Howard Pines
More than six months ago, I wrote a column “Understanding the Riverstone Conundrum.” At the time, Corky Hoffman, who represents CARD (Citizens Against Runaway Development), and Lynn Pannone, who represents the Amelia Tree conservancy (ATC), advised me of why they had brought a lawsuit against the county, what had happened up to that time and what they were looking to do going forward. Their main position, which they maintain today is, “In June 2021, Nassau County adopted a new zoning ordinance limiting the height of new construction to 35 feet on parcels in unincorporated Amelia Island. This was done after 18 months of professional staff work, public hearings and overwhelming citizen support. The new law was a virtual copy of the existing law in Fernandina Beach. Two months later, the ordinance was amended to permit new buildings up to 45 feet.’’
Riverstone sued the county and the new county attorney, Denise May, began negotiating with Riverstone to permit building over 85 feet. She reached an agreement that also gave Riverstone a number of other benefits, including immunity from future county ordinances and the right to put lighted billboards on AIA. This agreement went before the county commission in the spring of 2022 but was turned down. Nine months later, attorney May returned to the commission with a modified proposal that was the same as the first rejected proposal, but now included a payment to Riverstone from the county of $250,000. This time the commissioners voted 4-1 to accept the proposal. The citizens present were stunned and very upset. This led to the lawsuit filed by CARD, et al.
Nassau County and Riverstone responded to the lawsuit by filing motions to dismiss, claiming CARD and ATC lacked “standing” to file the lawsuit. CARD and ATC’s attorneys responded Dec. 4, 2023, showing that CARD and ATC do, in fact, have standing. Riverstone Properties has been added as a defendant with the county. The county and Riverstone’s attorneys also agreed to withdraw their motions to dismiss and have since filed answers to the lawsuit. The answers deny the claims made by CARD and ATC regarding Riverstone’s proposal to the county and again ask the judge to dismiss the lawsuit. According to CARD’s attorneys, the lawsuit is now ready to be set for trial. The trial may not occur for several months.
The county attorney was contacted about the latest developments but did not respond. The county manager, Taco Pope, politely responded, “I appreciate you reaching out. County staff is going to withhold comment until litigation has concluded as we want to avoid any inadvertent derailing of potential momentum toward a positive outcome.”
I did get an update from Corky Hoffman and Lyn Pannone, the CARD and ATC representatives who provided helpful information on the case status. I also was able to speak to some other people in the county who, while
not involved in the lawsuits, possess valuable knowledge regarding the case.
Corky Hoffman says he still doesn’t understand the county’s one-sided agreement with Riverstone and why they refuse to answer a number of questions including the three listed below:
1. Why won’t the county enforce the zoning ordinance it passed in 2021 limiting building heights?
2. Why won’t the county provide an explanation to their citizens and/or advise them if there is anything wrong with the ordinance that the county wrote and passed in 2021?
3. Is it OK to rezone land through secret negotiations rather than the established processes with staff reviews, transparent hearings and citizen input?
However, one surprise came out of my discussions with others who have knowledge of the ordinance but are not involved in the lawsuit. They surmised that the county may have decided, based on other conjectures, that the zoning ordinance referred to in Corky’s first question is not a guaranteed limitation. This is because there is an alternative theory that the “inordinate burden” clause of the Harris Act that supports property owners may allow Riverstone, under certain conditions, to go back to the original 1995 Harris Act, rather than be limited to the 2021 amendment. Therefore, the county may have decided it was necessary to settle the lawsuit with Riverstone because, if it lost the lawsuit, it might be liable for significant costs, including the $27 million appraisal difference, plus substantial legal fees and other uninsured costs. Who is right in this regard is in the hands of the court and may be a long way from being decided.
Recently, I also learned of a new potential solution. A local resident, Bill Gower, served on the Board of Trust for Public Land (TPL) in both Georgia and Northeast Florida. TPL is aware of the property’s circumstances, has confirmed their interest in it and believes funding could potentially be available through the state o Florida. TPL is a national nonprofit land conservation organization with over 50 years’ experience and has transacted billions of dollars in land projects for preservation. TPL has successfully worked with Nassau County and the city of Fernandina Beach in the past. TPL’s mission is the preservation of natural spaces to enhance communities.
The good news, I believe, is that if this solution succeeds it will be embraced by all the parties to the dispute.
Amelia Island resident Howard Pines has more than 30 years of experience as CEO, chairperson and founder of BeamPines, a premier firm in the executive coaching business. He also co-founded the BeamPines/Middlesex University Master’s Program in Executive Coaching. Before that, he served as senior vice president of human resources for a Fortune 100 corporation. He is the author of “The Case for Wasting Time and Other Management Heresies.”