PAB case 2023-0043 to the City Commission; AND that PAB case 2023-0043 as presented is sufficiently compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code and applicable Florida Statutes to be approved at this time.
Vote upon passage of the motion was taken by ayes and nays as follows:”
The 2 motions represented by the city of what the PAB’s motions actually were are completely different! This is no Scrivener’s error. In my opinion this was a deliberate, intentional misrepresentation of facts of the motions made by the PAB to the City Commission. This is obstruction of justice and there needs to be an investigation and accountability for these actions.
There are 3 ordinances to be considered by the City Commission tonight. The first is the actual acceptance or denial of the annexation. Because of the numerous procedural errors in the processing of this application and errors in the application itself it should be DENIED. If it is denied, then the 2nd ordinance pertaining to the FlUM, and 3rd ordinance pertaining to zoning reassignment become obsolete. Because the city cannot take action on either until the property comes into the city by annexation.
But should the 1st ordinance on annexation be approved, this application should not and cannot be approved because it is a false or incorrect representation of what the PAB’s motion actually was as state above.
The 2nd and 3rd ordinances as presented by the City read as follows:
“2 FUTURE LAND USE MAP ASSIGNMENT – 766 KENNETH COURT – ORDINANCE 2024-02 ASSIGNING A FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORY OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR)FOR 0.92 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 766 KENNETH COURT;”
3 ZONING MAP ASSIGNMENT – 766 KENNETH COURT – ORDINANCE 2024-03 ASSIGNING A ZONING MAP CATEGORY OF RESIDENTIAL LOW MEDIUM (RLM) FOR 0.92 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 766 KENNETH COURT;”
This completely contradicts the PAB’s actual motion which was:
“FLUM category of Low Density and R-1 Zoning District.”
For those who may not know, Medium Density Residential (MDR) is R-2 and obviously allows a much higher density. It also is exactly what the property owner requested in his application.
Again, in my opinion, there has been an obstruction of justice with the processing of this application over a lengthy 15-month period, lack of notices, and the misrepresentation of meeting minutes and motions made by the PAB as represented by the city to the City Commission.
Obstruction of justice broadly refers to actions by individuals that illegally prevent or influence the outcome of a government proceeding. (Cornell School of Law)
The law also makes it a crime to destroy, change, or hide evidence that could be used in an official proceeding.
~~~
Here’s the Mike Lednovitch take on it
The views expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Citizens Journal Florida
